General US Politics

[solrocknroll]

I can't really deal with the Republican Party on principle, especially where I live. Maybe the far-right gives a bad impression, but when Trump's leading the polls, you can see a lot of voters' true colors at Trump rallies. Trump wanting to force Apple to return to the US? Let me know how that works out.

I don't really lean too far on the left scale, but gay marriage is pretty much insanely important to me. I cheered when it was fully legalized. I can't really take Conservative ideals seriously. A lot of them pretend separation of state and church doesn't exist at all when that clearly isn't the case.

[Duff Ostrich]

generally speaking, wanting free things is better than beating people up

I suppose my caricature of liberals is not as obscene as Mr. Gei's caricature of conservatives. It may be that I'm not quite as adept at unfairly demonizing the motivations of large groups of people.

that's a hilarious comeback lol

"a massive portion of my party's voter base lusts for the blood and smoking guts of brown people in the middle east? well, uh, you guys want to...improve people's lives! yeah! i sure showed you!"

Laugh all you want: The Sanders entire campaign is constructed around pandering to the entitled, and in making promises that are so self evidently impossible that I can only assume he knows it's all a lie. It's not entirely different from Trump, what with the whole anti establishment populism angle. That Sanders is a vaguely more serious choice than Trump is hardly a victory.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Tryhard]

With that attitude, nothing is going to improve. The Scottish government pays my entire tuition fee as a citizen, offers students loans (which aren't really as much because of the tuition fees being covered for Scottish citizens and as such won't need extortionate repayment) and gives a decent (though not perfect, I will always admit) total healthcare system in the NHS. We are a small country, and our economy is not fantastic. Clearly they just care more about helping students and providing some type of efficient healthcare system, even when compared to our southern neighbours England who have pretty hefty tuition fees (though still not as huge as the US fees). There's no reason why the US, with all the resources it has, shouldn't be able to implement the same systems. They just seem wholly not interested in the example of many European countries who have done these very things for the benefit of the people.

Even if you were to make the argument that it works precisely because these countries are smaller than the US, then what is to stop a state-by-state implementation of such a thing to see how sustainable it could be?

Edited January 20, 2016 by Tryhard

[dondon151]

i understand that it's difficult to characterize democrats in a malicious way, mostly because there is not very much to vilify them for. they are virtuous at best and misguided at worst.

sometimes i also think to myself "grrr why can't i come up with any horribly mean-spirited rhetoric that democrats regularly espouse; this is SO unfair to the republicans" and then i feel a pang of guilt for being an entitled blind liberal sheep who is naive about the world

Edited January 20, 2016 by dondon151

[CyborgZeta]

Even if you were to make the argument that it works precisely because these countries are smaller than the US, then what is to stop a state-by-state implementation of such a thing to see how sustainable it could be?

That's not a bad idea, but universal health care and free college tuition would be a hard sell even among individual states. Without getting into other concerns, those kind of programs put an increased burden on taxpayers. Many taxpayers do not want to pay for those programs, particularly in states with lots of illegal immigrants.

i understand that it's difficult to characterize democrats in a malicious way, mostly because there is not very much to vilify them for. they are virtuous at best and misguided at worst.

sometimes i also think to myself "grrr why can't i come up with any horribly mean-spirited rhetoric that democrats regularly espouse." the struggle is real.

That kind of dismissive attitude is exactly the kind to blame for why politics in this country are so polarized. When you dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you, you're marginalizing others' opinions and not helping the debate. Those marginalized people are exactly the kind of people Donald Trump is feeding off of.

Edited January 20, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[dondon151]

i don't think that my attitude is dismissive at all. actually, i'm inviting someone to explain to me why the political left deserves the same criticism as the political right.

[chococoke]

i don't think that my attitude is dismissive at all. actually, i'm inviting someone to explain to me why the political left deserves the same criticism as the political right.

it doesn't deserve the same criticism. that doesn't mean the left is 100% innocent.

one of their candidates is currently under investigation, an investigation that seems to turn up more and more evidence/cover up attempts by the day.

their other candidate is a socialist who wants to hike taxes. (i don't know about all of you but i love paying taxes, top tier civic duty)

whoever organizes their debates puts them on weekend evenings instead of a primetime weeknight slot that would get the most viewers. it's really not a bad tactic, because the republicans hold their debates when the majority of people can watch. so people tune in to laugh at trump who inevitably gets the most air time.

i'm not coming in here saying conservatives are the children of jesus but the left isn't completely innocent.

my dad is a staunch conservative and always complains to me about how the media favors liberals. sometimes i wonder when certain networks that hold the republican debates try to turn them into flame-fests instead of actual productive conversation.

i'm most excited to see how the trump v. republicans battle turns out. hopefully the "freedom kids" that trump started his rally in pensacola with will somehow undo him.

[Radiant head]

Left isn't "innocent" because Sanders's ideas are disagreeable? Okay...

Anyway, this article has a 10/10 title: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/palin-endorsement-widens-trumps-lead-among-idiots

[Duff Ostrich]

.

With that attitude, nothing is going to improve. The Scottish government pays my entire tuition fee as a citizen, offers students loans (which aren't really as much because of the tuition fees being covered for Scottish citizens and as such won't need extortionate repayment) and gives a decent (though not perfect, I will always admit) total healthcare system in the NHS. We are a small country, and our economy is not fantastic. Clearly they just care more about helping students and providing some type of efficient healthcare system, even when compared to our southern neighbours England who have pretty hefty tuition fees (though still not as huge as the US fees). There's no reason why the US, with all the resources it has, shouldn't be able to implement the same systems. They just seem wholly not interested in the example of many European countries who have done these very things for the benefit of the people.

Even if you were to make the argument that it works precisely because these countries are smaller than the US, then what is to stop a state-by-state implementation of such a thing to see how sustainable it could be?

What makes you think European welfare states are sustainable? Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal provide some sorry examples of sustainability.

You're right though. The United States probably could find the money to pay for every one of these programs. The issue of course is how much and from whom, though I would suggest that everyone would necessarily experience a much larger tax burden than they had previously. Some people have tried to run those numbers, because Sanders evidently isn't overly concerned with addressing that just yet.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

You obviously don't have to accept the Wall Street Journal's numbers out of hand, but it should be fairly obvious anyway that the costs for all of this would end up somewhere in the extreme. Consider that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid already compose the lion's share of our mandatory spending.

i understand that it's difficult to characterize democrats in a malicious way, mostly because there is not very much to vilify them for. they are misguided at worst.

I agree on the Democrats, but I take issue with what you imply about Republicans. I don't accept that most of us are malicious, or that malice has much to do with our messaging or our policy objectives.

The Republicans might have a reactionary streak, but so do the Democrats on certain issues. Big Labor is reactionary in how it opposes all manner of reform. Democrats simply refuse to hear any discussion on matters of reforming Social Security or Medicare. The same goes for illegal immigration. Certain big city Democratic machines (Chicago, Detroit) are known for extensive corruption... to which the only cure would be meaningful Republican or Independent competition! Until then these administrations fall prey to complacency as their cities decay under them, and rely on meanspiritedness, fearmongering and racism during campaign season or when their failures are challenged (Kwame Kilpatrick, Coleman Young, Sharpe James).

Democrats play up the jealousy angle on matters of income inequality, and in manufacturing a narrative on class division we have ineffective policy that does nothing to combat poverty.

They want a meaningful discussion on race, religion, sexuality, etc... on their terms. There is an unspoken reality regarding what constitutes an acceptable opinion and it relies on generally unquestioned and unquestionable assumptions in line with the progressive consensus. Expressing the wrong opinion on our college campuses can lead to unjust and frankly ridiculous consequences.

The liberal position on guns is based on conspicuously persistent misunderstanding about what guns are used in crime or how they even operate, and their proposed policy ("Assault Weapon Ban") is incoherent in its objective and functionally pointless.

Despite what they'd have you think, Democrats don't seem to approach foreign policy all that differently from Republicans. Last I checked we're still mired in the Middle East. What is our policy on Syria anyway? Do Democrats have a coherent plan for dealing with ISIS, or indeed do we plan to destroy the Islamic State with an endless bombing campaign?

These are several of my problems with the Democratic Party as it currently operates, though I'm forced to concede that I do not believe the base of the party to be inherently malicious. It is disingenuous to say so.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Radiant head]

Bernie consistently polls better against Trump than Clinton does.

If anything, Trump vs Clinton would basically be a populist candidate versus the fake plastic establishment candidate (Trump is fake too, but he's succeeded at obscuring that to his base). He won't necessarily win, but he gets to hammer her on taking donations and being a flip flopper. The thought of it is honestly terrifying.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Radiant head

[dondon151]

i never made the assertion that the left is 100% innocent. in fact, i conceded this when i stated that some liberal ideas are misguided.

their other candidate is a socialist who wants to hike taxes. (i don't know about all of you but i love paying taxes, top tier civic duty)

what's bad about being a socialist? you must explain; a candidate being a socialist is about as bad to me as an atheist, i.e., someone whom i'd have absolutely no problem with.

no one likes to pay taxes. i don't know about all of you, but i like my public services and institutions. i'd like for my highways to stay paved and for my public universities to stay open.

my dad is a staunch conservative and always complains to me about how the media favors liberals. sometimes i wonder when certain networks that hold the republican debates try to turn them into flame-fests instead of actual productive conversation.

this is standard right wing victim complex behavior. the media does not favor the left because it, as an entity, has a secret agenda to overthrow the right or to make left-leaning sheeple out of the populace. the media "favors" the left because the kind of material that makes for innovative media overlaps with the progressive streak of the left. whether the media is significantly left-leaning is a matter of perspective; a centrist organization will be perceived as being too liberal to conservatives. for example, conservatives criticize NPR for having a liberal bias even though this bias is minimal to non-existent. this is why fox news unironically adopted the motto "fair and balanced."

the right saw this and in response created a news network that has an overt agenda (determined mostly by one particular roger ailes) to spin news to the right.

Edited January 20, 2016 by dondon151

[CyborgZeta]

Trump fares much better against Hillary than Sanders. Hillary is a corrupt establishment candidate, and is really no different from a lot of Republican politicians. The difference is just that she's a Democrat.

The base that Bernie has tends to have problems getting out to vote, so that could hinder him in a general election (along with his socialist label, which knowing the Cold War, could hurt him). That's even if he gets past the primaries.

what's bad about being a socialist?

To people who don't like the idea, a socialist candidate is someone who would raise taxes across the board, and increase government spending and debt. Among other problems.

If I may ask something; what is your opinion on illegal immigration into the US, and how would you classify those who disagree with you?

Edited January 20, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[chococoke]

i never made the assertion that the left is 100% innocent. in fact, i conceded this when i stated that some liberal ideas are misguided.

ah, well forgive me then, honestly i can have trouble telling the snark from the seriousness.

what's bad about being a socialist? you must explain; a candidate being a socialist is about as bad to me as an atheist, i.e., someone whom i'd have absolutely no problem with.

the amount of shit he's promising will require an insane hike in taxes, beyond just the 1%. $15 minimum wage? does that seem sustainable at all?

i mean, we're talking per year tax increases of over $1 trillion. is that not completely absurd?

the media does not favor the left because it, as an entity, has a secret agenda to overthrow the right or to make left-leaning sheeple out of the populace. the media "favors" the left because the kind of material that makes for innovative media overlaps with the progressive streak of the left

i'm not positing that the media is attempting some sort of mass brainwash. but the media does have the ability to influence ways people think based on coverage. if a bunch of people tune to cnn and watch all the republican candidates being asked about personal attacks and yelling at each other, that will certainly influence their opinions.

and again, i just wonder why the democratic debate is held at the same time as a playoff football game.

[solrocknroll]

I'm really interested in hearing arguments against left stuff like gay marriage. It's pretty much a repeat of the reactions to the end of segregation where people who dislike it find ways to break the law anyway.

Obviously immigration should probably be monitored, but something inane like banning refugees or building a wall is as over the top as possible.

[chococoke]

Obviously immigration should probably be monitored, but something inane like banning refugees or building a wall is as over the top as possible.

Obviously a wall isn't going to be built. However, illegal immigration has certainly grown out of control. I would think as a nation we would want to de-incentivize illegal immigrants coming onto our land, but sometimes it feels like the opposite is the case. For example, places like San Francisco that are "sanctuary cities" to illegal immigrants invite in all illegals - no matter how many times deported. Then this happens: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/san-francisco-killing-suspect-immigrant-deported/

It's a damn tragedy and an innocent life was lost because, well, why? Why wasn't this guy deported a 6th time? They probably figured it wasn't worth it because he just kept coming back.

[Phoenix Wright]

And no doubt Democrats have been conditioned to vote for the candidate that promises them the most free stuff. Health Care? Student Loans? Pensions? Daycare? No problem, we can pay for all of these things while only raising taxes on the top few percent. Sanders has the priorities and political literacy of millenials pegged. Establishment Democrats, who will actually bother to go out and vote, are still going to ultimately choose the Hillary Clintron 5000. I've heard with the latest software upgrade she can now almost convincingly emulate human behavior!

there's a difference between being "conditioned" to believe a political platform and choosing a platform that you believe in. that is, all you did was name things the democratic platform is built off of--of course democrats believe them. if anything, dondon did you a favor of calling it a "conditioned" belief (and therefore 'secretive' to a degree), rather than calling it a component of the republican platform.

for example, it can be argued that racism is a conditioned belief of republicans, but not an idea that is expressly platformed by the republican party.

their other candidate is a socialist who wants to hike taxes. (i don't know about all of you but i love paying taxes, top tier civic duty)

socialism isn't a bad word, stop propagating it as such. "hiking taxes" can be a very good thing, especially hiking taxes on the rich who own most of the money and whose wealth is growing.

the amount of shit he's promising will require an insane hike in taxes, beyond just the 1%. $15 minimum wage? does that seem sustainable at all?

i mean, we're talking per year tax increases of over $1 trillion. is that not completely absurd?

i'm not positing that the media is attempting some sort of mass brainwash. but the media does have the ability to influence ways people think based on coverage. if a bunch of people tune to cnn and watch all the republican candidates being asked about personal attacks and yelling at each other, that will certainly influence their opinions.

and again, i just wonder why the democratic debate is held at the same time as a playoff football game.

a number of "socialist" european countries can sustain that and more. why can't the greatest country in the world sustain it? never you mind that, anyway, it doesn't matter if something seems sustainable anyway--is it sustainable? cbo projects a net loss of 500,000 jobs if given the $10.10 option. they do almost no error analysis (that i can see) and effectively just multiplied estimates (also with no errors that i can see) together. i don't trust their upper estimate at all. and, perhaps someone can help with this, i recall reading awhile ago about how a modest increase in min. wage has historically not mattered for employment? i can't find anything on this anymore.

in addition to above, though, why is it (in your opinion) that california's minimum wage law is higher than almost any other state? why do we also happen to be the richest state in the union? and top 20% median income? if a high min. wage kills jobs, shouldn't we be seeing some pretty big decline?

Edited January 20, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Radiant head]

Honestly, the Democratic party is pretty fucking awful, though it's not so much in the sense that right and left ideologies are equally flawed, but more that the Democratic party is mostly corporatist and moderate conservative. It gets by on being the "not Republican" party. It's like a protection mob or something. Vote for Clinton not because she remotely aligns with any of your views, but because we have to stop Trump.

[dondon151]

related: i respect sanders for adopting the socialist label in an effort to challenge long held misconceptions about socialism, even if it hurts his image.

americans who have been conditioned (hey a correct usage of the word) to revile socialism don't understand that the US government is and always has been partially socialist. any government that demands a tax in exchange for social services (i.e., redistributes wealth) has socialist elements.

there is a particular irony in conservatives boasting about how they were able to pay for school on minimum wage jobs when they were younger and then not seeing a problem when people today can barely make a living on a minimum wage job, much less pay for a much more expensive education.

Edited January 20, 2016 by dondon151

[I.M. Gei]

one should probably note that when chococoke's daddy was growing up and in his 20s, the minimum wage was likely close to $10 adjusted for inflation (and well above the current federal minimum of $7.25/hr)

also a lot of jobs lost under a minimum wage increase may well be shit like "hey, i don't have to work two or three mcjobs just to pay rent/buy food anymore!"

there is a particular irony in conservatives boasting about how they were able to pay for school on minimum wage jobs when they were younger and then not seeing a problem when people today can barely make a living on a minimum wage job, much less pay for a much more expensive education.

"when i was your age i had to work full time during the summer to pay my way through college!"

meanwhile, i'm here sitting and thinking, "wow, that was possible once? that sounds amazing, you guys really did have it easy"

not to mention how cost of living and rent are also way higher now than during decades past

Edited January 20, 2016 by I.M. Gei

[Duff Ostrich]

there's a difference between being "conditioned" to believe a political platform and choosing a platform that you believe in. that is, all you did was name things the democratic platform is built off of--of course democrats believe them. if anything, dondon did you a favor of calling it a "conditioned" belief (and therefore 'secretive' to a degree), rather than calling it a component of the republican platform.

I.M. Gei was the one who said that Republicans were "conditioned" to vote for the guy who talks about "blowing up brown people", and the only favor being done by making such a ludicrous statement is that we can all take it as an indication that he has nothing worthwhile to say on the matter.

I'm not overly interested in talking about how the drooling ignorant masses are brainwashed by our national parties, because I simply don't believe it to be true. However, saying that Republicans are taught to be racist is no different and at least as offensive as saying that Democrats are taught to be entitled brats, and is in fact also no different than saying the Democrats are taught to be racist. The suggestion that racism is endemic to the Republican party is precisely the sort unfounded stereotype that certain liberals use in a disingenuous attempt to discredit conservatives, just as certain conservatives are fond of using stereotypes of their own. Anyone can play this game, but it doesn't lead to an honest discussion.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[-Cynthia-]

I'm really interested in hearing arguments against left stuff like gay marriage. It's pretty much a repeat of the reactions to the end of segregation where people who dislike it find ways to break the law anyway.

Obviously immigration should probably be monitored, but something inane like banning refugees or building a wall is as over the top as possible.

I don't think most Republicans not running on a social conservative platform really want to argue gay marriage anymore (Kasich, Bush, Rubio etc. pretty much just use the Supreme Court saying so as their stance). Anti-gay marriage is probably popular in some local elections though.

[Radiant head]

IIRC Rubio was talking about trying to fight it.

[Phoenix Wright]

I.M. Gei was the one who said that Republicans were "conditioned" to vote for the guy who talks about "blowing up brown people", and the only favor being done by making such a ludicrous statement is that we can all take it as an indication that he has nothing worthwhile to say on the matter.

I'm not overly interested in talking about how the drooling ignorant masses are brainwashed by our national parties, because I simply don't believe it to be true. However, saying that Republicans are taught to be racist is no different and at least as offensive as saying that Democrats are taught to be entitled brats, and is in fact also no different than saying the Democrats are taught to be racist. The suggestion that racism is endemic to the Republican party is precisely the sort unfounded stereotype that certain liberals use in a disingenuous attempt to discredit conservatives, just as certain conservatives are fond of using stereotypes of their own. Anyone can play this game, but it doesn't lead to an honest discussion.

i honestly did not mean for it to sound like that. reading it over again, it does. i used racism as an extreme example, there wasn't really anything more to it.

[blah the Prussian]

Me too. There are other things, but I don't really want to get into that.

My main concern with the Democrats, particularly Bernie, is the implementation of "free stuff". How to pay for it, among other things I won't get into.

Question: what do you two mean by "nationalist"? There are plenty of nationalist movements in Europe and they are not pretty. I don't know how prominent Viktor Orban and his wall are in American news, but he's a total asshole who's always making speeches about how It is Hungary's duty to save Europe from Muslims like they did in the 1500s (what he means, of course, is when Suileiman the Magnificent annihilated their army and killed their king in one battle, and the Hungarians went to the Hapsburgs and begged them to rule Hungary in exchange for not being Muslim, but I digress). I'm fine with having pride in one's country, but not with the kind of Rhetoric that Orban and Trump constantly spout out.

[Anouleth]

one should probably note that when chococoke's daddy was growing up and in his 20s, the minimum wage was likely close to $10 adjusted for inflation (and well above the current federal minimum of $7.25/hr)

also a lot of jobs lost under a minimum wage increase may well be shit like "hey, i don't have to work two or three mcjobs just to pay rent/buy food anymore!"

Generally when jobs are lost, that results in higher unemployment; and higher unemployment always disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. While I think the minimum wage is a good thing I really don't think that the possibility of minimum-wage workers becoming unemployed is something that can just be casually dismissed.

I think that $15 is way too high, for instance. I think the best thing to do would be to make it $10, chain it to core inflation, and come back in five years and see if it's safe to raise it again.