|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 February 10 2017 03:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's not a question of support, but just resistance against the other candidate. The reason she got 3 million more votes is because of Trump. I am quickly realizing, that I voted for Trump because of my disdain for HRC and the democratic platform. Maybe I rationalized my support for trump to a great extent back then because of his stance on the economy, immigration and terrorism, and let his flaws slide. Now however, as I see his loose grip with reality I realize that I only let it slide because of HRC, and if it was a more respectable individual I might have not have been so forgiving. I imagine there were many who had similar ideas. Ironically the best way to assess support for a candidate this election might actually be rally size :-)
Knowing what you know now, between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, who would you pick?
|
On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something?
Not compared to 20-30 years ago. There has been a spike and smart phones makes that stuff go viral. The main issue police face is a high level of public scrutiny than ever before due to a large number of police shootings that were not clear cut.
The main problem is that Trump and others treat this as a national discussion, when it really should be local. Chicago police are not the Dallas police. But the discussion is happening on national news networks, rather than in the local town halls and public meeting.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something? Conservatives on social media are complaining that too much left wing violence is hurting businesses and cops (protests)
Maybe if they tried fixing the legitimate causes of some of these protests ... nah.
The wording seems almost deliberately tonedeff in light of the past year (s) plentiful spotlights on questionable police conduct.
|
On February 10 2017 03:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 03:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years. That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people. Nor am I, but one side refuses to take a step back and look at the what the opponent is actually doing and how it's shifting the playing field. If they refuse to understand that the field is only going to tip further and further. If you're good guy Greg and you find yourself in a street fight where your opponent is totally cool with smashing your head into the concrete till you die but you only want to submit him till he taps out with zero intent to cause harm, well you're about to lose the fight of your life I'm afraid Greg. It's shitty for sure, but if the other side isn't acting in good faith or being reasonable, you continuing to do so only loses. Both sides need to be batshit crazy or both sides need to be filled with rational actors. Reminds me of some (repeated) prisoners dilemma competition were the winning algorithm was one that would attempt to cooperate (dove) until faced with uncooperative opponent in which case it would play hawk from there on out with occasional low % plays of dove to avoid being stuck in a loop of hawk v hawk. Think i might have used this example already but this thread keeps reminding me of it.
I think that's spot on in terms of game theory, although I wonder how outsiders (the American public) would perceive/ support these two players.
|
On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something?
Its always about feelings. Trump the other day said we had the most murders in 45-47 years. FBI Data shows that the last time we had less murders than 2014 was 1968. Shit hasn't been this safe since SIXTY EIGHT but fear sells.
On police shot in the line of duty Source It's not even close to a top 10 most dangerous job.
|
On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Like who would people like Kwiz, One, and Mag want in the Democratic party, Democrats like Manchin, or Independents like Bernie, because you're not going to be able to keep both (unless you correct people like Manchin for giving Republicans a vote they didn't even need against his party).
Would you mind keeping your hostility in check? What is "people like kwiz" even supposed to mean? Where have I ever expressed support for Manchin? I'd take Sanders over him any day of the week, why are you even bringing me up?
|
On February 10 2017 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem. Wasn't it the 3rd most, after the previous 2 elections?
You are correct, Obama had 70,841 more votes than her in 2012.
Cute Correlative Reference: The 3 key states Trump won of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan was by a margin of 77,744
|
The Daily Californian published 5 op-eds from Berkeley students defending violent riots. I agree with them and still think this is a really dumb move.
The major student-run paper of UC Berkeley ran five op-eds Tuesday defending the riots on campus, and arguing that violence was an acceptable response to a speech from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
The Daily Californian editorial board published five op-eds from five students and former students, who uniformly believed the riot was justified. Nisa Dang demanded critics “check their privilege” before condemning the riots, blaming the violence on the appearance of the police. “I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullshit listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state.”
Juan Prieto insisted the violence was justified because Yiannopoloulos could have outed illegal immigrant students: “To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people. This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena. He has fabricated a tool to sensationalize himself with while providing a platform for white supremacists to come together.”
“These were not acts of violence. They were acts of self defense,” wrote queer activist and former columnist Neil Lawrence. “And to Yiannopoulos and all your friends who invited you and hosted you and defended your ‘right’ to speak: I recommend you learn your lesson. Our shields are raised against you. No one will protect us? We will protect ourselves.”
“The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses,” argued Desmond Meagley. “You don’t have to like property damage, but understand that without it, Yiannopoulos would have released private and sensitive information about innocent students and encouraged assault against them. If the fireworks or the damage done to the Amazon store scared you, know that every single person in that crowd was scared too, even (if not especially) those dressed in black.”
“Yiannopoulos and his supporters have a track record of actively targeting people in their hate speech, and the ideology they peddle perpetuates ideas that urgently endanger members of our community,” argued Josh Hardman. “In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/
|
On February 10 2017 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:33 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's not a question of support, but just resistance against the other candidate. The reason she got 3 million more votes is because of Trump. I am quickly realizing, that I voted for Trump because of my disdain for HRC and the democratic platform. Maybe I rationalized my support for trump to a great extent back then because of his stance on the economy, immigration and terrorism, and let his flaws slide. Now however, as I see his loose grip with reality I realize that I only let it slide because of HRC, and if it was a more respectable individual I might have not have been so forgiving. I imagine there were many who had similar ideas. Ironically the best way to assess support for a candidate this election might actually be rally size :-) Knowing what you know now, between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, who would you pick?
Trump. Although a flawed individual with some highly suspicious character traits, he had a message on those 3 issues that were important to me. Bernie is a good guy, had a strong message and I do respect him, but he is too far left, I just disagree with his ideas. HRC had no charisma, a sense of entitlement and a billion dollars on her side without a strong message.
If there was someone else articulate and controlled like Cruz, with the message of Trump on those 3 issues, that would probably be my ideal candidate.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 10 2017 03:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 03:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years. That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people. Nor am I, but one side refuses to take a step back and look at the what the opponent is actually doing and how it's shifting the playing field. If they refuse to understand that the field is only going to tip further and further. If you're good guy Greg and you find yourself in a street fight where your opponent is totally cool with smashing your head into the concrete till you die but you only want to submit him till he taps out with zero intent to cause harm, well you're about to lose the fight of your life I'm afraid Greg. It's shitty for sure, but if the other side isn't acting in good faith or being reasonable, you continuing to do so only loses. Both sides need to be batshit crazy or both sides need to be filled with rational actors. Reminds me of some (repeated) prisoners dilemma competition were the winning algorithm was one that would attempt to cooperate (dove) until faced with uncooperative opponent in which case it would play hawk from there on out with occasional low % plays of dove to avoid being stuck in a loop of hawk v hawk. Think i might have used this example already but this thread keeps reminding me of it. I think that's spot on in terms of game theory, although I wonder how outsiders (the American public) would perceive/ support these two players.
I feel like traditionally a larger part of the left would take issue with their party acting like that but these days I'm not so sure.
I love game theory but would be sad if this current system really was modellable as a prisoners dilemma. Pretty sure there's a more accurate way to model it thankfully.
|
On February 10 2017 03:37 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something? Conservatives on social media are complaining that too much left wing violence is hurting businesses and cops (protests) Maybe if they tried fixing the legitimate causes of some of these protests ... nah. The wording seems almost deliberately tonedeff in light of the past year (s) plentiful spotlights on questionable police conduct.
I support many conservative stances assuming conservatives actually supported those stances.
Abortion, for example, has been shrunk down dramatically since Planned Parenthood, while sex education has reduced teen pregnancy by orders of magnitude. If the GOP was supposed to be anti-abortion, then they should be the biggest proponents of these programs--yet they would rather remove these solutions because... they are against the problems that these solutions prevent?
Its back-asswards.
|
On February 10 2017 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:33 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's not a question of support, but just resistance against the other candidate. The reason she got 3 million more votes is because of Trump. I am quickly realizing, that I voted for Trump because of my disdain for HRC and the democratic platform. Maybe I rationalized my support for trump to a great extent back then because of his stance on the economy, immigration and terrorism, and let his flaws slide. Now however, as I see his loose grip with reality I realize that I only let it slide because of HRC, and if it was a more respectable individual I might have not have been so forgiving. I imagine there were many who had similar ideas. Ironically the best way to assess support for a candidate this election might actually be rally size :-) Knowing what you know now, between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, who would you pick?
Biology]major
GreenHorizon asked you a question. If you had a choice between Trump, Hillary, or writing in a random candidate not on the ballot who has asked people to vote for Hillary--who would you vote for knowing what you know now?
|
On February 10 2017 03:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Like who would people like Kwiz, One, and Mag want in the Democratic party, Democrats like Manchin, or Independents like Bernie, because you're not going to be able to keep both (unless you correct people like Manchin for giving Republicans a vote they didn't even need against his party). Would you mind keeping your hostility in check? What is "people like kwiz" even supposed to mean? Where have I ever expressed support for Manchin?
The Hillary wing, if you prefer. Didn't mean to make it sound hostile. It's just pretty clear you 3 (and maybe some others not coming to mind, hence the more general "people like") are in a different part of the left than the strong Bernie supporters, or formor Hillary supporters who think Bernie would have been a better choice or is the direction the party should be moving.
Given you haven't been as openly hostile to Bernie and his supporters as those two, I was just curious, if you had to choose (and it's looking like you will) between Joe Manchin Democrats and Bernie Sanders Democrats, which are you keeping in the party?
That said, I'm also still curious on your take on the Perez comment (unless I missed that?)
On February 10 2017 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 03:33 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's not a question of support, but just resistance against the other candidate. The reason she got 3 million more votes is because of Trump. I am quickly realizing, that I voted for Trump because of my disdain for HRC and the democratic platform. Maybe I rationalized my support for trump to a great extent back then because of his stance on the economy, immigration and terrorism, and let his flaws slide. Now however, as I see his loose grip with reality I realize that I only let it slide because of HRC, and if it was a more respectable individual I might have not have been so forgiving. I imagine there were many who had similar ideas. Ironically the best way to assess support for a candidate this election might actually be rally size :-) Knowing what you know now, between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, who would you pick? Biology]major GreenHorizon asked you a question. If you had a choice between Trump, Hillary, or writing in a random candidate not on the ballot who has asked people to vote for Hillary--who would you vote for knowing what you know now?
lol that's not my question. My question was more if he could simply wish one into office, which would he choose, knowing what he knows now.
|
On February 10 2017 03:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Has there been a lot of violence towards us police recently? I'm a little confused by that last eo...
But I might very well have missed something?
iirc it is up some, maybe 20%, but I'd have to check fro the stats.
it's of course still the case that for each police officer killed (excluding accidents), something like 15 people are killed by officers (again excluding accidents).
|
On February 10 2017 03:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 10 2017 03:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 03:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years. That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people. Nor am I, but one side refuses to take a step back and look at the what the opponent is actually doing and how it's shifting the playing field. If they refuse to understand that the field is only going to tip further and further. If you're good guy Greg and you find yourself in a street fight where your opponent is totally cool with smashing your head into the concrete till you die but you only want to submit him till he taps out with zero intent to cause harm, well you're about to lose the fight of your life I'm afraid Greg. It's shitty for sure, but if the other side isn't acting in good faith or being reasonable, you continuing to do so only loses. Both sides need to be batshit crazy or both sides need to be filled with rational actors. Reminds me of some (repeated) prisoners dilemma competition were the winning algorithm was one that would attempt to cooperate (dove) until faced with uncooperative opponent in which case it would play hawk from there on out with occasional low % plays of dove to avoid being stuck in a loop of hawk v hawk. Think i might have used this example already but this thread keeps reminding me of it. I think that's spot on in terms of game theory, although I wonder how outsiders (the American public) would perceive/ support these two players. I feel like traditionally a larger part of the left would take issue with their party acting like that but these days I'm not so sure. I love game theory but would be sad if this current system really was modellable as a prisoners dilemma. Pretty sure there's a more accurate way to model it thankfully.
Agreed. There are times where I wish I could ignore the consequences of what would happen if the Democratic party acted as childish as the Republican party- times where I wish I could say "But you did it to us! This makes us even! It's only fair!- but I think that would largely hurt the American people and make them distrust our government even more (and for good reason).
When it comes to modeling the system of American support, it seems to be approached in another super-simple way that seems to be pretty effective as well: For those who care primarily about facts, appeal to evidence and logic; for those who care primarily about feelings, tug on their heartstrings or scare the shit out of them or make them mad.
|
On February 10 2017 03:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 10 2017 03:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 03:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years. That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people. Nor am I, but one side refuses to take a step back and look at the what the opponent is actually doing and how it's shifting the playing field. If they refuse to understand that the field is only going to tip further and further. If you're good guy Greg and you find yourself in a street fight where your opponent is totally cool with smashing your head into the concrete till you die but you only want to submit him till he taps out with zero intent to cause harm, well you're about to lose the fight of your life I'm afraid Greg. It's shitty for sure, but if the other side isn't acting in good faith or being reasonable, you continuing to do so only loses. Both sides need to be batshit crazy or both sides need to be filled with rational actors. Reminds me of some (repeated) prisoners dilemma competition were the winning algorithm was one that would attempt to cooperate (dove) until faced with uncooperative opponent in which case it would play hawk from there on out with occasional low % plays of dove to avoid being stuck in a loop of hawk v hawk. Think i might have used this example already but this thread keeps reminding me of it. I think that's spot on in terms of game theory, although I wonder how outsiders (the American public) would perceive/ support these two players. I feel like traditionally a larger part of the left would take issue with their party acting like that but these days I'm not so sure. I love game theory but would be sad if this current system really was modellable as a prisoners dilemma. Pretty sure there's a more accurate way to model it thankfully.
I think you're right traditionally speaking, the left wants reasonable middle of the road solutions. But things have gotten hosed so populists are growing in popularity. Traditionally speaking seems to be getting tossed out the window. Mark Blyth explains it well economically speaking.
|
On February 10 2017 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem. I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the next time around will set a world record for most votes in their favor. And the next one, and the next after that. If people all vote for X then the problems with X is not electability.
If X loses then X wasn't elected. Population growth doesn't change that.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:55 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 10 2017 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On February 10 2017 03:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 03:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on. Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years. That's fair; certainly, social/ religious conservatism is fading much more than fiscal conservatism is, and I'm fine with that. When it comes to your hypothetical tug-of-war of extremist sides and why it's necessary, I see what you're saying and maybe it's a practical way to go, but I can't bring myself to agree with it. That's probably why I could never be a politician lol... I'm pretty bad at bullshitting things just to fuck over people. Nor am I, but one side refuses to take a step back and look at the what the opponent is actually doing and how it's shifting the playing field. If they refuse to understand that the field is only going to tip further and further. If you're good guy Greg and you find yourself in a street fight where your opponent is totally cool with smashing your head into the concrete till you die but you only want to submit him till he taps out with zero intent to cause harm, well you're about to lose the fight of your life I'm afraid Greg. It's shitty for sure, but if the other side isn't acting in good faith or being reasonable, you continuing to do so only loses. Both sides need to be batshit crazy or both sides need to be filled with rational actors. Reminds me of some (repeated) prisoners dilemma competition were the winning algorithm was one that would attempt to cooperate (dove) until faced with uncooperative opponent in which case it would play hawk from there on out with occasional low % plays of dove to avoid being stuck in a loop of hawk v hawk. Think i might have used this example already but this thread keeps reminding me of it. I think that's spot on in terms of game theory, although I wonder how outsiders (the American public) would perceive/ support these two players. I feel like traditionally a larger part of the left would take issue with their party acting like that but these days I'm not so sure. I love game theory but would be sad if this current system really was modellable as a prisoners dilemma. Pretty sure there's a more accurate way to model it thankfully. I think you're right traditionally speaking, the left wants reasonable middle of the road solutions. But things have gotten hosed so populists are growing in popularity. Traditionally speaking seems to be getting tossed out the window. Mark Blyth explains it well economically speaking.
I'll give him a read/listen, ty
|
I laugh at those dumb opeds from people supporting the violence at the milo event. lots of fools in the world 
I don't see a need for individualized rebuttals of each of them, unless requests such.
|
On February 10 2017 03:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem. I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the next time around will set a world record for most votes in their favor. And the next one, and the next after that. If people all vote for X then the problems with X is not electability. If X loses then X wasn't elected. Population growth doesn't change that.
You were the one who suggested winners will get the most votes each year, but the opposite has been true. More voted in 04 than 08, more voted in 08 than in 16, and in 16 the winner had largest margin of votes against him.
Which means your statement of population growth does not correlate with the voting trends. But please try again, with more facts this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
