If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Fivethirtyeight (I know, take it or leave it) was able to finally identify why it is I have a big problem with Rand. Basically, he talks a great game, but his voting record is as red as they come.
(I self-identify as libertarian and I'd still have to think about it)
I confess I am not super familiar with his policies. I recall seeing a number of people singing his praises some time ago and I was intrigued but I'm reasonably sure I have heard him say a couple of things that caused me to write him off since. I forget exactly what though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
That they're cool with people who filibuster the Patriot Act.
I don't buy it. For example, this is the guy who replaced him:
In January 2014, during President Obama's State of the Union address, Weber in a tweet referred to the President as "Kommandant-In-Chef" [sic] and "the Socialist dictator."
My initial response to that list is that it's probably a load of crap: "Based on analysis of fundraising, congressional voting records, and public statements on the issues."
Wasn't the entire country significantly more conservative during Nixon and Ford's era? I'd like to see a deeper breakdown of the data they're using.
Actually, no I wouldn't. That sounds incredibly boring.
My initial response to that list is that it's probably a load of crap: "Based on analysis of fundraising, congressional voting records, and public statements on the issues."
Wasn't the entire country significantly more conservative during Nixon and Ford's era? I'd like to see a deeper breakdown of the data they're using.
Actually, no I wouldn't. That sounds incredibly boring.
Putting the General Social Survey on our 0 to 100 scale, the average self-identified Republican has shifted from a 57 in 1974 to a 71 in 2014, the most conservative ever.
Edit: He also opened relations with China and created the EPA. Obama gets flak for relations with Cuba.
Word. I assume 538 did that not really but something similar
I've found the best balance of brevity with useful information uses an "overall" rating by the given organizations, i.e. the ACLU rates Paul a 37 for everything in their portfolio, while the NRA rates Paul a 62.
...that you know of. I find it hard to believe there are things Hilary is for that he's against and you're against, but not vice versa.
It's not the issues, necessarily — it's the approach. I feel like Hillary's main objective is power, and she'll do anything to acquire it. We could spend all day talking about the private Email fiasco and what it could possibly entail.
Bernie seems to be genuine (and open) in his desire to switch to a more Scandinavian-like socialism.
It's not the issues, necessarily — it's the approach.
But you just said you're not 100% against his ideas, which implies you are 100% against Hilary's.
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
I feel like Hillary's main objective is power, and she'll do anything to acquire it.
Make no mistake, Hilary is this elections cycle's Romney. Condescending, out-of-touch, disingenuous, calculated. Acts like they deserve the presidency or that they seek it more for the achievement than the position; I understand conservative distaste for her. It's just lamentable that her politics take a backseat to this more than most.
But you just said you're not 100% against his ideas, which implies you are 100% against Hilary's.
I'm 100% against her possible implementation. I feel like she'd bury details.
Make no mistake, Hilary is this elections cycle's Romney. Condescending, out-of-touch, disingenuous, calculated. Acts like they deserve the presidency or that they seek it more for the achievement than the position; I understand conservative distaste for her.
It's just lamentable that her politics take a backseat to this more than most.
It's just lamentable that her politics take a backseat to this more than most.
There has been a lot of programming against Hilary from the right. Its been going on for years because people have expected her to run for years and the GOP were just trying to get ahead of the game by discrediting her just in case. The result has been over a decade of constant spite and attacks against her on every level they can find.
I honestly think a lot of people have become hardwired to dislike her. I wonder how hard some of you are having to fight your impulses to talk about mailserver secrets or just start yelling about Benghazi.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
So, you've fallen for her lame "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" excuse? Bwa-haa-haa-haa!
yeah, those dead in Benghazi mean nothing. Laws and national security mean nothing either.
The thing is, if any of that had much substance to it then even the "liberal" media would have gone after her. Thats how you tell the difference: The right wing media defends their own no matter what and makes up stuff about the lefties, the "liberal" media goes after everyone equally. Yay for bias!
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
There has been a lot of programming against Hilary from the right.
Oh good, a UKer telling an American the obvious.
I was prodding him for specifics. I understand why people don't like Hilary, but I have trouble grasping the hate for someone who has done, quite honestly, very little.
I should also note, that the hate of Hilary originated from almost day one. When she headed of the task force on health care reform, it was not greeted well (to my memory). Her wanting to be more than a First Lady, to insert herself into politics was seen as pushy, though arguably it could be enthusiastic (or if you're really charitable, dedicated). This is where it gets hard to separate partisanism from gender politics. Like her place was being supportive in the background, not making a name for herself as well. Is having ambition when your husband is leader of the free world wrong? Was there a more palatable path for her to take to come to this place?
Edit: I'm wayyyy off topic. I can take this to another thread if you like, Shaddim.
I can totally understand that she was not the type of first lady to sit back and bake cookies. There are a lot of people out there who would resent that. Heck, even Michelle Obama doing something relatively innocuous like health-focused "Get Moving" is slammed and treated with paranoia. I don't feel Michelle is even being ambitious with that, it is a more traditional first lady role, but there's no winning. Some people will mock her for being mannish, mock her man for being whipped, etc.
It's the old "man being assertive = strength", "woman being assertive = bitch".
Not saying I'm voting along gender lines, but pointing out I can totally see the bias.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'd much prefer Bernie over Hillary. At least with him, I believe what he says.
Also, I'm not 100% opposed to some of his ideas.
At the very least he's mostly sincere and you know where he's coming from, she's just another typical politician.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
There has been a lot of programming against Hilary from the right.
She's self-programmed by being sneaky and shady as hell.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I can totally understand that she was not the type of first lady to sit back and bake cookies. There are a lot of people out there who would resent that.
Who? People who believe in wives staying at home? Even for '94 that seems a little backwards.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Heck, even Michelle Obama doing something relatively innocuous like health-focused "Get Moving" is slammed and treated with paranoia.
That was just hyperpartisanism.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
It's the old "man being assertive = strength", "woman being assertive = bitch".
It's the old "man being assertive = strength", "woman being assertive = bitch".
Sorry, but that's simply 3rd wave feminist doublespeak, liars and crooks are liars and crooks. Now, a lot of that goes with the territory, politicians are, for the most part, professional liars. However, if her stint as SoS has shown us all anything, it's that she can and will do anything to; 1. accrue power and 2. avoid implication with the dirty deeds she's perpetrated to gain said power. She's a perfect example of the American political mantra: You can do anything as long as you don't leave evidence of it pointing back to you, and the Progressivist doctrine of: Let no means stand in the way of the ends we desire.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
At least Rand and Sanders have one very important thing in common, they both apparently believe in supporting the Rule of Law, instead of the principle of "what I want should be law".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately my philosophical education isn't up to the task, outside of their one example.
Still, I have to say that one of the few times I've ehard someone accuse a liberal of being "the ends justify the means" albeit in some of the flowery language.
Edit: Also, it'd probably best if I ask for clarification re: progressivism and liberalism.
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately my philosophical education isn't up to the task, outside of their one example.
Still, I have to say that one of the few times I've ehard someone accuse a liberal of being "the ends justify the means" albeit in some of the flowery language.
Edit: Also, it'd probably best if I ask for clarification re: progressivism and liberalism.
Liberalism most certainly, and absolutely, does not equal Progressivism. In fact, those two camps are wholly and mutually exclusive.
In fact, Progressives (especially the American variety) have much more in common with social Conservatives and Christian Fundimentalists than Liberals.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Largely because I've noticed that Progressives have lately been working overtime to co-opt the Liberal badge, which is akin to saying that night is day or that modern feminism is somehow egalitarian.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In fact, Progressives (especially the American variety) have much more in common with social Conservatives and Christian Fundamentalists than Liberals.
I haven't followed any of your links yet but is the philosophical definition of progressive the complete opposite to the usual definition?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I was prodding him for specifics. I understand why people don't like Hilary, but I have trouble grasping the hate for someone who has done, quite honestly, very little.
Given we are talking about a group of people who will vote against things that are good for them at the behest of a completely transparent rabid media campaign, I would think a completely transparent rabid media campaign would be a perfectly adequate explanation of where all the hate comes from.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
OK so I took a look at these. The first one makes some sense in it own right but its very literal with some of its terms ideas and not very literal with others. Most of the conclusions it draws seem to me to be completely irrelevant when you apply the thinking to politics.
Any candidate you vote for is going to make things better or worse in many different regards. Even if you only care how it will effect you directly, you could end up paying more tax but earning a higher salary while paying less for gas and healthcare so you'll be better off. You might have to submit to getting a gun license you did't need before in exchange for getting 5 beers for the price of 4.
Whatever the specific differences look like they might be, the baseline of the way things are now is going to go from nice and flat by definition to a wibbly wobbly thing which you have to average out and then see if the new averaged flat line is above or below the old one.
Many of these peaks and troughs will be a matter of personal circumstance and even taste and thats before you start taking into account any changes for other people that you might care about.
Ultimately we all vote for what we think will give the biggest improvement over the current situation whether its our situation, our idea of improvement or whatever. Or maybe some of us just vote the same way we always do regardless of personnel or policy or don't vote at all. Assuming the majority of voters are hoping to make things better for someone, doesn't that make everyone a progressive? The whole label seems utterly pointless when everyone has a different idea of progress.
I don't like getting too bogged down in political philosophy because a lot of it is big words used to label things and it usually ends up coming down to semantics so with politics its all a rather self-perpetuating mental circle-jerk that never gets to a satisfactory conclusion for anyone. Its better saved for questions about the meaning of life or the origin of the universe IMO.
That said I don't know how anyone could consider social conservatism or religious fundamentalism as progressive. One seems to clamour for the good old days of the 50s and 60s where life was like an episode of Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie, the other seems to want to take us back all the way to the dark ages and beyond. Hardly progressive by most peoples definition.
As for the second link, I dispute that government intervention keeping corporations in check is a mistakenly held belief. Its a nice idea that letting survival of the fittest govern corporate competition will result in a relatively fair and stable frothy equilibrium with two or more players constantly catching each other up and then being caught in turn but this is pretty rare without regulation. Instead these guys tend to team up and fix prices like the oil companies and the banks, or they divide up territory between them so they don't compete like the bus companies in the UK or the telecoms in the US in many cases (so I'm led to believe). If you prefer, look at sports. The EPL is now dominated by 4 clubs with two or three more in a second tier and the rest have little or no chance of catching up now unless they get bought by another bored billionaire. The Spanish Premiera Liga is even worse and has been for decades now. There are two teams there that dominate everything utterly. Beating them is at best a temporary glitch in the matrix they have built themselves because they got their noses in front at the right time and abused their power to consolidate it. I have a feeling they need each other or the whole thing would collapse but thats just the same collusion as dividing territory. As a contrast look at the heavily regulated NFL and NBA where the competition is much more open from year to year because of all the rules and regulations about drafting and spending etc etc.
So without regulation on business you end up with a situation like parts of Africa where you go from being under the thumb of one merciless warlord or dictator to the next. The free market might well kill these guys off eventually but it will usually replace them with another in fairly short order.
Lastly the assertion that democrats are even slightly more intensely pro-corporation seems utterly contrary to reality to me.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Given we are talking about a group of people who will vote against things that are good for them at the behest of a completely transparent rabid media campaign, I would think a completely transparent rabid media campaign would be a perfectly adequate explanation of where all the hate comes from.
This... is why I don't like you. I actually want to hear it from them. Either to question them on their own logic or to gain better insight into their perspective.
OK so I took a look at these. The first one makes some sense in it own right but its very literal with some of its terms ideas and not very literal with others. Most of the conclusions it draws seem to me to be completely irrelevant when you apply the thinking to politics.
Any candidate you vote for is going to make things better or worse in many different regards. Even if you only care how it will effect you directly, you could end up paying more tax but earning a higher salary while paying less for gas and healthcare so you'll be better off. You might have to submit to getting a gun license you did't need before in exchange for getting 5 beers for the price of 4.
Whatever the specific differences look like they might be, the baseline of the way things are now is going to go from nice and flat by definition to a wibbly wobbly thing which you have to average out and then see if the new averaged flat line is above or below the old one.
Many of these peaks and troughs will be a matter of personal circumstance and even taste and thats before you start taking into account any changes for other people that you might care about.
Ultimately we all vote for what we think will give the biggest improvement over the current situation whether its our situation, our idea of improvement or whatever. Or maybe some of us just vote the same way we always do regardless of personnel or policy or don't vote at all. Assuming the majority of voters are hoping to make things better for someone, doesn't that make everyone a progressive? The whole label seems utterly pointless when everyone has a different idea of progress.
I don't like getting too bogged down in political philosophy because a lot of it is big words used to label things and it usually ends up coming down to semantics so with politics its all a rather self-perpetuating mental circle-jerk that never gets to a satisfactory conclusion for anyone. Its better saved for questions about the meaning of life or the origin of the universe IMO.
That said I don't know how anyone could consider social conservatism or religious fundamentalism as progressive. One seems to clamour for the good old days of the 50s and 60s where life was like an episode of Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie, the other seems to want to take us back all the way to the dark ages and beyond. Hardly progressive by most peoples definition.
As for the second link, I dispute that government intervention keeping corporations in check is a mistakenly held belief. Its a nice idea that letting survival of the fittest govern corporate competition will result in a relatively fair and stable frothy equilibrium with two or more players constantly catching each other up and then being caught in turn but this is pretty rare without regulation. Instead these guys tend to team up and fix prices like the oil companies and the banks, or they divide up territory between them so they don't compete like the bus companies in the UK or the telecoms in the US in many cases (so I'm led to believe). If you prefer, look at sports. The EPL is now dominated by 4 clubs with two or three more in a second tier and the rest have little or no chance of catching up now unless they get bought by another bored billionaire. The Spanish Premiera Liga is even worse and has been for decades now. There are two teams there that dominate everything utterly. Beating them is at best a temporary glitch in the matrix they have built themselves because they got their noses in front at the right time and abused their power to consolidate it. I have a feeling they need each other or the whole thing would collapse but thats just the same collusion as dividing territory. As a contrast look at the heavily regulated NFL and NBA where the competition is much more open from year to year because of all the rules and regulations about drafting and spending etc etc.
So without regulation on business you end up with a situation like parts of Africa where you go from being under the thumb of one merciless warlord or dictator to the next. The free market might well kill these guys off eventually but it will usually replace them with another in fairly short order.
It's about the co-option of titles that are in no way connected with the movement behind them. Progressives, as a modern political movement, aren't progressive, Liberals, as they are presented within the USA, aren't liberal, and Christians don't behave in a very Christ-like fashion. Suffice to say, compared to their dictionary definitions, these labels are often purposely misleading. But then, if Progressives and Social Justice proponents actually used appropriate titles (Marxists) few people would be as attracted to them. Language matters, words have power, and if you can (what is essentially) steal the meaning of a word and appropriate its connotations to your own movement, much of that power becomes yours... at least until the general public catches on, and then it's time to latch on to another label with less baggage.
The most modern incarnation of feminism is also a prime example, with the war now won in the 1st world and legal equality achieved, classical feminism started to decline. Well, not willing to allow a wildly successful label go to waste, Marxist ideologues have now scooped it up*, changed a few of the words around (ex. substituted "capitalism" for "patriarchy"), dropped the feminist narrative regarding individual freedom, added on support for other socially marginalized groups such as the LGBT community (to add to their numbers), and are now attempting to proceed forward under the guise of egalitarianism, while shunning classical egalitarians as a patriarchal (capitalist) movement**.
*
**
Lastly the assertion that democrats are even slightly more intensely pro-corporation seems utterly contrary to reality to me.
Corporatization in the 21st century is power, power purchased with money, and if you can't beat `em, join `em. It's really that simple (because it takes a lot of money to maintain a political movement).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top