2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:17 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Slavery was permitted in the United States until the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. The Republican and Democratic parties have changed philosophical and ideological alignment since they were formed.

Are you denying both of these facts, Tyndmyr, or just one? If just one, which one?

(And yeah, I've never said or suggested that the Republican party created abolitionism, so I'm not sure why you're arguing against that point no one has ever made.)


They're hardly a force for social change if they're literally just enforcing their own status quo. Or at least, no more of a force for change than the opposition, which was doing the exact same thing.

I object to "liberalism" being used as a post-hoc label to be applied to all things we now see as good, and ALSO to one arbitrary side of modern day partisanship.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:23 pm UTC

I mean, sure, if you define most social change out of existence then abolition wasn't a movement for social change.

Kinda makes it hard for people to communicate with you, though, when you use words differently from the rest of them.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:29 pm UTC

liberalism: the holding of liberal views.


From the OED:
1. Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
1.1. Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
1.2. (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.


Object all you like, you're still wrong.


Edit to add attribution.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

Alright, concrete example time:

Margaret Sanger pushed legal abortions as a means of eugenics. Was she a liberal?

Which part was liberal? The abortions, or the eugenics? Or both?

If you're giving the ideology credit for the things later determined to be good, and not the things later determined to be bad, regardless of how they were labeled at the time, at what point do you differentiate it from a giant No True Scotsman exercise?

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

Another update on Clinton's Email Server investigation that was just reopened:

According to the New York Times the newly discovered emails were found during the investigation into Anthony Weiner's illicit text messages sent to a minor. They had seized multiple devices from Huma abedin and Anthony Weiner. One federal official states the uncovered emails number in the thousands.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

Think this is the 11th hour hit the Trump campaign needs, or is it simply too similar to past revelations to have much impact?

I mean, it isn't *good* for Clinton, but it seems to be mostly more of the same. I can see it being dismissed out of hand by supporters, and those who can be easily swayed by the topic probably already have been, I think. So, I'm not sure it's going to be a huge bump.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

The notion that we can't (or shouldn't) use the modern meanings of words to talk about the past is, frankly, absurd bordering on nonsensical. Words used today mean what they mean today, whatever they may have meant in the past.

It is convenient for my position that progressivism was opposed to slavery and inequality from the beginning, but that's not necessary for my point, that the Republican party was once the more progressive party, to remain true.

I can meaningfully say, for example, "The institution of slavery was antithetical to freedom," even if some people 150+ years ago considered "freedom" to include their right to own other people as property.

Tyndmyr wrote:If you're giving the ideology credit for the things later determined to be good, and not the things later determined to be bad, regardless of how they were labeled at the time, at what point do you differentiate it from a giant No True Scotsman exercise?
Progressivism was opposed to slavery! In this case it isn't regardless of how it was labeled at the time, because opposition to slavery was progressive at the time.

I'm not crediting modern progressive ideology with the ending of slavery, but in the sense that liberalism and progressivism favor social change and look to the future for improvement rather than to the past, without any additional baggage of modern political positions, the desire to end slavery was clearly a more liberal and progressive position than the desire to preserve it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I believe that "instruct them to be more efficient and determined" is perhaps not much of a plan. Obama's admin has deported quite a lot of people, so it seems unlikely that they're all just sitting there, waiting for such instructions to come down the pipe.

In practice, it seems to be more a matter of money. Dramatic expansion of government programs that are not themselves productive comes with a bunch of cost. Now, sure, security sometimes is worth the cost, but I've not yet seen a persuasive breakdown of why this plan is worth it.

I suppose that wasn't the best way to phrase it. I guess what I was getting at is that border security, deportation, and enforcement of citizenship requirements would receive stronger emphasis and imperative. I don't deny that the Obama administration has been doing it's job regarding deportation, but I do believe it could be better if the administration wanted. The idea of sanctuary cities, in particular, seems insane to me. The fact that a city - not even a state, but a city - has the audacity to tell people "come to us, and we'll protect you from federal laws" is beyond belief.

While, in theory, a safe zone in Syria sounds nice, I have my doubts about either candidate establishing that. How do you think Trump would accomplish this?

I, too, have my doubts, and no, I don't believe Trump would do much to make it happen. He seems more focused on keeping refugees out than helping them, but his professed reasons are sound. Trump has said, and I believe rightly so, that none of the forces in conflict in Syria are our allies, or even aligned with our interests. Russia has an interest in protecting Assad's regime, and that means driving out ISIS. Assad is no friend of the U.S., and he's likely guilty of war crimes and humanitarian violations, but ISIS is guilty of far worse.

It's a no-win situation for us to take a side in the conflict, but given our historical role on the world stage, we can't allow innocent people to suffer for it. Hillary would bring every Syrian civilian here if she could which would almost definitely expose us to attacks from within. Trump would keep them out and let the chips fall which would almost definitely protect us from those same attacks, but it would be at the expense of unacceptable loss of human life and livelihood elsewhere. Neither of these is a good option, and I think it is worth the effort to do what we can for the Syrian civilians in their own country. It might even be worthwhile to get our allies to commit to a joint effort on that front.

He fundamentally isn't a small government sort of person. It is deeply unlikely he will seek to limit his own power.

That describes what I expect to get from either candidate, so I'm not holding my breath. Entitlement reform, downsizing, and a stronger effort to eliminate fraud are really more wishlist items than anything.

Honestly, he probably wouldn't build the wall. He might add some fencing or whatever, but the plan of "Make the Mexicans pay for it" will probably not work out. So, we'll see some marginal border security additions, success will be declared, nothing of import will change. The usual, with regards to the border.

Everyone seems to take "make the Mexicans pay for it" literally, and that may very well be what Trump means, though that's just plain silly. The way I see it (and I'm coming from the standpoint of a governmental accountant), the Mexican government can be made to pay for it simply by having the U.S. pay for it, and then reducing things like foreign aid and increasing tariffs by a corresponding amount.

Personally, I don't want Roe v Wade revisited. It'd just be ugly, and it'd never end.

Agreed. I'm proud of my (mostly) conservative values, but the matter of abortion is one I've always fallen left on. While it would be awesome if everyone could be more responsible (in every aspect of their lives, not just sex), it's just not a realistic thing. That's also not to say that abortion only comes up in the event of irresponsibility. I think where the Supreme Court decision stands now is an okay place to leave it because, as you say, it would just be ugly and never-ending. What it comes down to is that while all life is precious and should be protected, no one - literally fucking no one - should have the right to tell a woman what she's going to do with her body. My wife and I lost our first baby when my wife was five months pregnant, and that was by far the most devastating and traumatic thing I've ever experienced, and that was sudden and beyond our control. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it must be to wrestle with that decision.

Trump won't explicitly state that the justices he'll appoint would overturn the decision, but it's not hard to see that's the angle he's got. Roe v Wade is the single strongest argument anyone can make to me against Trump or for Clinton, but all things considered in the big picture, I lean so far away from Clinton policy that I could never vote for her, and I lean closely enough toward Trump policy that I support him.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:02 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The notion that we can't (or shouldn't) use the modern meanings of words to talk about the past is, frankly, absurd bordering on nonsensical. Words used today mean what they mean today, whatever they may have meant in the past.


Of course you can. But progressivism/liberalism are *also* used to describe one side of modern day partisan politics. Not in some other definition, either...modern day politics will routinely take credit for past accomplishments, and declare it's current actions to be of a kind.

It is convenient for my position that progressivism was opposed to slavery and inequality from the beginning, but that's not necessary for my point, that the Republican party was once the more progressive party, to remain true.


Not really, no. You're merely attributing everything good throughout history to a single ideology or label, which...is pretty ahistorical.

You're viewing the US as one monolithic culture. It wasn't. There was a clear split long before the civil war happened or the Republican Party was even a ghost of an idea. One subculture was fighting for it's ideology, and so was the other. There is no real difference between them on that score.

Tyndmyr wrote:If you're giving the ideology credit for the things later determined to be good, and not the things later determined to be bad, regardless of how they were labeled at the time, at what point do you differentiate it from a giant No True Scotsman exercise?
Progressivism was opposed to slavery! In this case it isn't regardless of how it was labeled at the time, because opposition to slavery was progressive at the time.


It was called abolitionism at the time. Rather a different label. Sure, terms were used to imply progress, and "liberal" was a common term, but literally *everyone* used them, and not in ways that correlate with modern definitions.

The progressive movement as such originated AFTER the civil war. It could hardly be the cause.

I'm not crediting modern progressive ideology with the ending of slavery, but in the sense that liberalism and progressivism favor social change and look to the future for improvement rather than to the past, without any additional baggage of modern political positions, the desire to end slavery was clearly a more liberal and progressive position than the desire to preserve it.


Causality doesn't work backward through time, so...you're redefining history to be convenient to your present views, appropriating historical progress to the side you prefer.

Yes. Modern day progressivism views the ending of slavery favorably. Truly a bold position to take. However, it was not in any way responsible for it, any more than modern day conservatives are responsible for the writing of the Constitution.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:19 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I believe that "instruct them to be more efficient and determined" is perhaps not much of a plan. Obama's admin has deported quite a lot of people, so it seems unlikely that they're all just sitting there, waiting for such instructions to come down the pipe.

In practice, it seems to be more a matter of money. Dramatic expansion of government programs that are not themselves productive comes with a bunch of cost. Now, sure, security sometimes is worth the cost, but I've not yet seen a persuasive breakdown of why this plan is worth it.

I suppose that wasn't the best way to phrase it. I guess what I was getting at is that border security, deportation, and enforcement of citizenship requirements would receive stronger emphasis and imperative. I don't deny that the Obama administration has been doing it's job regarding deportation, but I do believe it could be better if the administration wanted. The idea of sanctuary cities, in particular, seems insane to me. The fact that a city - not even a state, but a city - has the audacity to tell people "come to us, and we'll protect you from federal laws" is beyond belief.


Well, why is that so insane? Isn't a city more well equipped to know it's own needs than the federal government is? I could easily see one city needing more workforce, while another does not. It makes a sort of sense to focus on trouble spots first.

I agree that Trump has been pushing more emphasis on these things, but I don't think he's actually fixing the problem in any real fashion. Sure, you can make it an emphasis and throw money at it...but the government has done that with MANY things, and failed to make much impact. Usually, the problem goes deeper, and you need to change how you're addressing it, rather than just doing the thing that isn't working harder.

While, in theory, a safe zone in Syria sounds nice, I have my doubts about either candidate establishing that. How do you think Trump would accomplish this?

I, too, have my doubts, and no, I don't believe Trump would do much to make it happen. He seems more focused on keeping refugees out than helping them, but his professed reasons are sound. Trump has said, and I believe rightly so, that none of the forces in conflict in Syria are our allies, or even aligned with our interests. Russia has an interest in protecting Assad's regime, and that means driving out ISIS. Assad is no friend of the U.S., and he's likely guilty of war crimes and humanitarian violations, but ISIS is guilty of far worse.


Well, yeah. Assad, Russia, ISIS...ehhh. It's a mess. That's definitely part of why I don't think he can really fix it. There's not an easy side to prop up. Sure, actions can probably be taken to make it marginally less crappy, but it's likely that all outcomes are some degree of awful.

It's a no-win situation for us to take a side in the conflict, but given our historical role on the world stage, we can't allow innocent people to suffer for it. Hillary would bring every Syrian civilian here if she could which would almost definitely expose us to attacks from within. Trump would keep them out and let the chips fall which would almost definitely protect us from those same attacks, but it would be at the expense of unacceptable loss of human life and livelihood elsewhere. Neither of these is a good option, and I think it is worth the effort to do what we can for the Syrian civilians in their own country. It might even be worthwhile to get our allies to commit to a joint effort on that front.


Well, it's unlikely that they'd all come here. We're far away, the refugee burden typically falls strongest on neighboring countries. Still, I take your point about security vs helping others. We can discuss the appropriate level of risk v reward here, but I believe there is already pretty significant screening in place for this specific example.

Unfortunately, I do not think Trump would be very good at getting allies to commit to a joint effort. Friendly negotiation is not his strong suit.

He fundamentally isn't a small government sort of person. It is deeply unlikely he will seek to limit his own power.

That describes what I expect to get from either candidate, so I'm not holding my breath. Entitlement reform, downsizing, and a stronger effort to eliminate fraud are really more wishlist items than anything.


A good reason to cast about beyond the main two, I think.

Honestly, he probably wouldn't build the wall. He might add some fencing or whatever, but the plan of "Make the Mexicans pay for it" will probably not work out. So, we'll see some marginal border security additions, success will be declared, nothing of import will change. The usual, with regards to the border.

Everyone seems to take "make the Mexicans pay for it" literally, and that may very well be what Trump means, though that's just plain silly. The way I see it (and I'm coming from the standpoint of a governmental accountant), the Mexican government can be made to pay for it simply by having the U.S. pay for it, and then reducing things like foreign aid and increasing tariffs by a corresponding amount.


Civvie foreign aid to mexico is what, $348m/yr? Trump estimated his cost at 10-12 bil, and the Washington Post estimates it at more like $25bil. Either way, all of the foreign aid to mexico for Trump's entire term wouldn't make much of a dent.

Upping tariffs is going to affect trade. They'll respond in kind, and long story short, the US consumer ends up paying more for goods. So, we still end up ultimately paying for it regardless.

Trump won't explicitly state that the justices he'll appoint would overturn the decision, but it's not hard to see that's the angle he's got. Roe v Wade is the single strongest argument anyone can make to me against Trump or for Clinton, but all things considered in the big picture, I lean so far away from Clinton policy that I could never vote for her, and I lean closely enough toward Trump policy that I support him.


It's a mess, to be sure. Unfortunately, the RvW is part of the Republican package deal. Even if I don't think they'll get there, it's obviously the direction the nominees can be expected to lean, statistically speaking. If you're not after that particular ruling, what other rulings are you concerned about from a liberal SC?

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Think this is the 11th hour hit the Trump campaign needs, or is it simply too similar to past revelations to have much impact?

I mean, it isn't *good* for Clinton, but it seems to be mostly more of the same. I can see it being dismissed out of hand by supporters, and those who can be easily swayed by the topic probably already have been, I think. So, I'm not sure it's going to be a huge bump.


I'm not really sure how to digest it yet. On the one hand, I don't see why you would re-open an investigation without some seriously damnin and concrete evidence. On the other hand, it's the FBI and it could just be they found a cache of emails that are benign but were related and are just being pre-emptive in telling Congress so as to not have it leaked and the Republicans jump all over it as a sign of them hiding something.

Most likely it is somewhere in between those two. Either way I don't see it having a major impact on the election. Unless something more damning comes out.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:25 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:While, in theory, a safe zone in Syria sounds nice, I have my doubts about either candidate establishing that. How do you think Trump would accomplish this?

I, too, have my doubts, and no, I don't believe Trump would do much to make it happen. He seems more focused on keeping refugees out than helping them, but his professed reasons are sound. Trump has said, and I believe rightly so, that none of the forces in conflict in Syria are our allies, or even aligned with our interests. Russia has an interest in protecting Assad's regime, and that means driving out ISIS. Assad is no friend of the U.S., and he's likely guilty of war crimes and humanitarian violations, but ISIS is guilty of far worse.

It's a no-win situation for us to take a side in the conflict, but given our historical role on the world stage, we can't allow innocent people to suffer for it. Hillary would bring every Syrian civilian here if she could which would almost definitely expose us to attacks from within. Trump would keep them out and let the chips fall which would almost definitely protect us from those same attacks, but it would be at the expense of unacceptable loss of human life and livelihood elsewhere. Neither of these is a good option, and I think it is worth the effort to do what we can for the Syrian civilians in their own country. It might even be worthwhile to get our allies to commit to a joint effort on that front.
I like the idea of a safe zone there. Our new Foreign Secretary was recently in the papers saying he didn't think the people here had much appetite for military action, and I wondered why nobody had ever told him there are other kinds of action. Give me the funds and let me play SimCity2000 in western Syria, and have some military forces protecting the safe zone while I do it. Solar panel on every roof, local water recycling, rain collection, erosion-reducing ground plans, shiploads of FYM and green bin compost, local composting, cycle lanes everywhere, no private motor vehicles, proper blue-light services with proper oversight to keep them impartial, schools, colleges, a university, a theatre, libraries, parks, gardens, sports facilities, cafes, small shops, hotels, clinics, a hospital, a port, railway links, stations, a tram or tube-train network, desalination, a sodding huge solar farm in the desert and, yes, a great big wall.

It'd cost a fortune ...


... for most people's meanings of "a fortune."


Smaller by two orders of magnitude, but Obama's signed the next two or three presidents up to spending US citizens' money on military intervention in the Middle East. You're kind of stuck with the fact that you already are involved / interfering / helping / meddling.

If we did build them a modern city in NW Syria and provide healthcare, education and so on there and the Kurds (the ones kicking ISIS in the teeth after the Iraqi army runs away) joined us there, "our" hospitals would get bombed, and we'd end up either accepting that and abandoning them (the vastly more likely outcome, because it'd be costing a lot of money every year) or liberating Armenia ... or making a mess of the mess that the mess we made made of the mess we made, I suppose, if we still haven't learned.

Remember the bailout of the bankers in 2008? The rest of us got a recession and they got to float above it on paragliders made out of our money, right? I'd have bailed out the homeowners. Not the over-mortgaged millionaires in multi-million-dollar mansions but the people who'd been over-sold mortgages and couldn't just throw $10,000 at a solicitor and downsize to a place with "only" five bedroom, three bathrooms and fifteen acres then sell the mansion and have done with it. Buy shares in their homes, reduce the mortgage capital sums outstanding, reduce the interest, reduce the monthly payments and put them in a place where they can afford the payments. Instead of having to pay off all the bad debt, you'd pay off some of it and turn the rest into good debt, and they'd get to keep their homes. You'd have a mess of laws about selling it for 80% or 90% of its value at the time of the valuation or changing the value of a place by ripping out one kitchen and then paying off the government's share by installing another or whatever, but you'd have fixed that problem more cleanly and more cheaply.

Never have got that past Rush Limbaugh's fanclub, though. Toooooo much like socialism.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:29 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Think this is the 11th hour hit the Trump campaign needs, or is it simply too similar to past revelations to have much impact?

I mean, it isn't *good* for Clinton, but it seems to be mostly more of the same. I can see it being dismissed out of hand by supporters, and those who can be easily swayed by the topic probably already have been, I think. So, I'm not sure it's going to be a huge bump.


I'm not really sure how to digest it yet. On the one hand, I don't see why you would re-open an investigation without some seriously damnin and concrete evidence. On the other hand, it's the FBI and it could just be they found a cache of emails that are benign but were related and are just being pre-emptive in telling Congress so as to not have it leaked and the Republicans jump all over it as a sign of them hiding something.

Most likely it is somewhere in between those two. Either way I don't see it having a major impact on the election. Unless something more damning comes out.


Eh, investigations take a while. I doubt there'll be major finds between now and election day as a result of this.

Sableagle wrote:Remember the bailout of the bankers in 2008? The rest of us got a recession and they got to float above it on paragliders made out of our money, right? I'd have bailed out the homeowners.


Shit, if a homeowner DOES get bailed out somehow, forgiven loans are generally counted as income. So, you get taxed on that.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
It is convenient for my position that progressivism was opposed to slavery and inequality from the beginning, but that's not necessary for my point, that the Republican party was once the more progressive party, to remain true.
Not really, no. You're merely attributing everything good throughout history to a single ideology or label, which...is pretty ahistorical.
I'm talking about one good thing, the abolition of slavery. Please stop attributing to me the ideas of your imaginary interlocutor who is making an argument no one in this thread is making.

Tyndmyr wrote:If you're giving the ideology credit for the things later determined to be good, and not the things later determined to be bad, regardless of how they were labeled at the time, at what point do you differentiate it from a giant No True Scotsman exercise?
Progressivism was opposed to slavery! In this case it isn't regardless of how it was labeled at the time, because opposition to slavery was progressive at the time.

It was called abolitionism at the time.
The movement to end slavery was called abolitionism, yes. That doesn't mean it wasn't also aligned with the idea of progress as it was understood at that time.

The progressive movement as such originated AFTER the civil war.
What do you mean "as such"? Progress, as an idea with that name, predates the Civil War.

It could hardly be the cause.
No, the South being afraid of losing the right to own black people caused the civil war. But the movement to end slavery was nevertheless in line with progressive ideals.

Yes. Modern day progressivism views the ending of slavery favorably.
Right. As did people who ascribed to the idea of progress in the 18th and 19th centuries.

However, it was not in any way responsible for it
No shit. Fortunately, neither I nor anyone else is saying otherwise.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:33 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Honestly, he probably wouldn't build the wall. He might add some fencing or whatever, but the plan of "Make the Mexicans pay for it" will probably not work out. So, we'll see some marginal border security additions, success will be declared, nothing of import will change. The usual, with regards to the border.

Everyone seems to take "make the Mexicans pay for it" literally, and that may very well be what Trump means, though that's just plain silly. The way I see it (and I'm coming from the standpoint of a governmental accountant), the Mexican government can be made to pay for it simply by having the U.S. pay for it, and then reducing things like foreign aid and increasing tariffs by a corresponding amount.


Yablo, once again, you make the mistake of thinking rationally and then assuming that Trump shares your views.

Its quite possible that there's a sane plan out there to build a border wall... possibly even a sane plan out there to have Mexico pay for some of the wall in some sort of cross-country agreement. (especially if the USA can offer some sort of gun deal with Mexico: they're worried about illegal guns entering Mexico just as much as we are worried about illegal drugs entering our country. The USA has a lot of leverage against Mexico).

However, your fairy tale thinking is not what Trump thinks. Trump's position is clear. Trump will target remittance money going to Mexico, and take it under the Patriot act to build the border wall.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -security/

I'm linking Breitbart because its strongly pro-Trump and presents truly what the Trump camp believes. (And with Breitbart's CEO as a close Trump advisor, Breitbart news is probably the closest to "primary source material" for the mouth of Trump). Most conservative papers seem to water-down the crazy ideas out of Trump's mouth... but we know for a fact that Trump wants to target remittance payments for this ridiculous wall idea.

Here's a CBS story for those who don't like Breitbart: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trum ... rder-wall/

An idea that any conservative should immediately vomit. Trump wants to abuse the Patriot act to steal the money from private Americans citizens (that happen to be going to Mexico). Trump is a disaster. His ideas are crazy and implement the absolute worst potential policies. A border wall could work, but I don't trust Trump to build it.

Now true, illegal immigrants use remittances to send money back to their families in Mexico. But so do standard American citizens (The #1 remittance per-capita is actually my specific "race". We Phillipenos are the #1 users of remittance payments IIRC in the country). And that money suddenly being subject to seizure because President Trump wants to build a fucking wall is fucking scary.

Spoiler:
And yes, I didn't like the fact that my grandmother sent her social security checks back to non-citizen family members in the Philippines, but these sorts of decisions are the right of American citizens. I can be critical of the behavior but still will defend the right to do so. American citizens should be allowed to send whatever money they want without the government sticking their nose into their business.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:51 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
It is convenient for my position that progressivism was opposed to slavery and inequality from the beginning, but that's not necessary for my point, that the Republican party was once the more progressive party, to remain true.
Not really, no. You're merely attributing everything good throughout history to a single ideology or label, which...is pretty ahistorical.
I'm talking about one good thing, the abolition of slavery. Please stop attributing to me your imaginary interlocutor who is making an argument no one in this thread is making.


You are attempting to appropriate the actions of civil war era Republicans to "liberal progressivism". The ideology they espoused at the time was not really the same thing as modern day liberalism/progressivism, nor would they have probably used those words to describe themselves. I mean, they might have, but not in anything like the same fashion or using the same definition.

Tyndmyr wrote:If you're giving the ideology credit for the things later determined to be good, and not the things later determined to be bad, regardless of how they were labeled at the time, at what point do you differentiate it from a giant No True Scotsman exercise?
Progressivism was opposed to slavery! In this case it isn't regardless of how it was labeled at the time, because opposition to slavery was progressive at the time.

It was called abolitionism at the time.
The movement to end slavery was called abolitionism, yes. That doesn't mean it wasn't also aligned with the idea of progress as it was understood at that time.


Literally everyone espouses their ideas in the name of progress. Progress towards WHAT is the thing.

The progressive movement as such originated AFTER the civil war.
What do you mean "as such"? Progress, as an idea with that name, predates the Civil War.


The progressive movement is not the same thing as the simple idea of progress. You're quite aware of this.

Much as evolution has no goal or intent, neither is there some foregone purpose for humanity. There is no singular goal to progress to. Everyone has their own. Assigning a label to the currently popular side throughout history(usually the victorious one) is not really the same as assigning a label to one side of an ongoing cultural conflict. Using the same label for both is not really fair or accurate.

It could hardly be the cause.
No, the South being afraid of losing the right to own black people caused the civil war. But the movement to end slavery was nevertheless in line with progressive ideals.


I mean, they were right. The inevitable outcome of the North's ideology was the end of slavery. It always had been, and the South saw themselves losing the power to stop it by other means. And they did indeed lose that. It was merely the last act in a long saga of conflict between two cultures.

Well, not the last, exactly. We still have some crappy sequels today. But the point is that neither side was populated by stalwart reformers out to rid their culture of problems. Both were primarily led by people championing the side they grew up with. It just happened that the North had the people and industry.

Yes. Modern day progressivism views the ending of slavery favorably.
Right. As did people who ascribed to the idea of progress in the 18th and 19th centuries.


A great many people viewed other goals as the proper target of progress. The idea that this was some agreed upon thing is simply not historically accurate.

However, it was not in any way responsible for it
No shit. Fortunately, neither I nor anyone else is saying otherwise.


Then why insist upon relabeling the Republicans? What other purpose could there be? The explicit example this conversation stems from is Sable's attribution of the ending of slavery to "progressive librull weirdoes".

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

Since you still seem to be having some comprehension problems, here's the tl;dr version. Which of the following do you disagree with?

1) Ideas that we now label as liberal and progressive underlay abolitionist and early Republican political ideology.
2) As it was conceived in the 18th and 19th centuries, progress would involve the disappearance of slavery.

My original point was mostly just (1), since this thread is about modern politics so I'm not going to avoid using modern political terms the way they are used now, in modern times. But (2) is also true and, as I said before, an added convenience for me.

Edit: And no, not everyone espouses their ideas in the name of progress. Progress means, at its root, moving forward. People who want to return to some sort of "good old days" do not tend to describe their ideas as progress even today, and definitely wouldn't have during the stretch of time we're talking about.

(Edit2: I was wrong on the last page to say that progressivism as a movement with that name predates the Civil War, but I think "progressive" as an adjective from "progress" is still applicable for things relating to or characterized by the idea and ideal of progress. Which did predate the civil war, and which did have a more specific meaning than "improvement", and early proponents of which were opposed to slavery and other forms of inequality.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Sableagle wrote:I'd have bailed out the homeowners.


Shit, if a homeowner DOES get bailed out somehow, forgiven loans are generally counted as income. So, you get taxed on that.

It's not net income for the year if you immediately used the money (from the sale of 15% or 20% or your home to the government) to pay off a chunk of your mortgage, though, is it? Is it? You sold something and reduced a debt, so you're not holding any more money. It'd be crazy for the government to tax its own bailout.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:16 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Since you still seem to be having some comprehension problems, here's the tl;dr version. Which of the following do you disagree with?

1) Ideas that we now label as liberal and progressive underlay abolitionist and early Republican political ideology.
2) As it was conceived in the 18th and 19th centuries, progress would involve the disappearance of slavery.


1.5) The modern day set of things labeled liberal and progressive does not match the set of things described at some point as progress. You're treating two different things as identical.
2) That entirely depends on who is doing the describing.

Edit: And no, not everyone espouses their ideas in the name of progress. Progress means, at its root, moving forward. People who want to return to some sort of "good old days" do not tend to describe their ideas as progress even today, and definitely wouldn't have during the stretch of time we're talking about.


Sure they do. They just have a different goal. And in practice, their goals do not actually even match the actual circumstance of said "good ol' days". The pro-life movement will cheerfully talk about their progress towards banning abortion or whatever.

I mean, what the hell does "moving forward" mean, anyways? What IS forward? There is no single agreed upon goal for society.

Surveys ask people on if the country is going "the right direction" or "the wrong direction" pretty often, but what that constitutes seems to be subjective as hell, and also mostly partisan.

Sableagle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Sableagle wrote:I'd have bailed out the homeowners.


Shit, if a homeowner DOES get bailed out somehow, forgiven loans are generally counted as income. So, you get taxed on that.

It's not net income for the year if you immediately used the money (from the sale of 15% or 20% or your home to the government) to pay off a chunk of your mortgage, though, is it? Is it? You sold something and reduced a debt, so you're not holding any more money. It'd be crazy for the government to tax its own bailout.


Well, sometimes stuff stretches out over multiple years, and bailouts are not generally treated as a percentage sale of your home. At least, not at present. Perhaps they could be, but it'd be rather complicated.

In practice, if you sell your house short, you get taxed on the difference, barring various tax relief acts that may or may not apply, depending on a number of circumstances.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:18 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Sableagle wrote:I'd have bailed out the homeowners.


Shit, if a homeowner DOES get bailed out somehow, forgiven loans are generally counted as income. So, you get taxed on that.

It's not net income for the year if you immediately used the money (from the sale of 15% or 20% or your home to the government) to pay off a chunk of your mortgage, though, is it? Is it? You sold something and reduced a debt, so you're not holding any more money. It'd be crazy for the government to tax its own bailout.
It absolutely counts toward your net income. Just because you don't have more cash, your net worth still increased(i.e. you have less debt).
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, what the hell does "moving forward" mean, anyways? What IS forward?
Forward, as in the opposite of backward. Looking to future advancement for improvement, not to some past Golden Age.

Since we're talking about political philosophy, I've been talking about the philosophical idea of progress. Maybe read up on that before accusing me of being the one inappropriately applying modern colloquial meanings to historical situations.

(Just as we are now perfectly capable of understanding that not every use of the word "progress" is related to the political idea of "progressivism", so too were 19th century political philosophers capable of distinguishing between "progress" as a philosophical idea and "progress" as a general word meaning moving toward an arbitrary goal.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:45 pm UTC

Then we're back to neither particular side having any real lock on "progress" if we define it merely as seeking changes that are helpful or whatever. Both were convinced that they were right, and their way would lead to a right and proper society. The south had plenty of grandiose ideas about it's future.

Which is pretty normal for social conflicts, really. Including modern day politics. Both sides believe that they are pulling society towards a grand vision of the future, and of course, the OTHER side is trying to destroy it all, and is literally Hitler or the Antichrist.

By such a standard, Democrats are no more liberal than are Republicans.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Then we're back to neither particular side having any real lock on "progress" if we define it merely as seeking changes that are helpful or whatever.
Where, in anything I've written or linked to, do you get the idea that "we" define it as merely seeking changes that are helpful or whatever?

Also, back to your original question to me, "seeking changes" requires some sort of, you know, actual change to be sought. Which brings us back to my original response: Ending slavery was a change. Embracing it where it already existed was not. Therefore embracing slavery was never progressive.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Then we're back to neither particular side having any real lock on "progress" if we define it merely as seeking changes that are helpful or whatever.
Where, in anything I've written or linked to, do you get the idea that "we" define it as merely seeking changes that are helpful or whatever?

Also, back to your original question to me, "seeking changes" requires some sort of, you know, actual change to be sought. Which brings us back to my original response: Ending slavery was a change. Embracing it where it already existed was not. Therefore embracing slavery was never progressive.


The philosophical definition was incredibly broad. It was basically any ideology seeking a trend of improvement, rather than a cycle. It's too vague to add any clarity here.

Both sides wanted change in a sense. The south was seeking a situation that was very different from the past. And yet, both sides were doing so based on a desire to preserve and spread the ideology they grew up with.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And yet, both sides were doing so based on a desire to preserve and spread the ideology they grew up with.
The ideologies they grew up with were different, so it's okay to use different words to describe them.

Wanting change "in a sense" is not sufficient for calling a philosophical ideology progressive.

If you know of anyone who tied the philosophical idea of progress to an embrace or increase of slavery, please feel more than free to share with the rest of the class.

Until then, please stop using your modern colloquial understanding of the term to muse uselessly about what 19th-century political philosophies might have conceivably called "progress".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:34 pm UTC

Spoiler:
“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty.

They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; The future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.”

-Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, in Our Danger and our Duty, 1862

Spoiler:
The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.

-Robert E Lee, Letter to Lieutenant Colonel Charles Marshall (September 1870)

Spoiler:
"Obstacles may retard, but they cannot long prevent the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice, and sustained by a virtuous people ."

-Jefferson Davis, speaking on the civil war

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6840
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:41 pm UTC

Except for Robert E. Lee, all those quotes are very clearly using 'progress' to mean 'progress to a particular goal', not 'forward-thinking political ideals'.

Regarding the Robert E. Lee quote: I'm not immediately familiar with the context in which that quote exists (or if he's defending/attacking slavery, there), but Lee's opinion on slavery (and its relation to political progress) is pretty clear:

Robert E. Lee wrote:I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed.

...

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.


(Mind you, Lee's opinion is still pretty paternal and messed up, but it's pretty clear he believed abolition = progressive politics)

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:44 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Yablo, once again, you make the mistake of thinking rationally and then assuming that Trump shares your views.

I'm not making that mistake, but your point is well-taken. I never said I liked the idea of the wall or even thought it could work. What I did say was that anyone here illegally should not be allowed to remain. Provided they aren't violent criminals, I believe they should absolutely be allowed to gain citizenship legally if that's what they want, but to shrug it off like they aren't blatantly breaking our laws is the wrong way to handle it.

Its quite possible that there's a sane plan out there to build a border wall... possibly even a sane plan out there to have Mexico pay for some of the wall in some sort of cross-country agreement. (especially if the USA can offer some sort of gun deal with Mexico: they're worried about illegal guns entering Mexico just as much as we are worried about illegal drugs entering our country. The USA has a lot of leverage against Mexico).

A diplomatic solution with Mexico is definitely the way I would handle it. Shoving around another country is poor form, especially when it's a neighbor. The problem is that, for the moment at least, Mexico has no incentive to stop people from crossing into our country, and I can't blame them. If it were the other way around, and Mexico threatened to build a wall and make us pay for it in order to stop our citizens from entering their country illegally, the typical American reaction would likely be to tell Mexico to piss off and handle it themselves.

However, your fairy tale thinking is not what Trump thinks. Trump's position is clear. Trump will target remittance money going to Mexico, and take it under the Patriot act to build the border wall.

I think referring to my thinking as fairy tale thinking is a bit much. Still, targeting money being sent back to Mexico is theft regardless of whether or not the person sending it is here legally. The only exception might be if the money was earned through criminal means. It's probably important to make a distinction here: I believe that a person here illegally who earns money through an otherwise-legal channel has a legal right to that money, and that the person or company paying that money is actually the one breaking the law. Patriot Act or not, seizing that money is wrong.

Now true, illegal immigrants use remittances to send money back to their families in Mexico. But so do standard American citizens (The #1 remittance per-capita is actually my specific "race". We Phillipenos are the #1 users of remittance payments IIRC in the country). And that money suddenly being subject to seizure because President Trump wants to build a fucking wall is fucking scary.

I live in Juneau, Alaska, and there is a very sizable Filipino community here (if you can call any community in a town of 40,000 sizable). Every one I know has some family back in the Philippines, and many of them send money to those family members. I have no problem with that, and I fully support their right to do so. I know that if I were living in another country, and my family was here and in need of support, I would absolutely send money back to them. No, I don't think any president should have the authority to seize that money, nor should they want to do so.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6840
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:51 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:I'm not making that mistake, but your point is well-taken. I never said I liked the idea of the wall or even thought it could work. What I did say was that anyone here illegally should not be allowed to remain. Provided they aren't violent criminals, I believe they should absolutely be allowed to gain citizenship legally if that's what they want, but to shrug it off like they aren't blatantly breaking our laws is the wrong way to handle it.
We break laws every day with impunity; often without knowing. I don't think that's a problem. The difference, I think, is that illegal immigrants are identified primarily by the fact that they've broken a law; they exist in an 'illegal state', which is why this particular case strikes us as so egregious.

But is it? Why? I don't understand; is it really that important that we ensure every single law is enforced? Society couldn't function if we did.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:But is it? Why? I don't understand; is it really that important that we ensure every single law is enforced? Society couldn't function if we did.


Then we should probably get rid of some laws.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:05 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:We break laws every day with impunity; often without knowing. I don't think that's a problem. The difference, I think, is that illegal immigrants are identified primarily by the fact that they've broken a law; they exist in an 'illegal state', which is why this particular case strikes us as so egregious.

But is it? Why? I don't understand; is it really that important that we ensure every single law is enforced? Society couldn't function if we did.

Not every law needs to be enforced, and many shouldn't be enforced, but any law that falls into those categories should be disposed of. Citizenship laws are very important, however. Americans pay taxes and submit to the rule of American law in exchange for the rights of citizenship. Anyone who believes they would like those rights should petition the U.S. government by means of entering the immigration system. To give the rights of U.S. citizenship to non-citizens, or to ignore laws enforcing citizenship requirements makes citizenship meaningless. If citizenship is meaningless, borders and governments are virtually meaningless, too. Maybe someday, the only border will be Earth's atmosphere, and everyone here will be subject to the same government, but that day is not today.

Tyndmyr wrote:Then we should probably get rid of some laws.

Totally agreed. Who cares if someone in Louisville, KY walks down the street with an ice cream cone in his or her pocket? Who cares is someone in Arkansas pronounces the state name like it rhymes with Kansas? Who cares if someone in Juneau, AK brings a flamingo into a barber shop?
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:09 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Except for Robert E. Lee, all those quotes are very clearly using 'progress' to mean 'progress to a particular goal', not 'forward-thinking political ideals'.

Regarding the Robert E. Lee quote: I'm not immediately familiar with the context in which that quote exists (or if he's defending/attacking slavery, there), but Lee's opinion on slavery (and its relation to political progress) is pretty clear:

Robert E. Lee wrote:I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed.

...

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.


(Mind you, Lee's opinion is still pretty paternal and messed up, but it's pretty clear he believed abolition = progressive politics)
Yeah, I guess I was a bit optimistic in the first half of this sentence...
gmalivuk wrote:(Just as we are now perfectly capable of understanding that not every use of the word "progress" is related to the political idea of "progressivism", so too were 19th century political philosophers capable of distinguishing between "progress" as a philosophical idea and "progress" as a general word meaning moving toward an arbitrary goal.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6840
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:12 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:Not every law needs to be enforced, and many shouldn't be enforced, but any law that falls into those categories should be disposed of. Citizenship laws are very important, however. Americans pay taxes and submit to the rule of American law in exchange for the rights of citizenship. Anyone who believes they would like those rights should petition the U.S. government by means of entering the immigration system. To give the rights of U.S. citizenship to non-citizens, or to ignore laws enforcing citizenship requirements makes citizenship meaningless. If citizenship is meaningless, borders and governments are virtually meaningless, too. Maybe someday, the only border will be Earth's atmosphere, and everyone here will be subject to the same government, but that day is not today.
Most of us got citizenship just for being born. For us, it cost nothing; it already is kind of meaningless.

People who enter this country -- illegally or otherwise -- are actually taking risks for the sake of living here; they're actually paying a price for citizenship. That seems way more meaningful to me than just being born in the right geographical location to the right parents.

Insisting that everyone who didn't go through the appropriate process must be punished ("because that's the law") -- regardless of their circumstances -- seems absurdly legalistic to me; it also means expelling the one group of people who have demonstrated just how much living in this country means to them.

morriswalters
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:34 pm UTC

Most of us got citizenship just for being born. For us, it cost nothing; it already is kind of meaningless.
I don't know about you but my citizenship is not meaningless, at least not yet. And I pay for it, as do you. By observing the rule of law and contributing on some level of to society in general.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Most of us got citizenship just for being born. For us, it cost nothing; it already is kind of meaningless.
I don't know about you but my citizenship is not meaningless, at least not yet. And I pay for it, as do you. By observing the rule of law and contributing on some level of to society in general.

Your citizenship isn't conditional upon those things. You can rob, assault, murder, etc. you can just live off your parents and never do a thing in your life. You won't lose your citizenship. An immigrant needs to go through a complicated process, observe the rule of law remain employed, and keep it up for a couple decades, then they have to go through a whole process and take a test if they want to be a citizen.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:52 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Sableagle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Sableagle wrote:I'd have bailed out the homeowners.


Shit, if a homeowner DOES get bailed out somehow, forgiven loans are generally counted as income. So, you get taxed on that.

It's not net income for the year if you immediately used the money (from the sale of 15% or 20% or your home to the government) to pay off a chunk of your mortgage, though, is it? Is it? You sold something and reduced a debt, so you're not holding any more money. It'd be crazy for the government to tax its own bailout.
It absolutely counts toward your net income. Just because you don't have more cash, your net worth still increased(i.e. you have less debt).

You also have less of a share of the ownership of your house. As you weren't being paid interest on the house, you are better off (by 0.01 to 1 times the value of the share of house sold to the government) but that's long-term not immediate, and shows up as smaller mortgage payments (which already means paying more income tax if mortgage payments are deductible).

Tyndmyr wrote:1.5) The modern day set of things labeled liberal and progressive does not match the set of things described at some point as progress. You're treating two different things as identical.
inventum rota is among "the set of things described at some point as progress."

What the heck was the original point here? Something about Hillary appointing Supreme Court Justices who would change the USA irrevocably into something so different from what it was meant to be as to be unrecognisable?

Tryin' to picture it the way it was, just the trees and the river, before the people came along and founded all that?

Also before the inventions of internal combustion engines, fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, radar, gas-operated firearms, lightbulbs, sound recordings, Morse code, ironclad ships, silver-backed glass mirrors, box cameras, film rolls, tarmacadam, steel-reinforced concrete, water chlorination, fluoride toothpaste, telephones, radio telegraphy and discovery of antibiotics and viruses, in a country with a population of about 2.5 million people (precise definition of "people" not provided) and a life expectancy of 36 years. It's up past 300 million and 78 years now. I think it's already changed.

I doubt the founders of Kievan Rus' would recognise modern Pripyat as "what it was meant to be" either.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6840
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:53 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Your citizenship isn't conditional upon those things. You can rob, assault, murder, etc. you can just live off your parents and never do a thing in your life. You won't lose your citizenship. An immigrant needs to go through a complicated process, observe the rule of law remain employed, and keep it up for a couple decades, then they have to go through a whole process and take a test if they want to be a citizen.
Right; I can even decide not to pay taxes. I might go to jail, but I'll still be a citizen -- and thus, still under the protection of the US government.

Meanwhile, an immigrant (legal or otherwise) has to fight tooth and nail for what I got for free. How does that not make it far more meaningful for them?

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:03 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Most of us got citizenship just for being born. For us, it cost nothing; it already is kind of meaningless.

Citizenship by virtue of birth doesn't make it meaningless. We may take it for granted, but it most definitely has meaning.

People who enter this country -- illegally or otherwise -- are actually taking risks for the sake of living here; they're actually paying a price for citizenship. That seems way more meaningful to me than just being born in the right geographical location to the right parents.

Insisting that everyone who didn't go through the appropriate process must be punished ("because that's the law") -- regardless of their circumstances -- seems absurdly legalistic to me;

I don't see insisting on an immigration process as punishment. The opposite of punishment is reward, and if we don't punish those who circumvent our laws, we are, in effect, rewarding them for doing so. Anyone who wants to be in this country needs to submit to our laws. For an immigrant, immigration laws are the very first laws they encounter.

it also means expelling the one group of people who have demonstrated just how much living in this country means to them.

I would argue that, far more than illegal immigrants, legal immigrants are the one group of people who have actually demonstrated how much living in this country means to them. Living in this country means so much to them that they refused to risk deportation for not following our laws. People here illegally are actually showing how little they think of our country.

Thesh wrote:Your citizenship isn't conditional upon those things. You can rob, assault, murder, etc. you can just live off your parents and never do a thing in your life. You won't lose your citizenship. An immigrant needs to go through a complicated process, observe the rule of law remain employed, and keep it up for a couple decades, then they have to go through a whole process and take a test if they want to be a citizen.

The immigration process is ridiculously long and difficult, and probably unnecessarily so. I don't think observing the rule of law is too much to ask. Sometimes employment is beyond a person's means for whatever reason, but everyone should at least try to be self-sufficient. It shouldn't take more than a year or so to sufficiently prove your desire to be an American, and the citizenship test is ridiculous. Most American born and educated citizens couldn't pass it.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6840
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:15 am UTC

Yablo wrote:Citizenship by virtue of birth doesn't make it meaningless. We may take it for granted, but it most definitely has meaning.
In what sense is it meaningful that the place of my birth just so happened to be America?

Let me put this another way: In what sense is being born into American citizenship significantly different from being born into an aristocratic class with special protections? How is it more meaningful than that?
Yablo wrote:I don't see insisting on an immigration process as punishment. The opposite of punishment is reward, and if we don't punish those who circumvent our laws, we are, in effect, rewarding them for doing so. Anyone who wants to be in this country needs to submit to our laws. For an immigrant, immigration laws are the very first laws they encounter.
I agree that insisting on an immigration process is not punishment; I also agree we should insist on an immigration process. I disagree that we must by necessity punish those who are here illegally; this strikes me as a very legalistic approach.

Laws are written to address problems; illegal immigration has evolved beyond the scope of the laws we wrote to address it. Rather than insisting on following the old laws, why not adapt to the problem we currently have? Any such approach will probably have to involve granting amnesty to the majority of illegal immigrants already here -- as part of a path to citizenship.
Yablo wrote:I would argue that, far more than illegal immigrants, legal immigrants are the one group of people who have actually demonstrated how much living in this country means to them. Living in this country means so much to them that they refused to risk deportation for not following our laws. People here illegally are actually showing how little they think of our country.
That's a surprising perspective. How many illegal immigrants do you think would have come here illegally if they had the means to come here legally?

Are you familiar with the sort of risks associated with illegal immigration? How many legal immigrants get shot at during their immigration process? Which strikes you as more dangerous: Coming here legally, or coming here illegally?
Yablo wrote:The immigration process is ridiculously long and difficult, and probably unnecessarily so. I don't think observing the rule of law is too much to ask. Sometimes employment is beyond a person's means for whatever reason, but everyone should at least try to be self-sufficient. It shouldn't take more than a year or so to sufficiently prove your desire to be an American, and the citizenship test is ridiculous. Most American born and educated citizens couldn't pass it.
On these points, at least, we are in absolute agreement!

morriswalters
Posts: 6901
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:37 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Your citizenship isn't conditional upon those things. You can rob, assault, murder, etc. you can just live off your parents and never do a thing in your life. You won't lose your citizenship. An immigrant needs to go through a complicated process, observe the rule of law remain employed, and keep it up for a couple decades, then they have to go through a whole process and take a test if they want to be a citizen.
That you can't lose it has nothing to do with the meaning or value of the thing. Ask an immigrant.
The Great Hippo wrote:Meanwhile, an immigrant (legal or otherwise) has to fight tooth and nail for what I got for free. How does that not make it far more meaningful for them?

The Great Hippo wrote:For us, it cost nothing; it already is kind of meaningless.
That is your quote and my reply.
morriswalters wrote:I don't know about you but my citizenship is not meaningless, at least not yet. And I pay for it, as do you. By observing the rule of law and contributing on some level of to society in general.
Personally all the immigrants I have known treasured what they got by getting here. However I didn't say anything about them. I was born here, and I am part of the us. If your citizenship is meaningless to you then ok. But please don't speak for me.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests