Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Brian Shanahan]

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.

Don't kid yourself. The far right has been the face of the republicans since Goldwater and Nixon came up with the Southern strategy. It's just that up to a few years ago there were enough Roosevelt Republicans still alive to mask the worst excesses of the party hierarchy.

[ipecac]

The wall would cost over $100bn, and that's before the kickbacks, bribes and cost inflations get factored in. It is pork barrel and corporate welfare on a giant scale.

Doesn't matter. Even Mexicans wants a wall - but on their southern border.

As nationalism rises, walls will continue to go up all across the world- America, Europe, the Middle East.

[Brian Shanahan]

All my evidence is anecdotal;

Anecdote=/=Evidence. Anecdotes are stories, and at best (in science) are something that would make a researcher look up and say "hmm, that's interesting, we should run some tests on that to see if there is any evidence to support it, or if it is simply random noise that temporarily looks like a pattern".

When you look at the evidence you see the US system spends a lot more money than any European system, and ends up with worse outcomes (i.e. the average US citizen lives a shorter life, and with more health problems). Now a portion of that is going to be due to non health system related issues (for example US pollution standards are lower than European ones {even taking into account the cheating going on with diesel vehicles}), but the relative values of health systems does play a very large part in the differences. It turns out that when you run your health service as a profit making concern, the outcomes are worse than when it is run as a public service.

[Brian Shanahan]

Brian is not even willing to admit that the

What you said earlier is true. There is little point in us having a discussion, I am dealing in matters of fact and you are dealing in matters of party political ideology, some days 2+2 will equal 4 for you other days 5 and yet other days 3.

[darrelljs]

Reality.

Look at the economic relationships: previously, most people didn't have their own land, so had to work for lords who took the lion's share of any profits from their farming work.

During the industrial revolution, the masses didn't have their own machinery and factories, so had to work for tycoons who took the lion's share of profits.

Currently, as SevenSpirits points out, most people don't have their own capital, have to work for CEOs and executives who take the lion's share.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Brother, that is not serfdom.  That is a condition which, by definition, is a condition of bondage...and has been outlawed by UN convention for some time now.  You might think its unfair that you to have to work for someone else to get paid, but that's a far cry from serfdom.

As someone whose worked for one company or another for all of my life and had a pretty good standard of living as a result of the wages they paid me, I'm pretty happy.  I know that's not everyone's experience, but I don't know a single serf.  I do know plenty of working class people (typically well armed) that would be highly offended if they were called serfs because they exchanged their labor for money .

Darrell

[darrelljs]

you are dealing in matters of party political ideology, some days 2+2 will equal 4 for you other days 5 and yet other days 3.

I'm sorry Brian, but that's not true. Mardoc has consistently been rational and typically made an attempt to provide data in his arguments. Nuance is everything and you might disagree with his conclusions, but please don't question his integrity.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

Problem for your denial is that we know that those half a million voters were disenfranchised. It's been published the proof is openly available for the public to see.

Snopes says inconclusive. Can you provide a credible reference?

When you look at the evidence you see the US system spends a lot more money than any European system, and ends up with worse outcomes (i.e. the average US citizen lives a shorter life, and with more health problems).

I agree the average is worse. I'd be curious to see a comparison between the top 50% in the U.S. and the top 50% in the EU.

Darrell

[ipecac]

Brother, that is not serfdom.  That is a condition which, by definition, is a condition of bondage

Yes, in this liberal age the focus of many is on freedom or lack of it. I'm looking at the economic aspect: distribution of capital and how that never significantly changes.

...and has been outlawed by UN convention for some time now.

Which means absolutely nothing.

You might think its unfair that you to have to work for someone else to get paid, but that's a far cry from serfdom.

As someone whose worked for one company or another for all of my life and had a pretty good standard of living as a result of the wages they paid me, I'm pretty happy.  I know that's not everyone's experience, but I don't know a single serf.  I do know plenty of working class people (typically well armed) that would be highly offended if they were called serfs

Lots of serfs were happy and had much better working lives than the average worker today.

Needless to say, whether you or any other person would be offended by the point I'm making means absolutely nothing.

because they exchanged their labor for money 

That's a complete strawman.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Health care: Don't care about it because demographics are so much more important. The GOP is going to lose in 2024. Trying to build bridges to minorities already failed with GWB in 2000.

Voting: Brain is talking about votes being tossed. That's not true. It is true that voter ID laws likely cost Clinton the election in tipping-point state Wisconsin http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94997 (earlier studies didn't work because they foolishly just used the 2012 voter data that doesn't count because Obama inflated the black turnout) but this is going to backfire on the GOP: when the DEMs win in 2024 it will give them free pass to change to a mail-in ballot system which will be great for them.

The wall: It would cost $70 billion and the increased costs of borrowing would cost $200 billion if the government shuts down for a single day. Of course you could say that they will use the threat of the government shut down again and again to get stuff. But that's not right: because of midterm blues and the fact that the DEMs should never face other GOP President they only have to hold out for two years or two budgets. People don't want to admit that the true reason the wall is unacceptable because it's a monument to xenophobia. The problem with that is that it is tangential logic and if that's allowed in you are rapidly get to the point of "anything that helps my team is good and anything helps the other team is bad".

[Bacchus]

Most of the people who said they did not vote because they lacked ID actually possessed a qualifying form of ID.

I think this is typical and the hysteria around disenfranchisement has done a lot to convince people that they are being disenfranchised even when they aren't. If you take any story on the issue (goo.gl/7MkCUF, for example), how much space is devoted to explaining what you can use to vote? Sometimes none at all. In this particular story, the journalist opens with this completely misleading paragraph: "In his wallet, Anthony Settles carries an expired Texas identification card, his Social Security card and an old student ID from the University of Houston, where he studied math and physics decades ago. What he does not have is the one thing that he needs to vote this presidential election: a current Texas photo ID."

What one thing? Anyone reading this paragraph can easily conclude that the regular set of identification documents is not enough to vote, and you need to obtain something esoteric and specific to the election, as opposed to one of the seven eligible documents. If you read this very closely, you will note that the paragraph actually hangs on the words "expired", "old" and "current". Even this guy actually already has a form of photo ID, which he clearly did not have a problem in obtaining, just not a current one. The article goes on to talk about how difficult it is to obtain photo ID, and never once simply lists the forms of acceptable ID. Not once! And of course the headline is some ridiculously generalized claim that is not substantiated even anecdotally in the article, but can well reinforce the feeling of people that they can't vote because they belong to the groups named.