Political Roundtable Part XIII

[nuposse04]

The start of any Islamic reformation starts with Saudi Arabia. If they keep exporting whabbism to the rest of the muslim world, no generational change will occur. Growing up in a pakistani muslim community in northern va most of the social beliefs held by people seemed to be that of evangelical Christians (perhaps even a bit more right of them with some)... which is partly the reason I stopped believing.

It was a little interesting though, I'd observe men going to prayer who I knew came from less well-to-do backgrounds and less educated take a greater interest in whatever arbitrary Imam was preaching that day and would make a greater effort to pay their respects to em... In the end the Islamic world I still would benefit greatly simply from a vastly improved form of education. The sooner they become privy to the fact that there are logical fallacies in religion, the better.

With that being said, A lot of muslim nations were relatively more modern then today before American foreign interference. The cultural problems with Islamic nations are not simply with the doctrine itself, but I'll be the first to support massive religious reformation in the Islamic world. :/

[sfam]

That paragraph is not winning an award for clarity.

Yet again we have the "1.6 billion people across the world speaking different languages, coming from different cultures are all the same." They all are wannabe terrorists who if just given the chance through poor immigration procedures, want to blow up the US, and are forced to spend their time treating their women badly until given the opportunity.

Whatever. I've answered that point a number of times already.

You have tons of people in Texas advocating secession. These aren't Muslims, nor do they seem to advocating American values. Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim. Should we ban all white protestant men living in the US? And on the women point, the US is FAR from clean on gender-based violence. There are many here, perhaps millions in the US who treat "their women" far far worse than millions of Muslim men - one happens to be President.

Anecdotal stories about mistreatment of women here arent even remotely comparable to forcing women to cover themselves head to toe before going outside, forcing them to have a male family member escorting them before they can go out in public, arranging marriages with 12 year old girls, preventing women from going to school or issuing a fatwa that women shouldn't ride bikes.

That nonsense is just flat out crazy.

Just a point on this, there are actual numbers on the mistreatment of women here. They are bound up in things like "domestic violence statistics". It's amazing the number of men living here in the US who think it's OK to beat their wife. Many more think its OK to shoot them if they are cheated on or if their girl leaves them. We could look at assaults and rape statistics - also not anecdotal. These problems of gender violence are endemic to "this" society. To paraphrase Trump, our hands aren't so clean here.

I would also point out complaining about my anecdotal stories with anecdotal stories of your own is a pretty weird approach.

I'm very familiar with the societies which you speak. I've visited many of them. In no way to I condone any of that as my previous posts make clear. It is simply not the case that Muslims here are trying in any way to create those laws here. I'm guessing you'll respond with anecdotal stories of Sharia Law in Nebraska or some such - whatever. Those are simply silly.

The vast majority of the Muslims emmigrating here see US values as a beacon of light, see THEMSELVES as Americans once they have citizenship and hope to have their kids benefit from everything Americana, which just so happens to include Muslim culture. Unfortunately, they have begun to realize that "nation of immigrants" no longer includes them in many's eyes for reasons they cannot control.

For our continuing anecdote war saga, there's a guy I worked with, who was originally from Iraq. He's Kurdish - the details of his two terrifying journeys escaping are extraordinary. This once refugee from the 90s and early 2000s now dedicates his life to finding peace in his county. He recently got his citizenship, and for the past month, had a huge red-white and blue Uncle Sam hat sitting on his desk, even when he was working. He loves America, goes to music festivals, parties and everything. Even though his citizenship is newly minted, you could not find a prouder, more red, white and blue American than him.

[sfam]

The start of any Islamic reformation starts with Saudi Arabia. If they keep exporting whabbism to the rest of the muslim world, no generational change will occur. Growing up in a pakistani muslim community in northern va most of the social beliefs held by people seemed to be that of evangelical Christians (perhaps even a bit more right of them with some)... which is partly the reason I stopped believing.

It was a little interesting though, I'd observe men going to prayer who I knew came from less well-to-do backgrounds and less educated take a greater interest in whatever arbitrary Imam was preaching that day and would make a greater effort to pay their respects to em... In the end the Islamic world I still would benefit greatly simply from a vastly improved form of education. The sooner they become privy to the fact that there are logical fallacies in religion, the better.

With that being said, A lot of muslim nations were relatively more modern then today before American foreign interference. The cultural problems with Islamic nations are not simply with the doctrine itself, but I'll be the first to support massive religious reformation in the Islamic world. :/

In extremely minor defense of Saudi Arabia, they have pulled well back from funding extremist schools around the world. Bin Laden did in fact cause changes in their policy. There are other policies of theirs however, tied to funding extremist organizations for political reasons, that haven't changed at all.

[tontoz]

Just a point on this, there are actual numbers on the mistreatment of women here. They are bound up in things like "domestic violence statistics". It's amazing the number of men living here in the US who think it's OK to beat their wife. Many more think its OK to shoot them if they are cheated on or if their girl leaves them. We could look at assaults and rape statistics - also not anecdotal. These problems of gender violence are endemic to "this" society. To paraphrase Trump, our hands aren't so clean here.

I would also point out complaining about my anecdotal stories with anecdotal stories of your own is a pretty weird approach.

This line of reasoning is completely idiotic. The men here you are talking about are a minority. It isn't the every day norm. It also isn't condoned by Christianity or the government. It is a crime.


But in Muslim countries it actually is the norm for girls to be unable to go to school, go out without an escort, etc.

In no way to I condone any of that as my previous posts make clear. It is simply not the case that Muslims here are trying in any way to create those laws here.

They are only 1% of the population so of course they don't have the numbers to try to change the laws here. I'd like to keep it that way. Looking at countries with a Muslim population over 5% it isn't a rosy picture of assimilation.

[sfam]

We can all acknowledge that there are plenty of Muslims who would assimilate into America society nicely. By just selectively picking small numbers of highly educated Muslims we have done a pretty good job of screening in the past. Highly educated Muslims tend to be more secular, they tend to have a job lined up (which assists in assimilation) and they rapidly develop a stake in the system as they develop wealth here. Also, with small total numbers, they are forced to integrate rather than wallow in an ethnic enclave somewhere, building a resentment toward the majority culture.

What concerns me is that we may be headed down the road to Europe. We are admitting a lot more Muslims than we used to and we are no longer selecting just the well-educated ones who are filling a specific need. Large numbers of more religious Muslims, lacking in job prospects to aid in assimilation, are clearly a problem throughout Europe, and are likely to be a problem here. I'm sure the crime rates for Somalian refugees is much higher than it is for Iranian PhDs.

The ridiculous part is large swaths of the political landscape could find agreement with significant parts of this.

- place priority on those with higher degrees? Check

We've never done that. We place premium on familial ties and a numbers based lottery approach.

Regarding refugees from Syria, again, this was a highly educated country. Just because they are mostly now women and children, this shouldn't discount their entry. The US has been a beacon of freedom around the world since WWII. We have regularly brought in immigrants from crisis situations. We do this really well. There are people who have suffered the most through no fault of their own.

TODAY we have an 18 month vetting process. WE ARE ALREADY GETTING THE CREAM OF THE CROP. Today. This is happening.

The numbers we're taking in are incredibly small.

And again, the massive security hole in our immigration is just not the 18 month vetting process. Its the clear entry from European countries for citizens of those countries. This is the hole that needs fixing - that both parties agree with! But again, cannot due to stupid political stances.

[nuposse04]

The start of any Islamic reformation starts with Saudi Arabia. If they keep exporting whabbism to the rest of the muslim world, no generational change will occur. Growing up in a pakistani muslim community in northern va most of the social beliefs held by people seemed to be that of evangelical Christians (perhaps even a bit more right of them with some)... which is partly the reason I stopped believing.

It was a little interesting though, I'd observe men going to prayer who I knew came from less well-to-do backgrounds and less educated take a greater interest in whatever arbitrary Imam was preaching that day and would make a greater effort to pay their respects to em... In the end the Islamic world I still would benefit greatly simply from a vastly improved form of education. The sooner they become privy to the fact that there are logical fallacies in religion, the better.

With that being said, A lot of muslim nations were relatively more modern then today before American foreign interference. The cultural problems with Islamic nations are not simply with the doctrine itself, but I'll be the first to support massive religious reformation in the Islamic world. :/

In extremely minor defense of Saudi Arabia, they have pulled well back from funding extremist schools around the world. Bin Laden did in fact cause changes in their policy. There are other policies of theirs however, tied to funding extremist organizations for political reasons, that haven't changed at all.

I have my doubts that private funding isn't still funneling its way out. Saudi Arabia gets no benefit of the doubt from me. Their only utility in the world is Oil, religious extremism, milking the pilgrimage to Mecca, and getting corrupt men in the west paid for looking the other way. I can't think of many people in the muslim community who don't from a gulf state background who have pleasant perceptions of them.

[nate33]

That paragraph is not winning an award for clarity.

Yet again we have the "1.6 billion people across the world speaking different languages, coming from different cultures are all the same." They all are wannabe terrorists who if just given the chance through poor immigration procedures, want to blow up the US, and are forced to spend their time treating their women badly until given the opportunity.

Whatever. I've answered that point a number of times already.

You have tons of people in Texas advocating secession. These aren't Muslims, nor do they seem to advocating American values. Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim. Should we ban all white protestant men living in the US? And on the women point, the US is FAR from clean on gender-based violence. There are many here, perhaps millions in the US who treat "their women" far far worse than millions of Muslim men - one happens to be President.

Anecdotal stories about mistreatment of women here arent even remotely comparable to forcing women to cover themselves head to toe before going outside, forcing them to have a male family member escorting them before they can go out in public, arranging marriages with 12 year old girls, preventing women from going to school or issuing a fatwa that women shouldn't ride bikes.

That nonsense is just flat out crazy.

Just a point on this, there are actual numbers on the mistreatment of women here. They are bound up in things like "domestic violence statistics". It's amazing the number of men living here in the US who think it's OK to beat their wife. Many more think its OK to shoot them if they are cheated on or if their girl leaves them. We could look at assaults and rape statistics - also not anecdotal. These problems of gender violence are endemic to "this" society. To paraphrase Trump, our hands aren't so clean here.

I would also point out complaining about my anecdotal stories with anecdotal stories of your own is a pretty weird approach.

I'm very familiar with the societies which you speak. I've visited many of them. In no way to I condone any of that as my previous posts make clear. It is simply not the case that Muslims here are trying in any way to create those laws here. I'm guessing you'll respond with anecdotal stories of Sharia Law in Nebraska or some such - whatever. Those are simply silly.

The vast majority of the Muslims emmigrating here see US values as a beacon of light, see THEMSELVES as Americans once they have citizenship and hope to have their kids benefit from everything Americana, which just so happens to include Muslim culture. Unfortunately, they have begun to realize that "nation of immigrants" no longer includes them in many's eyes for reasons they cannot control.

For our continuing anecdote war saga, there's a guy I worked with, who was originally from Iraq. He's Kurdish - the details of his two terrifying journeys escaping are extraordinary. This once refugee from the 90s and early 2000s now dedicates his life to finding peace in his county. He recently got his citizenship, and for the past month, had a huge red-white and blue Uncle Sam hat sitting on his desk, even when he was working. He loves America, goes to music festivals, parties and everything. Even though his citizenship is newly minted, you could not find a prouder, more red, white and blue American than him.

sfam, They said the same thing about all the Muslim migrants to Europe. What makes you think we won't have the same problems with large scale Muslim immigration (I'm talking non-college educated) that Sweden, Belgium and France have?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

I've yet to hear a single valid reason to repeal Obamacare, and yet it's the Republicans' signature issue.

Premiums have become unaffordable.

I would say there are some very good reasons to keep the ACA. And some very good reasons to replace it with something better. Unless the Rs can do better, they should leave it in place. But it wouldn't be that hard to do better.

Good:
1) Pre-existing conditions coverage
2) Health insurers must spend at least 85 percent of their premium dollars on health care
3) Adult children up to age 26 can now continue to get health insurance on their parent's policies
4) Lots more individuals are insured

Bad:
1) Individual mandate isn't working - it's still cheaper to pay the tax penalty - if it is ever collected.
2)It was poorly worded (and overly verbose) and has been very hard and costly to run. For example, they put in place a bizarre system of subsidies. They will continue to be unfair and unworkable moving forward. And the program is often not affordable without those same subsidies. And those same subsidies are continuing to drive up the costs of our overall entitle program spending which is crowding out other spending.
3) Many insurance companies lost lots of $$s. Yes, you care about this, see below.
4) Defining a basic health plan - that shouldn't be defined by the government. Some might not need everything in a plan.
5) Waivers - there shouldn't be waivers for businesses (and hence their labor unions).
6) Lack of competition - let the exchanges compete with plans from the states. For instance if some states want to make a defined (tax subsidy) contribution to each family - let them have at it... And remember, with major insurers withdrawing from many states (see above), millions have one company to choose from, which exacerbates affordability issues.

Here's the thing: none of those bad things about ACA necessitate repealing it. That's why I specifically used that word - there are many ways to improve it, many things that could be fixed, but repealing ACA without an immediate solution to replace it would invariably result in people dying.

And still, we're talking about the Republicans' foremost political issue here. A healthcare law that isn't quite optimal but is still functional and demonstrably better than what we had in the past? Of all the issues the country faces - this is the one issue that takes precedence over everything else? Laughable.

Republicans want to specifically repeal Obamacare for two reason:

1) tax cuts for their donors
2) the optics of the political "victory"

[sfam]

Talk about a dumb statement by CNN's president Zucker:

"One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus — and that’s CNN," Zucker said. "The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a mistake."

This is clearly a threat. Trump is driving this dynamic, but what a bad turn.

It also is untrue. BBC is in all those places outside of perhaps one or two.

[sfam]

The start of any Islamic reformation starts with Saudi Arabia. If they keep exporting whabbism to the rest of the muslim world, no generational change will occur. Growing up in a pakistani muslim community in northern va most of the social beliefs held by people seemed to be that of evangelical Christians (perhaps even a bit more right of them with some)... which is partly the reason I stopped believing.

It was a little interesting though, I'd observe men going to prayer who I knew came from less well-to-do backgrounds and less educated take a greater interest in whatever arbitrary Imam was preaching that day and would make a greater effort to pay their respects to em... In the end the Islamic world I still would benefit greatly simply from a vastly improved form of education. The sooner they become privy to the fact that there are logical fallacies in religion, the better.

With that being said, A lot of muslim nations were relatively more modern then today before American foreign interference. The cultural problems with Islamic nations are not simply with the doctrine itself, but I'll be the first to support massive religious reformation in the Islamic world. :/

In extremely minor defense of Saudi Arabia, they have pulled well back from funding extremist schools around the world. Bin Laden did in fact cause changes in their policy. There are other policies of theirs however, tied to funding extremist organizations for political reasons, that haven't changed at all.

I have my doubts that private funding isn't still funneling its way out. Saudi Arabia gets no benefit of the doubt from me. Their only utility in the world is Oil, religious extremism, milking the pilgrimage to Mecca, and getting corrupt men in the west paid for looking the other way. I can't think of many people in the muslim community who don't from a gulf state background who have pleasant perceptions of them.

No disagreements here.

I would point out that the rest of the world has noticed the US, the world fighter of international terror, has and continues to support Saudi Arabia regardless of their actions, regardless of which party is in power in the US. They see us dumping a trillion+ on Iraq, when the culprit causing the devastation for years wasn't even challenged.

[dckingsfan]

Here's the thing: none of those bad things about ACA necessitate repealing it. That's why I specifically used that word - there are many ways to improve it, many things that could be fixed, but repealing ACA without an immediate solution to replace it would invariably result in people dying.

And still, we're talking about the Republicans' foremost political issue here. A healthcare law that isn't quite optimal but is still functional and demonstrably better than what we had in the past? Of all the issues the country faces - this is the one issue that takes precedence over everything else? Laughable.

Republicans want to specifically repeal Obamacare for two reason:

1) tax cuts for their donors
2) the optics of the political "victory"

Hey gtn, you make good points. But...

If we are ever going to make progress on healthcare (and by that I mean something that is both functional and won't collapse on itself over time), we probably do need to repeal and re-write the law (it was that poorly written).

But to your larger point - the Rs shouldn't repeal it without having something better (not just as good but better) in place - violent agreement.

And to your two points - I agree with 2) but not 1).

The tax code which also needs to be fixed isn't tied to the ACA other than we are spending much more than we are taking in.

[gtn130]

Here's the thing: none of those bad things about ACA necessitate repealing it. That's why I specifically used that word - there are many ways to improve it, many things that could be fixed, but repealing ACA without an immediate solution to replace it would invariably result in people dying.

And still, we're talking about the Republicans' foremost political issue here. A healthcare law that isn't quite optimal but is still functional and demonstrably better than what we had in the past? Of all the issues the country faces - this is the one issue that takes precedence over everything else? Laughable.

Republicans want to specifically repeal Obamacare for two reason:

1) tax cuts for their donors
2) the optics of the political "victory"

Hey gtn, you make good points. But...

If we are ever going to make progress on healthcare (and by that I mean something that is both functional and won't collapse on itself over time), we probably do need to repeal and re-write the law (it was that poorly written).

But to your larger point - the Rs shouldn't repeal it without having something better (not just as good but better) in place - violent agreement.

And to your two points - I agree with 2) but not 1).

The tax code which also needs to be fixed isn't tied to the ACA other than we are spending much more than we are taking in.

That's where you're wrong my friend.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/aca-repeal-would-lavish-medicare-tax-cuts-on-400-highest-income-households

ACA Repeal Would Lavish Medicare Tax Cuts on 400 Highest-Income Households
Each Would Get Average Tax Cut of About $7 Million a Year

Republicans’ planned bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is expected to be similar to the repeal bill that President Obama vetoed in January 2016, would provide an immediate windfall tax cut to the highest-income Americans while raising taxes significantly on about 7 million low- and moderate-income families.

[dckingsfan]

Here's the thing: none of those bad things about ACA necessitate repealing it. That's why I specifically used that word - there are many ways to improve it, many things that could be fixed, but repealing ACA without an immediate solution to replace it would invariably result in people dying.

And still, we're talking about the Republicans' foremost political issue here. A healthcare law that isn't quite optimal but is still functional and demonstrably better than what we had in the past? Of all the issues the country faces - this is the one issue that takes precedence over everything else? Laughable.

Republicans want to specifically repeal Obamacare for two reason:

1) tax cuts for their donors
2) the optics of the political "victory"

Hey gtn, you make good points. But...

If we are ever going to make progress on healthcare (and by that I mean something that is both functional and won't collapse on itself over time), we probably do need to repeal and re-write the law (it was that poorly written).

But to your larger point - the Rs shouldn't repeal it without having something better (not just as good but better) in place - violent agreement.

And to your two points - I agree with 2) but not 1).

The tax code which also needs to be fixed isn't tied to the ACA other than we are spending much more than we are taking in.

That's where you're wrong my friend.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/aca-repeal-would-lavish-medicare-tax-cuts-on-400-highest-income-households

ACA Repeal Would Lavish Medicare Tax Cuts on 400 Highest-Income Households
Each Would Get Average Tax Cut of About $7 Million a Year

Republicans’ planned bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is expected to be similar to the repeal bill that President Obama vetoed in January 2016, would provide an immediate windfall tax cut to the highest-income Americans while raising taxes significantly on about 7 million low- and moderate-income families.

We shouldn't see what they actually come up with first vs. what they pushed through knowing Obama would veto

But your point is a good one. Although a new tax code (which should be the bigger worry) will remove those taxes anyway. But in general, repealing ACA would mean a tax cut for the wealthiest. But repealing it with no replacement would be tough on Rs that are up for reelection.

But since we are on taxes. I am asked this question often. Why don't we just raise the taxes more on the top 1%?

The top 1 percent of earners (incomes in excess of $615,000) are paying nearly half -- 45.7 percent -- of individual income taxes per year. The top 20 percent, with incomes above $134,300, contribute nearly 84 percent of all federal income taxes.

Why shouldn't the top 1% pay 100% of all federal taxes?

In order to balance the budget, what % of taxes would the top 1% need to pay (increasing from their current ~40%)?
- it's a trick question; the answer is more than 100% of their income. And that wouldn't include their state income taxes.

What happened in the UK when they raised their personal tax rates into the 90+% range?
- also a trick question.

Should we focus on only raising new revenue and not constraining our spending?
- and this is the real trick question. When Obama approved the ACA, he knew it wasn't sustainable. But he knew from history that once you put a program in place it is very difficult to back it out (it comes with constituents). Rs and Ds alike have kicked this ball down the court.

The truth is the ACA was NEVER paid for... as well as the continued increase in our entitlements and debt burden.

[DCZards]

I hate it when people (like some posters here) who know little or nothing about a religion--or the people who practice it--decide that they're suddenly experts on that religion and what women who follow that religion are "forced" to do or how members of that religion feel about those of another religion--like Jews.

When it comes to Muslims and Islam, so much of the discussion here is based on misinformation and bias.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with our health care system, whether we're talking about the ACA or what was in place before that, is that the system seems mostly concerned with "who pays?", rather than "why does stuff cost so much?"

No health care system is affordable when Epipen increases in price from $57 to $500 in just 7 years despite no actual change in technology. All we are arguing about is how much of the cost should be born by "the rich".

The entire system needs to be redesigned so that there are incentives in place to reduce cost. We also need to eliminate as many middle men as possible between doctor and patient. I don't profess to have all the answers, but I'm worried that we're not even asking the right questions.

[DCZards]

Here's the thing: none of those bad things about ACA necessitate repealing it. That's why I specifically used that word - there are many ways to improve it, many things that could be fixed, but repealing ACA without an immediate solution to replace it would invariably result in people dying.

And still, we're talking about the Republicans' foremost political issue here. A healthcare law that isn't quite optimal but is still functional and demonstrably better than what we had in the past? Of all the issues the country faces - this is the one issue that takes precedence over everything else? Laughable.

Republicans want to specifically repeal Obamacare for two reason:

1) tax cuts for their donors
2) the optics of the political "victory"

There's a third reason that Repubs want to repeal the law: Because it was Barack Obama's signature piece of legislation and his name is associated with it. Most Repubs in Congress froth at the idea that ACA, a law that literally saves American lives, will eventually survive and thrive...and be forever known as "Obamacare."

[tontoz]

I hate it when people (like some posters here) who know little or nothing about a religion--or the people who practice it--decide that they're suddenly experts on that religion and what women who follow that religion are "forced" to do or how members of that religion feel about those of another religion--like Jews.

When it comes to Muslims and Islam, so much of the discussion here is based on misinformation and bias.

This girls Muslim mother tried to arrange her marriage at age 11. She was murdered after making this video.

Watch on YouTube

[TGW]

I hate it when people (like some posters here) who know little or nothing about a religion--or the people who practice it--decide that they're suddenly experts on that religion and what women who follow that religion are "forced" to do or how members of that religion feel about those of another religion--like Jews.

When it comes to Muslims and Islam, so much of the discussion here is based on misinformation and bias.

This girls Muslim mother tried to arrange her marriage at age 11. She was murdered after making this video.

Watch on YouTube

Anecdotal evidence at best. Do you want me to post the dozens of Christian equivalencies?