Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

You fooled me with that one, you scamp.

[Lord Liaden]

A decade after war, Putin-backed 'borderization' costs Georgia land

 

"Borderization" is a term and concept I never heard before -- essentially a creeping invasion.

[RDU Neil]

On 8/3/2018 at 4:17 PM, Vondy said:

I decided to wait to respond to this and think about what to say. The reason is: you and I aren't having the same conversation. We also, very clearly, have different cultural and political priorities. I am not talking about policy goals. Those are trivial. I could not care less. I'm talking about something higher up the mountain than that. I'm talking about political values. 

 

When I said our traditional definitions of left and right were no longer useful because both parties were, above the finite policy level, pursuing mirrored (and selfish) tracks, you immediately started making partisan arguments and saying "well that guy is worse than my guy." So what? Again, I could not care less. We aren't even having the same conversation.

 

You are playing a finite game based on interests and short-term political gains and beating the other side rather than an infinite game based on values. That is also what both parties are doing, too. And, its bad game theory. A finite player who takes on an infinite player invariably loses. They run out of resources and quit the game. 

 

You want to debate me? Change your game. Become an infinite player. If you don't, pursuing this is a waste of my time. I don't care if the republicans started it or the democrats started it. I don't care if the republicans are really really mean while the democrats are merely really really petty. Who cares? Pointing the person who started it doesn't change the result. 

 

If the dems are so smart and moral and wise, why are they playing the same finite game? When you make your decisions based on finite interests you are not predictable and, from a cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military perspective that has serious negative consequences. Namely, you destroy the well of trust required to make cooperation possible. 

 

If you play the interests game friendliness and goodwill, respect and honor, go by the wayside. One party may win, but the entire nation loses in the long run because cooperation - E PLURBIUS UNUM - becomes impossible. How do we survive? We come together and cooperate. How do we prosper? We come together and cooperate. If the parties aren't doing that, why do you think taking a side will save you?

 

For me, America is not a finite game. It is not about the interests of individual parties and groups. It is not about specific pet policy decisions for special interest groups (or voting blocs). I will not play your game. For me, America is about life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's security and happiness. I know my political values. I stated them. You responded with partisan policy complaints. That is the root of the problem this nation is facing.

 

I have zero patience for either party. Neither represent me or my political values. Neither represent the values our nation was founded on. They represent a hungry and intrusive administrative state. Both are pursuing their own short-term finite partisan interests. When they play to win on that level the people lose. I want a party that is running on the values its for rather than the people and policies it is against.

 

The GOP ran on "Not Obama. Not Clinton." They won. Now the Dems are running on "Not Trump." Maybe they'll win. But, that is valueless finite drivel. And that is the problem with Washington. They have lost sight of our most basic and traditional of values. The ones found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The aspirational glue that forms the WE in "We The People." And, so has the media. And so have stridently partisan voters.

 

I choose to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American. Its infinite because its value based.

 

Democrats good! Republicans bad!
Republicans good! Democrats bad!

 

Utter tosh. Petty finite interest driven nonsense. Both are playing against the very values this nation was founded to aspire towards.  You can choose to play that game if you want. I won't be joining you.

 

I really can't disagree more with this. The "values" discussion about some abstract notions that represent America is pointless. There are specific social outcomes that represent fundamental beliefs about the nature of humanity and the role of society vs. the individual that are at stake, and political policy outcomes are where the rubber hits the road on beliefs and values. What are you actually trying to get done? How are you actually trying to move social activities? How do you have a statistically significant affect on the social order that makes up your community, county, state, country... the world?

 

I've read your post several times, and while I get the sense of what you are against, I'm not sure at all what you are for? Some philosophical purity of concept? The parties may be pursuing their short term goals, but those pursuits affect the everyday lives of people across the world, and if supporting one over the other has significant ability to get closer to outcomes you desire, and oppose outcomes you loathe, then that is what you work towards. 

.

I'm not even sure what it means " to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American." What does that look like? How do you play that? What do you do, and how is it different than trying to get policy enacted? 

As far as I've ever experienced, the only people who espouse some kind of platonic ideal of pure "values" (whatever that is) are people who have traditionally been privileged enough to be at the top of the social order, where their "values" are just assumed to be correct and universal, thus morally superior to anyone who chooses to value anything else. 

[death tribble]

This will improve the political situation between America and Russia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45074380

[Hermit]

3 minutes ago, death tribble said:

This will improve the political situation between America and Russia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45074380

 

 

Oh that's what happened to that guy. 

 

I enjoyed one or two of his movies and then I stopped caring.

[Ternaugh]

The NRA is claiming that it is facing a financial crisis. Twitter users send "thoughts and prayers".

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/thoughts-and-prayers-twitter-responds-to-nra-saying-it-is-facing-a-financial-crisis.html

[Lord Liaden]

I generally don't wish misfortune on anyone. But I'll be honest, if this isn't just a ploy, and actually reflects the NRA's current reality... that brings a sadistic smile to my face.

[Old Man]

I would not be at all surprised if the NRA pulled a Cambridge Analytica and shut down in order to burn all the evidence of Russian collusion.

 

The GOP will promptly blame it on Obama. 

[Old Man]

Trump throws Don Jr. under the bus regarding the Trump Tower meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya that was, despite his protestations, not legal at all

[Old Man]

A helpful timeline from /r/worldnews, for those of you who may have thankfully missed an episode of this reality TV series:

 

 

"There was no collusion"

https://globalnews.ca/news/4337453/no-collusion-donald-trump-handwritten-note/

 

"There might have been collusion"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/30/no-collusion-oh-wait-maybe-collusion-but-collusions-not-a-crime/

 

"There was collusion but it wasn't me"

https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/william-f-b-o-reilly/what-if-there-was-collusion-and-trump-didn-t-know-about-it-1.17610996

 

"There was collusion and I did it but collusion is not illegal" <- You are here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/echoing-giuliani-s-defense-trump-now-says-collusion-not-crime-n896056

 

"There was collusion and I did it and it was illegal but it's not my fault"

 

Likely finishing off with

"There was collusion and I did it and it was illegal and it was my fault but you can't prosecute me because I'm the president and I'm pardoning myself"

 

 

[Zeropoint]

I sent a resignation letter to the NRA but haven't heard back from them. I guess if the whole organization collapses, that accomplishes the same goal.

[RDU Neil]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I generally don't wish misfortune on anyone. But I'll be honest, if this isn't just a ploy, and actually reflects the NRA's current reality... that brings a sadistic smile to my face.

 

Sadistic? Maybe not... but a heavy dose of schadenfreude... absolutely!

[Vondy]

On 8/3/2018 at 4:05 PM, Zeropoint said:

The republicans, on the other hand, are actively opposing everything Vondy says he's for. Anyone who values "maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American" needs to be opposing the Republicans wherever they can. Help us put this fire out, and then we can talk about fire prevention.

 

The democrats also oppose everything I'm for at present.' They're just coming at it from the opposite direction. Voting for the dems to spite the republicans won't "put the fire out" in terms of my political values. The house will still be a roaring inferno of debt and government infringements.  Please take the following as a tongue-in-cheek expression of a very serious sentiment:

 

I'm a good old libertarian.

That's just what I am.

And for your progressive politics

I do not give a damn.

 

The same goes for populist social conservative politics.  I don't see the dems as a lesser evil, just a different one. I voted libertarian and I'm proud to have done so. And, odds are, I'll be doing it again. Now, if the Dems would run a modern day JFK, I'd vote for them. Indeed, my parents were "Reagan Democrats" and I used to refer to myself as a "Kennedy Republican." But he could never win the DNC nomination today. He's too far right of center.

[Vondy]

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

--Thomas Sowell.

[TrickstaPriest]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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"?

 

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!"

[Dr.Device]

2 hours ago, Vondy said:

 

The democrats also oppose everything I'm for at present.' They're just coming at it from the opposite direction. Voting for the dems to spite the republicans won't "put the fire out" in terms of my political values. The house will still be a roaring inferno of debt and government infringements.  Please take the following as a tongue-in-cheek expression of a very serious sentiment:

 

I'm a good old libertarian.

That's just what I am.

And for your progressive politics

I do not give a damn.

 

The same goes for populist social conservative politics.  I don't see the dems as a lesser evil, just a different one. I voted libertarian and I'm proud to have done so. And, odds are, I'll be doing it again. Now, if the Dems would run a modern day JFK, I'd vote for them. Indeed, my parents were "Reagan Democrats" and I used to refer to myself as a "Kennedy Republican." But he could never win the DNC nomination today. He's too far right of center.

 

As TrickstaPriest points out, if it's the debt you're worried about you should be voting for the Democrats. The Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility, but only when they aren't the ones in charge. When they are, all that goes out the window.

 

As for the infringement of rights, what rights are the ones you are concerned about? What vital rights do you see the Democrats wanting to infringe? 

 

Because from where I sit, the Republicans consistently try to restrict the rights of the people. Restricting the right to vote. Restricting the right to bodily autonomy. 

 

Republicans accuse Democrats of attacking the Freedom of Religion, but I don't see it.

 

What is it that you are for, that the Democrats are attacking?

 

 

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

(If I could vote a party that I believed would help with global warming, I probably would give "little a damn" what party they were.  But I might have second thoughts if they espoused dialogue that made me think "you know, maybe they actually do hate most other people.  why should I trust them with the fate of the people?")

 

Vondy, I may have been cruel here, however.  Who knows if a government like what you propose could work. 

But I do know someone like 'Thomas Sowell' is gaslighting if he's saying "leftist countries don't exist".

 

I don't really care if people talk about Republicans and Democrats.  I've heard well reasoned arguments from either.

 

"I think" the real problem is that modern economics is not working.  It's almost like we've stopped regulating Wall Street, regulating major companies, preventing monopolies, and started accepting unlimited bribes in politics.  That system didn't work well in Russia, either...

[Zeropoint]

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

Voting for the dems to spite the republicans won't "put the fire out" in terms of my political values.

You misunderstand, or misrepresent. I'm not voting Democrat to spite the Republicans; I'm voting Democrat to stop the Republicans. If you can't see a meaningful difference between the policies and goals of the two parties, then your understanding of the world is so different from mine that I don't see how we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject.

[st barbara]

The NRA running out of money ? That is the National Rifle Association that is being talked about, right ? How many members does it have ? I would guess in the millions. So how much money does it get from its members and what does it do with that money ? Seems bizarre to me. Maybe we should check the bank accounts of the NRA's executives .

[dmjalund]

48 minutes ago, st barbara said:

Maybe we should check the bank accounts of the NRA's executives .

particularly the banks in the Caymans

[Lord Liaden]

Well, according to Wikipedia, the NRA self-reported a membership of 6 million in 2018. Its reported revenue was $433.9 million in 2016, but its expenses the same year totaled $475.9 million.

[Pattern Ghost]

Sounds like some creative accounting.

[Doc Democracy]

6 hours ago, Zeropoint said:

You misunderstand, or misrepresent. I'm not voting Democrat to spite the Republicans; I'm voting Democrat to stop the Republicans. If you can't see a meaningful difference between the policies and goals of the two parties, then your understanding of the world is so different from mine that I don't see how we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject.

 

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.

 

Parties are new things in western politics and they make it easy for politicians to decide how to vote.  I think that anything that makes it easy for politicians to decide how to vote is probably bad for democracy.  I want my politicians to go to their parliament, to become informed and to make decisions that I am not able to make.  I want my politicians to base their decisions on what they think is right rather than on the uninformed opinions prevalent on the internet or the pre-baked policies of the parties to which they are affiliated.

 

The onus is on us, the electorate, to engage with the system, I believe we get the politicians we deserve and as long as we base our voting decisions on shortcut things like what party the politician declares allegiance to, we will continue to get politicians that game the system.

 

it is like D&Ders that declare their character is chaotic good, but effectively play as neutral evil. ?. We need to find a way to label politicians with the label that fits their actions rather than the label they want to wear.  I think the only way is for us to be willing to take a greater interest in who our politicians are and on building institutions we can trust to provide us with real information rather than the selective presentation of data we currently get.

 

No idea how we get there though, most people are content in their tribalism either because they like their tribe or see supporting the other tribe as the only way to defeat the one they like least...

 

Doc

[BoloOfEarth]

5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Well, according to Wikipedia, the NRA self-reported a membership of 6 million in 2018. Its reported revenue was $433.9 million in 2016, but its expenses the same year totaled $475.9 million.

 

Expenses of $475.9 million?  Holy crap.  What is the going rate for a politician nowadays, anyway?

 

I mean, do donations to politicians' campaigns count as an "expense"?  If so, then boo hoo, Nancy Drew, they just need to stop throwing so much money at politicians, and they're flush.

[Lord Liaden]

3 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.

 

Parties are new things in western politics and they make it easy for politicians to decide how to vote.  I think that anything that makes it easy for politicians to decide how to vote is probably bad for democracy.  I want my politicians to go to their parliament, to become informed and to make decisions that I am not able to make.  I want my politicians to base their decisions on what they think is right rather than on the uninformed opinions prevalent on the internet or the pre-baked policies of the parties to which they are affiliated.

 

 

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.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your position as to what politicians should do... in principle.   Practically speaking, though, political parties are a functional advantage in a system where number of votes count in passing legislation. Unity on issues makes it more likely those issues will be addressed. But the United States effectively has a two-party system, which IMHO makes voting for another party, or an independent, pretty much a waste as far as getting whatever agenda you voted for being enacted. Even if you consider that both parties represent an "evil," not voting for the lesser of them increases the chance the greater one will get into power.

 

Canada is supposed to be a multi-party parliamentary system like the UK, but over the past several decades the politics of my birth-province of Quebec came to be dominated by two provincial parties: the Liberals, who are "federalist" (supporting the province remaining part of Canada), and the Parti Quebecois, the "sovereignists" (promoting Quebec independence). Every provincial election was colored by those two options. Whatever you thought of either political party, whatever else about their platforms you agreed with or disliked, you always knew your vote would become about that sooner or later.

 

Polarization of political dichotomies ends up holding the electorate hostage.