Are you critical or negative about the United States of America? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Are you negative or critical of the United States of America?

Yes, I am negative or critical of the United States of America
22
63%
No, I am not negative or critical of the United States of America
4
11%
I am neither negative nor positive about the United States of America
9
26%
#15191487
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Please note that I already addressed all of that, or as the case required, explained why it was irrelevant and/or just a personal attack.

If you wish to discuss how much I hate people and love torture, instead of the topic, feel free. However, please understand why you will have to do that without me.

Gracias, and let me know when you want to discuss whether or not it is valid to criticise and be negative about US oppression of people.


Will do when you admit you fully support the repression of people when it's done by communists.

Then your whining about the supposed oppression of people by the US is moot.
#15191496
https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-bri ... opulation/

    The number of people without health insurance grew for the third year in a row in 2019. Recent increases in the number of uninsured nonelderly individuals occurred amid a growing economy and before the economic upheaval from the coronavirus pandemic that has led to millions of people losing their jobs. In the wake of these record job losses, many people who have lost income or their job-based coverage may qualify for expanded Medicaid and subsidized marketplace coverage established by the ACA. In fact, recent data indicate enrollment in both Medicaid and the Marketplaces has increased since the beginning of the pandemic. However, it is expected the number of people who are uninsured has increased further in 2020.

    Drops in coverage among Hispanic people drove much of the increase in the overall uninsured rate in 2019. Changes to the Federal public charge policy may be contributing to declines in Medicaid coverage among Hispanic adults and children, leading to the growing number without health coverage. These coverage losses also come as COVID-19 has hit communities of color disproportionately hard, leading to higher shares of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations among people of color. The lack of health coverage presents barriers to accessing needed care and may lead to worse health outcomes for those affected by the virus.

    Even as the ACA coverage options provide an important safety net to people losing jobs during the pandemic, a Supreme Court ruling in California vs. Texas could have major effects on the entire health care system. If the court invalidates the ACA, the coverage expansions that were central to the law would be eliminated and would result in millions of people losing health coverage. Such a large increase in the number of uninsured individuals would reverse the gains in access, utilization, and affordability of care and in addressing disparities achieved since the law was implemented. These coverage losses coming in the middle of a public health pandemic could further jeopardize the health of those infected with COVID-19 and exacerbate disparities for vulnerable people of color.

Prior to Obamacare (aka the Affordable Care Act or ACA), approximately 46,000 US citizens died each year from lack of access to health care by not being insured.

While ACA has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured people, the number of people who are dying each year is almost certainly higher than 10,000, especially with the recent job losses and increased deaths due to Covid.
#15191560
wat0n wrote:Will do when you admit you fully support the repression of people when it's done by communists.

Then your whining about the supposed oppression of people by the US is moot.

The issue is not who 'supports' which oppression by which government or who is 'whining' about which oppression by which government. The real issue is whether or not such oppression is actually happening.
#15191561
Rugoz wrote:That's a weird thing to say. The US is mediocre in that regard, at least among developed countries.


Not really. At this point, I think you just go around being a contrarian for its own sake.

They have weird blindspots on things like abortion access, but generally speaking, I see far less casual chauvinism and a more egalitarian mindset from Americans than most European countries and in terms of legal protections and subsidies, the US is definitely ahead of the curve. On other social issues, such as discussions/awareness of race or sexual orientation or gender identity, the US is also similarly ahead of the curve compared to most of the world, including developed countries.
#15191572
Potemkin wrote:The issue is not who 'supports' which oppression by which government or who is 'whining' about which oppression by which government. The real issue is whether or not such oppression is actually happening.


This sounds like something a die hard anarchist would say: All states "oppress" people in one way or another as it's part of any state's functions to guarantee internal security so we don't simply have people freely oppressing each other.

The only thing where states will differentiate between each other in this regard is in whether there are checks against government power are in place. I don't think the US is doing terribly in that regard, it definitely is doing much better than certain states where oppression is far more extensive than in the USA which enjoy the full support of a certain individual who is criticizing the US for being too oppressive for his taste.
#15191573
wat0n wrote:You mean the Guantanamo Bay camp that is going to be finally closed by the current administration?
:lol: :lol: :lol: Every administration has made that claim. Seeing is believing.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/bl ... er-history

It's not closed YET, either, and if you think that's the only place human right violations go on, you're dreaming.
#15191575
Godstud wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: Every administration has made that claim. Seeing is believing.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/bl ... er-history

It's not closed YET, either, and if you think that's the only place human right violations go on, you're dreaming.


It's not closed yet, but now that the US is out of Afghanistan it seems unlikely it will remain open for much longer. It also has very few inmates nowadays (39), which is far less than the numbers during the Obama admin.

And no, I'm not that naïve to believe there aren't any other Guantanamos around. I also am not that naïve to think that other countries don't have similar schemes, fit for their own internal security situation. I have yet to see a country that does not have any sort of human or civil rights issues going on. Even the nordics are not an exception, let alone the US, yet one can easily differentiate between the state of affairs in places like the USA and the state of affairs in places like (say) Saudi Arabia (or Thailand when there are anti-monarchy protests).
#15191578
If we are now discussing torture, we should define that carefully.

If we define it as “beatings, rape, prolonged solitary confinement, meager food rations, and frequently-denied medical care”, then torture occurs in US prisons, including facilities for youth.

https://ccrjustice.org/torture-us-prisons
#15191581
Godstud wrote:@wat0n We're not discussing other countries, however. This thread is about USA. Your "Whataboutisms" are irrelevant.


No, they are not and I see no reason not to compare the USA to actual countries and not to some idealized version of however you would like societies to be. It's not whataboutism to point the Nirvana fallacies ("The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives") some people seemingly love to engage in, and it's also not whataboutism to expect consistency in applying this type of hyper idealistic standard. It's why I don't care about the whining by the likes of @Pants-of-dog about torture in American prisons when he justifies much worse by the regimes he likes, like that of Cuba, and it's also why I don't take his whining as a sincere criticism - if you are not consistent in your supposed "principles" you don't actually have them, and if you are negative about the US it's not because of principles you don't actually have but about something else.

It's precisely because I live in the real world that I settle for real improvements and not imaginary ideals, and as such I also recognize doing so is valuable on its own. I'm not stupid enough to deny the accomplishments of, for example, Nordic countries - the most developed in the world, model societies for plenty of people in the West - even if their societies are far from perfect and indeed have their own history of misbehavior (e.g. against the Sámi people).
#15191589
Godstud wrote:Canada has no Guantanamo Bay. Start there if you want to make comparisons, @wat0n. Get back to me once you come to your senses. :roll:


Yup, Canada has had residential schools instead. And as I mentioned the US is probably closing Guantanamo now that it's out of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Surely one would acknowledge when countries are continually trying to improve.
#15191590
wat0n wrote:This sounds like something a die hard anarchist would say: All states "oppress" people in one way or another as it's part of any state's functions to guarantee internal security so we don't simply have people freely oppressing each other.

It's also something a die-hard Marxist would say. As Lenin pointed out in State and Revolution, the state apparatus, always and everywhere, is and is intended to be oppressive. He actually asserted that, in a truly communist society, the state apparatus would be "smashed to smithereens". Once class conflict has been ended, then there would be no further need for one class to oppress another, and therefore no further need for the instrument of oppression, the state itself.

The only thing where states will differentiate between each other in this regard is in whether there are checks against government power are in place. I don't think the US is doing terribly in that regard, it definitely is doing much better than certain states where oppression is far more extensive than in the USA which enjoy the full support of a certain individual who is criticizing the US for being too oppressive for his taste.

All states are oppressive, but some states are more oppressive than others. I won't argue with that. But you seem to be denying that the USA can be regarded as oppressive at all. Towards you, of course, it isn't; but towards others, it is.
#15191592
Potemkin wrote:It's also something a die-hard Marxist would say. As Lenin pointed out in State and Revolution, the state apparatus, always and everywhere, is and is intended to be oppressive. He actually asserted that, in a truly communist society, the state apparatus would be "smashed to smithereens". Once class conflict has been ended, then there would be no further need for one class to oppress another, and therefore no further need for the instrument of oppression, the state itself.


Indeed, too bad it doesn't ever happen.

Potemkin wrote:All states are oppressive, but some states are more oppressive than others. I won't argue with that. But you seem to be denying that the USA can be regarded as oppressive at all. Towards you, of course, it isn't; but towards others, it is.


I'd say it's more like it can't be regarded as terribly oppressive compared to most actually existing states (not the ones one may want, but those that actually exist). I also don't have as much sympathy sympathy if it turns out that those who end up getting the short end of the stick when it comes to US repression are the same who would be far, far more oppressive in their conduct were the positions to be switched. If anything, I am relieved they are not even if I still feel sorry for them.

At last, but not least, the US does have the material means to be far, far more oppressive and far more brutal in its actions than it actually is both against those of us living in its territory and those living outside it. Even the recent Afghan fiasco could have been prevented had the US taken the rather unsavory measures that have historically been proven to work in the context of having to deal with a guerrillas - yet it didn't, for whatever reason (stupidity, idealism, cowardice, political constraints - it doesn't matter, the fact is that it did not), preferring to simply accept the loss even though it could have in fact achieved a military victory in Afghanistan - by losing something far more important than Afghanistan, if you ask me, but the fact that the US understands why it wasn't worth it already makes it unusual from a historical perspective.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 19

Tragic. So many questions... Today's films are lik[…]

too many words, you know that you Muscovites are[…]

its funny how people get it completely wrong on a[…]

Peking at bubbles

207% in 20 years sounds decent. Here in Austin, we[…]