The New American Politics thread

[peter12]

Cliff, I take your point that the '60s were probably a more tumultuous time. I think the difference here is that people do not have the same spiritual or communitarian foundations to ground them, and guide their understanding. Trump, and to some extent, Sanders, are capitalizing on the intense alienation that many Americans are feeling right now. There are no institutions or cohesive communities anymore.

So while the race issue isn't as potent as it once was, and the narrative does not have the poignant feeling of truth, it still exists, but is now compounded with the bitter-sweet flavour of repetitive failure.

With a brief period of Reaganesque selective nostalgia, America has had a constant stream of failures trying to deal with the hardships of the '60s. This, compounded by anemic economic growth, wage stagnation, and the real erosion of the middle class has eliminated a lot of the optimism that countered the chaos of the '60s. Things are, as always, getting worse and better. In this case, better for the top 10-15% of American earners, and much worse for the bottom 85%.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Howard Dean actually tweeted this.



FML... this is how GOP insanity finds support.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

EDIT: Double post.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Howard Dean actually tweeted this.



FML... this is how GOP insanity finds support.

That whole Yale costume thing is madness. American learning institutions are undergoing a kind of dogmatic purging and enforced piety that is usually associated with religious fundamentalism. I'd feel sorry for the instructors and administrators, if they weren't such cowards in how they abase themselves before the children* learning to wield fear like a weapon. Just like in the late 60s, the bewildering folly of the far left chases the 'silent majority' into the arms of the right.

* It's sad that we have to regard 18-24 year olds as children, but I don't know what else to call people whose feelings are so easily bruised by words that draconian limitations have to be placed on speech to protect them.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

double post

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I guess if your definition of a great nation is exclusively based on the economy then yeah, great.

Or if your definition of a great nation is one where the rich get insanely richer and the poor get poorer, while the infrastructure of the country crumbles into disrepair. The economy down there really only works for one group of people and it sure isn't the little guy fighting for his $10/ hr working at burger king. The stock market is doing great though and their unemployment numbers have been doctored to exclude all the people that have given up... so i I guess everything's great lol.

You should probably just ignore all the civil unrest, widening religious/political division and mass shootings/terrorist attacks though, they don't paint a great picture.

But, hey, at least the rich dudes are doing great.

[Hack&Lube]

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) does a lot of analysis of current events in the context of persuasion and strategy. He always has fascinating insight into Trump's modus operandi

Originally Posted by Scott Adams

Is this a master stroke of persuasion or just bat#### racist crazy? I’ll help you sort that out.

For context, you already know Trump’s game plan goes like this:

1. Say something that draws all media attention his way, denying his opponents any chance of getting a toehold. Opponents are forced to respond to Trump as if he is already the leader and his opinions are the only ones that matter.

2. Force the public to focus on issues where Trump polls well.

3. Ask for far more than you expect to get. (Negotiate from the start.)

4. Force people to see the world in terms of strength and weakness because people are drawn to strength in times of uncertainty.

This was a great read, especially at the end when he uses the dad vs mom analogy for the potential Trump vs Clinton campaign.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1347915...suasion-series

[PsYcNeT]

Scott Adams lost every ounce of credibility he had that one time he compared dealing with women's rights to dealing with violent handicapped persons.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Scott Adams lost every ounce of credibility he had that one time he compared dealing with women's rights to dealing with violent handicapped persons.

My opinion is that, as usual, his quotes are all taken out of context when people tweet the controversial snippets because he likes to lay out extreme situations or interpretations of human nature in his diatribes. People who react to them badly are the same people who don't actually read through all the material to understand it in context of pushing the boundaries. People just grab controversial paragraphs, tweet them, and then other sites write articles laced with indignation about them.

The same thing happened with this last article when he pushed the boundaries in a thought-experiment about acceptable losses to justify open borders. It's a consistent story that you may have missed if you just paid attention to twitter or the gossip sites.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Cliff, I take your point that the '60s were probably a more tumultuous time. I think the difference here is that people do not have the same spiritual or communitarian foundations to ground them, and guide their understanding. Trump, and to some extent, Sanders, are capitalizing on the intense alienation that many Americans are feeling right now. There are no institutions or cohesive communities anymore.

I think you're right that the 60s were so tumultuous, in part, because people still believed public policy mattered (and there were big issues - race and war - to rally around). The disengagement, cynicism, and alienation of today are symptoms of a society that, while not as openly confrontational as 50 years ago, is probably less healthy.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Scott Adams lost every ounce of credibility he had that one time he compared dealing with women's rights to dealing with violent handicapped persons.

Here's a good example of something I cannot stand about the current state of public discourse: a guy writes one piece that's disagreeable, and all other things he could possibly ever say are now moot. In this case, it's not even one thing he wrote, but as you suggest, one comparison within the piece.

I didn't know this existed, so I looked it up: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881506316/im-a-what

Having now read that, I think the initial piece was simplistic to the point of being just... dumb. As a result, whatever his point was, he didn't make it. I'm still not sure what he was on about, or to what extent it was supposed to be satire at the expense of MRA's.

But ultimately I'd consider it a "bad thing he wrote one time"; it's not as if he outed himself as a Klan member. If he makes a well-put point on some other topic, this practice of dismissing it because you didn't like something he said once is the utter height of stupidity.

This, as I said at the outset, seems to be a pretty common tactic when addressing someone's views.

[PsYcNeT]

Consider me a person who considers it no huge loss then if I don't end up taking any of his other opinions seriously. There are much more important (and less ####ty) thinkers than Scott Adams.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Leaving Scott Adams aside, That's just intellectually lazy. I mean, I have no particular interest in Scott Adams's opinions as I wasn't even aware he had a blog and I'm pretty sure the last time I read anything he wrote it was a Dilbert cartoon. But speaking generally, that's an attitude towards discussing difficult topics that I definitely think you should reconsider, because I see it poisoning a lot of debates that are ongoing at the moment.

EDIT: By the way, who are the important thinkers? Second question: who are the important thinkers with whom you fundamentally and emphatically disagree?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by peter12

You dramatically overestimate Americans' satisfaction with Hilary Clinton, and underestimate their frustration with the Democrats.

I think you drastically underestimate the intelligence of a majority of US citizens.

Clinton isn't an ideal candidate for POTUS, neither is Sanders. Anyone with an IQ functioning at least in the triple digits can see that either are infinitely more qualified and stable than anyone in the current GOP field.

If Magic Underwear Mitt couldn't unseat that damn Muslim Kenyan for Prez, no one in the current GOP field has a hope. Unfortunately for the GOP, Trump is demonstrating what is fundamentally wrong with the party - it is filled with racists morons. The idiocy of the Tea Party has allowed a cartoon character like Trump to fester, and now it is going to lead them to ruin. Sad that they don't have a single credible candidate.

Hopefully from the ashes of the GOP something reasonable can rise.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I think you drastically underestimate the intelligence of a majority of US citizens.

Clinton isn't an ideal candidate for POTUS, neither is Sanders. Anyone with an IQ functioning at least in the triple digits can see that either are infinitely more qualified and stable than anyone in the current GOP field.

If Magic Underwear Mitt couldn't unseat that damn Muslim Kenyan for Prez, no one in the current GOP field has a hope. Unfortunately for the GOP, Trump is demonstrating what is fundamentally wrong with the party - it is filled with racists morons. The idiocy of the Tea Party has allowed a cartoon character like Trump to fester, and now it is going to lead them to ruin. Sad that they don't have a single credible candidate.

Hopefully from the ashes of the GOP something reasonable can rise.

It is possible. I think Romney was the best GOP candidate in a long time, and it is a shame that he isn't giving it one more go this time around.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Leaving Scott Adams aside, That's just intellectually lazy. I mean, I have no particular interest in Scott Adams's opinions as I wasn't even aware he had a blog and I'm pretty sure the last time I read anything he wrote it was a Dilbert cartoon. But speaking generally, that's an attitude towards discussing difficult topics that I definitely think you should reconsider, because I see it poisoning a lot of debates that are ongoing at the moment.

Is it intellectually lazy?

I realize no person is a saint, however it's impossible (in my eyes) to be so fundamentally wrong about certain social problems, and still expect people to entertain your opinions about other social issues.

I'm not saying I wouldn't take Ben Carson's advice about neurosurgery, but I 100% disagree with his stance that being gay is the same as indulging in bestiality, and as a consequence, wouldn't give two ####s about his opinion on immigration, domestic terrorism, welfare, etc.

A thinker/pundit/demagogue/big mouth with a mic can be wrong, they can have a stance I disagree with, however they can't be on the wrong side about something as important as gender equality, race, LGBTQIA rights, etc.

I'll end the derail here, because this is far off topic.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Is it intellectually lazy?

It absolutely is, because...

I'm not saying I wouldn't take Ben Carson's advice about neurosurgery, but I 100% disagree with his stance that being gay is the same as indulging in bestiality, and as a consequence, wouldn't give two ####s about his opinion on immigration, domestic terrorism, welfare, etc.

These topics have nothing to do with each other. It is quintessential intellectual laziness to dismiss ideas without considering them for reasons that have nothing to do with the content of those ideas.

I also 100% disagree with Ben Carson's stance on homosexuality. I similarly disagree with his stance on the historical use of the great pyramids. The guy seems like a nutbar. I might also disagree with him on immigration or terrorism, but he might nonetheless make a good point or two on one of those topics. I'm not aware of him having done so, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Consequently, I'll have to evaluate his views on terrorism independently of his wrongheaded stance on gay rights.

A thinker/pundit/demagogue/big mouth with a mic can be wrong, they can have a stance I disagree with, however they can't be on the wrong side about something as important as gender equality, race, LGBTQIA rights, etc.

One, looking at these issues as having "sides" is inherently problematic. There are propositions on these issues that one may disagree with (e.g. "gays should not be allowed to marry"), but there may be reasons that people are wrong on those propositions that we need to deal with.

I used to just shut down any conversation with anyone who disagreed with me on gay rights on the presumption that they were probably just covertly homophobic, but it's since become pretty clear to me that doing that kind of thing is actually harming progress on a lot of issues that need a discussion. I might be on the right "side" of the gay rights debate if you want to use that characterization, and yet there may be some element of that debate I should think more about or some perspective I haven't considered that would help my understanding of the issue. I won't get that by dismissing the other "side" before they can open their mouths. And it's getting worse generationally; see the Yale thing I posted earlier.

I'll end the derail here, because this is far off topic.

Sure, and I'm sort of taking out my frustrations on you regarding a problem I see with the way people approach difficult conversations on difficult topics these days. No one wants to hear from anyone with whom they disagree, and now it's as if the person you're hearing from must not only agree with you on the issue at hand, but on all other issues that are important. And it's incredibly easy to insulate yourself from people who say things that aren't harmonious with your existing worldview these days - on twitter? Just don't follow anyone but the people who say things that seem intuitive and block everyone who challenges any important perspectives you may hold.

Seriously problematic. But like I say, I'm making you a scapegoat for a broader problem because of an offhand comment on a forum which isn't particularly fair of me. So please treat the foregoing as a generalized statement using your post as an example, rather than some sort of personal attack.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That whole Yale costume thing is madness. American learning institutions are undergoing a kind of dogmatic purging and enforced piety that is usually associated with religious fundamentalism. I'd feel sorry for the instructors and administrators, if they weren't such cowards in how they abase themselves before the children* learning to wield fear like a weapon. Just like in the late 60s, the bewildering folly of the far left chases the 'silent majority' into the arms of the right.

* It's sad that we have to regard 18-24 year olds as children, but I don't know what else to call people whose feelings are so easily bruised by words that draconian limitations have to be placed on speech to protect them.

I don't find myself agreeing with you that often, but you are absolutely nailing this thread.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The GOP is really in a bad way, they basically have to bow down to Trump now or risk losing enough of the base to get destroyed in a general. Poll taken before his latest foray in Nazi territory (so expect his numbers to rise)

Donald Trump not only continues to lead the Republican presidential field in a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll. The overwhelming majority of his supporters also say they would vote for him if he bolted the GOP and ran as an independent.

The nationwide survey, taken Wednesday through Sunday, finds a trio of Republican candidates who show emerging national strength — Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — as other once-serious contenders struggle for traction.

The survey findings come less than two months before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1 start a cascade of contests designed to choose the parties' nominees. What seems likely to follow in the general election, at least at the moment, is a margin-of-error contest in which neither party starts off with a commanding advantage. In hypothetical head-to-heads, Clinton leads Trump by 4 percentage points, Cruz by 2 and Ben Carson by 1. Rubio leads Clinton by 3 points.

Those results show how firmly polarized the electorate already seems to be. Clinton's support ranges in a narrow band, from 45% to 48%. Support for her prospective Republican opponents ranges from 44% for Trump to 48% for Rubio. Only 7% or 8% of voters describe themselves as undecided.

All the leads are within the survey's margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.

Both front-runners have made predominantly negative impressions among voters. For Clinton, 54% have an unfavorable view of her, 39% a favorable one — putting her image "under water" by 15 points. But that deficit is dwarfed by Trump, who is viewed favorably by 30%, unfavorably by 60% — a 30-point gap that raises alarm among some Republican strategists about his electability in November.

That said, there is an almost even divide among those who have an unfavorable opinion of both Trump and Clinton: 45% say they dislike Clinton more; 42% dislike Trump more.

And in a chilling sign for Republicans, 68% of Trump's supporters say they would vote for the blustery billionaire businessman if he ran as an independent rather than a Republican; just 18% say they wouldn't. The rest were undecided.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ders/76948760/

Peter12 already talk about Hillary's unlikability, but she really is hated. It's funny but Trump can do and say anything, be a hardline racist even, and he'll be fine. One slight slip up for Hillary between now and next November and she could be done. She basically has to run an error free campaign to win

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

One, looking at these issues as having "sides" is inherently problematic. There are propositions on these issues that one may disagree with (e.g. "gays should not be allowed to marry"), but there may be reasons that people are wrong on those propositions that we need to deal with.

"I have no time for someone who doesn't have the correct belief about [abortion/god/homosexuality/race/taxes/the military/guns]" is pretty much how U.S. politics have become dysfunctional.

The unexamined assumption is that each of those complex subjects can be broken down to a binary right/wrong belief, and those on the wrong side of that binary choice are irredeemably bad people not worth engaging with. This ideological litmus test characterizes both the ideological right and the ideological left. People who have a binary outlook on life seem to have tremendous difficulty understanding that not everyone shares their limitation. If we all saw the world in binary terms, democracy wouldn't even work. Only a totalitarian society can function without nuance, tolerance, and compromise.