OT: Politics

[d0cwho]

It is an interesting time. I would welcome 4-5 parties since I think the left right divide right now is leaving most people un-attached to either party, and both parties trying so hard to identify a hard base that is based on race, religion, economic choices and cutting off a those who don't agree. What party allows a gun toting socialist? Or a pot smoking catholic? Fiscal conservative that is social liberal? Nope.

Then by grabbing 2-3 parties who, say, like pot usage we can get that through instead of a 50/50 split or 2-3 people across that line. The middle 50% is fairly unaccounted for. Huge potential.

Not sure that's going to happen, as much as I want it to. I don't like how far left elements of the democratic party are moving. A lot of the ideas they are espousing are the ones Europe dropped because they didn't work. It's frustrating.

[Unfated33]

I think that ranked choice and instant runoff would be a good start. I would be much more inclined to vote for moderate elements on both sides if the voting system wasn't first past the post.

[cockerpunk]

There are a relatively low number of people that identify specifically with a party. I tend to be more conservative and have no better choice in most cases than to vote republican. Given a viable alternative, that would change quickly.

That has been my clear opposition to your statement the whole time. If a person literally says, "I voted for Trump because he hates Mexicans" then they are a racist idiot. In a democracy, Trump's personal feeling towards Mexicans has to be manifest in policy form with language that's explicitly biased. I believe Trump's "us" versus "them" plays to the common plebeian's lack of understanding of the political process. The supreme court and congress can still keep him mostly in check. Using that type of narrative has allowed the GoP to hide much of their elitist policy under the guise of "nationalism." Biting on it is a distraction and it was never Trump or the GoP's agenda. That's why I contend that the primary cause is corporate cronyism and the effect correlates naturally to the socio-economic status where blacks tend to have lower income. I think you have it backwards and your attempt to demonize anyone that has ever supported anything Trump has ever done is counter-productive, hence me using the epitaph of regressive leftist for you.

Stop with the hyperbole. If you really think the majority of republicans' objective is to break-up families then, yet again you're a distraction and don't seem to care about helping solve the problem. WHY are the kids there in that situation? Well, the cause is that policy seems to have existed with a hole that, when enforced, would lead to this but a change in enforcement has this effect. Both parties believe immigration reform is necessary and a policy discussion needs to take place, but won't as long as we're chasing distractions. The impracticality of "do not enforce" or lack of viable alternatives is perpetuating the current border status, hence my statements that you and people like you are part of the problem. Given, the type of vitriol that comes out of the president's mouth (or twitter) is equally as repugnant.


Funny that you have also taken any of my statements about your relationships as me having something against you. The good news is that in America, you don't have to care what I think about you. In my opinion, government has no place in marriage at all. On an online forum, you toss it out there so it's free for debate but personally, I don't care what you do. If you aren't having kids, your relationship doesn't have a biological significance. If you aren't having kids, then your relationship doesn't have a sociological meaning. Maybe it has deep personal value in how it makes you "feel" but that isn't quantifiable by any objective measure. Go for it if it makes you happy, but don't expect anyone else to care. That's not personal or "judgement."

one does not have to explicitly list racism in a public statement, in order to be using racism to support a policy. thats just, absurd.

i never said the majority of Republicans want to break up families. i said a measure of if a person is a decent human being or not, is if they find putting babies in cages to defend themselves in immigration court to be anything other than evil. this is a reasonable standard of moral decency IMO. you still have refused to answer this question BTW. you posed that people are decent, i posted a litmus test for decency. i think a lot of poeple fail that test, ergo there are not as many decent poeple in the USA as you claim, or as i thought there were before the 2016 cycle. i have to admit, the real fallout for me from the trump election, was learning just how fucking awful about 35% of americans truly are.

you accuse me of hyperbole? you just said that i claimed the majority of republicans want to break up families. lol

i think you making repeated, boldly unsupported, unwanted judgments of others lives says far more about who you are, than it does anyone you judge.

[cockerpunk]

Not sure that's going to happen, as much as I want it to. I don't like how far left elements of the democratic party are moving. A lot of the ideas they are espousing are the ones Europe dropped because they didn't work. It's frustrating.

like what?

[cockerpunk]

Unfated Pt 2:



I would consider myself Conservative leaning Libertarian. I supported Gary Johnson, I supported Glenn Johnson here for mayor here mostly because he puts economics first and comes from the Austrian School. I would support a JFK democrat, but they don't seem to exist anymore. Blue Dog democrats have gone, and they would be a welcome sight to many I think. If I had a single voting factor it is taxes and related economics, vs any social issue. I am socially ambivalent, and it isn't a voting issue for me. I like Bush because it was Tax Cuts for Everyone, but in the end I strongly disliked the budget increase under his presidency. Obama was no better, but neither were in control of the entitlement program, and those have ballooned far beyond the scope of the programs, and also without control either way by either president. I liked the Clinton/Gingrich budgets the best historically, along with the JFK and Reagan tax cuts. Hence why I would vote for a Blue Dog DNC member if they existed any more.

I would hardly say I am hyper-partisan. I am really fucking exhausted by the mindless 'everything is racist' crap and SJW bullshit that is all around right now. It is mindless and in the end, wrong. It is the 'what is wrong with our country right now!' in my opinion.

It is also factually incorrect. When a person repeats "Everyone who disagrees with me is [fascist, racist, xenowhateverist]" well.... I am not the hyper partisan one, nor am I hyper partisan by disagreeing, strongly, with the person is wrong. A lot of it comes down to the, lets say 'The Gordon View' - GOP is racist and Fascists. I hear it from a good portion of my long time liberal friends, he is not unique, only maybe in his level of asshat about the subject.

But this person is not conservative or even moderately liberal. We are talking the 8% we dealt with before in this discussion. Now, to me this is kinda like a guy trying to tell a pregnant woman how easy childbirth is. It is obvious he has no clue what he is talking about, yet seems to walk around as if he is the expert. Oh, they have some sort of belief they are. But really? Fascists? Have you no fucking clue what a Fascist really is? So when somebody starts talking about a political party they are not part of, as if they understand them, well.... I find myself trying to tell them that they are totally misjudging the other side. Now, a big part of that is because I am a contrarian. And a know-it-all. Most of us here are, lets be honest.

But mostly I reply and rail against it because it is wrong. I have people tell me almost daily "Liberals are idiots." I nod and smile and I say yes, but people are idiots. We have stupid on our side. I remind people because I remind myself this daily. As much as there is a Gordon View there is someone I know repeating the canard that The Left is Stupid. The problem is the flip is the 'Left thinks the Right is Evil'.

Now that is really the rub.

A lot of my friends are conservative. Conservatives are smart, kind, giving people who really want what is best for everyone. They don't want their culture, which is part the stereotype of 'America F yeah' and 'Everyone can succeed!' and Church and volunteering at school and baked pie, to be ruined. The vast, VAST majority are shirt off their back, lets go shooting, I will help you build your house type of people. These are GOOD people. Amazing, welcoming, loving. They also have Moral Values that, as I have linked to various times from *cough* approved websites *cough*, that those on the Left can not see. But good people. Damn good people through and through.

They are not Evil. A small part are misguided. I have almost daily discussions with one of my smartest friends about Q anon, and I have to tell him I really don't believe it. Same guy came up with a new way for Mitsubishi PID loops to work that their engineers want to buy from us, and we were able to find a solution for reprogramming Y-12 nobody else wants to touch. This guy is hella smart. Still believes Q. He would dive down an solve a problem partially because it is unsolvable. And give you the shirt off his back.

He is smart, talented, open minded, generous to a fault - and conservative. My boss is a smart guy, Vols fan, sharp and generous. Conservative, church going guy. Also has 2 adopted kids, one Asian, one black. In fact, a large portion of my conservative friends have adopted, and most adopted black kids.

I can repeat this story over a large sample of my friends. The smartest SI in this area, East Tennessee, is conservative, sharp as a whip, doesn't want illegal immigration. Also is married to a Korean woman, and adopted her kid. He just went down to their embassy to do it last year.

Small addition: My wife is conservative. Her single voting issue is abortion. She thinks pot should be legal, we have LBGT friends and will go to their weddings, her best friend is black/PR, she has tats and piercings, dated a black guy for 6 years, we serve at church as Captains. She votes the straight republican ticket.

Yeah, there is stupid. On both sides. But is either side evil? No. If you think that about the other half of america, whither left or right you are wrong. Most people are good, most people want you to be happy. Study after study shows this.

Portraying these people as motivated by race, sexism, xenophobia is incorrect. It is wrong. Grossly wrong. In fact, it shows such a level of ignorance of the Right that, when you remember the view of Sun Tzu about knowing your enemy, you would understand why they lost the election and also understand why they are at a loss as to why. They blame Russia, racist-ism, well, just ask Gordon. He can tell ya. He is also flat wrong.

The Left 8% doesn't know the Right at all.

Clueless.

So they fall back into stereotypes as to why, due to obvious ignorance.

Now, I like a decent online argument as much as the next guy. But I also strongly dislike calling people names like racist when they are not. It is a slur, and it comes from complete ignorance and judgement. Might as well just go around calling every one a sinner and condemning them to hell. There is no more truth, and no more moral or virtue difference between the Gordon Way and the Westboro way.

Both are bad. Both are wrong. We need to stop viewing those who disagree with us as Evil. Until then, I will defend the strong, good middle that the vast majority of people are here in America. As a group in the middle, moderate, we need to stop letting bullshit like Gordon spouts to ruin a great nation full of great people. It is a lie. And repeating it hurts every one.

Edit: Additionally - I KNOW conservatives. I am married to one. They are among my best friends and co-workers. They are my family. I understand them, and they are not evil. Or motivated by race. Or any of that. To say they are is plain false and ignorant. Somebody who doesn't understand the conservatives, who is ignorant, is the only person who could call them racist or [insert whichever slur is popular that day].

it would really really help, in not viewing the opposition as evil, if they condemned nazis and child concentration camps.

it really is that simple.


as i said before, the trump administration has done me one favor in life, and that is separating who i simply disagreed with on a political solution and we can have a health policy discussion, and who is just a total garbage human being with whom i want nothing to do with.

you also have not answered my litmus test question.

[d0cwho]

like what?

Two that specifically come to mind are free college education - dropped by the UK in favor of price controlled education with interest free loans for example - and Medicare for all - Doesn't include strong enough cost controls and seems not to realize that Britain and Canada are moving away from pure government models and towards blended models like Germany and France. Basically the far left is simply saying let's just pay for it, rather than asking why it costs so much. That's not good policy.

[d0cwho]

I think that ranked choice and instant runoff would be a good start. I would be much more inclined to vote for moderate elements on both sides if the voting system wasn't first past the post.

Yeah. I'd prefer ranked choice. I think it would work well in the system we have given we don't have a parliament.

[ironyusa]

I think that ranked choice and instant runoff would be a good start. I would be much more inclined to vote for moderate elements on both sides if the voting system wasn't first past the post.

Admittedly, I haven't ever heard this concept before, but I googled it. Kind of an interesting prospect.

[cockerpunk]

Two that specifically come to mind are free college education - dropped by the UK in favor of price controlled education with interest free loans for example - and Medicare for all - Doesn't include strong enough cost controls and seems not to realize that Britain and Canada are moving away from pure government models and towards blended models like Germany and France. Basically the far left is simply saying let's just pay for it, rather than asking why it costs so much. That's not good policy.

hummm, the only serious proposals i've seen from the left on those policies are free community college (which is a good idea IMO), and medicare for all as a public option, maintaining a market for additional coverage, like germany and france have.

i can understand the confusion as "free community college for those who get good grades" doesn't fit on a sign as easily. but "free college" isnt the whole story.

i also think the question of "why does it cost so much" i already pretty obviously answered, and we discussed it in this thread previously quite a lot, and the answer is pretty simple ... we need a bigger pool. and that means single payer.

[d0cwho]

hummm, the only serious proposals i've seen from the left on those policies are free community college (which is a good idea IMO), and medicare for all as a public option, maintaining a market for additional coverage, like germany and france have.

i can understand the confusion as "free community college for those who get good grades" doesn't fit on a sign as easily. but "free college" isnt the whole story.

i also think the question of "why does it cost so much" i already pretty obviously answered, and we discussed it in this thread previously quite a lot, and the answer is pretty simple ... we need a bigger pool. and that means single payer.

I thought it was free college for public universities. On the medicare for all proposal, I'm pretty sure it was so generous that you wouldn't need additional coverage.

Agree on the bigger pool. Also needs more government oversight over cost control. I've actually thought a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission model would work well in the U.S., by pitting healthcare systems against insurers and take out the patient from the equation of payment. Essentially, a doctor would submit a payment to a patient's insurer. That insurer can then either to choose to make the payment, submit a lower payment if it believes the doctor overcharged, or refuse to pay if the doctor was padding the bill. Under this system, the doctor/hospital couldn't go back to the patient to collect, but would have to file a claim with the Federal commission to argue the payment was "just and reasonable." The two could duke it out and you would eventually get a body of precedent established over time that would hopefully lower prices while still allowing the market to play a role.