medicare for all- good (private healthcare can still exist but a government option should be available), college for all- sounds good but has problems, housing for all- how? i think you should have to work and pay to own your own house. 32 hour work week- good, (could be even shorter), tax the rich- good, green new deal- no idea what that entails, free palestine- bad.
not sure if your questions rhetorical or not but it’s not like this is a new invention, why not look to where it works elsewhere in the world and do that ?
The first place that Max Schranz moved into after leaving his family home is the kind that many young professionals dream of inhabiting at the peak of their career. At only 26, he lives in a bright fifth-floor apartment with high ceilings overlooking a European capital city, 10 minutes from the central station and within walking distance of cinemas, theatres and bars.
No lottery win or parental trust fund was needed to make that dream a reality: Schranz, who is a master’s student, pays €596 (£512) a month for his 54 sq metre two-bedroom apartment – a fraction of typical rents for similarly sized and similarly located apartments in other major European cities. What’s more, he didn’t have to put down a deposit and his rental contract is unlimitedd.
i thought when they said housing for all they were referring to government mandated housing. im all for making houses more affordable, but that isn’t really the same as houses for all. even if it’s more affordable there’s still going to be people that can’t get a house of their own
Free Palestein bad? It’s bad that people should have freedom and not live under a genocidal apartheid state? You got any other horrific opinions you want to share with the group? Where do you stand on bone cancer for children? Big fan I’m guessing.
im all for free palestine in terms of ending the occupation, (though i think it will lead to worse outcomes and more violence, i think they should still be given that right) but in terms of the war against hamas im 100% for it and i think israel should neutralize hamas. but when most people talk about “free palestine” they mean stopping the gaza war, but i have no problem with killing terrorists.
when you fight a war who is the terrorist isnt determined by the number of people killed on each side, it’s determined by the intentions of the people doing the killing. for instance, when the US went after ISIS it’s estimated that between 10,000 to 27,000 ISIS were killed and only 30 US people were killed.
You have to consider not only the intentions but also the capability of the threat you’re trying to mitigate. Then you have to balance those things against the cost of whatever action you intend to take.
Sure the fanciful desire of hamas might be global domination but we both know that they just don’t have any capability in that regard.
It’s absurd to suggest that it’s appropriate to grind an entire nation to dust because they might be harboring someone with desires of global domination.
i mean, you could say the exact same for the civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure when the US was fighting ISIS. at the end of the day they did a terrorist attack and said they were going to do it again, are harboring weapons, and are right at israel’s border. they clearly have capability and intent because they fire rockets at israel all the time. what is israel supposed to do, let them fire rockets at them and not fire back? not destroy the munitions they keep in hospitals? all the deaths and the destruction of the infrastructure can be blamed on hamas, not israel. and i’m not claiming hamas does have the capability of global domination, if they did they would’ve done it. i’m saying they have that intent, just like ISIS did. are we supposed to not destroy them until they gain more power and do have the ability to be a threat to the world?
actually you have it the opposite. the israeli goal is to eliminate hamas (the terrorists) and live in peace and hamas’s goal is the extinction of jews and then most likely global domination of islam as a whole.
if israel wanted to kill arabs why is 20% of their population arab? why target palestinians specifically and not arabs in general when they are the same race? what differentiates palestinians from other arabs to where israelis only want to kill palestinians but are fine in living in peace with their 20% arab population in israel?
everyone has a right to defend themselves but the civilian to combatant death ratio is anywhere from 1:1 at the lowest to 1:8 at the highest, probably realistically 1:3 or 1:4 (normal for war). israeli does not just murder children in the streets, they are fighting a war that has civilian casualties and the numbers show that.
no the israeli number is 1:1 and the independent sources say anywhere from 5:1 and 8:1, 8:1 being the highest estimate that i’ve seen. i take a middle ground between the israel number and the independent sources because it’s impossible to know the exact number during an on-going war and you have two sides giving two different numbers. clearly there are two very different methodologies to get two totally different numbers and during an on-going conflict it’s impossible to know who is right. but you’re coming at this from a premise that israel is genocidal maniacs which is showing a bias, when the reported numbers are what determines whether they are genocidal maniacs or not. but personally, i would say even with the worse case number from people who have a bias against israel it is not genocidal.
If you want to know why I would refer you to that ‘there’s no hunger in America’ conversation we were having that you ran away from. The one where you seem to envision kwashiorkor as the only form of malnutrition?
Now look up deaths from exposure and please try to understand why housing for all is also necessary.
i didn’t say there’s no hunger in america. i said there’s no starvation. you keep misrepresenting my position. i can respond to you from earlier but i blocked the sub we were in because i don’t like meme subs, i prefer subs that have more text and it was spamming my feed.
Now look up deaths from exposure and please try to understand why housing for all is also necessary.
i don’t think anyone thinks housing is bad or that people should die from exposure. the question is how do you plan to fix homelessness and things like that when more people die of exposure in europe than america which is generally touted as the area with the solution to the problems. i’d be okay with a government housing program that provides shelters and living for people at a bare minimum and then allow people that make more money to buy more extravagant living spaces, but we kinda already do that. it could be expanded and made easier to apply and get accepted to but that’s a separate issue.
Your right that there’s no virtually no kwashiorkor but there’s plenty of starvation and even more hunger.
i blocked the sub we were in because i don’t like meme subs
Then why the hell are you in this sub!? Did you not read the community info?
it could be expanded and made easier to apply and get accepted to but that’s a separate issue.
That is quite literally what is meant by ‘housing for all’. So long as anyone who needs housing is rejected and ends up sleeping on the street instead that system is failing and needs to be improved.
medicare for all- good (private healthcare can still exist but a government option should be available), college for all- sounds good but has problems, housing for all- how? i think you should have to work and pay to own your own house. 32 hour work week- good, (could be even shorter), tax the rich- good, green new deal- no idea what that entails, free palestine- bad.
not sure if your questions rhetorical or not but it’s not like this is a new invention, why not look to where it works elsewhere in the world and do that ?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city
i thought when they said housing for all they were referring to government mandated housing. im all for making houses more affordable, but that isn’t really the same as houses for all. even if it’s more affordable there’s still going to be people that can’t get a house of their own
Free Palestein bad? It’s bad that people should have freedom and not live under a genocidal apartheid state? You got any other horrific opinions you want to share with the group? Where do you stand on bone cancer for children? Big fan I’m guessing.
Just block and move on. Either they’re a troll or they’re an irredeemably awful person and not worth anyone’s time.
im all for free palestine in terms of ending the occupation, (though i think it will lead to worse outcomes and more violence, i think they should still be given that right) but in terms of the war against hamas im 100% for it and i think israel should neutralize hamas. but when most people talk about “free palestine” they mean stopping the gaza war, but i have no problem with killing terrorists.
The term “terrorist” is subjective though.
The violence committed in the war against Hamas seems much worse than that caused by Hamas.
when you fight a war who is the terrorist isnt determined by the number of people killed on each side, it’s determined by the intentions of the people doing the killing. for instance, when the US went after ISIS it’s estimated that between 10,000 to 27,000 ISIS were killed and only 30 US people were killed.
Intentions are made pretty clear when schools and hospitals are systematically destroyed.
That’s not really true though is it.
You have to consider not only the intentions but also the capability of the threat you’re trying to mitigate. Then you have to balance those things against the cost of whatever action you intend to take.
Sure the fanciful desire of hamas might be global domination but we both know that they just don’t have any capability in that regard.
It’s absurd to suggest that it’s appropriate to grind an entire nation to dust because they might be harboring someone with desires of global domination.
i mean, you could say the exact same for the civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure when the US was fighting ISIS. at the end of the day they did a terrorist attack and said they were going to do it again, are harboring weapons, and are right at israel’s border. they clearly have capability and intent because they fire rockets at israel all the time. what is israel supposed to do, let them fire rockets at them and not fire back? not destroy the munitions they keep in hospitals? all the deaths and the destruction of the infrastructure can be blamed on hamas, not israel. and i’m not claiming hamas does have the capability of global domination, if they did they would’ve done it. i’m saying they have that intent, just like ISIS did. are we supposed to not destroy them until they gain more power and do have the ability to be a threat to the world?
Well the intentions of the Israelis are the extermination of entire people so yeah pretty sure we know who the real terrorists are.
actually you have it the opposite. the israeli goal is to eliminate hamas (the terrorists) and live in peace and hamas’s goal is the extinction of jews and then most likely global domination of islam as a whole.
You should at least try to be believable when you troll.
if israel wanted to kill arabs why is 20% of their population arab? why target palestinians specifically and not arabs in general when they are the same race? what differentiates palestinians from other arabs to where israelis only want to kill palestinians but are fine in living in peace with their 20% arab population in israel?
And the Palestinians don’t have a right to kill the Israeli terrorists who are murdering children in the streets of the West Bank?
everyone has a right to defend themselves but the civilian to combatant death ratio is anywhere from 1:1 at the lowest to 1:8 at the highest, probably realistically 1:3 or 1:4 (normal for war). israeli does not just murder children in the streets, they are fighting a war that has civilian casualties and the numbers show that.
Combat deaths according to whom? The genocidal maniacs who shoot babies for fun? You trust their numbers?
no the israeli number is 1:1 and the independent sources say anywhere from 5:1 and 8:1, 8:1 being the highest estimate that i’ve seen. i take a middle ground between the israel number and the independent sources because it’s impossible to know the exact number during an on-going war and you have two sides giving two different numbers. clearly there are two very different methodologies to get two totally different numbers and during an on-going conflict it’s impossible to know who is right. but you’re coming at this from a premise that israel is genocidal maniacs which is showing a bias, when the reported numbers are what determines whether they are genocidal maniacs or not. but personally, i would say even with the worse case number from people who have a bias against israel it is not genocidal.
Housing and food for all is a bare minimum.
If you want to know why I would refer you to that ‘there’s no hunger in America’ conversation we were having that you ran away from. The one where you seem to envision kwashiorkor as the only form of malnutrition?
Now look up deaths from exposure and please try to understand why housing for all is also necessary.
i didn’t say there’s no hunger in america. i said there’s no starvation. you keep misrepresenting my position. i can respond to you from earlier but i blocked the sub we were in because i don’t like meme subs, i prefer subs that have more text and it was spamming my feed.
i don’t think anyone thinks housing is bad or that people should die from exposure. the question is how do you plan to fix homelessness and things like that when more people die of exposure in europe than america which is generally touted as the area with the solution to the problems. i’d be okay with a government housing program that provides shelters and living for people at a bare minimum and then allow people that make more money to buy more extravagant living spaces, but we kinda already do that. it could be expanded and made easier to apply and get accepted to but that’s a separate issue.
Your right that there’s no virtually no kwashiorkor but there’s plenty of starvation and even more hunger.
Then why the hell are you in this sub!? Did you not read the community info?
That is quite literally what is meant by ‘housing for all’. So long as anyone who needs housing is rejected and ends up sleeping on the street instead that system is failing and needs to be improved.