Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Doc Democracy]

16 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I guess political parties being "new" depends on your definition of the term. After all, the Whigs and the Tories were fighting it out in the English parliament in the seventeenth century.

 

They were not really parties as they are recognised today, more loosely affiliated voting blocks for the purposes of Parliamentary process and MUCH more fluid than today.  I think political parties in the UK became more of a thing in the late 19th century (after the Great Reform Act) and definitely in the early 20th century when we actually had universal suffrage.

[Vondy]

 

15 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?" 

 

First, this is disingenuous. Write him and ask. As it stands, this is just a contextonomy. Or, are you intentionally ignoring the point? Setting up a straw-man and knocking it down on a message board doesn't impress me. The point is: politicians are always trying to float programs we can't afford and offer people things they should not have to woo voters. The last fiscally responsible politicians we had were elected in the 1960's.

 

People in power who espouse "leftists ideas" are specifically targeting their opponents money and power. They are not targeting their own money and power, and especially not the money and power of the administrative state. I am opposed to an intrusive and ever-growing administrative state that sees the pocket-books of the common man as a blank check for politicians balkanized partisan agendas - be they right or left.  

 

Quote

 

This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.

I agree the GOP isn't interested in fixing gerrymandering. By that same token, the DNC isn't interested in taking reasonable steps to clean up voter rolls or verify eligibility. I'm not a partisan the way you are. I'm not pointing the finger at one party while turning a blind eye to the other. Neither of these parties are interested in playing an infinite values-based game that benefits the American people. Both are pursuing their finite interests in extremely cynical and self-serving ways. I am not going to  play "White hat / black hat" with you. There is a corruptive influence flowing from both parties. I'm not going to play "pick your poison." I'm going to say "don't drink the poison."

 

 

Quote

This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.

 

Economics is power. Taxes are control. This is so basic that I don't need to argue it. Indeed, if you think politics doesn't boil down to the control of the the people's treasure you don't know the first thing about power.

 

Quote

 

If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.

 

Define "minority governments." Do you mean a government in which the president's party is in the minority. All good, I generally prefer that. That does not mean I'm going to vote for candidates who espouse interests and goals are anathema to my own.

 

Quote

 

If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

 

I regard both parties as being fiscally irresponsible decision makers with a poor grasp of economics. The republicans gave up on fiscal responsibility and sensible economics decades ago. That doesn't make the democrats any better than it and the difference can be explained not by fiscal sense, but presidents who don't control both houses and therefore can't spend like madmen.

 

I strongly recommend reading Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.

 

If you really want to understand the causes of income inequality and the problems both parties bring to our tax structure, its a must read book.

 

If it were my word here is what I would do:

 

• Do away with income tax. Yes, I said that.
• Leave the corporate income tax rate at 20%.
• Jack up the the capital gains tax up to 50-70%.. 

What would be the results:

• Poor and middle class people would have more income for expenses, education, and insurance.
• Businesses would know what to expect and be able to make healthy profits - and more people could start small businesses.
• The money made from capital gains alone - which are not earnings - would pay for the military, medicare, and social security.

You want to secure the middle class. That's how you do it. You want to fund entitlements with only modest reforms? That's how you do it.

 

Here is the thing: democrats always point out that the GOP caters to the rich. Its true! 

Here is the thing: republicans always point out that the DNC tax policies hurt the middle class and small businesses. Its true! 

 

Both have completely misunderstood taxes. The democrats are constantly raising the wrong taxes. The GOP belligerently refuses to raise the right one.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?

 

Vituperative aside, yeah, its a problem. But, its only one of many problems, and your woulda-coulda-shoulda is meaningless. 30-40 years ago politicians didn't say that. Here we are. Look, I work for a solar company. I get it. But, at the same time, even if we acknowledge it, what do you propose we do? Most of the policy movies I see from the environmentalists, while logical, aren't reasonable and, in some cases, are extremely destructive. Its an easy problem to diagnose. It is not an easy problem to treat. If you destroy your patients health and quality of life extending their life, what was the point?  I do not buy into the fallacy of "something must be done." Ergo, "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done." I want us to set a responsible environmental policy and, I agree, this administration isn't doing that. But, whatever we do, has to be smart, effective, and conserve our economic well-being in the process. I do believe that's possible. It is not, however, what I have seen to date.

 

Quote

If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

 

Dear God. Really? More straw men and conflations. I am talking about high-level political ideals and you are arguing personalities. My opinion of Trump's character is stated in no uncertain terms in this thread. Yes, the man is an obstinate ass. So what? That is not what I am talking about. Until the dems (and you) stop making it about the man and return to a focus on the nation all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher. When you do make it about our nation and our values, then we'll have something to talk about. Of course, I may still find your proposals anathema, but I'll at least hear them out. In the meantime, I'mpointedly voting libertarian with a clear conscience and wagging my ballot in your face.

 

May the Force be with you. 

[Vondy]

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

We have gotten ourselves into a bad place with politics.  We vote (in the main) based on tribal loyalties rather than on the people we are electing.  If we elected people we trusted to do the right thing rather than the party brand that we have invested in, the political incentives of those seeking power might change.  I speak as someone who sees the inside of politics in the UK but I still feel those tribal loyalties influence my vote at almost every election.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winna!

 

"Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win." - Victor Laszlo, Casablanca.

[Simon]

Vondy - you know better.  STOP making it personal - discuss the issues, not the poster.  You, in particular, need to tone back your rhetoric and, perhaps, pay attention to how you're coming across.

[TrickstaPriest]

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

People in power who espouse "leftists ideas" are specifically targeting their opponents money and power. They are not targeting their own money and power, and especially not the money and power of the administrative state. I am opposed to an intrusive and ever-growing administrative state that sees the pocket-books of the common man as a blank check for politicians balkanized partisan agendas - be they right or left.  

 

I am not disagreeing.  But the 'leftist' "messaging" is far from 'poor people are lazy'.  It is extremely easy to run a campaign that attacks 'big money', but (as we've seen with the progressive shift) it undermines itself.  I would much rather have a rhetoric that doesn't bank on undermining poor, because that makes itself more powerful (and historically, is even more dangerous than just undermining political opponents).

 

And yes, it is still pretty painful to see.

 

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

I agree the GOP isn't interested in fixing gerrymandering. By that same token, the DNC isn't interested in taking reasonable steps to clean up voter rolls or verify eligibility. I'm not a partisan the way you are.

 

I did just post a financial article that outlined how Obama increased the deficit the most out of recent history.  Of course, he did inherit two wars and a "banking crisis".  I think some of the estimation took this into account, but I would need hard data and methodology information.

 

Are the voter rolls unclean?  Is eligibility a major issue in the voting polls?  So far there's nothing to indicate that it is.  If you have any information otherwise I would be very interested.   As I said, I've already re-evaluated my thoughts on medicare vs military cost (and before, on gun control) based on this very long thread.

 

With gerrymandering, though.  There's a rather... impressive history with gerrymandering, and there is an interesting discussion from Extra Credits on how gerrymandering may be raising extremism in politics.  We can see a clear, discernable impact from it.  If there is a huge problem with bad voter rolls, then we should definitely fix that.  But is there?

 

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

Dear God. Really? More straw men and conflations. I am talking about high-level political ideals and you are arguing personalities

 

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

I want us to set a responsible environmental policy and, I agree, this administration isn't doing that. But, whatever we do, has to be smart, effective, and conserve our economic well-being in the process. I do believe that's possible. It is not, however, what I have seen to date.

 

I'm not talking about personalities.  We literally have a political party who's ingrained in the belief that global warming isn't real.  Not even as personal belief, as political message.  That political message is then broadcast on the most popular news network in the country, and spread to conspiracy theorist radio talk show hosts where it is further reinforced.

 

We are the only modern country.  In the world.  That treats global warming this way.  So yes, I compare it to someone saying "your cancer isn't real".  Yes, it was rhetoric, and I apologize over being livid on that topic.

 

If we want reasonable, real policy, we need a country that actually talks about it.  This isn't a personality issue, it's that no one is going to create practical policies until we are well past the stage of climate change being political.  Sure, I hate the democrats for making it this way, but they aren't the ones who need to give in over that.

 

2 hours ago, Vondy said:

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winna!

 

The democratic party needs to be broken up, and I'm hoping the recent changes in politics may change that.  But bad economics aside, that's not what's making my hair go white.  The reason you are getting so much opposition is the problem not of comparing two crap sandwiches, it's comparing a bad flu to an ultimately lethal disease, or what people perceive to be.  There is some illegitimate fear mongering, but nothing makes me sicker than hearing that "people are too entitled" when working with coworkers who work 3-4 jobs.  If you want to talk to people and convince them of your position, then, let's talk about the current financial situation.

 

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

Economics is power. Taxes are control. This is so basic that I don't need to argue it. Indeed, if you think politics doesn't boil down to the control of the the people's treasure you don't know the first thing about power.

 

If we want to talk about taxes and not high-level political ideals, I'm fine with that.  The current financial system isn't helping the working class.  If you think that can be fixed by lowering taxes across the board, I'd be interested in knowing how.  The "treasury" is not just what is held by the government, but what is siphoned off by the second estate (or the merchant class). 

 

The past-super-rich are being outstripped financially by a new generation of them.  It's understandable companies like Apple and Amazon are taking heat in politics now.  But the way Amazon workers, Tesla workers, and even Google employees are treated is not good.  I honestly do not know how to regulate the power of the new era of corporations other than higher taxes and greater regulation.  How would you go about this?  All I got in my hand for this is taxes and regulations.

[RDU Neil]

2 hours ago, Vondy said:

When you do make it about our nation and our values, then we'll have something to talk about.

 

Please define "our nation' and "our values" as you see them, so we can discuss. Thanks.

[RDU Neil]

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

I strongly recommend reading Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.

 

If you really want to understand the causes of income inequality and the problems both parties bring to our tax structure, its a must read book.

 

If it were my word here is what I would do:

 

• Do away with income tax. Yes, I said that.
• Leave the corporate income tax rate at 20%.
• Jack up the the capital gains tax up to 50-70%.. 

 

Very good book, I agree... and I agree the Democrats have failed to effectively mandate effective tax reforms. But... when there is zero chance of Capital Gains Tax being raised to appropriate rates, due to GOP blocking or whatever, that doesn't mean I'm going to toss them all and refuse to support particular individual democrats who support social platforms and discourse that seek to protect women, minorities and other traditionally disadvantaged groups vs. those who demonize, scapegoat and otherwise attempt to harm those groups for their own advantage.

 

And yes, scarcity is real and there is never enough to go around... but I will always support policies that attempt to give more to those who have less, over policies that encourage the consolidation of wealth and power for the few.

[TrickstaPriest]

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

Until the dems (and you) stop making it about the man and return to a focus on the nation all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher. When you do make it about our nation and our values, then we'll have something to talk about. Of course, I may still find your proposals anathema, but I'll at least hear them out. In the meantime, I'mpointedly voting libertarian with a clear conscience and wagging my ballot in your face.

 

Ah, I misread the earlier post and didn't even catch the comment of wagging a ballot at me.  Which is just funny.  I did not think Trump could have possibly won the last election, and certainly did not cooperate in the two party system in that vote. 

 

Yes, a minority government, as you described.

 

18 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

And yes, scarcity is real and there is never enough to go around... but I will always support policies that attempt to give more to those who have less, over policies that encourage the consolidation of wealth and power for the few.

 

Yes, capital gains tax being at a substantial high, 60-70%, is a possible solution.  And if you ran a platform on it, and I believed you could pass it, it would shift the balance of power in this country a lot.  But to get to that point, power in both parties has to become much more fragmented.  People thought that was Trump 'sweeping in' to break the establishment, but... let's say obviously that wasn't the case.  And unfortunately I've wondered how practical the marginal income tax rate of Eisenhower's day really was.

 

There was a brief breakdown on the new taxation laws and their estimated cost per person on this thread that was... disheartening.  Largely because of what we paid for it.

[Zeropoint]

As far as I can tell by reading his posts here, Vondy's values are "being above it all" and "contempt for the less englightened". Vondy, note that I'm not accusing you of actually feeling that way; just saying that it's how your posts come across.

 

Quote

 In the meantime, I'mpointedly voting libertarian with a clear conscience and wagging my ballot in your face.

How does that help anyone?

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

I'm not going to play "pick your poison." I'm going to say "don't drink the poison."

"Not drinking the poison" in this case would mean having neither the Democrats nor the Republicans in power, I suppose. I simply don't see that as a realistic option here. Yes, we need voting reform to make third parties more viable, and yes, at least one state (Pennsylvania, I think) has taken a step in that direction, but we are NOT there yet, and we are going to have Democrats and Republicans running the show for the next six to ten years no matter how lofty your ideals are.

 

I don't WANT to be stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, because the lesser of two evils is still evil. When that's all you've got to choose from, though, the lesser of two evils is also still lesser.

[Vondy]

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I am not disagreeing. 

 

Full stop. 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

But the 'leftist' "messaging" is far from 'poor people are lazy'.  It is extremely easy to run a campaign that attacks 'big money', but (as we've seen with the progressive shift) it undermines itself.  I would much rather have a rhetoric that doesn't bank on undermining poor, because that makes itself more powerful (and historically, is even more dangerous than just undermining political opponents).

 

This is you responding to common republican rhetoric and not to anything I said. As a result, why is it here?

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

And yes, it is still pretty painful to see.

 

Sure. I agree. But what does it have to do with me?

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I did just post a financial article that outlined how Obama increased the deficit the most out of recent history.  Of course, he did inherit two wars and a banking crisis.  I think some of the estimation took this into account, but I would need hard data and methodology information.

 

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Are the voter rolls unclean?  Is eligibility a major issue in the voting polls?  So far there's nothing to indicate that it is.  If you have any information otherwise I would be very interested.  As I said, I've already re-evaluated my thoughts on medicare vs military cost (and before, on gun control) based on this very long thread.

 

Well, we know there are lots of dead people on many states rolls. And many states do absolutely nothing to verify eligibility. That is, in of itself, a "soft" way of gaming the system. My answer would be "the states should investigate and find out." To date, when that suggestion has been made, self-interested politicians have gone to war screaming "racism" and "disenfranchisement," which is deflection. When leaders of deep blue states vocally refuse to take any steps to verify their rolls its smacks of self-interest and and begs the question "why do you refuse to take meaningful steps to find out." I am not saying there is definitive proof. I am saying their is enough anecdotal evidence that a responsible person would take serious steps to verify the integrity of the rolls. That should not be taboo and treating it like it is plays into critics hands.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

With gerrymandering, though.  There's a rather... impressive history with gerrymandering, and there is an interesting discussion from Extra Credits on how gerrymandering may be raising extremism in politics.  We can see a clear, discernable impact from it.  If there is a huge problem with bad voter rolls, then we should definitely fix that.  But is there?

 

I never proposed there wasn't and, as a result, I'm not sure why we are still talking about it. However, one issue that is often missed is what I would call "soft gerrymandering." By that I mean, "old lines." In many cases the urbanization of America has played into the republicans hands without their having to do anything. As cities become more blue, all that has to happen is for the GOP to do nothing. In other words, the republicans don't actually have to do anything in many cases to gain an electoral advantage.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

I'm not talking about personalities.  We literally have a political party who's ingrained in the belief that global warming isn't real.  Not even as personal belief, as political message. 

 

Go back and read what I wrote in context.. I did not refer to personalities in my discrete response to your comments on global warming and our environmental policy. I referred to them in response to Trumps behavior such as "gas-lighting," etc. This is a conflation of two different things. As a result, there is nothing for me to respond to.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

That political message is then broadcast on the most popular news network in the country, and spread to conspiracy theorist radio talk show hosts where it is further reinforced.

 

Sure. I already agreed that our policy is benighted. I also agree the Dems are better (to a degree) on this particular policy issue. However, you keep dredging up individual policies you object to as a means of pursuing a partisan fight with a non-partisan person who tried to raise a higher-level concern. Until we discuss how we get back to "increasing liberty for every single American" and fiscal responsibility and putting the administrative state in its place I'm not sure what this really has to do with me.  

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

We are the only modern country.  In the world.  That treats global warming this way.  So yes, I compare it to someone saying "your cancer isn't real".  Yes, it was rhetoric, and I apologize over being livid on that topic.

 

Yes, the GOP has their heads in the sand. With that said, we can't have meaningful conversations when people engage in over-the-top rhetoric,  take absolutist positions, and defame the opposition with a broad brush. There are republican congressmen and voters who believe in global warming and want clean air, clean water, and responsible conservationist and environmentalist policy. The kinds of rhetorical tactics you are employing alienate the people you need to come together with to get anything done. Do you want catharsis or workable compromise that moves the ball forward. The my way or the highway tribalist moralizing endemic in our politics today have destroyed the necessary well of trust democracy requires.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

If we want reasonable, real policy, we need a country that actually talks about it.  This isn't a personality issue, it's that no one is going to create practical policies until we are well past the stage of climate change being political.  Sure, I hate the democrats for making it this way, but they aren't the ones who need to give in over that.

 

 

Agreed. But how we talk about it has to engender conversation. We have to stop talking at one another and start talking with one another. For that to work you have to actively listen and respond to what people actually say. With respect, that has not been my experience in this thread.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

The democratic party needs to be broken up, and I'm hoping the recent changes in politics may change that. 

 

I would say the same of the GOP. They need to be broken up. I have dual citizenship and lived abroad for many years. I really like parliamentary systems that force coalition-building. It forces compromise and while politics are still ugly, results in more reasonable sitting governments that have to take more reasonable positions and play to the national mainstreet as opposed to the radicals and reactionaries lurking in the wings.Our system of government can be reasonable and play to the middle, but only when the two parties stop playing a finite self-interested driven game. To a degree this is our fault because we actively deliver the message that we want statecraft rather than politics.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

But bad economics aside, that's not what's making my hair go white. 

 

Bad economics does make my hair go white. So does sovereign debt and politicians who don't care if they bankrupt our nation tomorrow in exchange for votes today.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

The reason you are getting so much opposition is the problem not of comparing two crap sandwiches, it's comparing a bad flu to an ultimately lethal disease, or what people perceive to be. 

 

But, you see, this is where we have a real and pointed disagreement. I regard the democrats current set of policies and the direction they want to take us to be just as lethal to our national well-being and freedoms in the long-term as the republicans. The only difference is that the the republicans are in power and the democrats aren't. Trump is the acute ailment of the moment. Yes, I would like the pain he is causing us to go away, but saying vote for "hepatitis instead of cancer!" isn't very inspiring to someone like me, is it? You see, from where I sit, you keep minimizing the damage the democrats would do because of the damage the republicans are doing. And, this is my opinion and it may be unfair, but the reason I'm really getting so much opposition is that I'm not playing to your partisan biases.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

There is some illegitimate fear mongering, but nothing makes me sicker than hearing that "people are too entitled" when working with coworkers who work 3-4 jobs.  If you want to talk to people and convince them of your position, then, let's talk about the current financial situation.

 

Again, this is you responding to common republican rhetoric and has nothing to do with anything I said. As a result, what do I do with it?

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

If we want to talk about taxes and not high-level political ideals, I'm fine with that.  The current financial system isn't helping the working class.  If you think that can be fixed by lowering taxes across the board, I'd be interested in knowing how.  The "treasury" is not just what is held by the government, but what is siphoned off by the second estate (or the merchant class). 

 

I have already agreed. However, I already answered this question above. Again, please go back and read what I actually wrote.

• No income tax. These are people's earnings.
• A reasonably low corporate tax rate.
• High capital gains tax. This is unearned self-perpetuating income.

And, I do suggest you read the book. Its extremely well researched and cogently written by - gasp - a liberal!

 

We used to have high capital gains taxes and the rich still got richer without lifting a finger. They just got richer slower. I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

14 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

The past-super-rich are being outstripped financially by a new generation of them.  It's understandable companies like Apple and Amazon are taking heat in politics now.  But the way Amazon workers, Tesla workers, and even Google employees are treated is not good.  I honestly do not know how to regulate the power of the new era of corporation other than higher taxes and greater regulation.  How would you go about this?  All I got in my hand for this is taxes and regulations.

 

My answer: taxes and regulations. Strange, eh?

 

The caveat is, the right taxes and the right regulations. 

 

My issue with the dems is that they are pulling the wrong taxation levers are unnecessarily intrusive when it comes to regulation. This harms poor and middle class people in a way that is more subtle, but just as pervasive, way.

 

Let me be clear. I am not anti-regulation. Commons, markets, and regulations require some regulation to function in a fair manner. What I am against is excessive and populist regulation. In other words, I think regulation should be both smart and circumspect and reevaluated over time. Often times, in our zeal to do something, we impose bad rules that make things worse or have unintended consequences and never go away.

 

So, yes, let's regulate. But let's make sure we do so intelligently and with a deft touch - and let us always be asking: is there a better way to do this?

[csyphrett]

Regulation with a deft touch is never going to happen. There are five hundred people writing these laws and they all have their own interests. Asking for a deft touch for regulation is asking to drive a nail with a screwdriver.

CES

[Old Man]

Having read through the past couple of pages, I'm not even sure what the disagreement is.  No one is happy with the corporate capture of both major parties, or the late stage capitalism that brought it about.  Still, as I have stated prior to many elections, pulling the lever for the lesser evil is more effective than sulking in the basement.  (Unless you plan to skip to the third box after soap and ballot, that is.)  Pushing the Overton Window to the left is not going to happen overnight.  I see plenty of positive developments in younger generations, in terms of asking questions and participating; it remains to be seen whether the party in power can stop them with gerrymandering, voter suppression, media ownership, and straight corruption.

[Vondy]

36 minutes ago, Zeropoint said:

As far as I can tell by reading his posts here, Vondy's values are "being above it all" and "contempt for the less englightened". Vondy, note that I'm not accusing you of actually feeling that way; just saying that it's how your posts come across.

 

How does that help anyone?

 

How does voting for "more of the same" help anyone?

 

Quote

"Not drinking the poison" in this case would mean having neither the Democrats nor the Republicans in power, I suppose. I simply don't see that as a realistic option here. Yes, we need voting reform to make third parties more viable, and yes, at least one state (Pennsylvania, I think) has taken a step in that direction, but we are NOT there yet, and we are going to have Democrats and Republicans running the show for the next six to ten years no matter how lofty your ideals are.

 

My issue here is this: attack politics and deflection. Neither party seems to want to say "how do we get people to vote for us?" Both are saying "how do we get people to vote against them?"

 

That's a "no sale" in my book. 

 

Quote

I don't WANT to be stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, because the lesser of two evils is still evil. When that's all you've got to choose from, though, the lesser of two evils is also still lesser.

 

But which is lesser and why is a subjective personal assessment. As is whether there is a lesser to begin with. Treating personal political preferences as black and white objective facts is why this conversation repeatedly turns nasty.

 

Good people. Moral people. Intelligent people. They can disagree.

[TrickstaPriest]

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

This is you responding to common republican rhetoric and not to anything I said. As a result, why is it here?

My apologies.

 

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Well, we know there are lots of dead people on many states rolls. And many states do absolutely nothing to verify eligibility.

There isn't much I have on this.  Although I don't know if any of those people voted.  It could be being overlooked as such, but perhaps this is where conversation on rolls should go?  I don't know how much impact this has, but it should be discussed politically alongside gerrymandering.

 

I brought up gerrymandering to begin with as a means of toning down the... tone of the dialogue.

 

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

But, you see, this is where we have a real and pointed disagreement. I regard the democrats current set of policies and the direction they want to take us to be just as lethal to our national well-being and freedoms in the long-term as the republicans

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Bad economics does make my hair go white. So does sovereign debt and politicians who don't care if they bankrupt our nation tomorrow in exchange for votes today.

The reason the GOP platform keeps on coming up in my dialogue is because I'm given little choice in the matter... not from you, I'm talking from the prospective of an eligible voter.  I did not mean for it to come across as me conflating GOP ideals into your arguments, just that this is the wall I am dealing with when informing my own decisions.

 

Is it a healthy opinion to have in the long term?  As you say, they (the democrats) aren't thinking their policies through.  That is a source of serious frustration for me.

 

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Go back and read what I wrote in context.. I did not refer to personalities in my discrete response to your comments on global warming and our environmental policy. I referred to them in response to Trumps behavior such as "gas-lighting," etc.

Ah.  My apologies then, again.

 

26 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Pushing the Overton Window to the left is not going to happen overnight

You are right.  I should stop getting bristled.

 

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

With respect, that has not been my experience in this thread.

I'm sorry I reacted so poorly.  As people have said, things are desperate 'right now', so proposing their struggle to make things easier 'right now' is just as bad as the alternative's behavior is not...  great messaging?

 

But that does not have to be your concern.

 

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

And, I do suggest you read the book. Its extremely well researched and cogently written by - gasp - a liberal!

Shockingly, I did not vote liberal in the last election.  And well before that, I would have probably voted for McCain if he hadn't gone... well off the rails.

 

Comment aside, I will look for it.

 

 

 

So our misbehavior has brought us to a meaningless conflict, as Old Man has said.  My misbehavior more than yours, mostly.

 

My apologies.  And to express, the GOP platform is figuratively crushing the life out of my coworkers.  It comes up not as a comparison to what you are saying, but as what I have to fight tooth and nail against just to breathe again.  That, and the fact that I didn't move back to the US until 10 years ago, has me very "left" of common policy in the US.  The fact that people are arguing poorly on this thread is not a great stamp of pride, though the desperation is real.

[TrickstaPriest]

9 minutes ago, Vondy said:

But which is lesser and why is a subjective personal assessment. As is whether there is a lesser to begin with. Treating personal political preferences as black and white objective facts is why this conversation repeatedly turns nasty.

  

 Good people. Moral people. Intelligent people. They can disagree.

 

Unfortunately, there is a heavy 'false equivalence' to assume or imply there is no 'lesser'.  It's a common way to dodge responsibility in politics, and to ignore real issues, the assumption that 'the other person/alternative is just as bad'.  Not that this is your meaning, but it's where so much of this comes from.

 

The tribalism is a problem, but it's very easy to see why politics goes in this direction.  People are deeply invested in protecting their politics, but this protection appears when the language and ideas of the platform they are fighting against are referenced.  Not the political body itself.

[Vondy]

2 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

My apologies.  

 

That is gracious of you, but not really necessary. We mostly want the same things, and we both just want things to get better. That's a pretty good starting point for a real conversation after the passions die down, right? And, I will apologize to you, too. When I feel my positions are being misrepresented, or that sincerity has been met with unnecessary snideness, I tend to respond muscularly and call it out. That doesn't always deescalate the row. I probably should presume both friendliness and good-faith more than I do on the boards, but some of the comments (not from you) can make that hard to do. Let's assume we both want to make America healthy again and go from there.

[Vondy]

7 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Unfortunately, there is a heavy 'false equivalence' to assume or imply there is no 'lesser'.  It's a common way to dodge responsibility in politics, and to ignore real issues, the assumption that 'the other person/alternative is just as bad'.  Not that this is your meaning, but it's where so much of this comes from.

 

I get that, but I'm not evaluating this as "greater" and "lesser." I'm evaluating this as "immediate" and "intermediate." In other words, I view trump and his policies as the problem of the day. Its acute. We want that pain to go away. It needs to be addressed. But, his opponents are also promising pain. Its just a different pain on a different day. However, we obviously disagree and it probably doesn't pay to belabor the point. 

[TrickstaPriest]

26 minutes ago, Vondy said:

That is gracious of you, but not really necessary

 

I am nothing if not gracious.

 

You don't need to apologize, though you were off re: 'party behavior'.  But I know I've applied the same razor poorly myself.

 

Re: trump, we do have fairly big disagreements there, but we are applying our own hammers.  Economics pain vs political pain.  ie- to load it less, a huge concern in my eyes is the evolution of political tactics after the Trump era.

 

In terms of conversation... I'll get back to you.   I'm scrambling to cover something work related.

[Lord Liaden]

Vondy, if you don`t mind my asking, when you say you vote ``libertarian,`` what are the key issues you are voting for? Modern libertarianism has branched in divergent economic and social directions. And have you found candidates, individual or part of collectives, who espouse your branches?

[TrickstaPriest]

Wow I think I'm totally unprepared for this potential job change.  And now terribly confused.

[Old Man]

Only now?  Rookie.  I have decades of experience being confused at work.

[Dr.Device]

 

10 hours ago, Vondy said:

Neither of these parties are interested in playing an infinite values-based game that benefits the American people.

 

You keep using that terminology and I, for one, have no idea what you mean by it.  You dismiss issues I and others bring up as mere policy issues, but the tax reforms you propose and your concerns about the voter rolls seem very much like just such policy issues.

 

Like Lord Liaden, I am very curious what Libertarian party positions you find attractive. Although they are one hundred percent on board with removing the income tax, the idea of raising the capital gains tax is a complete non-starter with them. Their platform calls for the elimination of all taxes, as a matter of fact. And the removal of all environmental regulations. And anti-monopoly laws. Any economic regulation at all, actually. Oh, and they want to remove all anti-discrimination laws. Is there something in there that you find attractive?

 

Are the Libertarian politicians playing that infinite values-based game you prize? Or is voting for them a protest? 

 

You accuse Democrats of just running against Trump, but I pointed out that they have real and meaningful policy proposals that they campaign on. Of course they attack Trump, too. He is the immediate symptom of the problem. He is actively tearing down the institutions that let the federal government functions, and enacting policies that are a real and present danger to huge number of people in this country, citizens and non-citizens alike, and to the whole world. To not fight the policies he's enacting, to not point out that he is betraying the interests of this country for his own enrichment and that of his cronies, would be irresponsible. But that isn't all they are doing. They lay out alternatives. They propose changes. Not all Democrats of course. Quite possibly not even most. But many. As I said, I think the Democrats are weak tea. They are so far to the right of me, it shocks me that I support them[1]. But they are fighting the party that is threatening the destruction of almost everything I value in America. So they get my support, for now. There's evidence that they aren't mostly bought by a foreign power, so they get my support, for now. I believe that a significant percentage of them have some integrity, even if I don't agree with them, so they get my support, for now.

 

 

 

[1] I support the DSA, who mostly ally with the Democrats right now. I hope that they grow and can eventually be a viable third party that pulls ht eDemocrats to the left.

 

 

 

[Vondy]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Vondy, if you don`t mind my asking, when you say you vote ``libertarian,`` what are the key issues you are voting for? Modern libertarianism has branched in divergent economic and social directions. And have you found candidates, individual or part of collectives, who espouse your branches?

 

I would love to have had a lengthy discussion about this with you, as well as the diverse views espoused by contemporary libertarian voters, but based on how this thread went I don't believe that would prove fruitful. I have concluded that breaking my long hiatus from the boards was seriously misguided. Things here are the same as they always were, but somehow they have gotten worse at the same time.  I don't see an upside in making the attempt.

[Vondy]

1 hour ago, Dr.Device said:

 

 

You keep using that terminology and I, for one, have no idea what you mean by it.

 

 

 

Basically: Do you want to "win America" (finite) or keep America going (infinite) because the aspirations and values ensconced in its system of government make it a game worth playing? The predictability of campaigning on values rather than partisan interests creates the well of trust necessary for compromise, cooperation, and attaining the common weal. That of course assumes voters for both parties see an inherent value in keeping the aspirational political values and system America was founded on going. My impression is that there a lot of people in both tribes that say they do, but really don't. 

 

[Zeropoint]

Well, I watched the video, and now I understand what you mean by "finite" and "infinite" in this context, at least.

 

I want to keep America going (infinite), partly because it's my country, partly because I live here, partly because of how America affects the rest of humanity, and partly because of the values ensconced in its system of government. Right now the Democrats don't really seem like they're much of a net gain in those areas, but once again, the Republicans seem like they're rapidly moving the country in the wrong direction.

 

Vondy, I went back and looked at your list of libertarian values. With the exception of "friendliness and good faith across the aisle", they look like standard Republican/Tea Party points; right-wing ideas very carefully couched in polite terms; what they call "dog whistles". I hope I'm misreading your intent.