Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ipecac]

The "true balance" should be that republicans win unless democrats win by a 5 point margin ? I don't think you realize how weird your system is, and how unfair it is to the general population of the US. The american people wanted a democrat in the white house in 6 of the last 7 elections, but the republicans managed to get their guy elected 3 times.

The 'true balance' of electoral vote distribution should be calculated ignoring non-citizens. If they want to revise the system, that's a separate issue.

It's also worth noting that the results in terms of popular vote are under a system where winning states matters. If the system was about popular vote, the Republicans would have changed their strategy and they (e.g. Trump) might not have lost on that basis.

You mean in the general population ? Or in the legislature?
Getting rid of the electoral college is not some new whim. It almost happened in the 30s

Interesting. We'll see.

[Commodore]

Non-gerrymandered situations would accelerate the crack-up, for better or for worse (probably worse). For the non-US folks, might want to check out Maryland's 3rd congressional district:

When you talk about demographics, always remember those demographics get split up weirdly.

[Japper007]

Hey Nicolae, as someone on the same side of the fence as you, you are not helping our cause. At all. Instead of trying to change minds you are shouting inane abuse. Your points would stand up far better if you refrained from ad hominems and instead focus on founding them better.

[Bobchillingworth]

Hey Nicolae, as someone on the same side of the fence as you, you are not helping our cause. At all. Instead of trying to change minds you are shouting inane abuse. Your points would stand up far better if you refrained from ad hominems and instead focus on founding them better.

Eh. I understand your point, but Gavagai was explicit in saying he wasn't interested in having a discussion, and when you have ipecac asking loaded questions like "is anyone (besides the fascist-phobic loonies) interested in addressing the issue of how illegal immigants tilt the distribution of electoral votes?" it's obvious that he isn't either.

Sure, people are replying to each other's posts here, but it's either the like-minded agreeing with each other, people talking past each other, or occasionally a high-minded soul popping in to muse thoughtfully on the degradation of political discourse, before vanishing back into the mist. Plus several of the people arguing about U.S. politics here aren't even American citizens or residents, so there's not much point in trying to persuade anyone of anything, even if people were open to having a genuine, reasoned debate.

Given that, there's not much more to do than either carry on a pointless, ships-in-the-night non-dialogue or insult your opponents. The latter approach isn't particularly in keeping with RB's spirit of comity (albeit one which is frequently broken elsewhere anyway), but given the level of depraved behavior displayed by reactionaries lately, can you blame someone for not caring?

[Japper007]

Oh don't get me wrong I've long given up on trying to pursuade people in the other echo chamber. I always see arguing poltics as being for the benefit of people who are ON the fence, not on either side of it. Seeing the arguments on both sides written out can help them make an informed desicion on what side to support, at least more than listening to only one side arguing. Besides I have actually seen people change their political views, a friend of mine used to be a hard-line supporter of Right wing economic policy (to the point he even believed unions were a bad thing, lol), but repeatedly having his arguments torn down has flipped him entirely around (to the point that he now is an extreme proponent of progressive taxation and universal basic income, again lol).

[Bacchus]

Interestingly, outside of the US, universal basic income has plenty of support even on the right, under the rubric of minimizing bureaucracy. I for one would be glad to see it. I also support pushing the tax-exempt bracket as high as it would go, which I guess makes me a proponent of progressive taxation. But the latter should be just as well supported by any libertarian.

I would say plenty of people being non-American, if anything, is a good thing. Lets you step out of the sharply drawn national debate camps. If you are willing, of course.

[ipecac]

when you have ipecac asking loaded questions like "is anyone (besides the fascist-phobic loonies) interested in addressing the issue of how illegal immigants tilt the distribution of electoral votes?" it's obvious that he isn't either. 

As anyone who reads my posts will know, I am happy to discuss this and a wider variety other topics. But I suppose expecting you to cut out the lies and misrepresentations is a vain hope.

[ipecac]

Interestingly, outside of the US, universal basic income has plenty of support even on the right, under the rubric of minimizing bureaucracy. I for one would be glad to see it. I also support pushing the tax-exempt bracket as high as it would go, which I guess makes me a proponent of progressive taxation. But the latter should be just as well supported by any libertarian.

I would say plenty of people being non-American, if anything, is a good thing. Lets you step out of the sharply drawn national debate camps. If you are willing, of course.

It's quite interesting, the current period of political realignment. The lower-classes, traditionally forming the staunch base for the Left in the US and UK, are moving to support what is considered 'rightwing': nationalism. Trump though 'right-wing' is eschewing free trade, a mainstay of the right, for protectionism and free movement of labour for economic nationalism (or protectionism)

In such a time of flux, it makes sense that some right-wingers are starting to explore traditionally 'left' policies, socialism (of the non-Marxist variety). Clearly free markets can't support the nationalism they want, so they need to come up with something different.

Rightwing politicians talking about UBI though, are they just trying to get votes?

[AdrienIer]

Rightwing politicians want UBI to replace all other welfare.

[Bacchus]

Rightwing politicians talking about UBI though, are they just trying to get votes?

Hayek and Friedman both supported it, and they certainly weren't after votes. Also, if there is a societal consensus that some redistribution should happen, UBI (as a replacement to other forms of benefits) is a pretty right-wing way to go about it.