Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Torchship » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:21 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:It does, unfortunately: I mean the Tea Party was essentially a bunch of gatherings to call Obama names, and it was effective. There's a pretty fine line between attacking effectively and going overboard. Mittens, for example, has imo, hurt himself with some of his attacks on Obama.


I don't think your conclusion quite follows. The Tea Party did extensively use low-value rhetoric and the Tea Party was extremely successful, but I've seen nothing to indicate that these two facts were associated causatively in any way. The Tea Party tapped into a large amount of broad-base dissatisfaction with existing political parties; it is likely that it would've been successful with or without making bad puns on the President's name (though extensive and quite vicious attacks on other parties are quite likely to have been necessary for the party's success, but this is another matter entirely).

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby leady » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:14 am UTC

Surely even in states the T-party has been a liability to republican electoral success? They just play to the their own base and alienate the floater.

Hell I suspect its resulted in Romney...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
bantler wrote:Let’s call a truce...
We’ll silence the dog-whistles and turn down the rhetoric and Anger-Points.
Nope. I like to win. Not for winning's sake, not because I'm competitive: because having Democrats in Office is crazy important to me. If I don't do this, I'm stupid. If a Republican tries to run against me without calling me a baby-killer or a socialist: they're stupid, and I'm going to laugh all the way to election day. This isn't a game of Risk I play with my family or even a sports game played by millionaires with tons of money on the line. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. Elections, are, in fact, life and death issues. Shit is very real.


That should be a reason to have MORE discussion and debate, and less name calling. Seriously, the name calling back and forth does fairly little to educate anyone. It means the determination is made by other things, such as how likable a person the candidate is, and who has the more advertising dollars from the rich corporation of the moment. This seems obviously undesirable.

Hey! Hey stop that. Hey your privelige is walking off with my issues. Look: I'm guessing your a straight guy. It's really easy to say you're going to push abortion and gay rights off the table. As a bisexual woman: THESE ARE BIG FUCKING DEALS. I want to get married to the girl I love, and I want to have an abortion if I need one. So I don't know who "we" is in this hypothetical of yours: but it's not me. (And check out my fellow Democrats: a lot of us give a lot of fucks about social issues.)


Look, abortion doesn't really NEED to be an issue. If it's left entirely as is...what's the problem? It's not like he's promoting banning them...just of no longer squabbling about minor changes to the existing status quo. Coming to an agreement to focus on a more pressing problem instead of endless bickering over the same old crap would be glorious.

I'm very skeptical that such a thing will happen, of course...but it'd be good if it did.

Gay rights are more problematic to leave as they are, since there's still a glaring inequality(marriage). If that hump could be crossed, I think we'd be in pretty equal camps...but that said, it need not be a strictly federal issue. My state(MD) is going to have a referendum on the topic soonly. Personally, I don't give a damn if it gets fixed at a state or a federal level. Either outcome is equally acceptable to me, so ima vote for it. I'm not gay, so it'll never benefit me personally, but it'll benefit others, and can't reasonably hurt me, so why not vote for it?

Taxes are too low on some people, some parts of American enterprise are too unregulated, and I don't think household financing has much to do with government finance: government can and should run deficits in some situations.


Not in all situations, though. And right now, that's what we currently do. I'm not against putting a little aside in the good times, and using a bit more in the bad...but the current situation is "spend more than we take in", regardless of economic situation or who's in charge of the economy. It's pretty rare for anything to end up differently, and we never have a balanced budget long enough to pay off our debt.

Sure, wild spending in say, WW2 was justified. Sometimes there are more important things that economic outcomes. But those situations are rare, and should not be turned into a standard way of doing business.

TheAmazingRando wrote:
Choboman wrote:I believe that the majority of the people, either on this board or in the population as a whole, believe in lower taxes, and expanded freedoms and benefit for THEMSELVES, while they mostly don't care how (or even if) it gets paid for.
People grumble about taxes, but they also grumble about waking up in the morning and having to pick up groceries. Get us decent public healthcare and better funding for education and transportation and then we can talk about lowering taxes. Reducing revenue when we can't even afford what we need doesn't seem like a good idea. I'm on board with tax breaks for those who would be otherwise overburdened, but that's about it.


Well, the problem is...you can't really have all those things. If we're buying all the things that both sides want, taxes have to go up, not down, to support the increased spending. Ain't no free lunches. In these areas, it ends up being kind of an either/or thing(at best! Given our current deficit, neither is also a pretty reasonable outcome).

Virtual_Aardvark wrote:I keep hearing from people how abortion and birth control (for example) is a social issue. But for a 21 year old, single, freelancer my ability to not have babies is pretty fucking economic. When queer people have disproportionately low access to housing and healthcare, equal rights starts to look economic.

So thanks for telling me my financial reality isn't one of the big important Economic Issues.


That's microeconomic, not macro...and I suspect the OP was talking solely in macro terms. That said, affect enough people at the micro level, and you've got a macro problem. Abortion legalization does have some generally positive side effects that people tend to not talk about much.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
GoldenJoe wrote:The democrats are full-blown socialist, but at least you know that's what they are.

It shows you just how far to the right the United States is if you consider Democrats to be "full-blown socialist[s]". Listen, if you want to take back the word "conservative", stop saying that Democrats are socialists.


A few socialists do vote democrat...just like some extreme right wing types vote repub. Closest real contender and all that...but yes, I agree that portraying an entire party as their most extreme element is generally inaccurate, and does fairly little to get us back to solving issues. Definitely best avoided.

GoldenJoe wrote:
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
GoldenJoe wrote:The democrats are full-blown socialist, but at least you know that's what they are.

It shows you just how far to the right the United States is if you consider Democrats to be "full-blown socialist[s]". Listen, if you want to take back the word "conservative", stop saying that Democrats are socialists.


Humor me. Give me a few examples of some democratic policies that have supported capitalism in the last ten years. Explain exactly how nationalized healthcare is not socialism.


Strictly speaking, free trade is pro capitalism, so NAFTA had some strong capitalistic elements, and of course, Clinton did help with the whole balanced budget thing. Sure, some of this credit goes to the congress/senate, and this includes republicans as well...but we did manage to make some solid progress overall during the Clinton years on economic issues. Sadly, we've done a lot less well on both sides since then.

Strictly speaking, The Affordable Care Act is corporatist, which is neither socialistic nor capitalistic. A pure socialist solution would have cut the insurance companies out entirely, for instance. Guaranteeing them profits by mandating insurance is...mostly a pro-corporation move. Now, there are some other elements that are not corporatist, but the mandate seems to be what everyone's talking about.

As for the bailout being socialist...it was a corporate bailout, not one for the average consumer. It also falls pretty clearly into the area of advancing the interests of specific corporations...and the first such bailout took place under Bush. So, it was pretty bipartisan. Both sides get piles of money from corporations, and in return, protect their interests to a degree. That is not exactly the same thing as capitalism.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I'm not interested in Democrats vs. Republicans; as far as I'm concerned, they're just two sides of the same capitalist coin. As someone who actually calls herself a communist, I hated the bailouts. Instead of government interfering in the free market (I believe this is the conservatives' chief complaint), I saw the imperialists using the people's money to rescue a symbol of the dying capitalist system. If they were socialists, they would have gained control entirely or let it die, using the momentum to dismantle the capitalist class.


Nah. The upper class has money in more than just banks and the auto industry and such. Letting the companies die would have simply pruned away the unhealthy companies making poor decisions. That's a necessary part of capitalism, and one people forget about. Not every company can be successful....competition will inevitably kill off those making terrible decisions eventually. Had this happened, there would still be rich people...and hell, there'd have still been some banks standing(who would have done fantastically in the newly opened up market). The ones who avoided the questionable deals, or invested in them only cautiously. And yeah, those are the ones I'd rather have around.

This is actually something on which most political ideologies agree...those that support corporate bailouts are actually pretty unpopular among the electorate. Economists too, for that matter. IIRC, the news of the first bailout discussed that 80% of the population was against it, and 95% of economists were against it. This somewhat calls into question how effectively our representatives represent us, the voters.

Libertarians disagree that the real free market will lead to monopolies. Be clear that this means rejection of Intelectual Property (IP). My current conclusion is that innovation will bring inbalances (due to secrecy even without IP) and probably monopolies.


As a libertarian, I have to point out that historically, most companies that achieved a monopoly did so with pretty overt government assistance. Now, this doesn't mean I think we need to repeal anti-monopoly laws...we need something to prosecute those who do such a thing, yes? I merely think that much of current monopolization is a result of corporate influence in government.

The Great Hippo wrote:EDIT: To anyone who actually is interested in discussing things: I wanted to add that ideology--particularly political, but most ideology in general--strikes me as a dangerous policy. Ideology inevitably incorporates some manner of self-defense to protect itself from outside criticism--and as this self-defense becomes more sophisticated, it risks digging itself deeper and deeper into a hole that rejects any challenge regardless of its relevance. And when part of this self-defense system becomes 'People who aren't members of my ideological party have no valid criticisms of my ideology', you're in serious trouble. Enemies are wrong because they are enemies; people who defy any tenet of the ideology are enemies of that ideology, and therefore wrong. You end up with this 'ideological black hole' from which nothing original or useful can ever emerge, because anything that challenges your ideology is an enemy and enemies are always wrong. It's a self-perpetuating loop of ignorance and there really doesn't seem to be any easy way out.


Acceptance of a single ideology as the one truth, and the rest as evil lies is usually....not a good idea. Now sure, you're likely to trend towards one ideology, since there's usually a fair degree of internal consistency in them...but at a minimum, you should read through and understand them.

For instance, someone brought up communism earlier. I'm no communist, but I've read Marx. He's important to understand the history of political economics, and hell, his discussion of the flaws of the industrial age were pretty accurate. His predictions for the future were rather less useful, but hey, predicting the future is tricky business. As we moved past the industrial age and mostly solved our concerns in other ways, it's still useful to look backward at such people, even if we currently have a lot more information now than they did then.

Ideologies are like models(I missed your statement of this initially...but yeah, it's correct). All models are inaccurate, but some are more inaccurate than others(or have different areas they predict better, for complex models). Inaccurate need not mean "not useful". Everyone seems to rail against socialism a lot...but the system does work in certain situations. Communes and the like have been tried out, and they generally work for certain population sizes(I hypothesize a relationship to the concept of a monkeysphere here), but tend to face problems as they grow large. Socialism isn't the answer to everything...but it's useful to understand what it is, and then you can see if its related to the current problem.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Nordic Einar » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Can we please stop talking about Gay Marriage as the End All-Be All of LGBT rights? Even if it didn't do a vast disservice to trans* folks by largely ignoring them completely, it even manages to do a vast disservice to many LGB folks who can still be fired for their sexual orientation, or denied housing, or any number of much more serious inequalities than marriage rights.

ENDA is a perfect example of a 'social policy' issue that is also inherently an economic one.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby bantler » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:Can we please stop talking about Gay Marriage as the End All-Be All of LGBT rights? Even if it didn't do a vast disservice to trans* folks by largely ignoring them completely, it even manages to do a vast disservice to many LGB folks who can still be fired for their sexual orientation, or denied housing, or any number of much more serious inequalities than marriage rights.

ENDA is a perfect example of a 'social policy' issue that is also inherently an economic one.


Can we please stop inserting sexuality into every policy?
On the flip-side consider how annoying frat-boy boners are.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Look, abortion doesn't really NEED to be an issue. If it's left entirely as is...what's the problem? It's not like he's promoting banning them...just of no longer squabbling about minor changes to the existing status quo. Coming to an agreement to focus on a more pressing problem instead of endless bickering over the same old crap would be glorious.


...Banning abortions is a specific plank in the Republican party platform, and literally hundreds of bills banning (state and federal) or restricting abortion access have been proposed over the last two years. I agree that it is entirely a waste of time and resources to be fighting over this issue, but the Republicans and pro-lifers appear to disagree. I make no claims about the accuracy of the analysis on the site but, for interest's sake, at least, here's some analysis looking at the number of bills introduced on various issues by House Republicans.

Tyndmyr wrote:A few socialists do vote democrat...just like some extreme right wing types vote repub. Closest real contender and all that...but yes, I agree that portraying an entire party as their most extreme element is generally inaccurate, and does fairly little to get us back to solving issues. Definitely best avoided.


I think this is also an Overton window type of problem as well. Here in Canada, the Democrats would be centre-right, or even just straight right-wing. I think it'd be a toss-up as to whether or not they'd be to the right of our most right-wing party (Conservative Party of Canada)--on some issues, they definitely are, but on others, they're still to the left.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:Can we please stop talking about Gay Marriage as the End All-Be All of LGBT rights? Even if it didn't do a vast disservice to trans* folks by largely ignoring them completely, it even manages to do a vast disservice to many LGB folks who can still be fired for their sexual orientation, or denied housing, or any number of much more serious inequalities than marriage rights.

ENDA is a perfect example of a 'social policy' issue that is also inherently an economic one.


IF you can get married as gay or straight, then why would a trans person have any issue getting married? It sounds like anyone can get married to whoever they please, which sounds just like equality.

Yes, you may face people from the private sector who discriminate. This, unfortunately, is a fact of life. it's unlikely to change anytime soon, and I strongly doubt that laws are much of a fix here. The gay marriage issue is the big one, it's a glaring inequity that doesn't really have obvious parallels in the modern time(you'd have to go back to interracial marriages to find a good one). People not liking you because of who you are/your lifestyle? Yeah, well, they may be jackasses, but such things happen basically all the time, laws or no. Laws can't fix everything.

LaserGuy wrote:...Banning abortions is a specific plank in the Republican party platform, and literally hundreds of bills banning (state and federal) or restricting abortion access have been proposed over the last two years. I agree that it is entirely a waste of time and resources to be fighting over this issue, but the Republicans and pro-lifers appear to disagree. I make no claims about the accuracy of the analysis on the site but, for interest's sake, at least, here's some analysis looking at the number of bills introduced on various issues by House Republicans.


Oh, I agree that this is unlikely to happen in practice. This is pure theorizing. Lots of people, frankly, LIKE being in one camp, and demonizing the other, and fighting the same old battles endlessly.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Silknor » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:48 pm UTC

IF you can get married as gay or straight, then why would a trans person have any issue getting married? It sounds like anyone can get married to whoever they please, which sounds just like equality.


I think his point was that trans* people face a lot of policy issues and discrimination besides marriage equality, not that allowing same-sex marriage wouldn't be enough to ensure equality in marriage for trans* people.

Yes, you may face people from the private sector who discriminate. This, unfortunately, is a fact of life. it's unlikely to change anytime soon, and I strongly doubt that laws are much of a fix here.


Is there a reason then to have laws that prevent discrimination in employment, housing, and other areas on the basis of race, religion, and sex, but not on the basis of sexual orientation? I can see an argument for either banning private discrimination on all of those factors (and more), or on none of those factors. But I don't see a strong argument for a status quo that protects some of those factors. I don't want to wrongly ascribe that position to you, but it is out there: it seems a lot of Republican politicians hold it (not a whole lot of support for Rand Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act among those who voted against EDNA).
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:
IF you can get married as gay or straight, then why would a trans person have any issue getting married? It sounds like anyone can get married to whoever they please, which sounds just like equality.


I think his point was that trans* people face a lot of policy issues and discrimination besides marriage equality, not that allowing same-sex marriage wouldn't be enough to ensure equality in marriage for trans* people.

Yes, you may face people from the private sector who discriminate. This, unfortunately, is a fact of life. it's unlikely to change anytime soon, and I strongly doubt that laws are much of a fix here.


Is there a reason then to have laws that prevent discrimination in employment, housing, and other areas on the basis of race, religion, and sex, but not on the basis of sexual orientation? I can see an argument for either banning private discrimination on all of those factors (and more), or on none of those factors. But I don't see a strong argument for a status quo that protects some of those factors. I don't want to wrongly ascribe that position to you, but it is out there: it seems a lot of Republican politicians hold it (not a whole lot of support for Rand Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act among those who voted against EDNA).


Sex is already a protected class. I can see no particular reason why that wouldn't apply to trans people, if that's his beef.

That said, I think the reliance on protected statuses is pretty ineffective in practices. Oh sure, the place may not fire you for being a woman. They can make up a bullshit reason, or simply give no reason at all. It's only of use in catching the very dumbest of folks. You can't really legislate not being a jackass. All you can really do is make people hide it, and frankly, I'm not sure that's much of a benefit. I view people trumpeting stupid ideas as a natural warning side showing who we should avoid.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Acceptance of a single ideology as the one truth, and the rest as evil lies is usually....not a good idea. Now sure, you're likely to trend towards one ideology, since there's usually a fair degree of internal consistency in them...but at a minimum, you should read through and understand them.

For instance, someone brought up communism earlier. I'm no communist, but I've read Marx. He's important to understand the history of political economics, and hell, his discussion of the flaws of the industrial age were pretty accurate. His predictions for the future were rather less useful, but hey, predicting the future is tricky business. As we moved past the industrial age and mostly solved our concerns in other ways, it's still useful to look backward at such people, even if we currently have a lot more information now than they did then.

Ideologies are like models(I missed your statement of this initially...but yeah, it's correct). All models are inaccurate, but some are more inaccurate than others(or have different areas they predict better, for complex models). Inaccurate need not mean "not useful". Everyone seems to rail against socialism a lot...but the system does work in certain situations. Communes and the like have been tried out, and they generally work for certain population sizes(I hypothesize a relationship to the concept of a monkeysphere here), but tend to face problems as they grow large. Socialism isn't the answer to everything...but it's useful to understand what it is, and then you can see if its related to the current problem.
My check for this: When you start using people's ideologies as a pejorative, you're in trouble. Particularly when they don't tell you if that's their ideology (you just infer it from the things they're saying). Example: "Right, that's what a liberal would say..." -- "Oh, jeez, not another play from the Republican handbook!"

If your ideology has evolved to a point where it dismisses criticism from other ideologies--and assigns these 'negative ideologies' to people who disagree with it ("Only liberals disagree with conservatives", or "People who don't embrace capitalism are socialists", or "People who don't embrace socialism are capitalists"), you've stepped into a bad place.

There is a time and a place for assigning ideologies to people (when it increases clarity and explains your position in relation to theirs), but pejorative uses intended to dismiss or reduce a person's position are a no-go.
Tyndmyr wrote:Sex is already a protected class. I can see no particular reason why that wouldn't apply to trans people, if that's his beef.

That said, I think the reliance on protected statuses is pretty ineffective in practices. Oh sure, the place may not fire you for being a woman. They can make up a bullshit reason, or simply give no reason at all. It's only of use in catching the very dumbest of folks. You can't really legislate not being a jackass. All you can really do is make people hide it, and frankly, I'm not sure that's much of a benefit. I view people trumpeting stupid ideas as a natural warning side showing who we should avoid.
I want the policies that lead to good outcomes. We can all agree that people being treated on the basis of their merits--not their sexuality, not their appearance, not their gender, not their race--is a good outcome. So the best policies are the ones that get us closer to that outcome. Let's call that outcome 'Z'.

You're criticizing a general policy (policies that protect vulnerable statuses) on a general principle (people might follow the policy in letter, but not in spirit). You're criticizing a very 'fuzzy' thing with another very 'fuzzy' thing. You might be 100% right (and, in fact, I think that's a problem we often observe! People find ways to obey the letter of the law but not the spirit of it all the friggin' time), but it's not clear that the benefit of policy X (moving us closer to Z) is outweighed by the cost of policy X (which moves us farther from Z) in all cases. There's a lot of really important information lost in all of this fuzziness.

And that's another piece of my point, and why I want to move these dialogues away from the fuzzy conjectures of fuzzy policy: The more clear we are, the more we understand--and the more we understand, the better equipped we are to move toward outcome Z. I mean, I can certainly think of some cases where protecting people of a vulnerable status gets us closer to Z (I'm sure you can, too--and I'm sure you were excluding those cases when you expressed the above, because they're so goddamn obvious and anyone who didn't think you were excluding them would be guilty of not reading your arguments in 'good faith'). I can think of other cases where it might get us closer to Z, but to be sure, we need to analyze the data a bit more closely.

What I'm saying is that the way out of the whole political ideological quagmire is to avoid fuzziness. Always strive to move from the general to the specific. Talk about policy--specific policy--its effect, its benefits, its cost. The more we move toward specificness, the stronger and more solution-oriented our dialogue becomes. It's a mix of fuzziness and blind ideology that makes the political scene so intellectually toxic--good policies never have a chance, because they have to navigate a fucking labyrinth of fuzzy conjectures and ideologically-driven opposition before even landing on the Congressional floor.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:53 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I want the policies that lead to good outcomes. We can all agree that people being treated on the basis of their merits--not their sexuality, not their appearance, not their gender, not their race--is a good outcome. So the best policies are the ones that get us closer to that outcome. Let's call that outcome 'Z'.

You're criticizing a general policy (policies that protect vulnerable statuses) on a general principle (people might follow the policy in letter, but not in spirit). You're criticizing a very 'fuzzy' thing with another very 'fuzzy' thing. You might be 100% right (and, in fact, I think that's a problem we often observe! People find ways to obey the letter of the law but not the spirit of it all the friggin' time), but it's not clear that the benefit of policy X (moving us closer to Z) is outweighed by the cost of policy X (which moves us farther from Z) in all cases. There's a lot of really important information lost in all of this fuzziness.


How often the letter of a law is maintained, but the spirit is not, is something that's inherently difficult to quantify. Still, if you prefer a source, wiki has a sourced summary....

"Violations of the Fair Housing Act

There are an estimated 2 million cases of housing discrimination each year according to HUD. The National Fair Housing Alliance, the largest fair housing non-profit in the country, estimates that number to be closer to 4 million per year, excluding instances of discrimination due to disability or familial status.[19] The actual number of Fair Housing Act violations is likely much higher than 4 million annually. However, between the years of 1989 and 1992 only 17 of these went to court nationwide."

Even taking the conservative estimate of 2 million cases, 17 court cases is a remarkably poor track record. Such a poorly enforced law is almost indistinguishable from no law whatsoever.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Silknor » Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sex is already a protected class. I can see no particular reason why that wouldn't apply to trans people, if that's his beef.


I'm sure someone else can provide more, but I'm not sure this is true. A quick search turned up this, which implied that while the EEOC agreed in a landmark decision earlier this year, federal courts had not made a ruling:

This case has far-reaching implications for employers, yet the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII is not necessarily dispositive. If a federal court determines that Congress in Title VII did not intend to include transgender bias within its prohibition on sex discrimination, then the EEOC’s interpretation will be rejected.

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=4078
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby cphite » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

bantler wrote:We are going to push every social issue off the table; there is no way to have a rational discussion while clinging to guns, bibles, abortions and gays.


Sorry, but no. Not possible. We can't do that, and frankly shouldn't do that. Since the government makes policy that directly effects social issues; it behooves us to remain informed and involved regarding what the people we elect believe about these issues.

It's not that it isn't possible to have rational discussions on these issues; the problem is that people don't make the effort. It's just so much easier to make emotional arguments that are intended to sway (or scare) people to one side or the other.

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Choboman » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:22 pm UTC

While social issues are important, and should be part of everyone's criteria for picking their appropriate candidate, I don't see why it's *impossible* to talk about economic theory without bringing them up. Just because the original poster wanted to talk about money instead of bibles doesn't mean that they're not important, but insisting "no we have to insert bibles [or abortion, or guns, or gay marriage, etc] into this discussion too!" seems like trolling to me.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Shivahn » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:10 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Sex is already a protected class. I can see no particular reason why that wouldn't apply to trans people, if that's his beef.


I'm sure someone else can provide more, but I'm not sure this is true. A quick search turned up this, which implied that while the EEOC agreed in a landmark decision earlier this year, federal courts had not made a ruling:

This case has far-reaching implications for employers, yet the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII is not necessarily dispositive. If a federal court determines that Congress in Title VII did not intend to include transgender bias within its prohibition on sex discrimination, then the EEOC’s interpretation will be rejected.

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=4078

It's true from a literal reading: if you can't discriminate on sex, then letting some people do some things and some people do other things divided up by sex, then you're discriminating based on sex.

As written, things like this should apply to trans people, but when most people say "don't discriminate on sex" they mean "treat both men and women the same, except for things where men and women are different."

More equal than others, free to worship God in any way they want, etc.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: The Last Honest Liberal

Postby Derek » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:16 pm UTC

leady wrote:Surely even in states the T-party has been a liability to republican electoral success? They just play to the their own base and alienate the floater.

Hell I suspect its resulted in Romney...

The Tea Party hated Romney. He represents the Republican Establishment and passed Romneycare while Governor. There is basically nothing for a Tea Partier to like about him other than being "not Obama".

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:30 am UTC

Romney is only in the race because he doesn't have a position on any issue other than tax cuts and spending cuts (and even then, no details). This is the only possible way a Republican can get elected in the current environment. If he is a moderate conservative, he won't get the tea-party base. If he is a tea-party conservative, he won't get any of the swing vote. If it wasn't for the tea-party movement, the Republicans could have put in a moderate and had a good chance of winning. However, that would have still required them blocking all bills in the senate that would help the economy. Had they not done that, it would be an easy win for Obama regardless of the candidate.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Metaphysician
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:58 pm UTC
Location: WV, The Tenth Circle of Hell

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Metaphysician » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:58 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Romney is only in the race because he doesn't have a position on any issue other than tax cuts and spending cuts (and even then, no details). This is the only possible way a Republican can get elected in the current environment. If he is a moderate conservative, he won't get the tea-party base. If he is a tea-party conservative, he won't get any of the swing vote. If it wasn't for the tea-party movement, the Republicans could have put in a moderate and had a good chance of winning. However, that would have still required them blocking all bills in the senate that would help the economy. Had they not done that, it would be an easy win for Obama regardless of the candidate.


This is actually very true. I am a freelance writer and researcher and while working on researching an infographic comparing Obama and Romney on various issues, I realized that Romney has almost never said anything of any substance about anything. It was infuriating trying to pin down his actual beliefs. Obama was honestly the same way, except that I could look at the last four years as president, but these guys are both the perfect politician, they almost never say anything that can hurt themselves. Although the new video with Romney talking about how "poor people think they're entitled to things like food, and housing" was very telling.
What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured.
-Kurt Vonnegut

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:55 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Romney is only in the race because he doesn't have a position on any issue other than tax cuts and spending cuts (and even then, no details). This is the only possible way a Republican can get elected in the current environment. If he is a moderate conservative, he won't get the tea-party base. If he is a tea-party conservative, he won't get any of the swing vote. If it wasn't for the tea-party movement, the Republicans could have put in a moderate and had a good chance of winning. However, that would have still required them blocking all bills in the senate that would help the economy. Had they not done that, it would be an easy win for Obama regardless of the candidate.


Romney is a moderate. He's basically as moderate as they come. This dude has signed off on notable gun control legislation and gone in for state-run health care. Bachman wasn't moderate. Perry was somewhat less moderate. Santorum wasn't moderate. the Ronpaul wasn't moderate. Hell, Cain wasn't moderate.

However, the lack of positions...yes. That's a real thing. Trying to evaluate the truth of his economic statements, this was blindingly frustrating. I eventually came to the conclusion that there's no possible way to reconcile his various statements in any meaningful way, and as almost everything is ridiculously generic, his campaign platform can be boiled down to "More goodness, less badness".

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Роберт » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:13 pm UTC

Metaphysician wrote:This is actually very true. I am a freelance writer and researcher and while working on researching an infographic comparing Obama and Romney on various issues, I realized that Romney has almost never said anything of any substance about anything. It was infuriating trying to pin down his actual beliefs. Obama was honestly the same way
We said that four years ago: "All he's talked about are 'hope' and 'change', but what about actually policy?"

Now we know he's for the president's power to have American citizens assassinated without normal trials, and for drone strikes on people who haven't been confirmed as terrorists, and a lot of other bad stuff.
EDIT: and I have no reason to believe Romney would be any better in that regard.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

It's actually kind of terrible, because Lord knows I'm not really interested in Obama, but fuck knows I'm not interested in Romney. It's like choosing between shoving my hand into a bag full of roadkill or full of angry, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth badgers.

Yeah, yeah, I'll take the roadkill, but I'm not gonna like it. Fuck you, American politics.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Now we know he's for the president's power to have American citizens assassinated without normal trials, and for drone strikes on people who haven't been confirmed as terrorists, and a lot of other bad stuff.


The Sixth:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Loosely, if crimes are not committed in a state or district, the sixth amendment doesn’t apply.
The context of foreign-crime is considered an act of treason. It's War.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

bantler wrote:The Sixth:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Loosely, if crimes are not committed in a state or district, the sixth amendment doesn’t apply.
The context of foreign-crime is considered an act of treason. It's War.
Right--that was the rationalization. We can all see it's a pretty terrible one.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:19 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Right--that was the rationalization. We can all see it's a pretty terrible one.


Bad people dead. Yay?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Роберт » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:37 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:It's actually kind of terrible, because Lord knows I'm not really interested in Obama, but fuck knows I'm not interested in Romney. It's like choosing between shoving my hand into a bag full of roadkill or full of angry, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth badgers.

Yeah, yeah, I'll take the roadkill, but I'm not gonna like it. Fuck you, American politics.

Yeah, check your state. It's highly unlikely your vote will have any sort of reasonable chance of affecting the election. If that is true, I recommend voting, but for someone else. That way you can say "yes the roadkill sucks, (and the badgers would have been worse!) but I didn't vote for either.

Also, we need voting reform to get something better than first past the post.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:52 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Yeah, yeah, I'll take the roadkill, but I'm not gonna like it. Fuck you, American politics.

Yeah, check your state. It's highly unlikely your vote will have any sort of reasonable chance of affecting the election. If that is true, I recommend voting, but for someone else. That way you can say "yes the roadkill sucks, (and the badgers would have been worse!) but I didn't vote for either.

Reminds me of those Hedgers who leave the losing-party bumper sticker on their car long after the election so they can disavow responsibility and remain cantankerous.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Роберт » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:10 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
Роберт wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Yeah, yeah, I'll take the roadkill, but I'm not gonna like it. Fuck you, American politics.

Yeah, check your state. It's highly unlikely your vote will have any sort of reasonable chance of affecting the election. If that is true, I recommend voting, but for someone else. That way you can say "yes the roadkill sucks, (and the badgers would have been worse!) but I didn't vote for either.

Reminds me of those Hedgers who leave the losing-party bumper sticker on their car long after the election so they can disavow responsibility and remain cantankerous.

If we have a system that gives us to really crappy choices and by are actions we keep the system strong and impenetrable, we're contributing to the problem.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

bantler wrote:Loosely, if crimes are not committed in a state or district, the sixth amendment doesn’t apply.

Non-loosely, due process isn't founded in the Sixth Amendment.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Роберт » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:39 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
bantler wrote:Loosely, if crimes are not committed in a state or district, the sixth amendment doesn’t apply.

Non-loosely, due process isn't founded in the Sixth Amendment.

Didn't some people object to the bill of rights because it should have been clear already from the constitution, and spelling it out was likely to lead people to believe that stuff that wasn't spelled out in the bill of rights was A-OK?

I think they may have been on to something.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I think they may have been on to something.

Even the current Supreme Court has a few dissenting originalists (Thomas and Scalia).
It’s grey over there in the Middle-East where we are ostensibly nation-building. There would be a furor if a foreign nation acted as we do. Imagine if Mexico droned a cartel-kingpin in San Diego.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:It's actually kind of terrible, because Lord knows I'm not really interested in Obama, but fuck knows I'm not interested in Romney. It's like choosing between shoving my hand into a bag full of roadkill or full of angry, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth badgers.

Yeah, yeah, I'll take the roadkill, but I'm not gonna like it. Fuck you, American politics.


You can always join those of voting third party. I kind of hate both of the mainstream candidates myself.

Sixth amendment aside...I think some of these justifications are focusing very strictly on the word and not the spirit of the bill of rights. I think it's fairly easy to hold that due process and a speedy trial are some things that would be better enjoyed everywhere.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sixth amendment aside...I think some of these justifications are focusing very strictly on the word and not the spirit of the bill of rights. I think it's fairly easy to hold that due process and a speedy trial are some things that would be better enjoyed everywhere.


Just to be clear who/what we are talking about:

News:
"Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011, by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft."

Obama on Drone Attacks:
"It has to be a target that is authorized by our laws. It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative. It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States."

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Роберт » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Sixth amendment aside...I think some of these justifications are focusing very strictly on the word and not the spirit of the bill of rights. I think it's fairly easy to hold that due process and a speedy trial are some things that would be better enjoyed everywhere.


Just to be clear who/what we are talking about:

News:
"Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011, by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft."

Obama on Drone Attacks:
"It has to be a target that is authorized by our laws. It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative. It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States."

It's nice to have assurance from Obama that he only ever kills bad guys, eh? No worries anymore! :roll:
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:13 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
bantler wrote:Obama on Drone Attacks:
"It has to be a target that is authorized by our laws. It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative. It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States."

It's nice to have assurance from Obama that he only ever kills bad guys, eh? No worries anymore! :roll:


Assume the intelligence for a target meets Obama’s criteria; What is the drone alternative?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:16 pm UTC

Focusing on the drone aspect seems off to me. I don't really care about the mechanics of how something gets done...bullet, missile, bomb, drone, meh.

Ok, that's a lie. I'm actually fascinated by the tech behind drones. But morally, it seems irrelevant.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:22 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Focusing on the drone aspect seems off to me. I don't really care about the mechanics of how something gets done...bullet, missile, bomb, drone, meh.
Ok, that's a lie. I'm actually fascinated by the tech behind drones. But morally, it seems irrelevant.



Locally, police were called to a disturbance and were confronted by an old man pointing a pistol. He was shot. Undoubtedly there are several social failures contributing to the man’s possession of a firearm and lack of psychological help.

Nonetheless, pointing a gun at the police denied him a jury of his peers. Morality is irrelevant.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Роберт » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:26 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Focusing on the drone aspect seems off to me. I don't really care about the mechanics of how something gets done...bullet, missile, bomb, drone, meh.
Ok, that's a lie. I'm actually fascinated by the tech behind drones. But morally, it seems irrelevant.



Locally, police were called to a disturbance and were confronted by an old man pointing a pistol. He was shot. Undoubtedly there are several social failures contributing to the man’s possession of a firearm and lack of psychological help.

Nonetheless, pointing a gun at the police denied him a jury of his peers. Morality is irrelevant.

The police chief heard a murderous gang had their base in Apartment 105 on Speed Row Appts on main street. He orders his police squad to go in and kill everybody. They go in and see five guys of at least 18 years and kill them all. The police chief gives his word that this is the only way he could prevent the gang from doing another attack.

Morality is irrelevant.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:28 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Focusing on the drone aspect seems off to me. I don't really care about the mechanics of how something gets done...bullet, missile, bomb, drone, meh.
Ok, that's a lie. I'm actually fascinated by the tech behind drones. But morally, it seems irrelevant.



Locally, police were called to a disturbance and were confronted by an old man pointing a pistol. He was shot. Undoubtedly there are several social failures contributing to the man’s possession of a firearm and lack of psychological help.

Nonetheless, pointing a gun at the police denied him a jury of his peers. Morality is irrelevant.


That's a situational problem. Not one that has anything to do with the weapon police were forced to shoot him with.

I'm not against doing what you need to do in a situation, but things like a jury of peers and timely trials are good goals to shoot for where possible.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's a situational problem. Not one that has anything to do with the weapon police were forced to shoot him with.

I'm not against doing what you need to do in a situation, but things like a jury of peers and timely trials are good goals to shoot for where possible.


I fully support the advancement of net-and-snare technology.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Some Guy Thinks Some Stuff About Politics

Postby Derek » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:57 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Didn't some people object to the bill of rights because it should have been clear already from the constitution, and spelling it out was likely to lead people to believe that stuff that wasn't spelled out in the bill of rights was A-OK?

I think they may have been on to something.

That's why they made the ninth amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests