|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On February 09 2019 06:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 06:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 05:50 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 04:49 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 03:48 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 03:37 Sermokala wrote:
Do your recognize that the "fun" you're having is derived from your hate or that you are enjoying hate against a group of people? I'm honestly curious as I see this type of thing come up a lot from more liberal posters in this thread but mostly from posters that don't stay around much. I mean no, the fun isn't derived from my hate, but I definitely do hate conservatives if that's what you wanted to point out. I'm also not a fan of (true) liberals for similar reasons. You could call that "prejudice", but then again every time I meet conservatives they confirm that I'm right to feel that way about them, so... whatever. I think that is fine as long as you understand and are OK with conservatives hating you. I think this attitude leads to nothing getting done. But to each their own. Well, let's explore that. Why do you think that attitude leads to nothing getting done? Because people won't work with those that they hate and it leads to the current state of politics which is oppositionalism mixed with tribalism. Oppositionalism is probably caused by the fact that we have opposite views about how reality functions, rather than a question of strategy. Would you agree that the argument you offer contains the assumption that you need the opposition to agree with your plan in order to get things done? Nope I think you can agree to disagree or compromise. I think that is fairly impossible to do with someone you hate. I think you first statement brings up another of the current problem where people can't even agree on facts. And the farther you go out in either direction the more people are willing to believe things that are just hard to prove 100% wrong. This leads to a lot of assumptions being treated like fact. Yeah that's what I meant by "agree" I guess. Be sufficiently civil or make enough of a compromise so that they think your plan is acceptable and they let it be. Would you agree that your argument carries the assumption that you need that in order to get things done? Cause I would like to challenge that assumption (I'll be using the second part of what you wrote in my challenge). Unless you are a authoritarian government or control all the different phases. Yes I think two people or groups who hate each other lack the ability to get things done that they need each other to do.
I'm going to mainly argue that this view is extremely exploitable. If your opponent realizes that you feel their approval (or let's say, lack of disapproval) is necessary in order to get things done, they can simply choose to... not compromise. That way, instead of a normal compromise where you would meet halfway with your opponent because both of you are searching for the other's approval, instead you start from your halfway point, and they start from their standard position... and the compromise position becomes three quarters of what your opponent wants. But nothing stops the opponent from starting the cycle again after that compromise is reached, and each time they can get you even closer to their position.
Not only are you only "getting things done" that are very close to what your opponent wants, but it also resets the window of possible outcomes. If you get so close to your opponent's position on a subject that your view becomes undistinguishable, they can just adopt a more extreme position and continue to pull you over there.
One of the main things that Republicans have understood about politics, and that has allowed them to win so much more than they deserve based on their bankrupt ideology, is that politics is about winning, and crushing your opponent. You do not give ground. You fight, and then when that fight is done, you fight some more. They will never let you get away with a compromise, nor should they, as not doing it is more beneficial to them. This is like the game show where you make some amount of money and then the two contestants have to either share or steal. If they both share, they both win. If one shares and one steals, the stealer wins. If they both steal, they win nothing. The correct strategy is always to steal.
The second issue with that is that you're displaying a lot of weakness to your base. Notice the optics of the situation. Your opponent does nothing, they stand their ground, and you give way. Your audience sees you capitulating and their audience sees them fighting. It looks like they're winning (because they are). It looks like you're not even fighting for your side. Why would we feel motivated to follow you? The Audacity of Hoping for Some Small Incremental Change That the Republicans Will Still Fight Against in Two Years Anyway Because They Can...
So what should you do instead? Well, you should win. This is the point where the clash of different realities comes into play, and we can see that with realities that are less popular. The Flat Earth reality, for example, has lost. It hasn't lost because we have compromised with flat earthers enough until they gave us ground, it has lost because it was an incorrect vision of reality. The better way to "get things done" is to be right, and show that we are right.
|
|
|
The recent approval of the Sears restructuring deal, complete with hundreds of thousands of totally fucked over people, places, and entities, can very easily be seen as the contemporary outcropping of the legal/business regime that gives Trump the ability to avoid seeming culpable for all of the failures associated with him and his name brand. The same can be said for what happened to Toys r us; since the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act was passed (and especially after 2005 BAPCPA), the United States has provided for corporate restructuring mechanisms that, so long as one has access to proficient lawyering, allow for some pretty insane value extraction games played by folks with enough wealth to buy in, usually in the form of private equity. I'd wager theses sorts of games are a big part of how precarious the reality of things is, rich folk lalaland sentiments notwithstanding.
|
On February 09 2019 07:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 07:11 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 06:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 06:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 05:50 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 04:49 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 03:48 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I mean no, the fun isn't derived from my hate, but I definitely do hate conservatives if that's what you wanted to point out. I'm also not a fan of (true) liberals for similar reasons. You could call that "prejudice", but then again every time I meet conservatives they confirm that I'm right to feel that way about them, so... whatever. I think that is fine as long as you understand and are OK with conservatives hating you. I think this attitude leads to nothing getting done. But to each their own. Well, let's explore that. Why do you think that attitude leads to nothing getting done? Because people won't work with those that they hate and it leads to the current state of politics which is oppositionalism mixed with tribalism. Oppositionalism is probably caused by the fact that we have opposite views about how reality functions, rather than a question of strategy. Would you agree that the argument you offer contains the assumption that you need the opposition to agree with your plan in order to get things done? Nope I think you can agree to disagree or compromise. I think that is fairly impossible to do with someone you hate. I think you first statement brings up another of the current problem where people can't even agree on facts. And the farther you go out in either direction the more people are willing to believe things that are just hard to prove 100% wrong. This leads to a lot of assumptions being treated like fact. Yeah that's what I meant by "agree" I guess. Be sufficiently civil or make enough of a compromise so that they think your plan is acceptable and they let it be. Would you agree that your argument carries the assumption that you need that in order to get things done? Cause I would like to challenge that assumption (I'll be using the second part of what you wrote in my challenge). Unless you are a authoritarian government or control all the different phases. Yes I think two people or groups who hate each other lack the ability to get things done that they need each other to do. I'm going to mainly argue that this view is extremely exploitable. If your opponent realizes that you feel their approval (or let's say, lack of disapproval) is necessary in order to get things done, they can simply choose to... not compromise. That way, instead of a normal compromise where you would meet halfway with your opponent because both of you are searching for the other's approval, instead you start from your halfway point, and they start from their standard position... and the compromise position becomes three quarters of what your opponent wants. But nothing stops the opponent from starting the cycle again after that compromise is reached, and each time they can get you even closer to their position. Not only are you only "getting things done" that are very close to what your opponent wants, but it also resets the window of possible outcomes. If you get so close to your opponent's position on a subject that your view becomes undistinguishable, they can just adopt a more extreme position and continue to pull you over there. One of the main things that Republicans have understood about politics, and that has allowed them to win so much more than they deserve based on their bankrupt ideology, is that politics is about winning, and crushing your opponent. You do not give ground. You fight, and then when that fight is done, you fight some more. They will never let you get away with a compromise, nor should they, as not doing it is more beneficial to them. This is like the game show where you make some amount of money and then the two contestants have to either share or steal. If they both share, they both win. If one shares and one steals, the stealer wins. If they both steal, they win nothing. The correct strategy is always to steal. The second issue with that is that you're displaying a lot of weakness to your base. Notice the optics of the situation. Your opponent does nothing, they stand their ground, and you give way. Your audience sees you capitulating and their audience sees them fighting. It looks like they're winning (because they are). It looks like you're not even fighting for your side. Why would we feel motivated to follow you? The Audacity of Hoping for Some Small Incremental Change That the Republicans Will Still Fight Against in Two Years Anyway Because They Can... So what should you do instead? Well, you should win. This is the point where the clash of different realities comes into play, and we can see that with realities that are less popular. The Flat Earth reality, for example, has lost. It hasn't lost because we have compromised with flat earthers enough until they gave us ground, it has lost because it was an incorrect vision of reality. The better way to "get things done" is to be right, and show that we are right. How it is working now is close to what you are arguing for. How it should work is a fight on the campaign trail and thrn a mutual respect and willingness to get things done for the betterment of the people. You cant respect someone you hate you can respect someone you disagree with. There is winning from no side for the people on your end. I mean sttickly talking sbout america the whole about half like each party, wouldnt that mean that the people actually want some of what both offer. And you dont have to compromise on everything. There are times to draw a line in tge sand. It just isnt all thr timr on everything.
Of course there is winning on my end. Sometimes Roosevelt makes no compromise and you get The New Deal. Sometimes MLK makes no compromise and you get the Civil Rights Act.
You say that how it's working now is close to what I'm arguing for, but it depends on the subject, does it. And we can compare the efficiency of both methods. Let's say same-sex marriage on one side and Obamacare on the other.
|
Whether or not compromise is appropriate is going to depend entirely on the subject-matter, and in many cases, both compromise and steadfastness play a role. MLK and the movement he represented were right to not compromise whereas the legislators who worked on getting the CRA passed in Congress most certainly engaged in different kinds of horse-trading to get it through. Nevertheless, there's something to be said for the fact that the two most acclaimed US presidents (Lincoln, FDR) compare and contrast with one another in very interesting ways in terms of how they represent very different approaches to compromise.
|
This discussion does not take into account the level of national and political crisis required to make such sweeping changes as the New Deal and CRA possible. And even then it required a lot of horse trading. That nauance should not be lost as those were two complex times in IS history.
|
On February 09 2019 09:12 Plansix wrote:
This discussion does not take into account the level of national and political crisis required to make such sweeping changes as the New Deal and CRA possible. And even then it required a lot of horse trading. That nauance should not be lost as those were two complex times in IS history.
It's true that I didn't take that into account. I don't feel like I have to in order to make my point though. Sometimes when you fight, you win.
If you want to see people win with no compromise in more recent times, there's always Kavanaugh.
|
In a reductive way, your are correct. But the reality is more complicated that those three examples separate by 100 years of history. And there are plenty of moments in history where not compromising lost ground for both the right and the left.
But I agree with you that it’s is time to fight now. The robber barons are back and need to be put in their place again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On February 09 2019 11:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 08:44 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 07:51 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 07:11 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 06:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 06:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 09 2019 05:50 JimmiC wrote:On February 09 2019 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well, let's explore that. Why do you think that attitude leads to nothing getting done? Because people won't work with those that they hate and it leads to the current state of politics which is oppositionalism mixed with tribalism. Oppositionalism is probably caused by the fact that we have opposite views about how reality functions, rather than a question of strategy. Would you agree that the argument you offer contains the assumption that you need the opposition to agree with your plan in order to get things done? Nope I think you can agree to disagree or compromise. I think that is fairly impossible to do with someone you hate. I think you first statement brings up another of the current problem where people can't even agree on facts. And the farther you go out in either direction the more people are willing to believe things that are just hard to prove 100% wrong. This leads to a lot of assumptions being treated like fact. Yeah that's what I meant by "agree" I guess. Be sufficiently civil or make enough of a compromise so that they think your plan is acceptable and they let it be. Would you agree that your argument carries the assumption that you need that in order to get things done? Cause I would like to challenge that assumption (I'll be using the second part of what you wrote in my challenge). Unless you are a authoritarian government or control all the different phases. Yes I think two people or groups who hate each other lack the ability to get things done that they need each other to do. I'm going to mainly argue that this view is extremely exploitable. If your opponent realizes that you feel their approval (or let's say, lack of disapproval) is necessary in order to get things done, they can simply choose to... not compromise. That way, instead of a normal compromise where you would meet halfway with your opponent because both of you are searching for the other's approval, instead you start from your halfway point, and they start from their standard position... and the compromise position becomes three quarters of what your opponent wants. But nothing stops the opponent from starting the cycle again after that compromise is reached, and each time they can get you even closer to their position. Not only are you only "getting things done" that are very close to what your opponent wants, but it also resets the window of possible outcomes. If you get so close to your opponent's position on a subject that your view becomes undistinguishable, they can just adopt a more extreme position and continue to pull you over there. One of the main things that Republicans have understood about politics, and that has allowed them to win so much more than they deserve based on their bankrupt ideology, is that politics is about winning, and crushing your opponent. You do not give ground. You fight, and then when that fight is done, you fight some more. They will never let you get away with a compromise, nor should they, as not doing it is more beneficial to them. This is like the game show where you make some amount of money and then the two contestants have to either share or steal. If they both share, they both win. If one shares and one steals, the stealer wins. If they both steal, they win nothing. The correct strategy is always to steal. The second issue with that is that you're displaying a lot of weakness to your base. Notice the optics of the situation. Your opponent does nothing, they stand their ground, and you give way. Your audience sees you capitulating and their audience sees them fighting. It looks like they're winning (because they are). It looks like you're not even fighting for your side. Why would we feel motivated to follow you? The Audacity of Hoping for Some Small Incremental Change That the Republicans Will Still Fight Against in Two Years Anyway Because They Can... So what should you do instead? Well, you should win. This is the point where the clash of different realities comes into play, and we can see that with realities that are less popular. The Flat Earth reality, for example, has lost. It hasn't lost because we have compromised with flat earthers enough until they gave us ground, it has lost because it was an incorrect vision of reality. The better way to "get things done" is to be right, and show that we are right. How it is working now is close to what you are arguing for. How it should work is a fight on the campaign trail and thrn a mutual respect and willingness to get things done for the betterment of the people. You cant respect someone you hate you can respect someone you disagree with. There is winning from no side for the people on your end. I mean sttickly talking sbout america the whole about half like each party, wouldnt that mean that the people actually want some of what both offer. And you dont have to compromise on everything. There are times to draw a line in tge sand. It just isnt all thr timr on everything. Of course there is winning on my end. Sometimes Roosevelt makes no compromise and you get The New Deal. Sometimes MLK makes no compromise and you get the Civil Rights Act. You say that how it's working now is close to what I'm arguing for, but it depends on the subject, does it. And we can compare the efficiency of both methods. Let's say same-sex marriage on one side and Obamacare on the other. There was many compromises and sacrifices to make those deals. Lydon Johnson has a complicated legacy. As a person who works in both public and private. I can tell you just as much deal making maybe more happens in the public world. The players are just different and if anything it is less transparent.
What did we give?
|
On February 09 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t say the fun is motivated by hate of a specific group of people. Not at all. The “fun” is found in watching folks live up to the expectations you have of them. Like the people who claim they defend free speech at all costs, but instantly disappear when it comes to defending an NFL player’s right to protest during a mandated playing of the national anthem. It is stratifying to be right, even if being right means folks are just as terrible as you feared they were.
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks.
So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort.
Well I'd wager most conservatives don't hate liberals or care what they do. Their issue is that liberals are constantly trying to screw them over with their policies. And part of their tactic is to paint everyone on the right as racist, bigoted etc.
The GOP is more corrupt than the Democratic party, but I really don't think their voters are anymore evil.
|
On February 09 2019 20:38 explosivekangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t say the fun is motivated by hate of a specific group of people. Not at all. The “fun” is found in watching folks live up to the expectations you have of them. Like the people who claim they defend free speech at all costs, but instantly disappear when it comes to defending an NFL player’s right to protest during a mandated playing of the national anthem. It is stratifying to be right, even if being right means folks are just as terrible as you feared they were.
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks.
So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort. Well I'd wager most conservatives don't hate liberals or care what they do. Their issue is that liberals are constantly trying to screw them over with their policies. And part of their tactic is to paint everyone on the right as racist, bigoted etc. The GOP is more corrupt than the Democratic party, but I really don't think their voters are anymore evil. Oh I love this.
Please name the policies liberals favor that screw over conservatives.
|
On February 09 2019 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 20:38 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t say the fun is motivated by hate of a specific group of people. Not at all. The “fun” is found in watching folks live up to the expectations you have of them. Like the people who claim they defend free speech at all costs, but instantly disappear when it comes to defending an NFL player’s right to protest during a mandated playing of the national anthem. It is stratifying to be right, even if being right means folks are just as terrible as you feared they were.
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks.
So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort. Well I'd wager most conservatives don't hate liberals or care what they do. Their issue is that liberals are constantly trying to screw them over with their policies. And part of their tactic is to paint everyone on the right as racist, bigoted etc. The GOP is more corrupt than the Democratic party, but I really don't think their voters are anymore evil. Oh I love this. Please name the policies liberals favor that screw over conservatives.
I'm not one but it's really not hard to see things from other perspectives:
- Higher taxes -> a lot of people don't like it, not just the rich
- Increasing regulations -> hurts coorporations
- Being more open to immigation -> low skilled workers are displaced
- Increasing minimum wages -> hurts small business owners
- Taxing carbon emissions -> loss of jobs in the mining industry
|
On February 09 2019 21:23 explosivekangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 09 2019 20:38 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t say the fun is motivated by hate of a specific group of people. Not at all. The “fun” is found in watching folks live up to the expectations you have of them. Like the people who claim they defend free speech at all costs, but instantly disappear when it comes to defending an NFL player’s right to protest during a mandated playing of the national anthem. It is stratifying to be right, even if being right means folks are just as terrible as you feared they were.
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks.
So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort. Well I'd wager most conservatives don't hate liberals or care what they do. Their issue is that liberals are constantly trying to screw them over with their policies. And part of their tactic is to paint everyone on the right as racist, bigoted etc. The GOP is more corrupt than the Democratic party, but I really don't think their voters are anymore evil. Oh I love this. Please name the policies liberals favor that screw over conservatives. I'm not one but it's really not hard to see things from other perspectives: - Higher taxes -> a lot of people don't like it, not just the rich - Increasing regulations -> hurts coorporations - Being more open to immigation -> low skilled workers are displaced - Increasing minimum wages -> hurts small business owners - Taxing carbon emissions -> loss of jobs in the mining industry
- A the fiscally Conservative, funny how the people they vote for keep increasing the deficit by handing out tax cut to corperations and somehow it still hasn't trickled down.
The government needs money to pay for stuff, hence taxes. If you have to worry about your money on a regular basis your unlikely to be effected by a tax increase.
- yes regulations hurt corporations ability to exploit employers and customers. Are you saying the 2007 bank crisis was a good thing according to conservatives? Because shit like that is why we have regulations.
-https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs?t=1549716293446 Seems like the jury is very much still out on that one.
- Not being payed a liveable wage also hurts people, a lot more. Plus there is the amount of subsidising of companies who pay less then a liveable wage through government assistance keeping their workforce alive (that is payed for through taxes). Thought conservatives were against that aswell?
- less jobs in the mining industry or less planet to live on. Gee tough choice. The conservative doesn't get to destroy the planet for 7.5 billion other people.
I know, lets sell some more 'clean coal.
|
On February 09 2019 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 21:23 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 09 2019 20:38 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t say the fun is motivated by hate of a specific group of people. Not at all. The “fun” is found in watching folks live up to the expectations you have of them. Like the people who claim they defend free speech at all costs, but instantly disappear when it comes to defending an NFL player’s right to protest during a mandated playing of the national anthem. It is stratifying to be right, even if being right means folks are just as terrible as you feared they were.
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks.
So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort. Well I'd wager most conservatives don't hate liberals or care what they do. Their issue is that liberals are constantly trying to screw them over with their policies. And part of their tactic is to paint everyone on the right as racist, bigoted etc. The GOP is more corrupt than the Democratic party, but I really don't think their voters are anymore evil. Oh I love this. Please name the policies liberals favor that screw over conservatives. I'm not one but it's really not hard to see things from other perspectives: - Higher taxes -> a lot of people don't like it, not just the rich - Increasing regulations -> hurts coorporations - Being more open to immigation -> low skilled workers are displaced - Increasing minimum wages -> hurts small business owners - Taxing carbon emissions -> loss of jobs in the mining industry - A the fiscally Conservative, funny how the people they vote for keep increasing the deficit by handing out tax cut to corperations and somehow it still hasn't trickled down. The government needs money to pay for stuff, hence taxes. If you have to worry about your money on a regular basis your unlikely to be effected by a tax increase. - yes regulations hurt corporations ability to exploit employers and customers. Are you saying the 2007 bank crisis was a good thing according to conservatives? Because shit like that is why we have regulations. -https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs?t=1549716293446 Seems like the jury is very much still out on that one. - Not being payed a liveable wage also hurts people, a lot more. Plus there is the amount of subsidising of companies who pay less then a liveable wage through government assistance keeping their workforce alive (that is payed for through taxes). Thought conservatives were against that aswell? - less jobs in the mining industry or less planet to live on. Gee tough choice. The conservative doesn't get to destroy the planet for 7.5 billion other people. I know, lets sell some more 'clean coal.
- Trickle down economics doesn't work and the recent tax cut largely favors coorporations and the wealthy. But this does not negate that middle class earners also received tax cuts.
- Generally yes, and personally I'm in favor of tight regulations. Greedy corporate executives, however trashy they are, have the right to vote for their self interest.
- Sure, it is up to debate, which means there are people reaching opposite conclusions and acting based on that.
- As far as I know conservatives are generally in favor of cutting social security. There's an argument that social security enables corporations paying these low wages.
- People don't want to lose their jobs.
You asked me to name policies that screw conservatives over, it looks like we can agree that executives, small business owners, coal workers, and other groups that tend to identify as 'conservative' are disfavored by liberal policies.
I consider myself a centrist and I do think that liberal policies tend to be altruistic while conservative policies tend to be selfish. But people generally vote for their self interest and they have a right to do so.
|
On February 09 2019 22:25 explosivekangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:On February 09 2019 21:23 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 09 2019 20:38 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t say the fun is motivated by hate of a specific group of people. Not at all. The “fun” is found in watching folks live up to the expectations you have of them. Like the people who claim they defend free speech at all costs, but instantly disappear when it comes to defending an NFL player’s right to protest during a mandated playing of the national anthem. It is stratifying to be right, even if being right means folks are just as terrible as you feared they were.
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks.
So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort. Well I'd wager most conservatives don't hate liberals or care what they do. Their issue is that liberals are constantly trying to screw them over with their policies. And part of their tactic is to paint everyone on the right as racist, bigoted etc. The GOP is more corrupt than the Democratic party, but I really don't think their voters are anymore evil. Oh I love this. Please name the policies liberals favor that screw over conservatives. I'm not one but it's really not hard to see things from other perspectives: - Higher taxes -> a lot of people don't like it, not just the rich - Increasing regulations -> hurts coorporations - Being more open to immigation -> low skilled workers are displaced - Increasing minimum wages -> hurts small business owners - Taxing carbon emissions -> loss of jobs in the mining industry - A the fiscally Conservative, funny how the people they vote for keep increasing the deficit by handing out tax cut to corperations and somehow it still hasn't trickled down. The government needs money to pay for stuff, hence taxes. If you have to worry about your money on a regular basis your unlikely to be effected by a tax increase. - yes regulations hurt corporations ability to exploit employers and customers. Are you saying the 2007 bank crisis was a good thing according to conservatives? Because shit like that is why we have regulations. -https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs?t=1549716293446 Seems like the jury is very much still out on that one. - Not being payed a liveable wage also hurts people, a lot more. Plus there is the amount of subsidising of companies who pay less then a liveable wage through government assistance keeping their workforce alive (that is payed for through taxes). Thought conservatives were against that aswell? - less jobs in the mining industry or less planet to live on. Gee tough choice. The conservative doesn't get to destroy the planet for 7.5 billion other people. I know, lets sell some more 'clean coal. - Trickle down economics doesn't work and the recent tax cut largely favors coorporations and the wealthy. But this does not negate that middle class earners also received tax cuts. - Generally yes, and personally I'm in favor of tight regulations. Greedy corporate executives, however trashy they are, have the right to vote for their self interest. - Sure, it is up to debate, which means there are people reaching opposite conclusions and acting based on that. - As far as I know conservatives are generally in favor of cutting social security. There's an argument that social security enables corporations paying these low wages. - People don't want to lose their jobs. You asked me to name policies that screw conservatives over, it looks like we can agree that executives, small business owners, coal workers, and other groups that tend to identify as 'conservative' are disfavored by liberal policies. I consider myself a centrist and I do think that liberal policies tend to be altruistic while conservative policies tend to be selfish. But people generally vote for their self interest and they have a right to do so. Your aware the middle and lower class tax cuts are set to expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the corporate tax cuts that will not expire to make the whole thing 'revenue neutral' after 10 years right?
giving you 10 dollars today and in return taking 5 dollars from you every month starting next year is not me giving you a gift of 10 dollars.
Those mine workers afraid to lose their job were offered training to get another job as something else. And they a chose to become miners 'like their dads before them'. The preservation of the world for more then 7 billion people is not beholding to the moronic.
If 'the conservative' is being consistently screwed over by policies designed to stop exploitation (be it of people or the planet) then maybe 'the conservative' should think about stopping exploiting people.
I'm glad liberals didn't stop to think about the poor conservatives in their fight to end slavery. Or we would still be reading about how the poor cotton farmer can't survive without a plantation full of black people working for him for free.
And I see no reason why they should stop this time.
|
On February 09 2019 22:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2019 22:25 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:On February 09 2019 21:23 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 20:40 Gorsameth wrote:On February 09 2019 20:38 explosivekangaroo wrote:On February 09 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:
I wouldn’t say the fun is motivated by hate of a specific group of people. Not at all. The “fun” is found in watching folks live up to the expectations you have of them. Like the people who claim they defend free speech at all costs, but instantly disappear when it comes to defending an NFL player’s right to protest during a mandated playing of the national anthem. It is stratifying to be right, even if being right means folks are just as terrible as you feared they were.
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives or care what they do. My issue with conservatives is that they are constantly trying to screw me over through their policies and political goals. Which would be fine on its own. Politics is a game of winners and losers. But part of their tactic is to adopt this faux grievance and oppression by the “The Left”, while also attacking any grievance that people have with conservative policies. And that fucking sucks.
So sometimes it is enjoyable to watch them twist in the wind trying to square being all about “Law and Order” while attacking the FBI. Or wanting freedom of association while also arguing that unions have to represent non-union employees. It’s a small comfort. Well I'd wager most conservatives don't hate liberals or care what they do. Their issue is that liberals are constantly trying to screw them over with their policies. And part of their tactic is to paint everyone on the right as racist, bigoted etc. The GOP is more corrupt than the Democratic party, but I really don't think their voters are anymore evil. Oh I love this. Please name the policies liberals favor that screw over conservatives. I'm not one but it's really not hard to see things from other perspectives: - Higher taxes -> a lot of people don't like it, not just the rich - Increasing regulations -> hurts coorporations - Being more open to immigation -> low skilled workers are displaced - Increasing minimum wages -> hurts small business owners - Taxing carbon emissions -> loss of jobs in the mining industry - A the fiscally Conservative, funny how the people they vote for keep increasing the deficit by handing out tax cut to corperations and somehow it still hasn't trickled down. The government needs money to pay for stuff, hence taxes. If you have to worry about your money on a regular basis your unlikely to be effected by a tax increase. - yes regulations hurt corporations ability to exploit employers and customers. Are you saying the 2007 bank crisis was a good thing according to conservatives? Because shit like that is why we have regulations. -https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs?t=1549716293446 Seems like the jury is very much still out on that one. - Not being payed a liveable wage also hurts people, a lot more. Plus there is the amount of subsidising of companies who pay less then a liveable wage through government assistance keeping their workforce alive (that is payed for through taxes). Thought conservatives were against that aswell? - less jobs in the mining industry or less planet to live on. Gee tough choice. The conservative doesn't get to destroy the planet for 7.5 billion other people. I know, lets sell some more 'clean coal. - Trickle down economics doesn't work and the recent tax cut largely favors coorporations and the wealthy. But this does not negate that middle class earners also received tax cuts. - Generally yes, and personally I'm in favor of tight regulations. Greedy corporate executives, however trashy they are, have the right to vote for their self interest. - Sure, it is up to debate, which means there are people reaching opposite conclusions and acting based on that. - As far as I know conservatives are generally in favor of cutting social security. There's an argument that social security enables corporations paying these low wages. - People don't want to lose their jobs. You asked me to name policies that screw conservatives over, it looks like we can agree that executives, small business owners, coal workers, and other groups that tend to identify as 'conservative' are disfavored by liberal policies. I consider myself a centrist and I do think that liberal policies tend to be altruistic while conservative policies tend to be selfish. But people generally vote for their self interest and they have a right to do so. Your aware the middle and lower class tax cuts are set to expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the corporate tax cuts that will not expire to make the whole thing 'revenue neutral' after 10 years right? giving you 10 dollars today and in return taking 5 dollars from you every month starting next year is not me giving you a gift of 10 dollars. Those mine workers afraid to lose their job were offered training to get another job as something else. And they a chose to become miners 'like their dads before them'. The preservation of the world for more then 7 billion people is not beholding to the moronic. If 'the conservative' is being consistently screwed over by policies designed to stop exploitation (be it of people or the planet) then maybe 'the conservative' should think about stopping exploiting people. I'm glad liberals didn't stop to think about the poor conservatives in their fight to end slavery. Or we would still be reading about how the poor cotton farmer can't survive without a plantation full of black people working for him for free. And I see no reason why they should stop this time.
Look I'm not arguing for conservative policies. All I'm saying is that most conservatives are just normal people voting for their self interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
