2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

New York Times painting a target on Mount Rushmore:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1278387954440904704

Surely the masses will hit protest fatigue here soon.

[tpeichel34]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

New York Times painting a target on Mount Rushmore:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1278387954440904704

Is it true that a New York Times founder wrote an editorial arguing that slave owners had a right to capture their escaped slaves? Cancel the New York Times?

[xbignick]

NYC pauses indoor dining openings as local autonomous zone hits about a week in. There's hundreds to thousands of people camped in one area depending on time or day.

As a side-note....was watching a livestream of it and counted 80 pies of pizza, cases of donuts and carts of coffee. Seems expensive.

[free2131]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

And again (or least I think I said this previously in response) ... my point in referencing Bernie Sanders was simply to point out how many young Americans today are unashamedly in favor of socialism. I would unlovingly assume many of those same folks have little knowledge of the implementation of socialist governments around the world in the last 100 years.

I think the majority of us who preferred Sanders over the others don't want a completely Socialized version of government, but would rather have some Socialistic programs included in a Capitalistic government.

Universal healthcare is a huge issue for me (and many others), but I don't agree with wealth re-distribution or college for all. I think that businesses and corporations should be paying higher taxes than they currently do (and all the tax loopholes they use need to be closed), but I don't want the government to run private business. I think you can take the good from one system of government and implement it into another and make the best out of the two.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by free2131

I think the majority of us who preferred Sanders over the others don't want a completely Socialized version of government, but would rather have some Socialistic programs included in a Capitalistic government.

Universal healthcare is a huge issue for me (and many others), but I don't agree with wealth re-distribution or college for all. I think that businesses and corporations should be paying higher taxes than they currently do (and all the tax loopholes they use need to be closed), but I don't want the government to run private business. I think you can take the good from one system of government and implement it into another and make the best out of the two.

Government is good like that. Knowing exactly when enough is enough, not getting too out of control, ya know.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by free2131

Universal healthcare is a huge issue for me (and many others), but I don't agree with wealth re-distribution or college for all. I think that businesses and corporations should be paying higher taxes than they currently do (and all the tax loopholes they use need to be closed), but I don't want the government to run private business. I think you can take the good from one system of government and implement it into another and make the best out of the two.

Love it.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Government is good like that. Knowing exactly when enough is enough, not getting too out of control, ya know.

I dabbled in Libertarianism for a few years and what I found is that they build the strongest arguments (that don't rely on special pleading or "just trust us" or some kind of appeal to an idealized version of human nature) but that it can be a quick path to some calloused and cold realities.

I would probably be a Libertarian if I hadn't spent those years working at a residential treatment facility and seeing how permanently damaged a person can become before they even hit puberty.

If I was going to summarize my views, I'd basically be a full-blown communist in regards to what I think should be done for children. Dog-eat-dog is one thing, but puppies don't stand a chance. If we could guarantee (or nearly) that 99% of people could make it to their adult years with an educated, level head on their shoulders, then I'd be totally on board with opening up the rest of our policies to Libertarian influence.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by free2131

I think the majority of us who preferred Sanders over the others don't want a completely Socialized version of government, but would rather have some Socialistic programs included in a Capitalistic government.

Universal healthcare is a huge issue for me (and many others), but I don't agree with wealth re-distribution or college for all. I think that businesses and corporations should be paying higher taxes than they currently do (and all the tax loopholes they use need to be closed), but I don't want the government to run private business. I think you can take the good from one system of government and implement it into another and make the best out of the two.

As 'ideal' as this may sound, history shows us (as Mike is sarcastically implying) that government never knows when to stop. My fear is always that the more government grows, the sooner (relatively speaking) it will become a totalitarian monster.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

If we could guarantee (or nearly) that 99% of people could make it to their adult years with an educated, level head on their shoulders, then I'd be totally on board with opening up the rest of our policies to Libertarian influence.

If we could somehow construct a public system free from political influence, I'm on board. I just don't think it can be done.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I dabbled in Libertarianism for a few years and what I found is that they build the strongest arguments (that don't rely on special pleading or "just trust us" or some kind of appeal to an idealized version of human nature) but that it can be a quick path to some calloused and cold realities.

I would probably be a Libertarian if I hadn't spent those years working at a residential treatment facility and seeing how permanently damaged a person can become before they even hit puberty.

If I was going to summarize my views, I'd basically be a full-blown communist in regards to what I think should be done for children. Dog-eat-dog is one thing, but puppies don't stand a chance. If we could guarantee (or nearly) that 99% of people could make it to their adult years with an educated, level head on their shoulders, then I'd be totally on board with opening up the rest of our policies to Libertarian influence.

Originally Posted by calculusdork

If we could somehow construct a public system free from political influence, I'm on board. I just don't think it can be done.

It all sounds extremely reasonable on paper. In practice, it's anything but. The primary selling point of the socialist ... what they want is very reasonable, sounds great, who doesn't want healthcare for all?

That's where the good times end.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

If we could somehow construct a public system free from political influence, I'm on board. I just don't think it can be done.

I run myself in circles thinking about it.

I think one of the things that kills me the most is that with all of our revolutionary technology and greatly expanded public sphere we seemed to have democraticized and "given a voice" to all of the destructive elements of society/politics and none of the constructive parts.

So for example: Governments at every level could easily develop and publish apps that placed the average citizen in the midst of the democratic process. They could read every proposal. Stream every speech and debate. Link to relevant articles by experts. Receive alerts as to when and where they are able to vote. Keep a running tally of how every member of government votes either according to or in opposition to the views of that citizen. All right in the palm of their hand.

But we don't have anything like this.

Instead we have Twitter and mobs forming on the basis of memes and manipulated videos.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I run myself in circles thinking about it.

I think one of the things that kills me the most is that with all of our revolutionary technology and greatly expanded public sphere we seemed to have democraticized and "given a voice" to all of the destructive elements of society/politics and none of the constructive parts.

So for example: Governments at every level could easily develop and publish apps that placed the average citizen in the midst of the democratic process. They could read every proposal. Stream every speech and debate. Link to relevant articles by experts. Receive alerts as to when and where they are able to vote. Keep a running tally of how every member of government votes either according to or in opposition to the views of that citizen. All right in the palm of their hand.

But we don't have anything like this.

Instead we have Twitter and mobs forming on the basis of memes and manipulated videos.

Even in your scenario; it's flawed isn't it? You and I both know less than no one is going to read every proposal, every law and will rely on others to summarize. Who gets to summarize? My summary will be a hell of a lot different than Heels (for example) ...

We have that as you noted. It's called Twitter.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

It all sounds extremely reasonable on paper. In practice, it's anything but. The primary selling point of the socialist ... what they want is very reasonable, sounds great, who doesn't want healthcare for all?

That's where the good times end.

To add a crucial point to this: The US for-profit model subsidizes most of the Research&Development that allows for the European/Canadian socialized models to operate at much lower costs.

If the US were to move to a socialized model and our trillions of dollars annually had to be shouldered by other nations, it would actually capsize a few of them.

I think one of the reasons why we go in circles is because 1) our system really is broken but 2) its brokenness actually allows the other systems to exist.

(Which could mean that everything is, to a degree, broken if it relies on the wealthiest nation to basically gouge itself.)

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by free2131

I think the majority of us who preferred Sanders over the others don't want a completely Socialized version of government, but would rather have some Socialistic programs included in a Capitalistic government.



Universal healthcare is a huge issue for me (and many others), but I don't agree with wealth re-distribution or college for all. I think that businesses and corporations should be paying higher taxes than they currently do (and all the tax loopholes they use need to be closed), but I don't want the government to run private business. I think you can take the good from one system of government and implement it into another and make the best out of the two.

I think it's a leap to say "the majority" as no one really knows. Personally I tend to believe the opposite given the age group that seems so enamored with Sanders.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Even in your scenario; it's flawed isn't it? You and I both know less than no one is going to read every proposal, every law and will rely on others to summarize. Who gets to summarize? My summary will be a hell of a lot different than Heels (for example) ...

We have that as you noted. It's called Twitter.

Not to be hyperbolic, but just to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusions: Where does this leave democracy?

Every argument (Right and Left) that I've ever heard in favor of democracy states that an informed and engaged citizenry is the key to making the system work.

If, at the end of the day, human nature is simply to apathetic and ignorance-prone to handle the responsibilities of democracy........well, things look pretty bleak.

EDIT: This comment is me agreeing with you and noting something that I wonder often.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

To add a crucial point to this: The US for-profit model subsidizes most of the Research&Development that allows for the European/Canadian socialized models to operate at much lower costs.

If the US were to move to a socialized model and our trillions of dollars annually had to be shouldered by other nations, it would actually capsize a few of them.

I think one of the reasons why we go in circles is because 1) our system really is broken but 2) its brokenness actually allows the other systems to exist.

(Which could mean that everything is, to a degree, broken if it relies on the wealthiest nation to basically gouge itself.)

Most certainly correct.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

I agree with you, my personal views are pro life, except for rape/ health of the mother. But at the same time I think its ultimately up to the mother (and father) even if I disagree with them.

I commend you for your thoughts regarding abortion but the reality is the father really has no say in the matter. That fact alone has always troubled me.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

Not to be hyperbolic, but just to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusions: Where does this leave democracy?

Every argument (Right and Left) that I've ever heard in favor of democracy states that an informed and engaged citizenry is the key to making the system work.

If, at the end of the day, human nature is simply to apathetic and ignorance-prone to handle the responsibilities of democracy........well, things look pretty bleak.

EDIT: This comment is me agreeing with you and noting something that I wonder often.

I noted this earlier in the thread but being informed and engaged in democracy; for me; is worthless. In fact, it's an extreme net negative because it only makes me upset and angry to look around the country and see what is happening, will happen. It only adds depths to my worry, it does not bring me joy, happiness or improve my life.

I relish the days of being the uninformed guy watching CNN and thinking that's the news. Ignorance is bliss ... pass it on.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I run myself in circles thinking about it.

I think one of the things that kills me the most is that with all of our revolutionary technology and greatly expanded public sphere we seemed to have democraticized and "given a voice" to all of the destructive elements of society/politics and none of the constructive parts.

So for example: Governments at every level could easily develop and publish apps that placed the average citizen in the midst of the democratic process. They could read every proposal. Stream every speech and debate. Link to relevant articles by experts. Receive alerts as to when and where they are able to vote. Keep a running tally of how every member of government votes either according to or in opposition to the views of that citizen. All right in the palm of their hand.

But we don't have anything like this.

Instead we have Twitter and mobs forming on the basis of memes and manipulated videos.

Even if we did, < 1% of the population would read half of what was available. We live in Huxley's world.

[SleeperCards]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

Even if we did, < 1% of the population would read half of what was available. We live in Huxley's world.

I agree, but in fairness the people voting on the bills aren't even reading them in their entirety.

[free2131]

Originally Posted by Astros19

I commend you for your thoughts regarding abortion but the reality is the father really has no say in the matter. That fact alone has always troubled me.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The sticking point for me has always been that of bodily autonomy. Regardless if you or I think that the fetus is or is not a person, the bodily autonomy of the woman has to win out. We wouldn't force someone to give blood to save another life, nor would we require a person to give bone marrow.

Why should it be any different in the case of abortion? In my opinion, the right of the woman to bodily autonomy supersedes any kind of "right" that the father or the fetus might theoretically have.

[tpeichel34]

Originally Posted by free2131

The sticking point for me has always been that of bodily autonomy. Regardless if you or I think that the fetus is or is not a person, the bodily autonomy of the woman has to win out. We wouldn't force someone to give blood to save another life, nor would we require a person to give bone marrow.

We force people to wear masks in public, though many of us are no threat at all to others.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by free2131

The sticking point for me has always been that of bodily autonomy. Regardless if you or I think that the fetus is or is not a person, the bodily autonomy of the woman has to win out. We wouldn't force someone to give blood to save another life, nor would we require a person to give bone marrow.

Why should it be any different in the case of abortion? In my opinion, the right of the woman to bodily autonomy supersedes any kind of "right" that the father or the fetus might theoretically have.

I know nobody likes it when someone says "I think a better analogy would be...."

So I apologize in advance for being "that guy." Based on the examples you gave, you are absolutely right.

If I could add a more complex scenario, I liken pregnancy to conjoined twins. Imagine set of conjoined twin in which neither is threatening the life of the other, but one of them could easily survive on their own while the other would die without a connection.

Would the self-sufficient twin have the legal or moral right to surgically remove their twin—in effect killing them?

That's the comparable situation that I wrestle with the most.

[free2131]

Originally Posted by tpeichel34

We force people to wear masks in public, though many of us are no threat at all to others.

What medical condition can the public get from a woman having an abortion?

[free2131]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

If I could add a more complex scenario, I liken pregnancy to conjoined twins. Imagine set of conjoined twin in which neither is threatening the life of the other, but one of them could easily survive on their own while the other would die without a connection.

Would the self-sufficient twin have the legal or moral right to surgically remove their twin—in effect killing them?

For your scenario to be comparable, we'd have to assume that the fetus is a person and has the rights of a person under the law. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that. We are also assuming that there is no health threat to either twin, so separation would be based only on the preference of the surviving twin.

It is a good question. I don't really know if I have an answer. Does the surviving twin have a moral obligation to remain conjoined? If I were in that scenario, my morality would lead me to stay conjoined, regardless of the inconvenience to me. I don't know that I would be comfortable assigning a blanket morality based on my own, however.