Author Topic: State of the Union response  (Read 1241 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
State of the Union response
« on: January 31, 2018, 12:37:59 PM »
So I watched the State of the Union last night.  Thought it was a pretty good speech for Trump.  He took a lot of the high ground, managed to present himself as being reasonable and willing to compromise, and managed to create multiple opportunities for the Democrats to "sit on their hands" in response to overwhelming positive statements and popular policies. 

What really strikes me as bizarre, is the liberal media's insistence on labeling this as a divisive speech.  It represents - to me - a fundamental acknowledgement of fallacy in their their thinking and their arguments.  For the most part this - speech - was not divisive (there could be some fair dispute around immigration), and what they are reacting to is their view that Trump is inherently divisive.  But conflating the speaker with the words, as we all know, leads to a fallacy in thought where you ignore the actual substance and respond to the person.

It's moments like this that make me hopeful about the next election.  It really seems to me that Democrats are refusing to get out of their own way and are insisting on squandering what should be a lock.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2018, 01:07:28 PM »
Trump himself has proven thoroughly that his words cannot be trusted.  Why would you applaud lies about unity and cooperation?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2018, 01:47:05 PM »
Trump himself has proven thoroughly that his words cannot be trusted.  Why would you applaud lies about unity and cooperation?

I haven't believed a word any of the last few Presidents have said. So what's the difference here? And yet people always make a big deal out of the State of the Union. It's kind of like people making a big deal out of the Oscars; it's a glamorous affair.

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2018, 11:46:06 PM »
I see what you're saying Seriati (and I'm unabashedly in the camp that thinks president Trump is a terrible "leader" figure). I didn't watch the speech, but having read the transcript it seemed pretty typical of a president. There was the usual abuse of anecdotes (particularly galling to me was rump trying to create the impression of some sort of crime wave... it's just not happening, statistically). His comment on rising wages was essentially false (according to Politifact there WERE gains for three quarters, but the fourth quarter more than wiped them out).

I guess I agree with you in all but your rosy assessment that Dems are self-destructing. I don't really think Trump will survive 2020, and I'd say there's a fair chance he won't even be the nominee - and this despite even the economy fairing quite well (which I credit nobody with, frankly).

But yes, I do think this was an unusually well-considered speech from Trump.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2018, 12:28:36 AM »
I don't really think Trump will survive 2020, and I'd say there's a fair chance he won't even be the nominee - and this despite even the economy fairing quite well (which I credit nobody with, frankly).

You mean you don't think they'll run the incumbent? Is that even a thing? I'm not up on Presidential history, but has it been done before that the party should offer a competitor to a sitting President?

Quote
But yes, I do think this was an unusually well-considered speech from Trump.

To be fair I remember his inaugural address to be outstanding, although that only means that he's capable of speaking well when he feels like it. That almost makes it worse.

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2018, 08:41:20 AM »
You mean you don't think they'll run the incumbent? Is that even a thing? I'm not up on Presidential history, but has it been done before that the party should offer a competitor to a sitting President?

Plenty of precedents for challenges (though fewer that succeeded). Actually The Rock was openly thinking about running against Trump (as a Republican). I would pay to see that match up!
Some are relatively recent: "In 1976 Reagan ran against Ford in the Republican primaries. In 1980 Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter in the Democratic primaries. In 1992 Pat Buchanan challenged H.W. Bush. They all lost, but the incumbents ended up losing in the general election."

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2018, 10:23:30 AM »
I see what you're saying Seriati (and I'm unabashedly in the camp that thinks president Trump is a terrible "leader" figure). I didn't watch the speech, but having read the transcript it seemed pretty typical of a president. There was the usual abuse of anecdotes (particularly galling to me was rump trying to create the impression of some sort of crime wave... it's just not happening, statistically).

I thought he did a bit better on that front than most.  I can remember a few really good ones from Clinton as well, who was probably the best President ever at capturing the majority position of the country as his own.  It's a far different style than a President who lectures us (Obama) or one who loves to throw out the red meat.

Quote
His comment on rising wages was essentially false (according to Politifact there WERE gains for three quarters, but the fourth quarter more than wiped them out).

Don't quote Politifact to me unless you're ready to support a claim they make, they are far more "political" than "factual".  Take a closer look at the measure they used to show his claim was "mostly false" even though, if you look at most any other measures it literally true, and if you add in the announced wage increase plans for next year and the the economic indicators its pretty much "absolutely true."

No chance that they would have given Obama a "mostly false" rating for the same claim with these numbers.  Zero.  None at all.

Quote
I guess I agree with you in all but your rosy assessment that Dems are self-destructing. I don't really think Trump will survive 2020, and I'd say there's a fair chance he won't even be the nominee - and this despite even the economy fairing quite well (which I credit nobody with, frankly).

To me the biggest problem the Democrats have, is that they have adopted really unpopular positions on a large number of things because they play very strongly with a specific polity.  That means anytime they have to come forward and argue strongly for a policy in public they end up alienating more people than they get kudo's from.  We saw this very clearly in Hillary's campaign where she tried to keep it from being about any issues, and in fact did her best to completely remove herself from the news entirely.

I mean look at immigration.  This is an issue the Dem's want to be identified with.  DACA itself, though unconstitutional, is a highly popular idea, as was the Dream Act.  Should be an easy win, right?  Majorities in both parties.  But as soon as the Republicans tie into border security and reforming immigration (both of which are also highly popular ideas with majority support in both parties (or at worst 50/50 for Dems on a bad day), the Democrats wig out.  They literally threaten armeggedon if 3 overwhelming popular positions occur at the same time.  How do you fix that?  Expect them to demand a "clean" bill and then to wail about how the Republicans won't negotiate (and expect full on MSM support to sell that narrative).

Welfare?  Plenty of single issue voters, yet majority support for things like life time caps and workfare rules.  Dems flat out oppose them and then go further and call people who do horrible names.  Calling a majority of the country horrible names is a winning strategy where?

It seems to me that the Dems best electoral strategy is to appeal to voters who live the life unexamined, who want to align strongly on a single "most important issue" and who've never considered that members of the party have directly conflicting priorities (Republican's get a similar effect from Religious and pro-life voters).  This cost big in blue collar states in the last election, when Hillary decided to pump up environmentalists and alienate energy producers and factory workers - which is literally a decision that she didn't have to make.  Without saying anything she would have kept effectively the same environmental support and lost less blue collar support.  I find it troubling that the more the Democrats talk about their policies often the less support they find they have - maybe it's time to rethink some of the inherent conflicts?

I'm still eagerly awaiting black voters realization that Trump's policies are going to do more for their economic success than 40 years of Democratic hand-out policies.  It was no mistake that the Black causcus felt they couldn't even clap for the lowest unemployment rate among black since records were kept.  Real gains for their communities under Trump are disasterous for their political ambitions. You could not have a clearer conflict of interest than they do.

Trump himself has proven thoroughly that his words cannot be trusted.  Why would you applaud lies about unity and cooperation?
 

I love it when people talk generalities and expect others to be persuaded.  Which words in the state of the Union do you think we shouldn't trust?  The recitations of facts?  The announcement of what he'd agree to on immigration?  That he'd like to get bipartisan support for $1.5 trillion in infrastructure and expedite the approval process?

What are his untrustwothy goals or plans here?  Or was that just a throw away point that makes a convenient sound bite completely unrelated to the topic?

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2018, 11:52:10 AM »

I thought he did a bit better on that front than most.  I can remember a few really good ones from Clinton as well, who was probably the best President ever at capturing the majority position of the country as his own.  It's a far different style than a President who lectures us (Obama) or one who loves to throw out the red meat.

I have to confess to having a soft spot for the lecture, as a professor. Trump hasn't lost his touch at the red meat thing but it was toned down here.

Quote
Don't quote Politifact to me unless you're ready to support a claim they make, they are far more "political" than "factual".  Take a closer look at the measure they used to show his claim was "mostly false" even though, if you look at most any other measures it literally true, and if you add in the announced wage increase plans for next year and the the economic indicators its pretty much "absolutely true."

Well, I'm not going to count increase "plans" when discussing the past year, no matter how rosy. But I'll spot you on the idea that it depends how you're measuring wages. Is it "median usual weekly real earnings for full-time wage and salary workers, 16 years and over" or is it something else? I'd probably have gone with "half-true" myself.

Quote
To me the biggest problem the Democrats have, is that they have adopted really unpopular positions on a large number of things because they play very strongly with a specific polity.  [...]

Well, that really depends on the topic, doesn't it? I mean, look at 'background checks' or other middle-of-the-road gun control measures. So really it depends on what issues are really "Democratic Platform" issues, and which ones are merely "positions held by some people who are Democrats". You also have to consider carefully how things are polled. If you ask people whether they favor Obamacare, you got a very different answer from "Affordable Care Act", and different still if you break it down into specific elements and read off those. So which one really represents the popular opinion on it? It's not so simple. The Dems main problem is being poor at selling things.
Quote

Welfare?  Plenty of single issue voters, yet majority support for things like life time caps and workfare rules.  Dems flat out oppose them and then go further and call people who do horrible names.  Calling a majority of the country horrible names is a winning strategy where?

Come on, Ser, that's a few generalizations short of being a good argument. "Horrible names"... would you hold the Republican party strategy to the fire for things one or two members blurted? I doubt you would.

Quote
It seems to me that the Dems best electoral strategy is to appeal to voters who live the life unexamined, who want to align strongly on a single "most important issue" and who've never considered that members of the party have directly conflicting priorities (Republican's get a similar effect from Religious and pro-life voters).  This cost big in blue collar states in the last election, when Hillary decided to pump up environmentalists and alienate energy producers and factory workers - which is literally a decision that she didn't have to make.  Without saying anything she would have kept effectively the same environmental support and lost less blue collar support.  I find it troubling that the more the Democrats talk about their policies often the less support they find they have - maybe it's time to rethink some of the inherent conflicts?

You've made an interesting point, and one that hews to the nature of politics. In fact I happen to think that not saying much in terms of specifics is often a wise move. Wouldn't you say that Trump's typical "it's going to be great!" rhetoric was highly successful - perhaps because it had no specifics, rather than in spite of this? The way to win at politics is to be as blank a canvas as you can while capturing a simple, commonly held sentiment and hammering it home at every turn. Obama did it, and so did Trump, albeit they were riding very different sentiments.

Quote
I'm still eagerly awaiting black voters realization that Trump's policies are going to do more for their economic success than 40 years of Democratic hand-out policies.  It was no mistake that the Black causcus felt they couldn't even clap for the lowest unemployment rate among black since records were kept.  Real gains for their communities under Trump are disasterous for their political ambitions. You could not have a clearer conflict of interest than they do.

I'm not saying you're wrong about their political interests - in fact I agree that downplaying good news for your own interest group smacks of pettiness and victimhood-claiming. However, I would dispute you that there's really any meaningful improvement at work here to be credited to Trump, since the trend was well-established earlier than his tenure, and moreover employment numbers themselves don't necessarily speak to the quality of living (I could imagine grisly existences with "100% employment"). Nor do I even think presidents actually influence this much - not nearly as much as broader trends.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2018, 12:43:58 PM »
The Dems main problem is being poor at selling things.

Hm. I would suggest that the Dem's main problem is that they had a brief window (maybe the 80's-early 2000's) where their voters seemed to be reasonably unified on many core issues, but are perhaps now realizing that 'Democrats' (maybe better would be to call them "non-Republicans") don't seem to have much in common with each other any more. The divergence has been excacerbated especially in the last 5-10 years, and at this point one can't appeal to the good old Democrat mantras; they don't work. Bernie knew this and instead of trying to rally a pre-existing base he created his own, brand new base, with concepts that were his own rather than pre-fab oldies. And that's what the party is doing wrong now, thinking they can get away with recycling garbage. Real leadership is needed, with real ideas, but they shot that down pretty fast just now, didn't they?

Quote
Wouldn't you say that Trump's typical "it's going to be great!" rhetoric was highly successful - perhaps because it had no specifics, rather than in spite of this? The way to win at politics is to be as blank a canvas as you can while capturing a simple, commonly held sentiment and hammering it home at every turn.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I don't think Trump's campaign was comparable to Hillary's in this sense. Hillary was being criticized for basically refusing to campaign on anything other than being a female candidate, while Trump's criticisms came largely for the specific campaign promises he made: building a wall, immigration reform, making 'deals' with foreign governments, not going aggressive-mode in Syria, and bringing to a halt corrupt trade deals like TPP. It was his actual policies that brought him under fire from both sides, rather than a lack of proposed policies. The fact that he also uses wide-swinging rhetoric is a tactic he uses to sway people, but it doesn't mean that his speeches lacked coherent content. This should be divorced, of course, from whether he actually meant any of it. It's quite possible that he and Hillary were opposites in that sense: he said a lot of grand things without caring all that much about them, while Hillary refrained from saying anything while in reality having very concrete and definite plans for what she'd do, but that she didn't care to speak aloud for whatever reason.

Quote
Nor do I even think presidents actually influence this much - not nearly as much as broader trends.

I agree, and I would say that foreign policy is the largest indicator of what a President is really doing, as a lot of domestic stuff will happen on its own anyhow. On this score I have to give Trump a failing grade as I haven't detected him doing anything progressive in foreign affairs compared to, say, Obama. Or maybe he's making fancy deals behind closed doors and we never hear about it? I have no idea. In the show 24 we were shown lots of 'saving the day' arrangements that would never be made public, and despite the show's excesses I think this really does happen. To what extent Trump (or Obama for that matter) has had any successes in private is anyone's guess.

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2018, 04:07:44 PM »
Hm. I would suggest that the Dem's main problem is that they had a brief window (maybe the 80's-early 2000's) where their voters seemed to be reasonably unified on many core issues, but are perhaps now realizing that 'Democrats' (maybe better would be to call them "non-Republicans") don't seem to have much in common with each other any more. The divergence has been excacerbated especially in the last 5-10 years, and at this point one can't appeal to the good old Democrat mantras; they don't work.

I just wanted to add that this could also easily be said of Republicans, a group composed of sub-groups with wildly diverging (sometimes diametrically opposed) interests, including the neocon wing, small-government libertarian types, Evangelicals, and the business faction. It's actually even less coherent *on its face* than the Democrats (who have some schisms between progressives, elitist-corporatists, identity blocs, etc.). The grand distinction that explains why the Dems appear less coherent is (are you ready for this?) that Republicans typically have a very strong Loyalty moral matrix, and Dems do not.  The Democratic vision of morality is largely focused on Care/Harm, Liberty and Fairness (although in one specific conception), whereas the Republican morality is more complicated and includes those three but ALSO folds in Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity concepts. This is called Moral Foundation theory and it's a favorite topic of mine lately. I actually think most of the moral palate each person has is hereditary and there's some neat research backing it up. But remember, loyalty is key - Dems are not really very interested in it as an ethical thing, but Republicans are, which gives them much better political cohesion.

Of course, being who I am and with my politics, I am very critical of loyalty as a modern ethical value, but it has served a key role in our evolution. It binds people together. Democrats are easily atomized, but if you wear the R jersey you will have R voters regardless of what you say or do. Trump put on the R jersey and here he is - despite the fact that I think he has very little ideological interest.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 04:11:22 PM by JoshCrow »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2018, 04:33:32 PM »
I just wanted to add that this could also easily be said of Republicans, a group composed of sub-groups with wildly diverging (sometimes diametrically opposed) interests, including the neocon wing, small-government libertarian types, Evangelicals, and the business faction. It's actually even less coherent *on its face* than the Democrats (who have some schisms between progressives, elitist-corporatists, identity blocs, etc.). The grand distinction is (are you ready for this?) that Republicans typically have a very strong Loyalty moral matrix, and Dems do not.  The Democratic vision of morality is largely focused on Care/Harm, Liberty and Fairness (although in one specific conception), whereas the Republican morality is more complicated and includes those three but ALSO folds in Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity concepts. This is called Moral Foundation theory and it's a favorite topic of mine lately. I actually think most of the moral palate each person has is hereditary and there's some neat research backing it up. But remember, loyalty is key - Dems are not really very interested in it as an ethical thing, but Republicans are, which gives them much better political cohesion.

I think you hit this one sideways. And part of this is "lack of understanding" on what a Libertarian is. Which is almost a "There is no true Scotsman" type scenario.

For my understanding of things, "A True Libertarian" would actually sit astride both the Democrat and Republican Parties, although they would trend towards the Republican side.

The more towards "Social Libertarianism" someone leans, the more inclined they are to agree with many, but not most or all, of the platform planks the Democrats claim on "social issues" although the more general Libertarian leaning towards government non-involvement will cause even those "Social Libertarians" lurching solidly towards the Republican side. Because the moment "I propose a Government program to do ______" is uttered, you've lost them.

What more generally is identified as "being a Libertarian" is actually a "Social Conservative Libertarian" (Rand Paul seems to be in this camp)who is a slightly different animal, and these guys find a LOT of common cause with the "Moral Majority" (Not necessarily the Christian Fundies, although there are a number of those as well) among the Republican Party. And the reality is, I think that actually represents a significant portion of the remaining Republican Party, as well as most of the "Independents" who reliably vote Republican at this point, the only point of difference is in regards to how "conservative" they are about specific social issues.

Which is reflected indirectly in a lot of the "social issue" polling that the Dems love so much. The thing they're missing is that the Libertarian contingent is more inclined to take the position of "Why is the government involved in this in the first place?" Over supporting either the Republican or Democratic stance on things.

Basically at this point, I guess we're waiting for the "Reliable Democrats" to have their own wake up call moment where they start to realize that the Democratic Party is working at cross-purposes to their own goals, and for them to try to reach out to that Libertarian grouping. Realistically, I think what we're probably seeing right now is the political axis of the US is in the process of orienting itself along a new, different axis, and it's trying to figure out what the new "primary axis" is going to be that is the challenge at present.

I think authoritarian/non-authoritarian is going to closely related to whatever axis it turns out to be, and if so, we're looking at more than a few "messy cycles" for everything to shake out. Because at present, both major parties are more than a little authoritarian in their own respective ways. (In particular many of the more left-wing groups attached to the Democratic Party at present, which are very Socialistic if not outright Communistic in their desired outcomes, which by their very nature, is a highly Authoritarian outcome)
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 04:35:53 PM by TheDeamon »

LZCenter

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2018, 05:58:27 PM »
Don't hang here often but thought I would chime in.  Here we are, two days later and Trump is blowing away all the conciliatory credits he might have gotten.  Twitter is alive.  Having said that, the Dems didn't even wait that long to blow these ideas away.  So as usual, we are back where we started before this farce called the SOTU happened.  Historically, it was a letter from the Pres.

Few, if any opinions were changed. Polls aside.

Trump will rise or fall on the tax cut.  Sidebar:mine are going up.  If it drives real wage and GDP growth, along with debt reduction, he will be king.  Immigration is a neat diversion, but ...

Dems can't figure out a message.  Identity politics ain't it.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 06:08:51 PM by LZCenter »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2018, 06:17:34 PM »
Dems can't figure out a message.  Identity politics ain't it.

It's not just a branding thing. What many Dems want is actually antithetical to what many others want. As JoshCrow pointed out this kind of internal schism has been known among Republicans for a while and the Dems are only just finding out they have one too. The problem with "government authority" parties (which at present is both of them) is that it's all well and good to invest the government with power, but once people realize that power could go in favor of one direction or another - no it's like herding cats to get people to agree on a common direction. And why should they, anyhow?

LZCenter

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2018, 06:33:36 PM »
Does this argue for a parliamentary form of government with its own problems?

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2018, 07:55:35 PM »

I think you hit this one sideways. And part of this is "lack of understanding" on what a Libertarian is. Which is almost a "There is no true Scotsman" type scenario.

Yes, actually I understand that there are left-leaning libertarians who vote D, but in terms of numbers the people who self-identify as small-government champions are more of a political force in the R camp, and so are most of their representatives in Congress right now.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2018, 07:59:20 PM »
Does this argue for a parliamentary form of government with its own problems?

@#^* NO!

For those of more Conservative/Libertarian bent, "The Government that governs least, governs best."

A Parliamentary Government has a legion of issues present with it when one tries to apply it into "an American Context" and the closest approximation I can make off-hand is "mob rule."

I'd much prefer to deal with 30+ years of a dysfunctional and badly broken government(so long as it does a halfway decent of job of maintaining the national defense) rather than contend with just 3 years of a functional government taking direction from an angry mob.

LZCenter

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2018, 08:01:10 PM »
Get it.  If we could just get them to govern least.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2018, 08:05:26 PM »

I think you hit this one sideways. And part of this is "lack of understanding" on what a Libertarian is. Which is almost a "There is no true Scotsman" type scenario.

Yes, actually I understand that there are left-leaning libertarians who vote D, but in terms of numbers the people who self-identify as small-government champions are more of a political force in the R camp, and so are most of their representatives in Congress right now.

Yes, because most of the Libertarians "get lost" in relation to the Democratic platform planks the moment that they start talking about beefing up the Government. Which as already mentioned, tends to send even the Social Libertarians running to either the Republicans(who often talk of shrinking the Government) or third parties. Only the "limited issue" Libertarians who decide that certain "social issues" trump everything else will be inclined to "hold their nose" and vote Democrat. They exist, but they're pretty rare, because much of the Democratic Party's stock-and-trade is anathema to a Libertarian of almost any stripe.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2018, 10:13:07 PM »
I just wanted to add that this could also easily be said of Republicans, a group composed of sub-groups with wildly diverging (sometimes diametrically opposed) interests, including the neocon wing, small-government libertarian types, Evangelicals, and the business faction.

Except I think you're actually wrong.  For the most part while the different Republicans want different things, their goals are not generally mutually exclusive - which is the case for some of the Democrats (explain any way to rationalize Kentucy blue collar coal miners and California environmental activists). 

Also, and this is big, many of the Democratic groups are arguably in the wrong party.  The only Republican group that could be true about are the Libertarians (on a lot of issues) but the Dems are diametrically opposed to them on their core issue.  Blue collar works were ripe for getting picked off, the only connection they have to the Dems is based on their desire to keep their unions (which the Dems have been failing to support for decades), on everything else they align better with the Republicans.  I'm still convinced that one day black voters are going to wake up and realize they stand a chance of real improvement in the Republican party that the Dems have neglected to give them for decades. 

Quote
It's actually even less coherent *on its face* than the Democrats (who have some schisms between progressives, elitist-corporatists, identity blocs, etc.). The grand distinction that explains why the Dems appear less coherent is (are you ready for this?) that Republicans typically have a very strong Loyalty moral matrix, and Dems do not.

I think pop pysche answers exist to explain obvious things that professors can't accept because it's inconsistent with their world view.  A classic favorite is to accuse Republicans of not really having principals behind their positions (cause who could?) but rather to just be blindly following based on loyalty.

As a further point, though the media tries to convince you otherwise, Democrats don't cross the aisles at better rates than Republicans.  They also extensively use dog whistles in communications to let their uninformed voters now what side is the "correct" side to support.

Quote
The Democratic vision of morality is largely focused on Care/Harm, Liberty and Fairness (although in one specific conception), whereas the Republican morality is more complicated and includes those three but ALSO folds in Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity concepts.

The best face I can put on the Democrat voters is that their vision of morality is based on feelings.  Sincere ones I grant you, but still feelings not logic.  Their leaders, to me, are the most cynical politicians on earth totally committed to power without regard to any principal.

Quote
Democrats are easily atomized, but if you wear the R jersey you will have R voters regardless of what you say or do. Trump put on the R jersey and here he is - despite the fact that I think he has very little ideological interest.

Lol.  I know for a fact that there are many Democratic voters that only look for the D.  I met hundreds of them.  People who don't really know anything about the people they vote for other than they "trust them to do the right thing" because they are a Democrat.  I don't see any validity to this kind of analysis.

For my understanding of things, "A True Libertarian" would actually sit astride both the Democrat and Republican Parties, although they would trend towards the Republican side.

The more towards "Social Libertarianism" someone leans, the more inclined they are to agree with many, but not most or all, of the platform planks the Democrats claim on "social issues" although the more general Libertarian leaning towards government non-involvement will cause even those "Social Libertarians" lurching solidly towards the Republican side. Because the moment "I propose a Government program to do ______" is uttered, you've lost them.

That's cool, never realized my philosophy had a name.  Rand Paul gives libertarianism a bad name.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2018, 10:35:46 PM »
Rand Paul gives libertarianism a bad name.

Why is that? And I ask this already acknowledging that he has a far weaker public presence than his father had, and clearly cannot muster enthusiasm despite sharing what seem to be common core principles. I think I would agree that he gives libertarianism a bad name in terms of his run for President, but as a senator I think he stands by his principles. Why do you believe what you said?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2018, 08:37:25 AM »
Rand Paul gives libertarianism a bad name.

Why is that? And I ask this already acknowledging that he has a far weaker public presence than his father had, and clearly cannot muster enthusiasm despite sharing what seem to be common core principles. I think I would agree that he gives libertarianism a bad name in terms of his run for President, but as a senator I think he stands by his principles. Why do you believe what you said?

I'd guess it is one part the "Social Conservative" thing Rand Paul has going on, as that results in his taking positions that a person not in that particular camp would be particularly enamored with.

The other factor, and this cycles to the "No true Scotsman" thing is that while he may be conservative on social issues, that doesn't hold so much on other issues, where he starts to track towards the Libertarians. It actually is a major "problem" I have with the Libertarians in general.

That Governmental non-involvement thing can be taken to an extreme, and there are Libertarians who go there. The most extreme form of this runs to the point of practically privatized everything. And I do mean everything, including fully privatized national defense(through Letters of Marque), law enforcement, fire fighters, education, health care, and so on. (And technically, it is arguably "a Libertarian position" to declare that anything the government can own, a private citizen should be able to as well. Yes, that means Nuclear Weapons and other WMD too.)

Which is where most people begin to object. Myself included, as they start taking exception to certain things being operated with both a profit motive and under private control. I'm not going to feel any safer at night for example knowing that the United States Air Force is now owned by Gates, Musk, Bezos, and Boeing with a number of additional "independent contractors" signed on.... Or that Google owns the NSA and Apple has the CIA(or vice-versa).
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 08:40:40 AM by TheDeamon »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2018, 09:46:29 AM »
JoshCrow, thought this was particularly relevant given the Politifact "fact check"  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/business/economy/jobs-report.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Wages are up 2.9% January to January.  Inflation last year seems to have been just over 2%, so still lots of room for improvement.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 09:50:35 AM by Seriati »

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2018, 10:16:30 AM »
JoshCrow, thought this was particularly relevant given the Politifact "fact check"  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/business/economy/jobs-report.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Wages are up 2.9% January to January.  Inflation last year seems to have been just over 2%, so still lots of room for improvement.

Saw that too - thanks. Trump was correct.

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2018, 10:50:16 AM »

Except I think you're actually wrong.  For the most part while the different Republicans want different things, their goals are not generally mutually exclusive - which is the case for some of the Democrats (explain any way to rationalize Kentucy blue collar coal miners and California environmental activists). 

How is a neocon goal of aggressive foreign presence not mutually exclusive from the core principles of Libertarianism? How do you square socially moderate business interests with the social goals of the religious right? It's not hard to find mutually exclusive goals (and marriages of convenience) on either side.

Quote
Also, and this is big, many of the Democratic groups are arguably in the wrong party.  The only Republican group that could be true about are the Libertarians (on a lot of issues) but the Dems are diametrically opposed to them on their core issue.  Blue collar works were ripe for getting picked off, the only connection they have to the Dems is based on their desire to keep their unions (which the Dems have been failing to support for decades), on everything else they align better with the Republicans.  I'm still convinced that one day black voters are going to wake up and realize they stand a chance of real improvement in the Republican party that the Dems have neglected to give them for decades. 

Blue collar workers may have an interest in higher minimum wages and don't all subscribe to trickle-down economic practices, Ser. Some of them think otherwise. You are just inserting your policy preferences as "obviously correct to everyone", but again, reasonable people disagree and aren't crazy for it.
As for black voters - good luck with that. They will never vote for the same party that white nationalists vote for. Keep dreaming. It would take a radical R leader to utterly destroy and demolish the guest bedroom they've essentially set up for such people. Just like when LBJ realized they'd "lost the south for a generation", the R's have lost black voters for the same.

Quote
I think pop pysche answers exist to explain obvious things that professors can't accept because it's inconsistent with their world view.  A classic favorite is to accuse Republicans of not really having principals behind their positions (cause who could?) but rather to just be blindly following based on loyalty.
Actually it's the opposite of "not having principles". It's just having a distinct and different set of principles! You may judge loyalty harshly, as I do, but there are arguments in favor of it as a guiding principle as well... one of which is being able to get together and achieve things. If you are a self-proclaimed R supporter who doesn't see value in Loyalty, then that makes you rather strange.

Quote
As a further point, though the media tries to convince you otherwise, Democrats don't cross the aisles at better rates than Republicans.  They also extensively use dog whistles in communications to let their uninformed voters now what side is the "correct" side to support.

I agree with you that both parties do this.

Quote
The best face I can put on the Democrat voters is that their vision of morality is based on feelings.  Sincere ones I grant you, but still feelings not logic.  Their leaders, to me, are the most cynical politicians on earth totally committed to power without regard to any principal.

Well, you're certainly describing one particular faction (and one I am constantly at war with). But it's a spectrum. Most of the D voters I know personally aren't all "feelings" based but are logic based. Most Bernie supporters certainly weren't there for identity politics but because they had economic policies they wanted to support. I think perhaps it's easy when you disagree with an idea to presume that it is just "feelings" that got someone there.

Quote
Lol.  I know for a fact that there are many Democratic voters that only look for the D.  I met hundreds of them.  People who don't really know anything about the people they vote for other than they "trust them to do the right thing" because they are a Democrat.  I don't see any validity to this kind of analysis.

The recent kerfuffle over a Clinton staffer aside, I know which party I would expect to deal with someone accused of harassment and which party I would expect to press on anyways. For goodness' sake, look who almost won in Alabama. That's not normal.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2018, 11:30:49 AM »
How is a neocon goal of aggressive foreign presence not mutually exclusive from the core principles of Libertarianism? How do you square socially moderate business interests with the social goals of the religious right? It's not hard to find mutually exclusive goals (and marriages of convenience) on either side.

There are two issues here, actually. One is the divergence in kinds of people who all vote for the same party, and the other is divergent/inconsistent platforms within the party leadership itself. In the former group I agree with you that both parties seem to me to have divergence to the point where some members have incompatible views from others. I guess my point earlier was that within the D's there are now members with views antithetical to those of others, which I take to be a relatively new development. Maybe both parties are on parity on this score now, finally. But the other side of it is the leadership, which, again, up until now I'd say the R leadership had the lead on having totally inconsistent and incompatible platforms, which included (amazingly) pro-war and also small government ideology, as well as liberty-based and simultaneously top-down morality based ideology. But now the wheel has turned and ever since the advent of the neo-liberal the D leadership is catching up in a big hurry in endorsing policies that are antithetical to each other (for instance, aggressive interventionist foreign policy while also championing the rights of the downtrodden).

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2018, 11:32:00 AM »

Except I think you're actually wrong.  For the most part while the different Republicans want different things, their goals are not generally mutually exclusive - which is the case for some of the Democrats (explain any way to rationalize Kentucy blue collar coal miners and California environmental activists). 
How is a neocon goal of aggressive foreign presence not mutually exclusive from the core principles of Libertarianism? How do you square socially moderate business interests with the social goals of the religious right? It's not hard to find mutually exclusive goals (and marriages of convenience) on either side.

As Ron Paul demonstrated(and his son Rand to a lesser degree), the Libertarians in general don't go for that whole International thing, particularly once it gets into Military actions of any kind. Libertarians tend strongly towards being isolationists more often than not. And when it comes to "foreign Military interventions" the Democrats aren't exactly innocent on that front either.

As to "squaring" things. Foreign affairs are foreign issues, so they're less relevant in day to day life, so a Libertarian can choose to ignore it.

Democrats enacting laws regarding who they should hire, or creating convoluted processes for terminating the employment of certain workers(who enjoy some form of "protected status" under the law) on the other hand is something that is going to be very hard for a Libertarian to ignore.

The stated "business goals/interests" of the Republican Party match up more completely with the Libertarians than the Democratic goals ever could.

The goals and objectives of "The religious right" is a more problematic issue, but the thing there is "The Religious Right" runs on a spectrum as well. From the LDS "Mormon" Church simply wanting the right to be left alone(which just about every stripe of Libertarian would support), to incarnations of the Westboro Baptist Church which want to make a lot of activities illegal for everybody on religious grounds belonging only to them, which a Libertarian would find appalling.

The thing you need to remember is that in the Libertarian world, racism and bigotry still exist, but they also refuse to criminalize or otherwise provide a legislative/legal framework to punish people for being "socially unacceptable." What they will agree to is penalties for destructive behaviors that cause direct harm to others. Which also means they're going to be opposed to any laws or legislation which serves to discriminate against discrete groups. (So no City Zoning laws restricting "People of color" to certain neighborhoods, etc)

However, they're going to be dubious of a claim of "harm" due to inability to work for Billy Bob's Widgets because Billy Bob thinks poorly of a particular group you identify with.

Quote
Blue collar workers may have an interest in higher minimum wages and don't all subscribe to trickle-down economic practices, Ser. Some of them think otherwise. You are just inserting your policy preferences as "obviously correct to everyone", but again, reasonable people disagree and aren't crazy for it.

Strange, the State of California seems to demonstrate they tend to think trickle down economics works just fine. They just approach it a little differently. They subsidize industries which predominately tend to bring in high-income employees, while simultaneously treating those industries which employ lower incomes as being worse than something unpleasant they accidently stepped in.

Quote
As for black voters - good luck with that. They will never vote for the same party that white nationalists vote for. Keep dreaming. It would take a radical R leader to utterly destroy and demolish the guest bedroom they've essentially set up for such people. Just like when LBJ realized they'd "lost the south for a generation", the R's have lost black voters for the same.

Eh, I think the Dems are starting to discover that this line is ceasing to work. See the thread on California where I drilled into Louisiana and Florida. Louisiana "flipped" in the last decade. Florida was in the late 1990's. Both states changing after over a century of Democratic control. I somehow doubt those shifts happened simply because "white voters" suddenly coalesced around the Republican Party. More likely is that a number of minority voters also shifted allegiance, likely after realizing that after a century of no real change happening and constant blaming of the (powerless) Republicans, Democratic voters started to realize "their problem" was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans.

Chicago looks like it might start to shift towards the Republicans in the coming years as well. Won't that be fun to behold if it comes to pass?

Quote
Quote
The best face I can put on the Democrat voters is that their vision of morality is based on feelings.  Sincere ones I grant you, but still feelings not logic.  Their leaders, to me, are the most cynical politicians on earth totally committed to power without regard to any principal.

Well, you're certainly describing one particular faction (and one I am constantly at war with). But it's a spectrum. Most of the D voters I know personally aren't all "feelings" based but are logic based. Most Bernie supporters certainly weren't there for identity politics but because they had economic policies they wanted to support. I think perhaps it's easy when you disagree with an idea to presume that it is just "feelings" that got someone there.

It certain is "those feelings" which tend to get people to go out and vote. And one feeling the Democrats tend to capitalize on to a very large degree is "fear" over "what the Republicans are going to do" should they win a given election (cycle).

Quote
The recent kerfuffle over a Clinton staffer aside, I know which party I would expect to deal with someone accused of harassment and which party I would expect to press on anyways. For goodness' sake, look who almost won in Alabama. That's not normal.

The normal process on the Republican side is for the Republican involved to promptly be tossed under the bus. The abnormality in the recent case has to do with the timing of "the surprise discovery" and the overall significance given in regards to Republicans being able to hold onto that seat. Having him withdraw at that stage would not have made things any easier for the Republicans with regards to that seat.

There were other issues in play there as well, but that specific example is very much an aberration in the grand scheme of things when looking at the overall history of how the Republicans tend to handle such issues in the past with regards to Federal Office holders. (And it should be noted, that even with the "outside issues" in play, most of the Republicans in Washington still threw him under the bus, as per SOP)

The Democrats historically are the ones more prone to whitewashing and defending their local predator, until this current cycle.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2018, 11:47:50 AM »

Except I think you're actually wrong.  For the most part while the different Republicans want different things, their goals are not generally mutually exclusive - which is the case for some of the Democrats (explain any way to rationalize Kentucy blue collar coal miners and California environmental activists). 

How is a neocon goal of aggressive foreign presence not mutually exclusive from the core principles of Libertarianism?

Because US libertarians are focused on Domestic not International issues.  Sure they are non-interventialist, but the primary focus they seem to have is on the economic expenditure.   It's literally something that they'd trade for almost any other goal.

I think it's in the nature of an aspirational rather a core goal.

Quote
How do you square socially moderate business interests with the social goals of the religious right? It's not hard to find mutually exclusive goals (and marriages of convenience) on either side.

Maybe lay out what you see as in direct conflict on this one.  I think the religious right's goals conflict everyone else's but they are the ultimate in a group that has no other home.  There's literally nothing they have in common with the Dems.  At best the Dems could hope they schism into their own party "splitting" the Repub vote, not that they'd switch sides.

Quote
Blue collar workers may have an interest in higher minimum wages and don't all subscribe to trickle-down economic practices, Ser. Some of them think otherwise. You are just inserting your policy preferences as "obviously correct to everyone", but again, reasonable people disagree and aren't crazy for it.

Blue collar workers have an interest in higher wages, the vast Democratic core of Blue collar workers make well above the minimum wage.  You are actually conflating a different issue here.

And to be clear, of course I'm inserting my opinion into this conversation.  It's literally my opinion that blue collar workers socially better align with the Republicans, they are socially conservative gun owners that don't have a high affinity for identity politics.  Historically they've voted on their economic affinity with the Dems - which is based on union support - but if the Dems campaign against their industries it breaks that economic argument.  If Republican plans generate wage gains and new jobs in those industries, even if they don't support the unions, it's question of rationality whether that causes Blue collar workers to notice they'd be better off as Republicans.

Quote
As for black voters - good luck with that. They will never vote for the same party that white nationalists vote for. Keep dreaming.

They already do.  White nationalist participation is about equal in the two parties (multiple studies have demonstrated that white racism is about equal in the two), notwithstanding the media hard sell to the opposite. 

Maybe one day they'll realize that "Republican racism" is a media myth and look at the real gains that Republican policies bring them.

Honestly, it's a leftist delusion that Republicans somehow want bad things for our black communities.  We want them to have great jobs, economic success and safety, and we honestly think our policies are going to bring that about.

If your only response is "what about racism?" maybe you should rethink your messaging.


Quote
Actually it's the opposite of "not having principles". It's just having a distinct and different set of principles!

No, we're using the term differently.  I'm flat out stating that Republicans don't believe what they believe because of "loyalty," they believe what they believe because of substantive underlying principles that demand that result.  This is not pyschology, this is logic.

Quote
You may judge loyalty harshly, as I do, but there are arguments in favor of it as a guiding principle as well... one of which is being able to get together and achieve things. If you are a self-proclaimed R supporter who doesn't see value in Loyalty, then that makes you rather strange.

Of course I value loyalty, as does every human being to some extent.  That doesn't mean, as you are implying, that I adopt positions out of loyalty to a greater group.  Again, this exists as argument to establish that the "other" is acting on an unsound and unconsidered basis.  Therefore, arguments about the facts and reasoning need not be made as they will just be ignored.

It's literally an academic defense of not having to actually defend one's own position.

Quote
Quote
The best face I can put on the Democrat voters is that their vision of morality is based on feelings.  Sincere ones I grant you, but still feelings not logic.  Their leaders, to me, are the most cynical politicians on earth totally committed to power without regard to any principal.

Well, you're certainly describing one particular faction (and one I am constantly at war with). But it's a spectrum. Most of the D voters I know personally aren't all "feelings" based but are logic based. Most Bernie supporters certainly weren't there for identity politics but because they had economic policies they wanted to support. I think perhaps it's easy when you disagree with an idea to presume that it is just "feelings" that got someone there.

Well, Bernie supporters to me are a good case.  What you say defined them?  Is it a commitment to socialism?  To me that's the ultimate in feelings versus facts.  Every part of the concept of socialism is built on feel good principals, it all sounds like the nice lessons we learned as children, sharing for all, no one left behind, leveling the playing field, taking from those who refuse to share (even though they benefited from society), but it ignores reality, which is pretty much an extensive record of economic destruction and human misery.  It's pretty much the defining philosophy for the road to Heck being paved with good intentions.

Quote
The recent kerfuffle over a Clinton staffer aside, I know which party I would expect to deal with someone accused of harassment and which party I would expect to press on anyways. For goodness' sake, look who almost won in Alabama. That's not normal.

I think I went through an extensive analysis of Alabama before.  But you literally just cited to an example where the Republicans in an overwhelming red district did not elect a person because they were accused of harassment.  Where they literally sacrificed their federal political voice in a Senate that is barely in the control of their political party rather than put him in power.

Can you imagine a hard left district in CA putting a Republican in place in such a circumstance?  I can't.  Most likely, they would have forced the candidate out and replaced him (even if illegal - which they did in NJ a few years back).

But more to the point, I have zero doubts about Republican prosecutors taking harassment seriously.  In my view, Democratic prosecutors bring way more political prosecutions than the inverse.

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2018, 01:55:13 PM »
Because US libertarians are focused on Domestic not International issues.  Sure they are non-interventialist, but the primary focus they seem to have is on the economic expenditure.   It's literally something that they'd trade for almost any other goal.

I think it's in the nature of an aspirational rather a core goal.

You're downplaying it. Having read lots of Ron Paul pieces Fenring sent my way, it sounds like principles of non-intervention and anti empire-building was not some mere sideshow for Libertarians, but a key part of their small-government worldview, which puts them at 180-degrees from Cheney's ilk.

Quote
Maybe lay out what you see as in direct conflict on this one.  I think the religious right's goals conflict everyone else's but they are the ultimate in a group that has no other home.  There's literally nothing they have in common with the Dems.  At best the Dems could hope they schism into their own party "splitting" the Repub vote, not that they'd switch sides.

That's true, but right now most corporate leaders have concluded that pro-gay, pro-trans stances are 'business friendly' to the extent that companies (with ownerships in either party) are threatening to pull out of states based on policies being pushed along religiously motivated lines. Of course there are exceptions (for example, Christian-owned businesses like Hobby Lobby), but the "big business" wing of Republicans are currently very much allergic to certain religious priorities (see: War on Christmas).

Quote
And to be clear, of course I'm inserting my opinion into this conversation.  It's literally my opinion that blue collar workers socially better align with the Republicans, they are socially conservative gun owners that don't have a high affinity for identity politics.  Historically they've voted on their economic affinity with the Dems - which is based on union support - but if the Dems campaign against their industries it breaks that economic argument.  If Republican plans generate wage gains and new jobs in those industries, even if they don't support the unions, it's question of rationality whether that causes Blue collar workers to notice they'd be better off as Republicans.

I've heard enough arguments about people voting against their own economic interests (read "What's the Matter with Kansas?") to think you are oversimplifying here. In any event, my point is not "who is right" but rather to explain voting behavior to you. Regardless of who is correct, there are reasons and arguments that are made in both directions, and as a voting bloc so far they seem more persuaded by Dem ones.

Quote
White nationalist participation is about equal in the two parties (multiple studies have demonstrated that white racism is about equal in the two), notwithstanding the media hard sell to the opposite. 

On this, I'd truly welcome some data. Please give me some sort of link on it. I would be gobsmacked if white nationalists were voting Dem in similar numbers as Republican. And I'm not talking broadly about "racists" or whatever that means- I'm talking about KKK-affiliated, Richard Spencer fan-type people.
Quote

Maybe one day they'll realize that "Republican racism" is a media myth and look at the real gains that Republican policies bring them.

Honestly, it's a leftist delusion that Republicans somehow want bad things for our black communities.  We want them to have great jobs, economic success and safety, and we honestly think our policies are going to bring that about.

I can agree it's a sad delusion that Republicans wish ill on black communities - there is too much assumption of "bad faith" going around. But then I also think income inequality is a serious issue and Republicans have sacralized free markets too much to see policy effects clearly.


Quote
I'm flat out stating that Republicans don't believe what they believe because of "loyalty," they believe what they believe because of substantive underlying principles that demand that result.  This is not pyschology, this is logic.

I never said they believe things out of loyalty - but I do think they are less willing to go after their own in-group when politics are on the line (unlike the mob that came for Al Franken).

Quote
Of course I value loyalty, as does every human being to some extent.  That doesn't mean, as you are implying, that I adopt positions out of loyalty to a greater group.  Again, this exists as argument to establish that the "other" is acting on an unsound and unconsidered basis.  Therefore, arguments about the facts and reasoning need not be made as they will just be ignored.

Funny, I could have said the same about when you ascribed Dem behavior to "feelings"...  ::)

But Loyalty tests much higher in self-described conservatives than liberals, and it's not *everything* (that's a strawman of my position) but it influences things.
Quote
Well, Bernie supporters to me are a good case.  What you say defined them?  Is it a commitment to socialism?  To me that's the ultimate in feelings versus facts.  Every part of the concept of socialism is built on feel good principals, it all sounds like the nice lessons we learned as children, sharing for all, no one left behind, leveling the playing field, taking from those who refuse to share (even though they benefited from society), but it ignores reality, which is pretty much an extensive record of economic destruction and human misery.  It's pretty much the defining philosophy for the road to Heck being paved with good intentions.

Are you familiar with the distinctions between socialism and social democratic policies? It isn't a black/white dichotomy where you are either Ayn Rand or Karl Marx. One can decide that the health care industry should be dealt with differently from smart phone industry without becoming Venezuela.

Quote
I think I went through an extensive analysis of Alabama before.  But you literally just cited to an example where the Republicans in an overwhelming red district did not elect a person because they were accused of harassment.  Where they literally sacrificed their federal political voice in a Senate that is barely in the control of their political party rather than put him in power.


Yeah - BARELY. It should have been no contest.

In any case, I'll let you have the last word because my time is short, but I enjoyed our exchange!

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2018, 03:13:16 PM »
Because US libertarians are focused on Domestic not International issues.  Sure they are non-interventialist, but the primary focus they seem to have is on the economic expenditure.   It's literally something that they'd trade for almost any other goal.

I think it's in the nature of an aspirational rather a core goal.

You're downplaying it. Having read lots of Ron Paul pieces Fenring sent my way, it sounds like principles of non-intervention and anti empire-building was not some mere sideshow for Libertarians, but a key part of their small-government worldview, which puts them at 180-degrees from Cheney's ilk.

The problem here is which kind of Libertarian? There are many flavors because of how wide a range that political outlook encompasses, they're practically one step away from being Anarchists in many respects when taken to the full extreme. Most of them won't go that far, and many only truly go "Libertarian" on only a select range of issues, or deviate from "the Libertarian ideal" on a select range of issues.

On social spectrum, I'm almost fully Libertarian in outlook, and I'll go full in on the "harm based" assessment of things that the Dems love to espouse(and probably more open to things than they are). But as already mentioned, the moment you start talking about enacting laws "to protect" certain groups, I'm gone.

However, I strongly disagree with the Libertarian position regarding International Affairs, as that simply is not the world we live in. In the right circumstances, I will support interventions in, or even escalations of foreign conflicts, but the parameters used need to be very carefully considered.  I will continue to hold to my support of OIF being initiated when the full context is considered. The issue there was Bush, Cheney, and company tried to "wage war on the cheap" (as well as being very disingenuous about it in general) and the consequences were anything but.

The Libertarian position on national defense, and weaponry in general, terrifies even me.

There are other issues where I'll even venture into common cause with a Socialistic-type approach to things, as the "Full On" Libertarian position breaks down once you're dealing with Industrial Scale populations. So health care, sanitation, and "public safety" matters when you're dealing with thousands of people per square mile vs the considerations of someone living in a setting where the closest neighbor lives 2+ miles away and covering those miles "isn't trivial."

But that doesn't mean that because I think there is a "public health" interest in preventing a Smallpox Epidemic means I think there is "sufficient public health interest" in ensuring Jimmy Jo Skateboarder receives "no-cost" medical care on the public dime after breaking multiple bones practicing the latest "awesome" stunt he devised. Yes they both involve health care, and yes, an economic argument can be made in regards to ensuring Jimmy remains ambulatory. But that is moving into an entirely different realm of discussion.

By helping protect Jimmy from getting a contagious disease, I reduce my own risk of contracting one as well.
The case to be made for my bankrolling the medical expenses incurred saving Jimmy from being stupid isn't so clear cut.

Quote
Quote
I think I went through an extensive analysis of Alabama before.  But you literally just cited to an example where the Republicans in an overwhelming red district did not elect a person because they were accused of harassment.  Where they literally sacrificed their federal political voice in a Senate that is barely in the control of their political party rather than put him in power.


Yeah - BARELY. It should have been no contest.

How so? Because I think someone is a sleezebag who claims to support most of the positions that reflect my own views and interests, I'm supposed to vote against my own interests on the grounds that he is a sleezebag alone?

Unless of course you're arguing the Sleezebag should have won by a landslide.

This also ignores the hope on the part of many that he was going to resign after winning the election and thus allow someone else to either be appointed to the seat, or for a new election to held with a different Republican Candidate.

The Republican voters in Alabama were trapped in a "no win scenario" on that race, by the time the allegations came to light, it was too late to change the ballot. Best guess is the allegations kept enough Republican voters home the Dems squeaked out a win in a race they would have stood no chance on otherwise.(Sessions had 100,000 more votes in 2014--an off year where he was unopposed, than Jones had in 2017) It remains to be seen if the seat will remain Democratic when it comes up again in 2020.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 03:18:28 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2018, 04:01:07 PM »
And actually one election back is even more amusing for the Alabama Senate seat.

The 2017 Special Election saw:
673,896(D) - 651,972 (R)
2014 saw:
795,606(R) (97.3% of the vote - unopposed)
2008(keeping in mind this was a "wave election" that saw Obama come into office) saw:
1,305,383(R) - 752,391 (D)

Not only did Doug Jones fail to match the vote tally Sessions obtained in the 2014 "off-year" election by a wide margin, he also missed the vote tally the Democratic challenger obtained in the 2008 "Obama wave election" by a significant margin(down more than 10%) as well. This doesn't bode well for the over-all potency of the "Anti-Trump movement" when it comes to "Red States."

But it does say that Moore was sufficiently tainted to cause enough Republicans to stay home/vote third party or even vote Democrat(!) that the mobilized/energetic Democrat voting base was able to capture the seat for now, with a lot of help from National Interests.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2018, 05:11:34 PM »
"with a lot of help from National Interests."

I've got to wonder how much "help" that really was. I bet a lot of Republicans who did vote for Moore might have done so partly because of the intrusion of the national media circus into that race, among other things. About the 100th time you get robocalled, a knock at the door, see a TV ad, or other things "National Interest" help can buy, you begin to contemplate murder. My family lives in NH and get that treatment every 4 years... I'm surprised there hasn't been a ballot initiative to let some other state get clobbered.


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2018, 07:12:11 PM »
"with a lot of help from National Interests."

I've got to wonder how much "help" that really was. I bet a lot of Republicans who did vote for Moore might have done so partly because of the intrusion of the national media circus into that race, among other things. About the 100th time you get robocalled, a knock at the door, see a TV ad, or other things "National Interest" help can buy, you begin to contemplate murder. My family lives in NH and get that treatment every 4 years... I'm surprised there hasn't been a ballot initiative to let some other state get clobbered.

Well it evidently worked to some extent, going from records I recall looking at in my own congressional district, a ~25% decline in turnout going from a "Presidential" election cycle to a General election is typical for my state(For Shelby's seat, looks like a ~30% variance is typical for Alabama Republicans, while Dems seem to vary by about 15% between cycles). So seeing the Special Election turn up a comparable(down 10%) number of Democratic Voters as last seen(for that seat) in the 2008 Presidential Election year is impressive.

Even more impressive given he came slightly closer to the Democratic vote tally from the 2016 Senate race for the other seat(Held by Richard Shelby), where they saw that one go 1,335,104(R) -  748,709(D) (which was down ~4K Democratic votes from 2008; while Republicans were up by ~30K from 2008) Or the matter that it was a special election which normally sees even lower voter turnout than happens on an "off year" election.

Basically it seems nearly 90% of Democratic voters from 2016 turned up to vote in the Special election, while only about 50% of the Republican voters bothered to show up(and vote the Ballot candidate -- another ~22 thousand used write-ins)

In summary, nothing spectacular about the win. A scummy candidate, running in off-year race(and a special election no less) under a questionable Presidency of the same party failed to motivate his base to vote, while the Democrats managed to get most of their base to show up and vote.

There are many districts where they're going to have that kind of confluence of events play out, and the Republican turnout would be so extremely depressed.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 07:26:05 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2018, 07:29:25 PM »
There are many districts where they're going to have that kind of confluence of events play out, and the Republican turnout would be so extremely depressed.

Ah, that's what I get for trying to slip that in before the edit timer ran out.

There are not many districts where they're going to have that kind of confluence of events play out. The Republican turnout wouldn't be so extremely depressed in most races.

Spectacular proofreading fail.  :-[

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: State of the Union response
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2018, 03:20:16 PM »
Quote
White nationalist participation is about equal in the two parties (multiple studies have demonstrated that white racism is about equal in the two), notwithstanding the media hard sell to the opposite. 

On this, I'd truly welcome some data. Please give me some sort of link on it. I would be gobsmacked if white nationalists were voting Dem in similar numbers as Republican. And I'm not talking broadly about "racists" or whatever that means- I'm talking about KKK-affiliated, Richard Spencer fan-type people.

This is not the link you are looking for because it's about "soft" racism, rather than KKK style racism, but it is a source most people trust.  It's interesting as well cause you can see a real Obama effect on generally declining trend lines that hits by party.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/

There are better ones for hard racist tracking, last time I saw them they were below 3% participation in each party and about the same, but they seem to have been overwhelmed in the easy google searches by all the "Trump is a racist" propaganda.  Will try to spend some more time on it later - though I note, I've linked to them before on this board (or the prior), you may have an easier time finding those links.