Well.....Well....Well...

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-26-2018, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the real issue, and it isn't that democracy isn't working, it's that major decisions have been made outside of it of late.  Same sex marriage was imposed on the nation by the courts, no one voted it in and the elected legislature did not vote for or the POTUS sign it in to law, (please note I am not commenting on the morality of same sex marriage or anything other than how it was finally implemented).  If you go back to 2008 in CA and prop 8, which would have banned same sex marriage, passed by ~5% in a uber liberal state that Obama carried by ~24% points.  Even in CA same sex marriage would have been banned.  Now, I can foresee people making the argument that the result would be different if held now and I have to say that, while it may be closer, I could easily see prop 8 passing if it was voted on tomorrow.  In any event, you have a major, seismic, shift in the US social fabric being implemented by the judicial branch.  This has, of course, been followed by a further pushing of "the envelope" when it comes to transgender, gender fluid, non-binary, zie/zir and the like.  You think the people who were on the fence about same sex marriage aren't reacting in even stronger terms to the continued push in this direction, just not publicly?

Secondly, you have Trump's EC victory.  Again, I am not commenting on the validity of the EC or the fact it has been in use for hundreds of years.  Trump winning an EC victory despite losing the popular vote is also perceived as the system operating outside of the democratic tradition.  So, you have cries of "illegitimate" and "impeach" from the day after the election forward.  This pushes Trump voters further to the right as they perceive it as sour grapes and a refusal to acknowledge the election results.  


So, really, democracy is not what's under attack, it's the decisions outside the democratic process that have brought us to this point.  As to a revolution, we aren't anywhere near one yet, but I agree we are heading in that direction and are closer than we've been at anytime since 1866.  If I'm a left leaning person I certainly don't want one as the military, law enforcement and private gun owners swing heavily right.  

Excellent points.  I must agree with what you are saying here......I have been saying myself we are in a position of catering to the extremes of either side of the aisle, it seems.  Compromise and common sense have long since left us....

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the real issue, and it isn't that democracy isn't working, it's that major decisions have been made outside of it of late.  Same sex marriage was imposed on the nation by the courts, no one voted it in and the elected legislature did not vote for or the POTUS sign it in to law, (please note I am not commenting on the morality of same sex marriage or anything other than how it was finally implemented).  If you go back to 2008 in CA and prop 8, which would have banned same sex marriage, passed by ~5% in a uber liberal state that Obama carried by ~24% points.  Even in CA same sex marriage would have been banned.  Now, I can foresee people making the argument that the result would be different if held now and I have to say that, while it may be closer, I could easily see prop 8 passing if it was voted on tomorrow.  In any event, you have a major, seismic, shift in the US social fabric being implemented by the judicial branch.  This has, of course, been followed by a further pushing of "the envelope" when it comes to transgender, gender fluid, non-binary, zie/zir and the like.  You think the people who were on the fence about same sex marriage aren't reacting in even stronger terms to the continued push in this direction, just not publicly?

Secondly, you have Trump's EC victory.  Again, I am not commenting on the validity of the EC or the fact it has been in use for hundreds of years.  Trump winning an EC victory despite losing the popular vote is also perceived as the system operating outside of the democratic tradition.  So, you have cries of "illegitimate" and "impeach" from the day after the election forward.  This pushes Trump voters further to the right as they perceive it as sour grapes and a refusal to acknowledge the election results.  

When I think back, looking at the court cases, I think back to the end of segregation. There was an uproar, sure, but we moved on. Same for the SSM cases. And then when we look at the EC we see the same thing with the prior occurrences. Yeah, these things play a part, but not as much as you think. This has more to do with elected officials not actually being responsive to the people than it does those two things.

(06-26-2018, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, really, democracy is not what's under attack, it's the decisions outside the democratic process that have brought us to this point.  As to a revolution, we aren't anywhere near one yet, but I agree we are heading in that direction and are closer than we've been at anytime since 1866.  If I'm a left leaning person I certainly don't want one as the military, law enforcement and private gun owners swing heavily right.  

This is one reason why I make an effort to move us away from a left v. right conversation. Don't get me wrong, there are some well armed DSA members that are ready to take to the streets around here, but it isn't about that concern. Both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of the problems in our society. This is a country that is no longer of, by, and for the people. It is of, by, and for the corporations and wealthy elite. This is something that the military, police, and gun owners should also be unhappy about. This may be a Republican government and they may lean right, but their interests still aren't being represented by these officials.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-26-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When I think back, looking at the court cases, I think back to the end of segregation. There was an uproar, sure, but we moved on. Same for the SSM cases. And then when we look at the EC we see the same thing with the prior occurrences. Yeah, these things play a part, but not as much as you think. This has more to do with elected officials not actually being responsive to the people than it does those two things.


This is one reason why I make an effort to move us away from a left v. right conversation. Don't get me wrong, there are some well armed DSA members that are ready to take to the streets around here, but it isn't about that concern. Both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of the problems in our society. This is a country that is no longer of, by, and for the people. It is of, by, and for the corporations and wealthy elite. This is something that the military, police, and gun owners should also be unhappy about. This may be a Republican government and they may lean right, but their interests still aren't being represented by these officials.

For me, the whole gay marriage thing had a very easy compromise.  Give homosexual couples a "civil union" that allows them the access to healthcare, tax breaks, and other benefits they sought, while not calling it a "marriage" that seems to be the crux of the argument against it.  Win, win.  That's where I agree with what SSF was saying.  We never even got presented with a compromise that could have appeased both sides.  As for the EC, it's what we have, and have had for a long time.  If we abolish it, we must come up with a way that does not allow a handful of metro areas to speak for the rest of the country.

As to your response directly, I couldn't agree any more. The oligarchy is in full effect.....

[*PhilHos*]

(06-26-2018, 04:11 PM)Wyche Wrote: We never even got presented with a compromise 

I dare say this is one of the biggest - if not the biggest - issue with our government today: the lack of compromising. It seems like both sides stick to their guns no matter how extreme the position is and refuse to seek out a compromise.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-26-2018, 04:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I dare say this is one of the biggest - if not the biggest - issue with our government today: the lack of compromising. It seems like both sides stick to their guns no matter how extreme the position is and refuse to seek out a compromise.

Agree 100%.  The atmosphere across the land is toxic.


"Both parties have their horns locked up like two bull elk fighting over territory while the business of the people lays dead in the dust."




~Gatewood Galbraith

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 04:11 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: For me, the whole gay marriage thing had a very easy compromise.  Give homosexual couples a "civil union" that allows them the access to healthcare, tax breaks, and other benefits they sought, while not calling it a "marriage" that seems to be the crux of the argument against it.  Win, win.  That's where I agree with what SSF was saying.  We never even got presented with a compromise that could have appeased both sides.  As for the EC, it's what we have, and have had for a long time.  If we abolish it, we must come up with a way that does not allow a handful of metro areas to speak for the rest of the country.

As to your response directly, I couldn't agree any more. The oligarchy is in full effect.....

The only way the compromise you propose works is if government calls all legal marriages civil unions. If the government were to continue calling straight unions marriages and create a special class, then we get into the "separate but equal" territory which was shot down previously in a different context.

As for the EC, why? If the POTUS is elected by the whole eligible population, then why should it matter the distribution of the votes if the populous as a whole voted and that was the outcome? I do think switching to RCV should happen for it, though.

(06-26-2018, 04:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I dare say this is one of the biggest - if not the biggest - issue with our government today: the lack of compromising. It seems like both sides stick to their guns no matter how extreme the position is and refuse to seek out a compromise.

I had a little back and forth with a conservative person I follow on Twitter that works at RSI. She was discussing how amazed she was at how little policy (including laws) are made based on evidence. Instead, it is based almost exclusively on special interests, "gut" feelings, things of that nature. Evidence based policy is the goal for people like me, and this includes many think tanks out there as well as most public servants, but it just doesn't happen.

I was talking about how true this was and how even though this person and I would likely disagree on many things, we would be able to provide evidence for our positions. Evidence can point you in different directions, but the data helps to provide a (nearly) objective starting point at which to compromise and come to an agreement. We haven't been able to collect data to the degree we are able to today until very recently, but in the past 30-40 years there has been an attack on the wonks. The people whose job it used to be to craft policy have been pushed out of Congressional offices and replaced with lobbyists that are writing the legislation. The wonks that are left in the government are not consulted as they once were, officials preferring to give deference to special interests that will then cut them checks come campaign time.

This, of course, ties into my theme these past couple of days. We have a government that is being run by corporations and the wealthy elite, and not in our best interests. But working to rely on more evidence based policy decisions would also allow for more compromise in government because at least there could be a degree of good faith about the other side of the debate. Right now there is none.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-26-2018, 04:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had a little back and forth with a conservative person I follow on Twitter that works at RSI. She was discussing how amazed she was at how little policy (including laws) are made based on evidence. Instead, it is based almost exclusively on special interests, "gut" feelings, things of that nature. Evidence based policy is the goal for people like me, and this includes many think tanks out there as well as most public servants, but it just doesn't happen.

I was talking about how true this was and how even though this person and I would likely disagree on many things, we would be able to provide evidence for our positions. Evidence can point you in different directions, but the data helps to provide a (nearly) objective starting point at which to compromise and come to an agreement. We haven't been able to collect data to the degree we are able to today until very recently, but in the past 30-40 years there has been an attack on the wonks. The people whose job it used to be to craft policy have been pushed out of Congressional offices and replaced with lobbyists that are writing the legislation. The wonks that are left in the government are not consulted as they once were, officials preferring to give deference to special interests that will then cut them checks come campaign time.

This, of course, ties into my theme these past couple of days. We have a government that is being run by corporations and the wealthy elite, and not in our best interests. But working to rely on more evidence based policy decisions would also allow for more compromise in government because at least there could be a degree of good faith about the other side of the debate. Right now there is none.

You realize you've not left me any way to respond, right? You've said nothing outrageous nor have you really made an argument of any kind I can agree or disagree with. You suck, Matt.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-26-2018, 04:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The only way the compromise you propose works is if government calls all legal marriages civil unions. If the government were to continue calling straight unions marriages and create a special class, then we get into the "separate but equal" territory which was shot down previously in a different context.

As for the EC, why? If the POTUS is elected by the whole eligible population, then why should it matter the distribution of the votes if the populous as a whole voted and that was the outcome? I do think switching to RCV should happen for it, though.

I'm for the RCV, been following it TWICE in Maine, and once in SD.  If the two parties are against it, you can bet it's probably a good thing. Politics in major metro areas are much different than they are in middle America.  There is a more dense populace in said metro areas, so if you move away from the EC, or something like it, you represent an urban population while abandoning a rural one.  At least that's how I see it.

I don't think it's separate, but equal.  That said, it seems we're cool with offending and disenfranchising one sect of the people for the wants of another.  Marriage is, in fact, a civil union in the eyes of the law......just call it that, and leave the term "marriage" to the Judeo Christian beliefs that implemented it and their ceremonies.  Coming from a moderate centrist......you look for ways to appease the majority of folks, I think that works.  There will be some on the extremes of either view that still wouldn't be happy, but to them I would say "tough shit".  Probably why I would never make it in politics....lol.  Take the emotion out, and look for compromise and common sense.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-26-2018, 04:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You realize you've not left me any way to respond, right? You've said nothing outrageous nor have you really made an argument of any kind I can agree or disagree with. You suck, Matt.

Yup, agree with him totally on that part....

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 04:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You realize you've not left me any way to respond, right? You've said nothing outrageous nor have you really made an argument of any kind I can agree or disagree with. You suck, Matt.

I do what I can.

(06-26-2018, 05:11 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: I'm for the RCV, been following it TWICE in Maine, and once in SD.  If the two parties are against it, you can bet it's probably a good thing. Politics in major metro areas are much different than they are in middle America.  There is a more dense populace in said metro areas, so if you move away from the EC, or something like it, you represent an urban population while abandoning a rural one.  At least that's how I see it.

But if that is what wins the majority of votes, why is that a problem? There will always be people not represented by the executive in a national election. Hell, that happens in other elections. I live in a blue city in a sea of red and we never have a federal or state representative in Congress that represents our interests.

The EC was created because those making the decisions didn't trust the rabble to make an informed decision about someone they would likely know nothing about (which isn't a problem these days, or rather shouldn't be) and was pushed for in a significant way by the slave states because it afforded them more power (representation counted slaves, even though they couldn't vote, which gave them a boost). The debate around the Twelfth Amendment was all about making the executive more accountable to the people, which at the time the way they came up with was the most feasible way as national elections weren't possible. It's a different story, today.

(06-26-2018, 05:11 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: I don't think it's separate, but equal.  That said, it seems we're cool with offending and disenfranchising one sect of the people for the wants of another.  Marriage is, in fact, a civil union in the eyes of the law......just call it that, and leave the term "marriage" to the Judeo Christian beliefs that implemented it and their ceremonies.  Coming from a moderate centrist......you look for ways to appease the majority of folks, I think that works.  There will be some on the extremes of either view that still wouldn't be happy, but to them I would say "tough shit".  Probably why I would never make it in politics....lol.  Take the emotion out, and look for compromise and common sense.

I'd be more in line with you if marriage was really a religious term.

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2018, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As to a revolution, we aren't anywhere near one yet, but I agree we are heading in that direction and are closer than we've been at anytime since 1866.  If I'm a left leaning person I certainly don't want one as the military, law enforcement and private gun owners swing heavily right.  

The rubes on the right are the only ones dumb enough to go to war for their overlords instead joining the masses in a true revolution against the oligarchy.  They can easily be duped into fighting for their right to be slaves.

But the left is better educated and brains beats firepower in the long run.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2018, 06:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The rubes on the right are the only ones dumb enough to go to war for their overlords instead joining the masses in a true revolution against the oligarchy.  They can easily be duped into fighting for their right to be slaves.

But the left is better educated and brains beats firepower in the long run.

#MaxineWaters2020

[*Nately120*]

(06-26-2018, 08:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: #MaxineWaters2020

I can easily envision a Trump v Waters election where I vote for a Libertarian who still only gets 3% of the vote.  My convictions are a joke.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2018, 08:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can easily envision a Trump v Waters election where I vote for a Libertarian who still only gets 3% of the vote.  My convictions are a joke.

Yeah I’ve about given up. If the last election didn’t jump start other parties then nothing will.

[*Nately120*]

(06-26-2018, 08:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I’ve about given up. If the last election didn’t jump start other parties then nothing will.

Ehh, what does it matter?  The second the Libertarian, or any other 3rd party becomes viable and can actually win you'll see fake politicians from all sides cram themselves into it so they can win.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2018, 08:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, what does it matter?  The second the Libertarian, or any other 3rd party becomes viable and can actually win you'll see fake politicians from all sides cram themselves into it so they can win.  

Well my main hope was they’d get to whatever number it is to get in debates. Of course their penchant for trying to tell as many people as they can that they aren’t true Libertarians doesn’t help.

[Millhouse]

(06-26-2018, 08:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can easily envision a Trump v Waters election where I vote for a Libertarian who still only gets 3% of the vote.  My convictions are a joke.

Just for fun, but if it is Trump vs Waters, then that throws Fred's theory out the window that liberals are more educated.

But yeah, both of those loons would still crush a third party.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2018, 08:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I’ve about given up. If the last election didn’t jump start other parties then nothing will.

We can never have a viable third party until we change our election system. Duverger's Law is at play.

[Dill]

(06-26-2018, 04:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had a little back and forth with a conservative person I follow on Twitter that works at RSI. She was discussing how amazed she was at how little policy (including laws) are made based on evidence. Instead, it is based almost exclusively on special interests, "gut" feelings, things of that nature. Evidence based policy is the goal for people like me, and this includes many think tanks out there as well as most public servants, but it just doesn't happen.

I was talking about how true this was and how even though this person and I would likely disagree on many things, we would be able to provide evidence for our positions. Evidence can point you in different directions, but the data helps to provide a (nearly) objective starting point at which to compromise and come to an agreement. We haven't been able to collect data to the degree we are able to today until very recently, but in the past 30-40 years there has been an attack on the wonks. The people whose job it used to be to craft policy have been pushed out of Congressional offices and replaced with lobbyists that are writing the legislation. The wonks that are left in the government are not consulted as they once were, officials preferring to give deference to special interests that will then cut them checks come campaign time.

I agree this is a disturbing trend--leaving it to lobbyists to write legislation.

Could there be another dimension to this problem? Think of climate change. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that it is anthropogenic. Even Exxon agrees. But half or more of the public does not.  This despite plenty of news reports and easily available information.

Part of the problem is that opponents of climate change also claim to use an evidence-base model, and while theirs is unconvincing and unscientific to the scientific community, it looks like science to the public.  Or close enough so there appears to be legitimate disagreement among authorities, so why implement policies which will raise the cost of living (by lowering profits in the extraction industries) if we don't know for sure?

Responsibility for governing still rests ultimately with "the people"; but they don't seem to think so, or are uninterested unless personal interests are at stake.  Not knowing how government works, or the history of policy, does not seem a problem to many. "who's to say who knows and who doesn't?" settles the question for too many. I'm just reminiscing about at time when the public got behind big national projects like landing a man on the moon and the interstate highway system. And a lot of them got behind social "projects" as well, like civil rights.  (Now the big project is building a wall--which the majority opposes.) Some of those grand accomplishments of the past were possible because technical, social and political authority was less fragmented than at present, even though it was constantly questioned

[*bfine32*]

Here's some more of the tolerant:
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/elaine-chao-defends-mitch-mcconnell-against-immigration-protesters-leave-my-husband-alone-1264688195625

What is it with them constantly confronting women?