In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 15 2016 04:49 xDaunt wrote: We're really talking about two different issues here. Traditional mass media consumption is clearly going down the toilet. Younger generations aren't interested in print newspapers or cable TV -- even those with money. Media consumption is going to be almost strictly online before long.
As for the falling credibility of mass media, I don't see why anyone would be surprised. For months mass media told us that only conspiracy kooks were questioning Hillary's health and that there was no cause for alarm. Clearly there's some egg on their faces now. People on the right have noticed the obvious shilling like this for decades.
there is no egg on their faces; because most of those questioning health WERE conspiracy kooks. you gotta let that go man.
On September 15 2016 04:56 Gorsameth wrote: The problem with US media is that they are all for profit organizations who need views more then they need 'the truth'.
Sadly politics is so partisan that a state funded news organization would just become a politician fight over funding.
News long ago stopped being about having a better informed public. The real sign of trouble was the creation of CNN, but you can see it building back in the 70s when they created the left vs right dynamic for ratings.
Nice little preview of Trump as a foreign policy leader is that anyone in Mexico associated with his visit is having their political head lopped off. Maybe his business practice of pursuing his own interest at all costs is ineffective FP?
He is an "international pariah", in the words of Colin Powell.
The 2013 film “Blackfish” cast a spotlight on the cruelty of keeping orcas captive at marine theme parks ― with sometimes fatal results.
The film triggered a furore and legislators, particularly in California, vowed to ban orca captivity. Finally, in March — after years of boycotts and impending legal pressure — SeaWorld announced that it would end its orca breeding program as well as the theatrical shows that had featured its killer whales.
Now, California is hammering the nail into the coffin. Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation this week that will outlaw orca breeding and captivity programs in the state.
The new law, which Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) authored, will also ban California parks from featuring orcas in performances for entertainment purposes. Starting in June 2017, killer whales in captivity can only be used for “educational presentations,” the Los Angeles Times reports. The legislation makes other exceptions for scientific and educational institutions that have orcas in their care.
SeaWorld said earlier this year that it planned to “fundamentally change” its business model, not just ending its orca breeding program but also stopping theatrical shows at its parks in San Diego, California, San Antonio, Texas, and Orlando, Florida.
The marine park said it would instead focus on education programs, and animal rescue and rehabilitation.
Though activists have pressed SeaWorld to free their captive orcas, it’s believed the animals will live out the remainder of their lives there.
“A lot of people just don’t realize that without facilities like SeaWorld, there are no places for these creatures to go,” said CEO Joel Manby in March, adding that the company cares for many sick and injured animals as part of its conservation initiative.
There are more than 50 orcas held in captivity in several U.S. states and at least eight countries worldwide, according to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation. SeaWorld’s parks are home to more than 20 of them.
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: Hillary supporters (rather than reluctant voters) are not really any better.
Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them.
It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Leaked documents reveal secretive influence of corporate cash on politics
Sealed Wisconsin court documents from Scott Walker investigation expose extent of corporate influence on democratic process rarely seen by the public.
In a case that is the subject of a petition currently in front of the US supreme court, five Wisconsin prosecutors carried out a deep investigation into what they suspected were criminal campaign-finance violations by the campaign committee of Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor and former Republican presidential candidate. Known as the “John Doe investigation”, the inquiry has been a lightning rod for bitter disputes between conservatives and progressives for years.
In July 2015 the state’s supreme court halted the investigation, saying the prosecutors had misunderstood campaign finance law and as a result had picked on people and groups “wholly innocent of any wrongdoing”. Highly unusually, the court also ordered that all the evidence assembled by the prosecutors be destroyed and later held under seal.
Among the documents are several court filings from the case, as well as hundreds of pages of email exchanges obtained by the prosecutors under subpoena. The emails involve conversations concerning Walker, his top aides, conservative lobbyists, and leading Republican figures such as Karl Rove and the chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus.
Trump also appears in the files, making a donation of $15,000 following a personal visit from Walker to the Republican nominee’s Fifth Avenue headquarters.
In addition to Trump, many of the most powerful and wealthy rightwing figures in the nation crop up in the files: from Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and Las Vegas casino giant Sheldon Adelson, to magnate Carl Icahn. “I got $1m from John Menard today,” Walker says in one email, referring to the billionaire owner of the home improvement chain Menards.
Among the new material contained in the documents are donations amounting to $750,000 to a third-party group closely aligned to Walker from the owner of NL Industries, a company that historically produced lead paint. Within the same timeframe as the donations, the Republican-controlled legislature passed new laws making it much more difficult for victims of lead paint poisoning to sue NL Industries and other former lead paint manufacturers (the laws were later overturned in the federal courts).
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: Hillary supporters (rather than reluctant voters) are not really any better.
Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them.
It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others. Bernie, like any candidate, has his flaws and isn't representative of all my issues.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote: [quote] Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them.
It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote: [quote] It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote: [quote] Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them.
It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others. Bernie, like any candidate, has his flaws and isn't representative of all my issues.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
I'm not aware of any European country with a higher than 60% tax bracket
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: Hillary supporters (rather than reluctant voters) are not really any better.
Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them.
It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
Well, it's an interesting grouping in that there aren't many liberals with a nationalist bent (particularly when it comes to issues of cultural preservation). Long story short, it looks like you are more centrist than I gave you credit for.
Igne better not come in here and disagree with my description of him.
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote: [quote] They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote: [quote] They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote: [quote]
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Would this apply even in a society which started with an aristocracy? If one group owned all the means of production (land/factories/capital etc) would you conclude that the invisible hand will fix it so that those with merit will replace those without at the top? I would argue that even if that would happen over a long enough time frame it would still be a far less productive society than one would a more equitable foundation. Punitive estate taxes are what finally broke the English aristocracy, by forcing each generation increase the estate they were born with by 67% in order to pass on the same amount to their children after a 40% estate tax ((1*1.67)*.6=1) the capital was reallocated over multiple generations to those who could actually make good use of it.
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote: [quote] They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote: [quote] They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote: [quote]
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Can you link me any credible arguments that say we should redistribute wealth "for the sake of redistributing wealth?". Because I have literally never heard anyone argue for wealth redistribution for that purpose.
Leaked documents reveal secretive influence of corporate cash on politics
Sealed Wisconsin court documents from Scott Walker investigation expose extent of corporate influence on democratic process rarely seen by the public.
In a case that is the subject of a petition currently in front of the US supreme court, five Wisconsin prosecutors carried out a deep investigation into what they suspected were criminal campaign-finance violations by the campaign committee of Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor and former Republican presidential candidate. Known as the “John Doe investigation”, the inquiry has been a lightning rod for bitter disputes between conservatives and progressives for years.
In July 2015 the state’s supreme court halted the investigation, saying the prosecutors had misunderstood campaign finance law and as a result had picked on people and groups “wholly innocent of any wrongdoing”. Highly unusually, the court also ordered that all the evidence assembled by the prosecutors be destroyed and later held under seal.
Among the documents are several court filings from the case, as well as hundreds of pages of email exchanges obtained by the prosecutors under subpoena. The emails involve conversations concerning Walker, his top aides, conservative lobbyists, and leading Republican figures such as Karl Rove and the chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus.
Trump also appears in the files, making a donation of $15,000 following a personal visit from Walker to the Republican nominee’s Fifth Avenue headquarters.
In addition to Trump, many of the most powerful and wealthy rightwing figures in the nation crop up in the files: from Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and Las Vegas casino giant Sheldon Adelson, to magnate Carl Icahn. “I got $1m from John Menard today,” Walker says in one email, referring to the billionaire owner of the home improvement chain Menards.
Among the new material contained in the documents are donations amounting to $750,000 to a third-party group closely aligned to Walker from the owner of NL Industries, a company that historically produced lead paint. Within the same timeframe as the donations, the Republican-controlled legislature passed new laws making it much more difficult for victims of lead paint poisoning to sue NL Industries and other former lead paint manufacturers (the laws were later overturned in the federal courts).
And a shocked, Scott Walker, is a cooperate goon that that screws over working people because the people who give him money tell him too. I am hard pressed to find a state that is run by a Republican that isn’t some level of living nightmare.
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote: [quote] I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote: [quote] I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote: [quote] So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Can you link me any credible arguments that say we should redistribute wealth "for the sake of redistributing wealth?". Because I have literally never heard anyone argue for wealth redistribution for that purpose.
Isn't this the whole point of the debate over income inequality?
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
[quote]
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Can you link me any credible arguments that say we should redistribute wealth "for the sake of redistributing wealth?". Because I have literally never heard anyone argue for wealth redistribution for that purpose.
Isn't this the whole point of the debate over income inequality?
No.
No one argues to redistribute wealth for redistribution's sake. People argue for it from a generally utilitarian POV so that the wealthy few are hurt in a relatively minor way compared to the relatively major gains that the many poor would gain from those taxes.
Simplifying it to "redistribution for redistribution's sake" is a ridiculous strawman that kills any type of legitimate conversation.
The current polls are showing the issues with Clinton and her inability to pull in independent voters. Trump still has a hard path to 270, but no one in the Clinton camp can be happy with those numbers. Fuck, I'm not happy with those numbers at all.
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote: [quote] It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others. Bernie, like any candidate, has his flaws and isn't representative of all my issues.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
I'm not aware of any European country with a higher than 60% tax bracket
Among probably others, England and France have at times had tax rates above 70%.
Hollande's tax on the rich, which expired by now, is the most recent example.
EPT
