Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[薔薇語]

16 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Well, we know what was in the tax returns now.  Raise your hand if you're surprised by the blatant fraud.

 

What? I don't know the story you are referencing. 

 

La Rose.

[Lord Liaden]

Probably this story from the New York Times.

 

And no, Old Man, I'm not raising my hand. The sheer number of flat-out lies from the man already on public record, leave me unsurprised by any report of deception from him, whether or not a particular one proves valid.

[megaplayboy]

1 hour ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

You keep wanting to equate Senators with House-Reps. Senators were designed to protect the explicit interests of small urban states against large rural states at creation. They were also suppose to ensure the states could have a say in the level of federalism being observed. So trying to expect this office to somehow be based on proportional population would be an odd desire inconsistent with the office's design. 

I am not saying you are incorrect in your view of how illsuited senators are at representing proportionality, but that you are incorrect in desiring that of an office explicitly not designed for that purpose. 

La Rose. 

Senators are chosen by direct election, ergo they represent the interests of those who vote for them.  They are no longer selected by state governments.  The Senate, as a result of rent-seeking and the predominance of a conservative(risk-averse, status quo) mindset, is where progress goes to die.  Particularly with the use of the legislative filibuster, in combination with over-empowering Wyoming et al at the expense of California et al, matters of great import to major population centers get shut down by people representing a narrow minority.  Any equity gained for poor Wyoming and its half million citizens is at the expense of equity lost for 40 million Californians.   

 

Ultimately, as these disparities further widen, I think some form of reform or even abolition and transfer of responsibilities will have to happen.  Perhaps on the 250th or 300th anniversary of ratification we will be ready for a new and modern Constitution.  

[薔薇語]

"Libertarians Cover the Polling Spread in 4 Senate Races. It's running strong candidates in toss-up races in a historically tight election year, yet America's third party still finds itself routinely left off polls."

 

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/03/libertarians-covering-the-polling-spread

 

La Rose. 

[Ternaugh]

16 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Senators are chosen by direct election, ergo they represent the interests of those who vote for them.  They are no longer selected by state governments.  The Senate, as a result of rent-seeking and the predominance of a conservative(risk-averse, status quo) mindset, is where progress goes to die.  Particularly with the use of the legislative filibuster, in combination with over-empowering Wyoming et al at the expense of California et al, matters of great import to major population centers get shut down by people representing a narrow minority.  Any equity gained for poor Wyoming and its half million citizens is at the expense of equity lost for 40 million Californians.   

 

Ultimately, as these disparities further widen, I think some form of reform or even abolition and transfer of responsibilities will have to happen.  Perhaps on the 250th or 300th anniversary of ratification we will be ready for a new and modern Constitution.  

 

So, what you are arguing is that there needs to be some sort of proportional representation based upon population?

 

Where would we House something like that?

[Cygnia]

The Cruelty Is the Point

Quote

The Trump era is such a whirlwind of cruelty that it can be hard to keep track. This week alone, the news broke that the Trump administration was seeking to ethnically cleanse more than 193,000 American children of immigrants whose temporary protected status had been revoked by the administration, that the Department of Homeland Security had lied about creating a database of children that would make it possible to unite them with the families the Trump administration had arbitrarily destroyed, that the White House was considering a blanket ban on visas for Chinese students, and that it would deny visas to the same-sex partners of foreign officials. At a rally in Mississippi, a crowd of Trump supporters cheered as the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who has said that Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump has nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, attempted to rape her when she was a teenager. “Lock her up!” they shouted.

 

Ford testified to the Senate, utilizing her professional expertise to describe the encounter, that one of the parts of the incident she remembered most was Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge laughing at her as Kavanaugh fumbled at her clothing. “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” Ford said, referring to the part of the brain that processes emotion and memory, “the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.” And then at Tuesday’s rally, the president made his supporters laugh at her.

Even those who believe that Ford fabricated her account, or was mistaken in its details, can see that the president’s mocking of her testimony renders all sexual-assault survivors collateral damage. Anyone afraid of coming forward, afraid that they would not be believed, can now look to the president to see their fears realized. Once malice is embraced as a virtue, it is impossible to contain.

 

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

What? I don't know the story you are referencing. 

 

La Rose.

 

I do respect the fact that you exit the right wing news bubble from time to time to pop your head in here.  Many people on either side stay where their preconceived worldviews are not challenged.

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

I do respect the fact that you exit the right wing news bubble from time to time to pop your head in here.  Many people on either side stay where their preconceived worldviews are not challenged.

 

Huh? 

 

I have only one right wing source I listen to regularly and that person is largely anti Pres. Trump. Most of my news feeds are left wing, Libertarian or broadly centrist. 

 

You are of course free to think as you will, but perhaps before claiming someone is in a bubble, you'd be best to learn more about that person. Just a thought. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

 

[megaplayboy]

There's a 14000 word article in the NY Times about the Trump family and how they evaded a bunch of estate taxes in what sounds like a fraudulent tax scheme/scam.  It also paints DJT as basically the opposite of a self made man.

[Ranxerox]

2 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

Huh? 

 

I have only one right wing source I listen to regularly and that person is largely anti Pres. Trump. Most of my news feeds are left wing, Libertarian or broadly centrist. 

 

You are of course free to think as you will, but perhaps before claiming someone is in a bubble, you'd be best to learn more about that person. Just a thought. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

A little pedantic I know, but Libertarians are considered part of the right wing under the traditional pro-capitalist definition of the term.

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

 

A little pedantic I know, but Libertarians are considered part of the right wing under the traditional pro-capitalist definition of the term.

 

 

And what of all the positions the Libertarians take in contrast to the the traditional right of the US? If people think of Libertarians as 'right wing' I worry that they are not really aware of what it means to be Libertarian or Right-wing in the US context or perhaps so far left that even centrists are right wing. And if one is defining 'right wing' as merely 'pro-capitalist' then we need to have a long talk about Le Pen in France cause she is solidly left wing, President Macron is to her Right and the fact that will mean redefining most right wing parties in Europe as solidly left wing. That seems like a bit of a stretch. 

 

La Rose. 

 

[DShomshak]

I recommend listening to the Oct. 2, 2028 episode of the public radio program Fresh Air. The guest is Michael Lewis (Liar's Poker, The Big Short, Moneyball), talking about his latest book, The Fifth Risk. It's about what the Trump administration is doing to the boring Cabinet departments that people don't think about much, such as Commerce and Energy. Lewis has reported on this for a year now (the magazine Vanity Fair was mentioned). Now he pulls it together.

 

Lewis' argument, in a nutshell, is that much of what government does is manage risks that no individual, company or lesser body could do much about. Many of them are long-term and diffuse, such as climate change or weather events, so many people don't even think of them. What government does to manage these risks therefore goes unnoticed. And now it's all in the hands of a man who never thought he needed to know how government works, appointing people who are equally ignorant or actively hostile -- when he appoints them at all.

 

Lewis ends with an anecdote about a woman he met who wished for years that a tornado would come and just rip away this decrepit old barn on her property. It finally happened. But... "I didn't think it would also take the house." A lesson for all those people who want to get rid of the "deep state," when they don't even know what it does.

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

Well, psychologist Jonathan Haight finds pretty major differences between libertarians and conservatives in his "Moral Foundations" research. See his book, The Righteous Mind, for details. They tend to vote along with Republican/conservatives more than Democrat/liberals, though. That may be more a function of the left having strong statist and anti-corporate streaks more than real sympathy between, say, Ayn Rand fans and Christian conservatives. A common enemy rather than real alliance. But I'm speculating there and won't argue if anyone says I'm wrong (on either count).

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

Misspelled name: It's Haidt, not Haight. (Sorry, my computer freezes up when I try to use the Edit function.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[薔薇語]

5 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Well, psychologist Jonathan Haight finds pretty major differences between libertarians and conservatives in his "Moral Foundations" research. See his book, The Righteous Mind, for details. They tend to vote along with Republican/conservatives more than Democrat/liberals, though. That may be more a function of the left having strong statist and anti-corporate streaks more than real sympathy between, say, Ayn Rand fans and Christian conservatives. A common enemy rather than real alliance. But I'm speculating there and won't argue if anyone says I'm wrong (on either count).

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Prof Haidt is a good author and that book is particularly well done. I just recently finished his newest one "The coddling of the American mind". 

 

In terms of overlap regarding moral intuitions, Typical Liberals and Typical Libertarians share the most in common, not Conservatives per his research. 

 

La Rose. 

 

[Lord Liaden]

Canada relieved trade deal done, won't forget Trump attacks

 

For Canada and U.S., ‘That Relationship Is Gone’ After Bitter Nafta Talks

 

One point from the first article really stood out for me: Bothwell, the University of Toronto professor, warned of lingering damage to relations. "Trump treated it like a real estate deal when he was a shyster in Atlantic City," Bothwell said. "But this is nation to nation. And that's different. And it's connected to other things," he added. "Trump really doesn't grasp that and doesn't care."

[Joe Walsh]

51 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

"Trump really doesn't grasp that and doesn't care."

 

The Trump presidency in a nutshell.

 

[megaplayboy]

I am in a depression group that meets once a week.   A woman in the group started talking about her experience with sexual assault and the feelings that recent news events triggered in her.  During the course of the discussion,  four other women (and one man) disclosed that they had been raped or sexually assaulted.   I was overwhelmed by the horror of that.  I think men(not all etc yadda yadda disclaimer) tend to downplay or be skeptical about claims of assault, to an unwarranted extent, and to not respond as empathetically as they/we should.   Less than 10 percent of sexual assault cases involve false allegations.   I am hopeful that this attitude will improve steadily over time,  but the anger over it is quite real, and likely will be felt in a few weeks from now.

[DShomshak]

10 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

Prof Haidt is a good author and that book is particularly well done. I just recently finished his newest one "The coddling of the American mind". 

 

In terms of overlap regarding moral intuitions, Typical Liberals and Typical Libertarians share the most in common, not Conservatives per his research. 

 

La Rose. 

 

An important point I forgot to mention. Thanks for covering it!

 

Dean Shomshak

[unclevlad]

Trump's done so much damage in so many areas, it's hard to recognize all of them.  I think the longest lasting will be how he's destroyed confidence and trust among our allies.  Yeah, the point that Trump treats everything like a real estate deal...and one he has to *personally* win, and that there's not jack that the other guy can do about it...cuz, he's TRUMP...is one that I saw some time ago.  Trump's idea of a 'deal' is he gets everything he wants.  Who gives a damn about what you want.

 

At this point, neither the Senate nor the House represent the will of the people.  They represent the will of the controlling factions of the parties...and the #1 factor there is, Don't Let the Other Guys In!!!  That's become the norm over the last few decades, at least, but I think the Trump factor has raised it yet higher.  I think this election is the most important we've ever had, at least in my lifetime (and I'm retired.)  If the voters don't push back at the ballot box, then Congress will continue to huddle belly-down.  Trump will be allowed to be even more abusive over the next 2 years.

 

Mind...what scares me the most is, this won't end with Trump's departure.  Maybe 8-10 years ago, the thought came to me that we are not a polis or polity, and we don't have a body politic.  Instead, we have poles.  Lots of them.  They act like magnets, drawing like-minded people in, and holding them there.  Self-reinforcing, because hey, all these people agree with me so I must be right!!!  No pole listens to, or certainly believes, any info not in alignment with the pole.  Trump is, at least so far, the ultimate polarizer.

[megaplayboy]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Trump's done so much damage in so many areas, it's hard to recognize all of them.  I think the longest lasting will be how he's destroyed confidence and trust among our allies.  Yeah, the point that Trump treats everything like a real estate deal...and one he has to *personally* win, and that there's not jack that the other guy can do about it...cuz, he's TRUMP...is one that I saw some time ago.  Trump's idea of a 'deal' is he gets everything he wants.  Who gives a damn about what you want.

 

At this point, neither the Senate nor the House represent the will of the people.  They represent the will of the controlling factions of the parties...and the #1 factor there is, Don't Let the Other Guys In!!!  That's become the norm over the last few decades, at least, but I think the Trump factor has raised it yet higher.  I think this election is the most important we've ever had, at least in my lifetime (and I'm retired.)  If the voters don't push back at the ballot box, then Congress will continue to huddle belly-down.  Trump will be allowed to be even more abusive over the next 2 years.

 

Mind...what scares me the most is, this won't end with Trump's departure.  Maybe 8-10 years ago, the thought came to me that we are not a polis or polity, and we don't have a body politic.  Instead, we have poles.  Lots of them.  They act like magnets, drawing like-minded people in, and holding them there.  Self-reinforcing, because hey, all these people agree with me so I must be right!!!  No pole listens to, or certainly believes, any info not in alignment with the pole.  Trump is, at least so far, the ultimate polarizer.

For one side to be amenable to compromise, the other side has to win consistently, over an extended period of time.  It has to be clear that their political appeal/approach just isn't working anymore.  That takes time.  Demographic changes are likely to drive this as much as anything else.  Losing 5 out of 6 presidential elections shifted Democrats in 1992.  It will take something like that for one party to shift significantly.  

[unclevlad]

Why iwould side that's winning consistently consider compromise?  Besides, the Dems have held the Senate for much of that period.

 

I think the problem has been so much split government, creating such a strong tendency to squelch action.  Can't give the other guys credit for anything!  Since Reagan, 97th Congress, the only sessions where the same party held the Senate, House, and White House...103rd,  107-109 under Bush Senior, 111 (Obama's election...atter which the Republicans went even further right to galvanize those voters)...and right now.  Assuming you consider Trump a Republican.  I can think of many other terms for him.

 

But it's also just gotten fundamentally fractious.  Anything that can be done to impede progress...will be, or at least BLOODY darn close.  

 

And the other change is the speed of retaliation.  Anyone remember the sci fi show Max Headroom?  It was other things, but a short-lived TV show.  The point I want to bring up is, the series used a TV station as its main venue.  Ratings were tracked literally minute by minute...and if they slipped for too many minutes...YANK!!!! Pull a bit, change shows, whatever.  Kneejerk reaction taken to its limits.  Well, with social media...we're not that far away.  Don't toe the line, and you will get RIPPED!!!! within hours.  Conformalist pressure.....not to your constituents, but to positions taken by the party...is immense.

 

 

[megaplayboy]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Why iwould side that's winning consistently consider compromise?  Besides, the Dems have held the Senate for much of that period.

 

I think the problem has been so much split government, creating such a strong tendency to squelch action.  Can't give the other guys credit for anything!  Since Reagan, 97th Congress, the only sessions where the same party held the Senate, House, and White House...103rd,  107-109 under Bush Senior, 111 (Obama's election...atter which the Republicans went even further right to galvanize those voters)...and right now.  Assuming you consider Trump a Republican.  I can think of many other terms for him.

 

But it's also just gotten fundamentally fractious.  Anything that can be done to impede progress...will be, or at least BLOODY darn close.  

 

And the other change is the speed of retaliation.  Anyone remember the sci fi show Max Headroom?  It was other things, but a short-lived TV show.  The point I want to bring up is, the series used a TV station as its main venue.  Ratings were tracked literally minute by minute...and if they slipped for too many minutes...YANK!!!! Pull a bit, change shows, whatever.  Kneejerk reaction taken to its limits.  Well, with social media...we're not that far away.  Don't toe the line, and you will get RIPPED!!!! within hours.  Conformalist pressure.....not to your constituents, but to positions taken by the party...is immense.

 

 

You misread me. The side that begins to lose consistently will be forced to make adjustments in its sales pitch, target audience, substantive policy proposals and, yes, tactics.  

[薔薇語]

A Recent NYTimes article by David Brooks. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-partisan-national-disgrace.html

"Commentators and others may have acknowledged uncertainty on these questions for about 2.5 seconds, but then they took sides. If they couldn’t take sides based on the original evidence, they found new reasons to confirm their previous positions. Kavanaugh is too angry and dishonest. He drank beer and threw ice while in college. With tribal warfare all around, uncertainty is the one state you are not permitted to be in.

 

This, of course, led to an upsurge in base mobilization. Persuasion is no longer an important part of public conversation. Public statements are meant to mobilize your mob. Senator Cory Booker can’t just sort through the evidence. He has to get Spartacus-like histrionic in order to whip Democrats toward his presidential candidacy. Kavanaugh can’t just dispassionately try to disprove the allegations made against him. Instead, he gets furious and stokes up culture war rage in order to fire up the Republican base.

 

This leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal.

 

This past month we’ve seen thousands of people convinced that they know how Kavanaugh behaved because they know how “privileged” people behave. We’ve seen thousands of people lining up behind Kavanaugh because they know that there’s this vicious thing called “the Left,” which hates them."

 

La Rose. 

[Starlord]

Win.  At all costs.

Win.  No matter what the cost.

Win.  Win.  Win.

 

IMO all exacerbated by extremes in deliberately divisive leadership (Trump) or weak, ineffectual leadership (Carter) which pushes both sides further and further apart.