Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[AdrienIer]

'Cause that's not really their job.

It's the job of every human being, no matter your role.

That's just wishful thinking. In practice very few people care about making the world a better place if it comes at the cost of a little bit of their time/effort/money/comfort (which it usually does). Companies are worse in that their only goal is to make profits. Even recently some companies admitted to having bought oil from ISIS and made some financial deals with ISIS related people until early 2016. Companies have no morality, no ethics, no will to solve problems unless those problems are "we're not making enough money".

[Dreylin]

Well, for example, the economy is growing now, which will solve a good bit of poverty (at least real poverty, not statistical relative poverty).

I agree that evidence supports poverty decreasing as part of the recovery, however most of the gains have gone to the top 5% of earners and income inequality has been rising.

New medical treatments are invented all the time, and keep getting cheaper as people learn better ways to produce them, so a lot of suffering and death is being averted.  

Pharmaceutical companies routinely raise prices if they believe the market will support it, leading to people being unable to afford medication - see EpiPen. (IMO healthcare is a very good example of an the private sector making things worse)

People are learning English and intermarrying with their neighbors and working with and talking to each other, which ought to help deal with racism and political bile.  

Research shows that people have a tendency to self-sort into neighborhoods of similar people characteristics and beliefs thus reinforcing them. See White southern neighborhoods that separate their school districts to avoid desegregation regulations. Also internet echo chambers.

People are learning ways to be productive despite regulations, minimizing the harm done by attempted central planning.

 

People are rebuilding Houston and South Florida.

I separated these two points, but it's actually better together; a big problem in Houston was the lack of building regulations that led to overbuilding on flood plains without consideration of drainage. Of course rebuilding is occurring on exactly the same spots (many of the homes flooded by Harvey had flooded previously in the Tax Day floods earlier this year) at taxpayer expense with no requirement to address the underlying issues. Even Republicans here are now talking about regulations - although whether they actually materialise or not is questionable.

It's the job of every human being, no matter your role.  'Not my job' is the cause of tons of human suffering.

What Adrien said. Also corporate focus on the short term in order to deliver profits to shareholders.

[TheHumanHydra]

I'm very disturbed by some of the tone in this thread. It seems that liberal-minded people are beginning to define Republicans as 'enemy', which is the first step on the road to nowhere very brightly lit.

Long immersion in both conservative religious and liberal secular society (albeit north of the border) has led me to this conclusion: voices in these discussions are so strident because each group feels threatened by the other. This isn't rocket science, but it's necessary to understand if your goal is reconciliation and not conquest. If your goal is conquest, well ... liberal society is already lost to you, in your heart.

There is no brilliant short-term solution to the rapid partisanship of the States. What I do wish is for us to take the pot off the burner so that it doesn't boil over. This means remaining calm, not demonizing those one disagrees with, recognizing that neither the Antichrist nor Adolf Hitler has yet arisen, and building social and professional relationships with people on the opposite end of the political spectrum that will reduce 'othering' and build mutual respect-amid-enmity.

I'm reminded of J.F. Kennedy's strategy during the Cuban Missile Crisis: ignore the belligerent missives and only reply to the moderate ones that lent themselves to dialogue. To keep the bombs from going off.

[Mr. Cairo]

I'm very disturbed by some of the tone in this thread. It seems that liberal-minded people are beginning to define Republicans as 'enemy', which is the first step on the road to nowhere very brightly lit.

Long immersion in both conservative religious and liberal secular society (albeit north of the border) has led me to this conclusion: voices in these discussions are so strident because each group feels threatened by the other. This isn't rocket science, but it's necessary to understand if your goal is reconciliation and not conquest. If your goal is conquest, well ... liberal society is already lost to you, in your heart.

There is no brilliant short-term solution to the rapid partisanship of the States. What I do wish is for us to take the pot off the burner so that it doesn't boil over. This means remaining calm, not demonizing those one disagrees with, recognizing that neither the Antichrist nor Adolf Hitler has yet arisen, and building social and professional relationships with people on the opposite end of the political spectrum that will reduce 'othering' and build mutual respect-amid-enmity.

I'm reminded of J.F. Kennedy's strategy during the Cuban Missile Crisis: ignore the belligerent missives and only reply to the moderate ones that lent themselves to dialogue. To keep the bombs from going off.

Republicans aren't the enemy, but the alt-right and the white supremacists who make up the majority of the alt-right's membership are the enemy. I will not compromise with literal Nazis. 

Despite what many, if not most Republicans and other right-leaning people in the states would like, the Alt-Right  became the face of the Right in America once Trump won. Republican leadership in Congress requires the support of the extremists to get anything done, and Tea-Party supported candidates have been winning state-level elections for years, often running horrendous attack ads on moderate Republicans they perceive as "betraying" conservative values.

This is an unfortunate situation, but it is not beholden on the Left to ignore the face of the Right and try and engage with the silent, and cowed, majority of moderate Republicans. How can they when the moderate Right refuses to challenge the extreme Right? Why is it that the only people who seem to go out and protest at places like Charlottesville are the liberals and anarchists and socialists? Maybe the moderates do go out and protest, but they certainly don't like to advertise that fact.

I don't actually know (obviously), but I do wonder if perhaps moderate Republicans have taken their cue from the Republican Party leadership who appear to have said they don't care if they embolden and empower white supremacists and Nazis, as long as it keep them in power, and the Left out.

So I have a question for the right-leaning people on this thread. Would you be willing to see a liberal, left-leaning government in the USA if that's what it takes to end the resurgent white supremacy movement?

[Mardoc]

That's just wishful thinking. In practice very few people care about making the world a better place if it comes at the cost of a little bit of their time/effort/money/comfort (which it usually does).

Everyone has a limit.  The great thing about the private sector is that you can make the world a better place at the same time you're also improving your own money/comfort situation.  And you only make money if you solve someone's problem.

Governments are, unfortunately, necessary, but forcing them to care about spending effort to make the world a better place is a lot of work.  That's why they'd rather do the easy thing and impose sanctions, hurting ordinary people in the hope of maybe changing another government (but in practice, never succeeding), rather than spend their own money and effort on a military solution that could actually work.  

I would be more upset about that if I thought that governments were good at identifying targets.

I agree that evidence supports poverty decreasing as part of the recovery, however most of the gains have gone to the top 5% of earners and income inequality has been rising.

So?  Life isn't a game of Civ.  It's ok for my neighbor to get richer faster than I do.  We can both win.

If you look at the statistics, you'll find that 'the top 5%' is not a static group, too.  Nor is the bottom 10%.  The bottom is mostly recent immigrants and new adults, who eventually get their feet under themselves and integrate into society and become rich like the rest of us.

Further, the statistics commonly quoted are always 'pre-tax and transfer wage compensation per household', not total consumption per person.  Total compensation is increasing much more quickly and uniformly, government benefits are real, the difference between the expensive brand and the cheap brand of things keeps shrinking.

Pharmaceutical companies routinely raise prices if they believe the market will support it, leading to people being unable to afford medication - see EpiPen. (IMO healthcare is a very good example of an the private sector making things worse)

...until their patent monopolies (government action) run out, and not on average.  To take your example of EpiPen - the underlying problems were regulations requiring schools have EpiPens (rather than injectable epinefrine) and FDA regulations preventing new entry into the market.  Even there, it's temporary and rare (hence newsworthy).  Note these private sector workarounds for the EpiPen example

Research shows that people have a tendency to self-sort into neighborhoods of similar people characteristics and beliefs thus reinforcing them. See White southern neighborhoods that separate their school districts to avoid desegregation regulations. Also internet echo chambers.

Sure, and a stronger tendency to take the obvious benefits of cooperation: see the steadily growing number of interracial marriages.  See the fact that Jim Crow had to be enforced by governments, because business owners kept breaking segregation.

I separated these two points, but it's actually better together; a big problem in Houston was the lack of building regulations that led to overbuilding on flood plains without consideration of drainage. Of course rebuilding is occurring on exactly the same spots (many of the homes flooded by Harvey had flooded previously in the Tax Day floods earlier this year) at taxpayer expense with no requirement to address the underlying issues. Even Republicans here are now talking about regulations - although whether they actually materialise or not is questionable.

If it was forbidden to build on flood plains, Houston would not exist.  The whole city is a flood plain.  Instead people would have to pay a lot more in order to live somewhere else (possibly in a different country).  Rebuilding occasionally is expensive, but not nearly as expensive as living normally someplace like San Francisco or NYC.

It's true that I would prefer if Federal Flood insurance charged high enough premiums that people

[Mardoc]

So I have a question for the right-leaning people on this thread. Would you be willing to see a liberal, left-leaning government in the USA if that's what it take to end the resurgent white supremacy movement?

I don't believe there is a 'resurgent' movement.  I think it's the same tiny band of dwindling, aging losers as existed in the 90's, and the 00's, only with a lot more camera time now than last year by people who want to sell the story of right-wing evil.   Which is also not a new phenomenon, every Republican since WWII has been labeled a Nazi by the left.  They didn't get camera time during the Obama presidency because he wasn't a Republican.  If you think the Tea Party are alt-right white nationalists - well, that says a lot more about you than it does about the Tea Party.

Consider that Charlottesville is the only rally the KKK crowd managed in this entire year, and it drew out ~300 people.  And accomplished none of their goals. That's less effective than Antifa, which can at least get speakers disinvited from campuses regularly, without losing any of their members to prison.

Maybe - maybe there are a handful of new faces, who are there because they like being on TV.  Best way to address them would be to ignore them, not vote Democrat.

But sure, in the counterfactual world where I had to vote for the Democrat or the American Nazi Party, I'd vote for the Democrat in a heartbeat.  At least, assuming the Democrat was recognizable as a modern Democrat; the world would have to be incredibly different than it actually is for Nazis to have any influence over the US.

[Mardoc]

Oh, also:

Why is it that the only people who seem to go out and protest at places like Charlottesville are the liberals and anarchists and socialists?

Because we care about results, not about appearances, and the only way to get camera-hugging narcissists to take off the cosplay and go home, is to ignore them! Let the local cops put them in jail if they break the law, let them look silly and stupid if they don't. Protesting just makes them feel important.

[Mr. Cairo]

every Republican since WWII has been labeled a Nazi by the left.  

What "left" are you talking about? If you're comfortable labeling the entire left thanks to the words and actions of a few loons on the fringe, then I'll be comfortable calling every Republican a white supremacist. The "left" is no more a monolith than the right is, yet somehow it is they who are guilty of calling every Republican racist and ending discussions. Do you not see that statements like the one you made there are no different from statements actually labeling every Republican a nazi? By that statement alone you appear to have given up on ever trying to reach dialogue with "the left".

If you think the Tea Party are alt-right white nationalists - well, that says a lot more about you than it does about the Tea Party.

I didn't say that at all. But don't try and tell me that the Tea Party is moderate, because it is not.

Consider that Charlottesville is the only rally the KKK crowd managed in this entire year, and it drew out ~300 people.  And accomplished none of their goals.  That's less effective than Antifa, which can at least get speakers disinvited from campuses regularly, without losing any of their members to prison.

No, Charlottesville got the most notice because of the violence. There have been alt-right rallies across the USA all year, they've even had a few in Canada, but because nothing that serious happened at them, most people didn't notice. Also, antifa members get arrested all the time.



Now I've heard lots of things about what the Democrats should do to try and reach out to right-leaning "middle America" and make compromises to get things actually done, but I've never heard anything about what Republicans, of any kind, are willing to compromise on. Throughout Obama's presidency the Republicans in Congress made they very identity based on strident and unyielding opposition to anything he did, and that has not changed. The only (important) Republican in Washington willing to work the Dems right now is Trump, who is as Republican as Sanders is Democrat, and I can't tell if that's due to incompetence, a vain attack on Ryan and McConnell, or an actual attempt to compromise.

edit:

Oh, also:

Why is it that the only people who seem to go out and protest at places like Charlottesville are the liberals and anarchists and socialists? 

Because we care about results, not about appearances, and the only way to get camera-hugging narcissists to take off the cosplay and go home, is to ignore them!  Let the local cops put them in jail if they break the law, let them look silly and stupid if they don't.  Protesting just makes them feel important.

Actually, as a non-American, I can tell you that protesting is very important, because it shows us that there are people willing to confront the nazis. If it weren't for the protesters, then we really would think that all Americans are racist.

[Commodore]

I'm very disturbed by some of the tone in this thread. It seems that liberal-minded people are beginning to define Republicans as 'enemy', which is the first step on the road to nowhere very brightly lit.

Long immersion in both conservative religious and liberal secular society (albeit north of the border) has led me to this conclusion: voices in these discussions are so strident because each group feels threatened by the other. This isn't rocket science, but it's necessary to understand if your goal is reconciliation and not conquest. If your goal is conquest, well ... liberal society is already lost to you, in your heart.

There is no brilliant short-term solution to the rapid partisanship of the States. What I do wish is for us to take the pot off the burner so that it doesn't boil over. This means remaining calm, not demonizing those one disagrees with, recognizing that neither the Antichrist nor Adolf Hitler has yet arisen, and building social and professional relationships with people on the opposite end of the political spectrum that will reduce 'othering' and build mutual respect-amid-enmity.

Give it time in your land. Empires never fracture peacefully. Glubb Pasha has foreseen. Technology changes but people are the same, don't expect otherwise.

[Mardoc]

What "left" are you talking about? If you're comfortable labeling the entire left thanks to the words and actions of a few loons on the fringe

Well, you.  In this thread.  Just now.

But don't try and tell me that the Tea Party is moderate, because it is not.

You phrased it as though it's a spectrum that blends from Nazi to alt-right to Tea Party, but you're certainly implying shared positions other than 'not a Democrat'.  It doesn't work that way.

By that statement alone you appear to have given up on ever trying to reach dialogue with "the left".

I'm about to give up on talking with you, that's for sure.  Might still be willing to talk with Darrell.