1
0

Let's have a civil, political discussion for once.


 invite response                
2014 Aug 4, 3:46am   39,473 views  57 comments

by edvard2   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

This may or may not be possible. But let's try something new. As seen on this site on a daily basis, both liberals and conservatives ( I am certainly not innocent of this) go back and forth in a non-ending game of blaming one side or the other for their problems or what they perceive to be the inferior wing ( left or right).

This is totally useless and nonconstructive. All that happens is that one person makes an intentionally inflammatory post to "get back" at the liberals/conservatives and then out come the charts, the catty name-calling, the use of political cliche's and catch phrases with the post eventually simply burning itself out in a big shouting match. Nobody walks away feeling good about it either.

So I'm going to start a new thread and the way this thread will work is that people who wish to participate can in very general terms describe what they feel would be an ideal situation as they envision the government and its inner workings as well as some of their own opinions concerning their core beliefs. Please don't be insulting, demeaning or otherwise simply nasty. If you post a response respectfully then you will receive respect in return. If I see any grossly offensive responses or name calling I will delete those posts.

So I will go first.

No.1, I feel that the vast majority of Americans are good, reasonable, decent people with strong moral compasses. I know for fact that on a daily basis having lived in the South and now Cali that regardless of political leanings most people I know or have met shared the vast majority of my beliefs as well. In most cases the difference of opinion were actually much less severe. Both the Liberal and Conservative positions, as represented in the news and media tend to be the extreme liberal/conservative views since its those people who yell the loudest who get all of the attention.

No.2 to me it seems that both "sides" have good aspects to their ideology. Some of these are similar but different in their execution. As a Southern guy it was almost expected that anyone who you saw broken down on the freeway meant you should pull over the help them- no matter who they were. There is a certain respect for family and in particular family elders as well. Liberals have long held the belief that all people no matter their background deserve the same rights, which in some ways is very similar.

As far as my personal, direct political beliefs I would underline them as follows.

A: To me the biggest issue right now is the effects of outside money influencing politics. There is a huge lobby and political organization/fund raising element to today's politics. Its made running for any office prohibitively expensive meaning no "ordinary" American could hope to run for President let alone even a local government position. This in turn means that our elected officials are perhaps more keen on pleasing their corporate backers than their constituency. I strong oppose outside money influencing the system and it were up to me, all of it would be abolished.

B: I strongly feel that all people, regardless of their race, sex, sexual preferences, religion and background deserve access and treatment via universal civil rights as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

C: Today's news media is a joke. Since both now make money making news that is intentionally tilted towards either a right or left viewpoint means its no longer real journalism. Its more an unending editorial. The problem with that is viewers mistake this for news and use it as their "knowledge base" of politics. So the population becomes more ignorant and devoted to their one source of "news". This is irresponsible on part of those media companies who would rather make money selling garbage than a quality product.

D: People need to stop blaming each other for what's going on in Washington. The truth is that Congress and the Senate are in a gridlock and seldom is the news about them doing their jobs, which is to pass bills, debate, and otherwise perform the duties they were elected to do. In the meantime their constituency is so busy trying to blame each other ( those liberals! ) or- ( Those conservatives!) that the actual business in Washington is ignored. If there are those who are unhappy with the way things are in Washington, then go vote. Its really that simple.

E: I strongly feel that the financial woes of the country come from weak and ineffective financial strategies. I'm not a fan of taxes like the next guy but this seeming desire to never-ever raise them is in turn crippling the country in many ways from degraded schools and roads as well as non-stop budget shortfalls. I feel very much so that the taxation model we have now is grossly lopsided and benefits a very small minority whom if taxed fairly like the rest of us would drastically improve the overall financial health of the country. If there are some highly privileged citizens whom drive on our roads, use our bridges and send their kids to our schools as well as benefit from the protections of the world's largest military then they too should pay for the use of those at the same equally applied tax standards as the rest of us. To put this one step further, government should avoid attaching ideology to financial concerns. The economy moves at the speed of sound and by holding that process up with legislation that sometimes takes years to enact is impracticable and ineffective.

Anyway... that's all for now.

Comments 1 - 40 of 57       Last »     Search these comments

1   komputodo   2014 Aug 4, 4:16am  

edvard2 says

This may or may not be possible. But let's try something new. As seen on this site on a daily basis, both liberals and conservatives ( I am certainly not innocent of this) go back and forth in a non-ending game of blaming one side or the other for their problems or what they perceive to be the inferior wing ( left or right).

YEAHHHHHH!

2   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Aug 4, 4:19am  

edvard2 says

The truth is that Congress and the Senate are in a gridlock and seldom is the news about them doing their jobs, which is to pass bills, debate, and otherwise perform the duties they were elected to do.

They are doing the job they were paid to do. Start wars, create beneficial regulations for large companies especially financial institutions, create distraction over cultural values like Gay Marriage, expanding corporate welfare and tax breaks, etc.

The Princeton Study. Read it:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

There is no America.
There is no democracy.
There is only IBM and ITT, and AT&T, and Du Pont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon.
Those are the nations of the world today.

3   mmmarvel   2014 Aug 4, 4:20am  

edvard2 says

Let's have a civil, political discussion for once.

Impossible - next improbable feat???

4   Tenpoundbass   2014 Aug 4, 4:27am  

My list just has one item.

1)Respect each other.

I always try to respect people even if I disagree with them.

Like it would probably be easier to promote better health by promoting healthier food. And by promoting healthier living, I mean creating legislation that eases as much inflation on healthful food as possible rather than promoting and economic policy so bad. That you have people who honestly believe they curb Childhood Obesity by shaming and chastising, but all the while considered smart and astute for getting in on Chipotle and McDonald's at the right time.

My problem with the majority of the Left's policies right now. Is not the intent of what they "Trying" to do. It's the sheer lack of respect they have for people in both the creation and implementation of those policies. Oh and FYI...

Intelligent people often get their way by using their sheer wit and brilliance to influence others. The greatest thing of all is, those affected have no idea who they should thank.

Telling people to give you carte blance, of an issue because you THINK you're smarter than everyone else, and your shoe fits your foot perfectly. Is no way to lead. If you're trying to fix a Volkswagon perhaps but not in a Government.

5   curious2   2014 Aug 4, 4:29am  

edvard2 says

To me the biggest issue right now is the effects of outside money influencing politics.

I have seen many flawed suggestions about how to address this issue, including attempts to limit campaign finance. I suggest instead a simpler solution: the House of Representatives should be selected at random from each district, like jury duty. Representatives should be allowed to campaign for a second term, but no more. That way, the legislature would have one truly representative chamber not dependent on fundraising.

(The same could be done at the state level in those states that have similar bicameral legislative structures, where the "lower" house is sometimes called the "Assembly.")

If that suggestion might be counted as a nod to the Occupy movement, then I would also offer one from the Tea Party movement. At the federal level, the 17th Amendment established the direct election of senators, and launched the United States into a century of imperial foreign wars at the expense of domestic interests. People cheer the military like a winning sports team, and the military-industrial complex capitalizes on the opportunity to distract everyone with the modern equivalent of bread and circuses, i.e. military spending on "shock and awe." While invading the wrong country at the wrong time can produce some spectacular fireworks, it is not in the national interest. The founders had foreseen those risks, based on long experience of imperial systems. The founders wrote that the power to declare war should be vested in Senators appointed by the States, and the predictable effect was to make Senators accountable to local domestic patronage networks without distraction by Hearst (now Fox) Newspapers' attempts to sell papers by selling wars.

If you had "fat cat" Senators appointed by the states, and randomly selected representatives, then you might achieve a more successful balance than what we have now.

6   komputodo   2014 Aug 4, 4:46am  

komputodo says

edvard2 says

This may or may not be possible. But let's try something new. As seen on this site on a daily basis, both liberals and conservatives ( I am certainly not innocent of this) go back and forth in a non-ending game of blaming one side or the other for their problems or what they perceive to be the inferior wing ( left or right).

YEAHHHHHH!

Tough crowd....i got a dislike for supporting a poster that wants to have a civil discussion LOL

7   Paralithodes   2014 Aug 4, 4:49am  

edvard2 says

C: Today's news media is a joke. Since both now make money making news that is intentionally tilted towards either a right or left viewpoint means its no longer real journalism.

Yesterday's news media was also a joke and intentionally tilted. I don't think anything has ever changed from well before any of us were born:

Jefferson (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl179.php):

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, `by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.' Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowlege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources, as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

Such an editor too, would have to set his face against the demoralising practice of feeding the public mind habitually on slander, & the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamation is becoming a necessary of life; insomuch, that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even those who do not believe these abominations, still read them with complaisance to their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence & indignation which should fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibility that some may believe them, tho they do not themselves. It seems to escape them, that it is not he who prints, but he who pays for printing a slander, who is it's real author.

8   Ceffer   2014 Aug 4, 4:51am  

edvard2 says

Let's have a civil, political discussion for once.

Umm, NOOOO!

Maybe just "ad hominem", "no true Scotsman", "straw man" , "slippery slope", "begging the question", and "appeal to emotion" filters to lower the noise to signal ratio.

9   Paralithodes   2014 Aug 4, 4:53am  

edvard2 says

I'm not a fan of taxes like the next guy but this seeming desire to never-ever raise them is in turn crippling the country in many ways ...

I would argue that in this comment above you have, yourself planted the seeds for this to become something other than a civil political discussion, because you setup a strawman argument of your opponents' positions, which - from a civil discussion and objective viewpoint - is much more nuanced than the "seeming desire to never-ever raise [taxes]" claim. You may believe that that nuance is wrong, but it is there, and by your statement above, you discount its existence. Having a civil discussion means expressing an understanding the positions of your opponents in their terms, whether you agree with them or not. Just some constructive criticism....

10   edvard2   2014 Aug 4, 4:57am  

curious2 says

I have seen many flawed suggestions about how to address this issue, including attempts to limit campaign finance.

My solution for this would be simple: Pass laws that would make it illegal for any lobby, corporate interest, union, grass-roots organizations and so on to donate money to any political cause. Of course that's really presenting some possible snares, such as whether or not a financial contribution to a government-sponsored charity from a company would be the same.

But the bottom line is that by sucking away all of the many millions of dollars which comes from outside interests it returns the financial influence of the voting public. Of course that alone isn't enough: there are more than enough billionaires who could then just as easily buy elections as they do using their companies now. So in that regard we could enact limits which is something many other countries do. Thus even if you are a billionaire, the maximum annual amount you could donate would be cut to a level that is determined by the median affordable rate that the population can afford.

My problem with money in our political system now is that it has poisoned the political process: With those donors from various industries, lobbys, and so on the elected official has a more keen interest in supporting legislation that benefits those donors. So for example any new emission standards might be met with comments that doing so would kill jobs when the reality is that if that politician were to get money from say- a large energy conglomerate- then of course added emission standards would hurt their bottom line and so if that politician votes against their wishes then the money would stop. That is not the way that things should work.

Either way, I will probably continue to vote Democratic. But even so, if congress and the senate acted purely from the will of their voters then even if the Republicans and the Democrats came up with legislation that might be questionable to me then I would at least know their concerns were more inline with that the population actually wants and not from corporate supporters.

11   edvard2   2014 Aug 4, 5:00am  

Paralithodes says

I would argue that in this comment above you have, yourself planted the seeds for this to become something other than a civil political discussion, because you setup a strawman argument of your opponents' positions, which - from a civil discussion and objective viewpoint - is much more nuanced than the "seeming desire to never-ever raise [taxes]" claim.

Well... I believe you might have missed the point I was making, which was that yes, we can have a discussion that revolves around opposing ideas. Where the "Civil" part comes in is to not be grossly rude and confrontational with one another's opinions. It is really possible to have opposing points but yet have a reasonable, measured discussion. I wasn't setting up a straw man: I simply stated my personal opinions and as you might have noticed I didn't blame anyone for anything or call names.

12   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Aug 4, 5:02am  

edvard2 says

My solution for this would be simple: Pass laws that would make it illegal for any lobby, corporate interest, union, grass-roots organizations and so on to donate money to any political cause. Of course that's really presenting some possible snares, such as whether or not a financial contribution to a government-sponsored charity from a company would be the same.

Starting with, why would the Kings of the Mountain empower the people trying to climb the Pyramid, or worse, make it horizontal?

There's an almost perfect correlation between big donor fundraising and election victory.

13   Paralithodes   2014 Aug 4, 5:05am  

edvard2 says

B: I strongly feel that all people, regardless of their race, sex, sexual preferences, religion and background deserve access and treatment via universal civil rights as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

I agree with the founders' versions of "negative" rights, meaning that "rights" are those things that the government cannot take away from you. That is why the "rights" outlined in the Bill of Rights are not granted by the government. They are all written as restrictions on the government's ability to trample rights that individuals are assumed to already hold. There have been legitimate fights about ensuring that these individual rights are applied equally to all.

I do not believe that there is any natural right to receive a product or service. There is no "right" to universal health care, housing, etc. One could argue that it should be a universal privilege of citizenship, to the degree that society can provide it, but calling it a "right" means that ultimately means that others will be coerced to provide it.

14   curious2   2014 Aug 4, 5:07am  

edvard2 says

Pass laws that would make it illegal for any lobby, corporate interest, union, grass-roots organizations and so on to donate money to any political cause.

Unless you start by amending the Constitution, you would run into Citizens United, and even if you did amend the Constitution you would run into the same issues. Although partisan Democrats lament that decision (which allowed a film that criticized Senator Hillary Clinton), please consider (as the Court did) the implications of banning that film. During the 2004 election year, Michael Moore's company and other corporations produced and distributed Fahrenheit 9/11, which criticized the entire career of the incumbent President, including his Presidency. If the movie criticizing then-Senator Clinton had been banned, then surely the movie criticizing then-President Bush could have been banned also. There is no way realistically to plug all the holes by which money can find its way into the political process, and even if you could do that (which you can't), that wouldn't necessarily be a better system. The best one can realistically hope for is balance between continuity and change, promoting enough continuity that investment will be rewarded while allowing enough change that the civilization advances rather than becoming sclerotic.

15   John Bailo   2014 Aug 4, 5:09am  

The bipolarity has never been more extreme.

I can either vote for a right-wing racist who wants me to work 20 hours a day in his coal factory, or a left-wing facist who wants to put me in a 100 sq. ft. apodment, ride buses everywhere and force me to become openly omnisexual.

16   edvard2   2014 Aug 4, 5:10am  

Paralithodes says

Yesterday's news media was also a joke and intentionally tilted.

I don't doubt for a second the existence of political bias in the media from the get-go. But I do strongly feel that the heavy commercialization of idealized news media is a different animal than from what it has ever been.

From a business perspective its pure marketing genius: The news agencies whom generate their content do so with carefully researched demographic definitions. This is done from a marketing perspective first in mind so in the end the news is more about servicing the advertisers of the shows.

Perfect examples would be the differences between left and right leaning media: A right-leaning talk show might have repeated stories that relies heavily on paranoia and conspiracy theories and then advertise products that perfectly match the demographic whom listen to those shows: Gold, Panic seeds ( no kidding ) and other items that all feed into that brand of paranoia. Likewise a left-leaning show might have a long drawn-out story about the latest global warming theory or some other green type story with commercials that are all about outdoor granola bars, happy-go-lucky solar panel systems and so on and so on.

So what we have now goes beyond just left and right media: Its gotten to a level of branding. Liberal and Conservative have themselves become a brand and those who prescribe to whichever ones are like walking endorsements of those brands: A right leaning dude might be more likely to drive around in a big honkin' truck while the liberal dude might drive around in a Prius with obnoxious "Saving the world" stickers on the bumper.

Everyone has become groomed and conditioned to only abide by and listen to their own carefully orchestrated, commercialized news channels without worry of encountering anything in those shows that might challenge them in any way and instead only is meant to reinforce their beliefs so they will continue to be reliable consumers of the goods that are advertised to them.

17   curious2   2014 Aug 4, 5:12am  

John Bailo says

I can either....

Both of your purported options are equally false, and your avatar website seems equally confused:

"Tips for Golfers Over 65
Windows XP Driver Updates...."

18   Tenpoundbass   2014 Aug 4, 5:14am  

edvard2 says

My solution for this would be simple: Pass laws that would make it illegal for any lobby, corporate interest, union, grass-roots organizations and so on to donate money to any political cause. Of course that's really presenting some possible snares, such as whether or not a financial contribution to a government-sponsored charity from a company would be the same.

I would rather have open primaries, and the debates moderated by a Federal Election body, and Amnesty International overseeing them.

Basically the debate should be about everyone in the race, not the ones the media and donors are promoting. And since we have a two party system where it is perfectly legal for both the GOP and the DNC to meddle in the Independent candidates while immune them selves from any outside Primary influnce. Then we'll continue with what we have.

In these times it's not unreasonable to think that someone registered as NPA should be able to vote in Primaries on a Federal level. Especially given that the NPA accounts for more than 37% of registered voters as of now.

19   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Aug 4, 5:15am  

Liberals aren't leftwing. They're Capitalists who don't mind gay marriage, and will hire a Black supervisor. Conservatives are capitalists who believe in supply-side Jesus, who said in the Gospel according to Saint Bastard: "Consider the Lillies of the field, do they not work 16 hours 7 days a week in the Textile Mill?"

20   Paralithodes   2014 Aug 4, 5:17am  

edvard2 says

Well... I believe you might have missed the point I was making, which was that yes, we can have a discussion that revolves around opposing ideas. Where the "Civil" part comes in is to not be grossly rude and confrontational with one another's opinions. It is really possible to have opposing points but yet have a reasonable, measured discussion. I wasn't setting up a straw man: I simply stated my personal opinions and as you might have noticed I didn't blame anyone for anything or call names.

We just have different opinions of what is "civil" discussion perhaps. Whether you intended to or not, describing your opponents positions on taxes as you did was indeed a strawman, since you are describing their argument in a more absolute and narrow scope than they may actually hold. That it is your opinion that your opponents "never-ever" are for raising taxes is not more reasonable or measured just because you weren't rude about it. Do you agree that there is more nuance behind your opponents' arguments regarding taxes?

21   John Bailo   2014 Aug 4, 5:18am  

curious2 says

your avatar website seems equally confused:

That's because I don't want to pay Patrick to be a subscriber just to fix the URL.

your purported options are equally false

Tell me, for a person with no real wealth in our society, what can a person do except to attach himself to one or the other extremes and "play for the team".

The concept of the Independent person, running his own show, forming his own opinions, no longer exists in this nation.

22   curious2   2014 Aug 4, 5:19am  

thunderlips11 says

There's an almost perfect correlation between big donor fundraising and election victory.

There are certainly exceptions, and besides correlation is not causation. For example, Meg Whitman had many times more money on hand than Jerry Brown, and she spent lavishly on her campaign, but she lost anyway. To the extent that fundraising and victory go together, the causation works in both directions: the candidates who look like possible winners have a huge advantage in fundraising compared to longshot candidates.

23   Paralithodes   2014 Aug 4, 5:19am  

curious2 says

Unless you start by amending the Constitution, you would run into Citizens United....,

Your entire post was very good. Whether you read the CU decision or not, it generally reflects what it is in it (I did read it and wish anyone with an opinion one way or the other did). What you write also reflects in part why the ACLU supported the CU decision.

24   Paralithodes   2014 Aug 4, 5:25am  

edvard2 says

So what we have now goes beyond just left and right media: Its gotten to a level of branding. Liberal and Conservative have themselves become a brand and those who prescribe to whichever ones are like walking endorsements of those brands: A right leaning dude might be more likely to drive around in a big honkin' truck while the liberal dude might drive around in a Prius with obnoxious "Saving the world" stickers on the bumper.

Everyone has become groomed and conditioned to only abide by and listen to their own carefully orchestrated, commercialized news channels without worry of encountering anything in those shows that might challenge them in any way and instead only is meant to reinforce their beliefs so they will continue to be reliable consumers of the goods that are advertised to them.

But is this really different than anytime in past history, or is it only different than a small window in time when a few corporate empires had a monopoly on TV broadcast news? What we have now is in my opinion much more dispersed. What about the past was anything different, regarding "grooming" and "conditioning" than now? At least now there are numerous other options and choices for those who would otherwise be groomed and conditioned by a limited few giant corporations.

Much of what you describe may come down to simple human nature.

25   Paralithodes   2014 Aug 4, 5:26am  

edvard2 says

If I see any grossly offensive responses or name calling I will delete those posts.

thunderlips11 says

Liberals aren't leftwing. They're Capitalists who don't mind gay marriage, and will hire a Black supervisor. Conservatives are capitalists who believe in supply-side Jesus, who said in the Gospel according to Saint Bastard: "Consider the Lillies of the field, do they not work 16 hours 7 days a week in the Textile Mill?"

Do posts like above count?

26   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Aug 4, 5:27am  

curious2 says

There are certainly exceptions, and besides correlation is not causation. For example, Meg Whitman had many times more money on hand than Jerry Brown, and she spent lavishly on her campaign, but she lost anyway. To the extent that fundraising and victory go together, the causation works in both directions: the candidates who look like possible winners have a huge advantage in fundraising compared to longshot candidates.

The exception proves the rule. I did say "almost perfect".

Correlation isn't causation, but it often is an indicator of one and a good place to start looking. The presence of the suspect in at the gas station is correlation. If we didn't take correlation as a good start towards showing causation, police wouldn't bother following up and interviewing the suspect.

Here's some more correlation:

Backed up by more research:

(Princeton Study)


http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/35/3/433.full.pdf+html

27   edvard2   2014 Aug 4, 5:28am  

Paralithodes says

Do posts like above count?

He is "protected". Otherwise that would have been deleted.

28   edvard2   2014 Aug 4, 5:32am  

Paralithodes says

But is this really different than anytime in past history, or is it only different than a small window in time when a few corporate empires had a monopoly on TV broadcast news? What we have now is in my opinion much more dispersed. What about the past was anything different, regarding "grooming" and "conditioning" than now? At least now there are numerous other options and choices for those who would otherwise be groomed and conditioned by a limited few giant corporations.

Much of what you describe may come down to simple human nature.

Yes, I really think its different these days. The news media is in my opinion never been this divisive: Whereas decades ago most Americans might have gotten their news from dear old Walter Kronkite for an hour each evening now there are news channels operating 24/7 and intentionally branded as either a right or left leaning news channel.

Furthermore the level of outright polarization of the country these days I strongly feel is due to the media people consume: One news agency will proclaim something and furnish the listeners their response phrases which are then used in debates- on sites like this one for example. So instead of originality you simply get repetition.

29   curious2   2014 Aug 4, 5:35am  

thunderlips11 says

I did say "almost perfect".

I like your first chart better than your summary of it. Your chart shows 80% correlation between "higher spending" and winning. Even a random selection would produce 50% correlation. So, campaign spending increases the chance around halfway from random to perfect. I suppose whether that counts as "almost perfect" depends on your definition of "almost," but I would not have defined "almost" as "around halfway to". [Update: I see you updated your comment to include more charts, so I updated this one to specify the first.]

30   edvard2   2014 Aug 4, 5:39am  

Paralithodes says

That it is your opinion that your opponents "never-ever" are for raising taxes is not more reasonable or measured just because you weren't rude about it. Do you agree that there is more nuance behind your opponents' arguments regarding taxes?

I suppose I should have been more detailed about where that statement was coming from. As I mentioned before I strongly feel that most Americans of either political stripe are reasonable and measured. But therein lies the problem: The majority of Americans are not really represented in an accurate manner by their elected officials: Instead it is the extreme right and left end of the spectrum of both sides whom elect people to congress and the senate. This is partially everyone's fault my letting those with the loudest voices speak for all versus the other way around.

So what we have is a congress whom will never consider raising taxes but in reality their overall constituency is probably willing to hear options instead of just hearing "no". The same is true with the Democrats: They too tend to lean a but further to the left than the majority of their constituents would want them to.

31   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Aug 4, 5:42am  

Paralithodes says

edvard2 says

If I see any grossly offensive responses or name calling I will delete those posts.

thunderlips11 says

Liberals aren't leftwing. They're Capitalists who don't mind gay marriage, and will hire a Black supervisor. Conservatives are capitalists who believe in supply-side Jesus, who said in the Gospel according to Saint Bastard: "Consider the Lillies of the field, do they not work 16 hours 7 days a week in the Textile Mill?"

Do posts like above count?

edvard2 says

Paralithodes says

Do posts like above count?

He is "protected". Otherwise that would have been deleted.

Hmm, who did I grossly offend? I made a snarky but obscenity-free remark about two ideologies. If that offends you, what on Earth are you doing on the Internet?

edvard2 says

Where the "Civil" part comes in is to not be grossly rude and confrontational with one another's opinions.

What is "Grossly" Rude?

I notice that the two fighters for "civil" discourse and IMHO general tone-trolling are the first ones who wished for Censoring a post based on some obscenity-free General Audiences Admitted snarky humor.

Here's a word about the difference between Seriousness and Solemnity that may be relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/gdWKQ36JkwE

32   curious2   2014 Aug 4, 5:42am  

edvard2 says

Walter Kronkite [sic] for an hour each evening

CBS News with Walter Cronkite was a half hour broadcast, though I suppose the advent of the VCR may have enabled some households to watch him twice each evening. In any event, his moderate tone marked a brief exception to most of American journalistic history, when the broad spectrum of opinion converged into only three national networks. If you want to design policies that will succeed over time, you need to consider the long sweep of history rather than an idealized cameo.

33   edvard2   2014 Aug 4, 6:14am  

Guys, let's avoid getting rat-holed down into the same old crap as usual. Seriously...

34   lostand confused   2014 Aug 4, 6:14am  

Well, healthcare reform was needed, but not the heritage instiute's plan that became Obamacare. But if you are a politician, you have to expect propoganda from the opponent. it is what another country would do. Witness what is going on in Russia and how he took Crimea . That required planning, skills , testing the enemy etc etc.

Obama was a gullible fool-just like Rumsfiled if he thought people would be waving American flags-if he all but announced helath care reform.

Now repubs especially teabag types tend to fall in the rabid specturm. But this country has been torn apart. In a quarter century, feminists have enacted male slavery, corporations have become a global force, companies can shift all their jobs to third world countries and still ship everything here with no barriers or import duties, welfare has grown to where folks on minimum wage probably have the same lifestyle as a welfare perosn and they have to work. So much has chnaged-govt has grown astronomically to where it now improsions more folks than nay nation on earth, spies on most Americans, can arrest anybody indefnitely without any charges and it controls the lives of every american family down to how one must support every ex spouse and child.

Freedom is becoming a caricature in the nation that throws the most people in jail. People's lives are being torn apart and it is a frightening time. Trying to explain away the changes by cliches may ease the pain a bit on both sides-but after electing both sides-people realize that they are just fools. People got fed up with Bush and gave resounding majority to dems and Obama-what did we get-Obaamacare and more of the same on NSA and free trade. Now he did get bin laden and is winding down wars and is not as bloodthursty and willing to sacrifice other people's kids as the repubs-but apart from that not very big difference. he is negotiaiting a giant free trade deal that dwarfs NAFTA in secret.

What are you going to do? Methinks we just ride it out and who knows maybe it might come full circle and our children and grandchildren will be the ones providing cheap labor to China and Inida in the not too distant future. There was a time when those two countries were at or more than 50% world GDP, and they fell. No reason we should stay on top for ever and looking at the way we are going-that day may not be far off-but who knows.

35   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Aug 4, 6:18am  

Call it Crazy says

edvard2 says

Let's have a civil, political discussion for once.

So much for that...

edvard2 says

Guys, let's avoid getting rat-holed down into the same old crap as usual. Seriously...

But not solemnly...

36   Dan8267   2014 Aug 4, 6:24am  

thunderlips11 says

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

America was never a democracy. It used to be a republic that represented only land-owning white men. Now it's a aristocracy masquerading as a republic, and it only represents the executives of large corporations that use our consumer dollars to buy politicians.

I suppose we all could just stop buying stuff, but then we'd all be unemployed and homeless.

37   Dan8267   2014 Aug 4, 6:25am  

John Bailo says

The bipolarity has never been more extreme.

Except during the Civil War. That really was a more divided time than even today.

38   Dan8267   2014 Aug 4, 6:30am  

I've always wondered why money can buy elections. The money is only spent on advertising, and I've never been persuaded by a campaign ad. Is the typical American voter so stupid that he/she is actually persuaded by transparent lies? I guess he has to be or otherwise elections wouldn't be so heavily influenced by money.

Perhaps the answer is to stop watching and listening to media that advertises. Download all your shows and listen to your own ripped music. Hell, I haven't seen a commercial in years except ones I seek out on YouTube like movie trailers.

39   Tenpoundbass   2014 Aug 4, 6:33am  

Dan8267 says

Except during the Civil War. That really was a more divided time than even today.

At least the Civil war only had two sides. To the contrary of what those here might think. I have never seen a Glen Beck show. I saw Glen Beck's true regret on CNN a few days ago. It's not what he regretted saying that I'm noting, but something else he said while saying it. He really believes that this country will eventually split in two in a Civil war. He reminds me of another Conservative idiot I worked with last year. He would start in with that shit during happy hour drinks. Until I presented him with the possibility that the next Civil war wont be a cut and dry "Us against Them" affair.

Enemies and Allies will overlap. You can fight along the side of someone one day then he cut you down the next because now you're on a tare about his other homies.

Just look our registered voting demographic. I said it is up to 37% and I was wrong, actually it's now at 42% of the voters are registered Independent of all other parties other than Democrat and Liberal. Out of those 42% only 30% are registered as No party affiliation.

40   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Aug 4, 6:34am  

curious2 says

Your chart shows 80% correlation between "higher spending" and winning. Even a random selection would produce 50% correlation. So, campaign spending increases the chance around halfway from random to perfect. I suppose whether that counts as "almost perfect" depends on your definition of "almost," but I would not have defined "almost" as "around halfway to". [Update: I see you updated your comment to include more charts, so I updated this one to specify the first.]

It's appears to me to be above 80% to me for the House in the chart. I disagree with the random selection criteria because I don't believe it applies to something like voting, which is generally done with deliberate action.

Comments 1 - 40 of 57       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions