Holy ********* Crazy

[Dill]

(05-31-2017, 02:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting, so you're saying that Libertarians are the next closest thing to Facists?

Please, do explain...

Not my fight, but I cannot resist an answer.

Strictly linnear representations of the political spectrum are inherently flawed. Some of the right positions on the political spectrum are so qualitatively different from one another that it is distorting to place one further right than the other. E.G. Fascism and paleoconservatism are certainly far right, but they are also very different and their representatives usually hate one another.

Libertarians are spread across the spectrum from left to right; they evolve from both left and right positions, though the right wing disposition tends to dominate in US discourse.  That is probably what XXLT's spectrum is designed to show.

Also in the US, after the Bush fiasco, many Republicans de-identified with their party, deciding to become "independents" or libertarians. They still hold the same Republican priorities when they vote, though. They are libertarians when it comes to government interventions like welfare and foreign aid, but conservatives when it comes to immigration and civil rights.

[Dill]

(05-30-2017, 11:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To bolded, that is true.  However, these increasingly outrageous displays are continuing.  Are you going to make an exception for every idiot that does something rash, in the name of denouncing Trump?

So much for the Party that once championed the quote "Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country".

Wait a minute--one comedian posts a protest picture, and it's the end of the Democratic party--a party of national service? This makes even less sense when you consider the what the other party has become.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-31-2017, 02:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Not my fight, but I cannot resist an answer.

Strictly linnear representations of the political spectrum are inherently flawed. Some of the right positions on the political spectrum are so qualitatively different from one another that it is distorting to place one further right than the other. E.G. Fascism and paleoconservatism are certainly far right, but they are also very different and their representatives usually hate one another.

Libertarians are spread across the spectrum from left to right; they evolve from both left and right positions, though the right wing disposition tends to dominate in US discourse.  That is probably what XXLT's spectrum is designed to show.

Also in the US, after the Bush fiasco, many Republicans de-identified with their party, deciding to become "independents" or libertarians. They still hold the same Republican priorities when they vote, though. They are libertarians when it comes to government interventions like welfare and foreign aid, but conservatives when it comes to immigration and civil rights.

Xxlt didn't feel so when he decided to post a "PSA" to insult my views and put me next to fascists (who are not inherently right wing either).

They don't need you to make excuses for them. I know exactly what it was designed to show. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a fascist. Just like anyone who doesn't agree with their (ie Griever in another thread) is a racist. Just like anyone who doesn't agree with them is a sexist or a bigot.

It's getting really tedious to go on this board (or really most places on the internet these days) and all it is, is a big circle jerk of Trump hate, and if you don't agree, you will be called some of the worst things imaginable regardless of the fact that fascism and belief in personal rights and free will are pretty much opposites. That's the MO these days.

Just getting real old.

[Rotobeast]

(05-31-2017, 10:54 AM)xxlt Wrote: PSA:

This is a one dimensional graph, which would only make sense in representation of desired government spending on social programs. Libertarians are diametrically opposed to Authoritarianism, which is what I feel would take the spot of the mistakenly placed Libertarianism, if this chart were to represent a more generalized view. As far as the social programs, Libertarians would much rather attempt to fix the problem causing a need, rather than continually toss tax payer money at it. (Cause taxation is theft)

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the knowledge that Libertarians are far more "left" on the Social Acceptance scale than conservatives. So I feel that a more generalized graph would place us between moderate and conservative.

Shout out to Dill for the fair statement regarding the vast array of thought within the Libertarian Party.

FWIW...I'm currently lobbying for even more inclusion and advanced cooperation with other parties. 

We need to get shit done, before the bubble pops.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2017, 01:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh boo hoo.  They feel like they don't have any representation.  A lot of us feel that way with candidates.  Don't invest yourself so much in a candidate.  When I see people crying with joy at a convention or crying in sorrow when their candidate loses I'm thinking what is wrong with you?  If our country all of a sudden takes a sharp left, and I start throwing rocks, do you think anyone is going to be saying, "Awww he just feels disenfranchised." 

You're acting as if I find any of this to mean the violence is excusable. Finding an explanation for the violence is not the same as excusing it. I decry all acts of violence because I find them all to be abhorrent. I'm a pacifist and don't find any of it to be excusable, but I'm also someone that enjoys the social sciences and so looking for explanations of the behavior is something I enjoy doing.

As for the first bit of your response, what you seem to be missing is that there is no one out there that represents some segments of the population. There are people that have no opportunity to have their views represented in our government, not even getting the chance to cast a vote for them. It's one of the flaws of the two-party system. This is disenfranchisement, and the system is not set up in its current form to correct for this. Wars have been fought over people not being represented, our country was founded after one such war. I don't see the disenfranchisement in our current situation to be as serious as that of the colonists but the citizens of our country are very underrepresented, left, right, and middle compared to other western democracies. The politicians aren't addressing it, and the attitude you have expressed in your response is the reason why the voters aren't demanding change. People see it through the lens of sour grapes and only look at the surface of the issue instead of seeking out an understanding of the root cause and looking for a solution.

[Rotobeast]

A good quote....

Quote:"There is no one type of conservative, any more than there is one type of libertarian, or for that matter, one type of liberal/progressive. Successful parties are not ideologically pure havens for a particular ideological "ilk", but rather a tent under which those who identify with most of the core principles of the party can unroll their sleeping bags." - Senator Laura Ebke

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2017, 03:41 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: A good quote....

This is of course referring to parties in the US. Parties in Europe are successful, and are very much more ideological. All parties are here are electoral funding systems that don't do much other than raise money for candidates and spend money on candidates. But with a two party system you can never have that because there are more ideologies than just two.

And yes, there are more than there are parties in many European countries, but more parties are able to better represent the variety of ideologies.

[Rotobeast]

(05-31-2017, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is of course referring to parties in the US. Parties in Europe are successful, and are very much more ideological. All parties are here are electoral funding systems that don't do much other than raise money for candidates and spend money on candidates. But with a two party system you can never have that because there are more ideologies than just two.

And yes, there are more than there are parties in many European countries, but more parties are able to better represent the variety of ideologies.

Absolutely agree.
I just felt the quote applicable, due to generalizations of one another's parties here.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-31-2017, 02:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Even as a percentage.

Source?

[GMDino]

(05-31-2017, 04:26 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Source?

Plenty of them.

Here's one.

http://thehill.com/latino/324607-reports-find-that-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens

Quote:But the two studies don’t point to immigrants posing more of a threat of crime than citizens born in the U.S.

Among people aged 18-54, 1.53 percent of natives are incarcerated, as are 0.85 percent of undocumented immigrants and 0.47 percent of documented immigrants, according to the Cato study of comparative incarceration rates.


The Cato study found that there are about 2 million U.S-born citizens, 123,000 undocumented immigrants and 64,000 documented foreign citizens in U.S. jails. 


If natural-born citizens were incarcerated at the same rate as undocumented immigrants, "about 893,000 fewer natives would be incarcerated," read the study. Similarly, if native citizens were incarcerated at the same rate as documented immigrants, 1.4 million fewer would be in prison.


The Sentencing Project study even goes so far as to suggest that increased immigration "may have contributed to the historic drop in crime rates" since 1990.



While the study is "not definitive in proving causation," it links crime trends — 730 violent crimes per 100,000 citizens in 1990 compared to 362 per 100,000 in 2014 — and immigration trends in the same period. According to the study, there were 3.5 million undocumented immigrants in the country in 1990, and 11.1 million in 2014.

Edit to add this one also:
https://qz.com/895624/how-much-crime-is-committed-by-immigrants/

Quote:There are proportionally fewer foreign-born people in jail than US -born citizens

According to the Bureau of Justice Services, of the 1,574,700 prisoners detained in state and federal prisons in 2013, 73,665 were foreign-born (p.20). That makes it 4.6% of the prison population, versus a total immigrant population of 13.3%, both legal and undocumented. Further, according to an American Immigration Council analysis of Census data, 1.6% of all immigrant men aged 18 to 39 were imprisoned, while the US-born rate was twice has high, at 3.3%.

[Millhouse]

(05-30-2017, 11:11 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Chelsea Clinton already denounced it and called it vile. So good for her, though she is friends with Ivanka too.

If I remember right, KGriffin does a NYE show doesnt she? I just wonder if she will still be doing it. Because if someone did something similar of Hillary or Obama, they would definitely be replaced for something like that.

Anyways, I never did like her comedy. I tried watching some of her standups years ago, and just not my kinda humor I guess. But most chick comedians arent for some reason.

CNN just fired her for doing NYE with Anderson Cooper. Kudos to them. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/31/media/cnn-kathy-griffin/index.html

Now back to the off-topic discussion.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2017, 04:37 PM)Millhouse Wrote: CNN just fired her for doing NYE with Anderson Cooper. Kudos to them. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/31/media/cnn-kathy-griffin/index.html

Now back to the off-topic discussion.

Yeah, my wife is pissed about that. I couldn't care less. She enjoyed seeing Kathy and Anderson interact, I'd rather just go to bed at a normal time.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-31-2017, 03:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're acting as if I find any of this to mean the violence is excusable. Finding an explanation for the violence is not the same as excusing it. I decry all acts of violence because I find them all to be abhorrent. I'm a pacifist and don't find any of it to be excusable, but I'm also someone that enjoys the social sciences and so looking for explanations of the behavior is something I enjoy doing.

As for the first bit of your response, what you seem to be missing is that there is no one out there that represents some segments of the population. There are people that have no opportunity to have their views represented in our government, not even getting the chance to cast a vote for them. It's one of the flaws of the two-party system. This is disenfranchisement, and the system is not set up in its current form to correct for this. Wars have been fought over people not being represented, our country was founded after one such war. I don't see the disenfranchisement in our current situation to be as serious as that of the colonists but the citizens of our country are very underrepresented, left, right, and middle compared to other western democracies. The politicians aren't addressing it, and the attitude you have expressed in your response is the reason why the voters aren't demanding change. People see it through the lens of sour grapes and only look at the surface of the issue instead of seeking out an understanding of the root cause and looking for a solution.

So someone's whose view is in the extreme minority isn't being represented because they don't have a person who is going to lose to vote for?  The Republican in LA feels better because he gets to cast a losing vote?  

The colonists had zero representation as a whole.  They didn't revolt because some people didn't think their point of view was being represented.  They revolted because they had no representation period.

If the majority of people don't want it changed, then that's what we are as a people.  If someone is 30 years old, and no candidate from mayor to President  has yet to represent their lofty views properly, then maybe the problem is with them.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2017, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So someone's whose view is in the extreme minority isn't being represented because they don't have a person who is going to lose to vote for?  The Republican in LA feels better because he gets to cast a losing vote?  

It seems you don't comprehend what I was saying. Disenfranchisement is being unable to have a voice in your government. If no one is even available to vote for that represents your views it can be seen as a type of disenfranchisement. Even if you are in the minority and you never vote for a winning candidate, if you have a candidate you feel comfortable supporting then you have had your voice heard.

(05-31-2017, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The colonists had zero representation as a whole.  They didn't revolt because some people didn't think their point of view was being represented.  They revolted because they had no representation period.

According to the British government, the colonies were represented. It's all a matter of perspective. They saw the representation of the colonies as adequate, many in the colonies felt it was not. All of this is subjective, which is why you can disagree with me on this but it doesn't mean either one of us is right or wrong. My position is that our country is underrepresented and there are segments of the population that are disenfranchised because of it (beyond those that some states work to actively disenfranchise).

(05-31-2017, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If the majority of people don't want it changed, then that's what we are as a people.  If someone is 30 years old, and no candidate from mayor to President  has yet to represent their lofty views properly, then maybe the problem is with them.  

Or maybe we have a political system that is antiquated and needs updated, and not just because we have had the same number of representatives in our federal government we had a century ago when we were less than one-third our current population.

[*michaelsean*]

Quote: It seems you don't comprehend what I was saying. Disenfranchisement is being unable to have a voice in your government. If no one is even available to vote for that represents your views it can be seen as a type of disenfranchisement. Even if you are in the minority and you never vote for a winning candidate, if you have a candidate you feel comfortable supporting then you have had your voice heard. 

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am saying that if you are  in this small minority that absolutely nobody even running represents, then maybe your point of view is out of whack.  I don't really care if socialists and fascists don't have a candidate they feel comfortable voting for.  I have an uncle in NY who is a flat out socialist, but he's also a pretty smart guy and understands that's not reality.  

Quote: Or maybe we have a political system that is antiquated and needs updated, and not just because we have had the same number of representatives in our federal government we had a century ago when we were less than one-third our current population. 

It needs updating if the people think  it needs updating.  If the people in general are fine with it now, then that's what we have decided our system should be.  Because you or I or someone else thinks it's broken doesn't make it so.  It's only broken if the people no longer want it.  If it serves the people they way they want it to serve them, then it's working.

[Dill]

(05-31-2017, 03:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Xxlt didn't feel so when he decided to post a "PSA" to insult my views and put me next to fascists (who are not inherently right wing either).

They don't need you to make excuses for them. I know exactly what it was designed to show. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a fascist. Just like anyone who doesn't agree with their (ie Griever in another thread) is a racist. Just like anyone who doesn't agree with them is a sexist or a bigot.

It's getting really tedious to go on this board (or really most places on the internet these days) and all it is, is a big circle jerk of Trump hate, and if you don't agree, you will be called some of the worst things imaginable regardless of the fact that fascism and belief in personal rights and free will are pretty much opposites. That's the MO these days.

Just getting real old.

Well I can understand your frustration somewhat. Trumpsters do get called fascists and racists and sexists and so forth. I am not sure which threads you are referring to, but taking the accusations case by case, sometimes Trumpsters are called racist for defending racist policies or statements by Trump. So whether the accusation is unfair depends on what the Trumpster is claiming or defending.

As far as fascism as a political epithet in the US, you are right about the misapplication. Virtually ALL fascist movements in Europe are statist. They subordinate individuals to the state, arguing it is the state which provides individuals with their "destiny" and the will of the state is embodied in the will of an immensely capable and visionary leader. Outside the state the individual is nothing. That is why fascist states are totalitarian, nothing is outside them, no civil society. And all fascisms reject the notion of universal human equality. Further, virtually all such movements love to embed individuals of all ages and both sexes in military-style, uniformed units, and then drill them to instrumentalize body as well as will. 

Few Americans go for this sort of thing. And Trump is not the kind of self-disciplined leader such a movement requires. American conservatives are mostly classical liberals. Individuals guide their own destinies in a free market. The state's role should be minimal--national defense, courts, police. Negative liberty, not positive. But right wingers also tend to be authoritarian, especially regarding law and order and foreign policy. That, among other things, is why people make Nazi analogies. And that is why one can generate lists of similar policy goals, from tightening immigration to opposing racial equality to loosening gun control to the hypernationalism of putting Germany/America first.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2017, 05:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am saying that if you are  in this small minority that absolutely nobody even running represents, then maybe your point of view is out of whack.  I don't really care if socialists and fascists don't have a candidate they feel comfortable voting for.  I have an uncle in NY who is a flat out socialist, but he's also a pretty smart guy and understands that's not reality.  

I'm in no more of a minority than most people. Most people's views aren't being represented by the people running for office, they just vote party lines without realizing that what they are voting for doesn't really jive with their views. What I am in favor of isn't socialism. On the global scale it is a center-left ideology and one that FDR espoused. So it's far from unrealistic.

(05-31-2017, 05:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It needs updating if the people think  it needs updating.  If the people in general are fine with it now, then that's what we have decided our system should be.  Because you or I or someone else thinks it's broken doesn't make it so.  It's only broken if the people no longer want it.  If it serves the people they way they want it to serve them, then it's working.

Most people don't even know these things. How many people can tell you our population has tripled in a century and that the number of representatives has remained the same? How many people can actually tell you how the POTUS was originally elected and the original purpose of the Electoral College? How many people don't realize they really aren't party members and that our political parties aren't int he business of policy? It's not that people don't think it's broken, it's that they don't care enough to look up and see what's in front of their face.

[Dill]

(05-31-2017, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is of course referring to parties in the US. Parties in Europe are successful, and are very much more ideological. All parties are here are electoral funding systems that don't do much other than raise money for candidates and spend money on candidates. But with a two party system you can never have that because there are more ideologies than just two.

And yes, there are more than there are parties in many European countries, but more parties are able to better represent the variety of ideologies.

Yes. The "logic" of  two-party system is just different.

Also, in the parliamentary system, votes for 3rd or 4th or 5th parties are not wasted if their representatives get some legislative seats for their votes.

Another advantage is that political issues get discussed in greater depth and from more angles.

[Dill]

I am enjoying the dialogue between Michaelsean and Belsnickel. Good questions and good answers. Both parties stay focused on the issues, and so their dialogue digs deeper than the usual tit for tat name-calling.

[Dill]

(05-31-2017, 04:46 PM)michaelsean pid= Wrote:So someone's whose view is in the extreme minority isn't being represented because they don't have a person who is going to lose to vote for?  The Republican in LA feels better because he gets to cast a losing vote?  

The colonists had zero representation as a whole.  They didn't revolt because some people didn't think their point of view was being represented.  They revolted because they had no representation period.

If the majority of people don't want it changed, then that's what we are as a people.  If someone is 30 years old, and no candidate from mayor to President  has yet to represent their lofty views properly, then maybe the problem is with them.  

The colonies were not a "whole" though. They were discrete political entities, each with a different relation with the mother country. The situation was different in different colonies, with all having local representation.  At one point the six northern ones were gathered under one administrative unit called the Dominion of New England. Right after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, they revolted and overthrew the Dominion governor in Boston and lietuentant governor in New York. William and Mary negotiated new contracts with each of these colonies, usually granting petitions of elected representatives of the colony in question. They didn't have direct representation in the British Parliament, but they had considerable power over their affairs. E.g. in New Jersey and New York, after 1702, state legislatures controlled the governor's salary--a real "check" on the crown. What made representation a battle cry were policies like the Navigation Acts and Stamp Act. However, "representation" would not really have fixed the problem, given the small population of the colonies and the manner in which their interests were diverging from Great Britain's. They would have always been voted down.

The point I am coming to is that the colonial system was eventually top cumbersome to ever function as democracy centered in London. This situation might map onto Bels point about a parliamentary vs a two party system with the Empire something like a two party system in which choices are narrowed for those far from the centers of power and major parties.