Social and political issues

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Yeah Cliff, why not share YOUR solution with us. You've been asked many, many times but usually go silent or disappear if anyone asks you for YOUR SOLUTION.



Ah, poor persecuted Cliff.

It must be tough for you now that people are actually asking you to back up your endless complaints and commentary with an actual solution.

So ...... ?

Why sould he share an opinion on how he would fix things? It would just fall on the deaf ears of those who obviously have no interest in hearing any sort of realistic solution. Instead we will just have the 5th or 6th thread here that’s divulged into the same circular conversation.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Or it might spurn some actual discussion. That is why people get frustrated with Cliff. He never posts something for the sake of conversation. He posts something as if to say, "see, here's another article that says the left at fault for everything," when the theory and substance behind the article is rife with holes in logic and support. It would be refreshing to see Cliff have an original thought and discuss his ideas more so than relying on the very flawed opinions of others passed off as facts to support is undefined position on everything - other than the left is responsible for destroying everything, when the evidence is clearly the opposite.

[DuffMan]

what's happening in here?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Yeah Cliff, why not share YOUR solution with us. You've been asked many, many times but usually go silent or disappear if anyone asks you for YOUR SOLUTION.

I've done so dozens of times. You guys aren't going to goad me into wasting even more of my time on this forum explaining myself.

Just admit it infuriates you that someone has a contrary opinion. Why do you think this place has become such an echo chamber? My inbox is full of comments from posters who have abandoned political discussion here and ask why I still bother.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I've done so dozens of times. You guys aren't going to goad me into wasting even more of my time on this forum explaining myself.

Just admit it infuriates you that someone has a contrary opinion. Why do you think this place has become such an echo chamber? My inbox is full of comments from posters who have abandoned political discussion here and ask why I still bother.

Maybe you guys should form a club.

You have no problem “wasting your time” talking about the problem. I don’t think it’s a lot to suggest you convert some of the wasted time talking about the problem into talking about solutions.

Your solution seems to be “point out it’s a problem,” which is limited.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I've done so dozens of times. You guys aren't going to goad me into wasting even more of my time on this forum explaining myself.

Just admit it infuriates you that someone has a contrary opinion.

You've been told on numerous occasions that its your posting and debating style that's the issue, not necessarily the content.

My inbox is full of comments from posters who have abandoned political discussion here and ask why I still bother.

And there are also those who have explicitly stated that they've abandoned political discussion here because of you, so let's call it a wash.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't think this is accurate, I think Bill and Hillary both are to the left on Obama in key areas like the economy, the environment and healthcare. Jimmy Carter is certainly to the left of Obama and potentially/arguably is JFK.

Obama might be most centrist democratic president in living memory, aside from LBJ maybe.

I strongly disagree with this, and I'd like to know what you're basing it on.

The only areas that Hillary consistently supported that were left of Obama had to do with unions, who also happened to be some of her of her biggest financial contributors.

Bill Clinton was responsible for much of the de-regulation of the stock market, decreased corporate taxes, free trade agreements, lowered capital gains taxes, etc... Bill Clinton was also in support of heavy oil exploration and building pipelines. He also dismantled the federal welfare program. Clinton was very economically conservative in many ways.

He was very liberal, for his time, in other ways on social issues like gay rights, drugs, and abortion. But once again, everything was relative and his policies would be considered very conservative in today's day and age. For example, don't ask don't tell or his policy of repealing the law which outright banned abortion counselling in federally funded institutions.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Do you see anything funny about these two paragraphs, one after the other?

In the first you bring up the importance of perception. In the second, you forget the lesson.

Do rising oil prices have anything to do with Trump? Nah. Does increased employment have anything to do with Trump? Nah. Does the perception of these things being connected matter more than the facts? Unfortunately, yeah.

I specifically stated that Trump may or may not be the cause of current positive economic results.

My point was that, even if is just a coincidence, that the economy is doing well, people like results. When more people are working, they are more likely to re-elect a president.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by New Era

Contempt? I came from a working class family. Those are my roots. Thye would use these very same terms for people who are doing exactly what they are doing. You're also making Cliff's point for him. You're proving that the left are a bunch of snowflakes and can't get their hands dirty and play the game the same way the right does. That is why the right wins in America.

Give me a break. These people you are talking about don't understand globalization or the global economy. That is the point! They are ignorant about this very topic you think is resonating with them and driving them to vote specific ways. For crying out loud, they just voted in a bunch of globalists! They just voted for a guy that has leveraged his brand around the globe! You think for a second they have any concept of what Trump's policies would have on their lives? No, they voted because they heard a fairy tale they could comprehend, one that was based on a false promise from the very type of people they supposedly fear and loathe, because of their economic safety.

So pandering=good, but honesty=bad. Got it.

So its okay to say educated liberals are "entitled" and have "delusions of grandeur" but its wrong to call those salt of the earth working class folk "uneducated" and "stupid" because of the very behaviors they display on a consistent basis? Interesting double standard you have there. And you talk about bizarre?

I at no point said all liberals are entitled or delusional. Both liberals and conservatives can be delusions can be entitled. My point is that stating one group is entirely negative is divisive and unproductive.

I also at no point have provided any support for Trump or stated that his pandering was "good. I stated it was merely successful, which it was.

The working class has an absolute point that nothing is being done to help them under the current system. We've got a system where: manual labour jobs are leaving North America or not seeing proper wage increases; property prices have been rising dramatically for a decade; middle earning wages get taxed heavily; post-secondary education costs are out of control, and the value of earning a degree is replaced by nepotism; social mobility is dying; and just about anyone earning a significant amount of money can tax shelter those earnings in a private corporation.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I've done so dozens of times. You guys aren't going to goad me into wasting even more of my time on this forum explaining myself.

Just admit it infuriates you that someone has a contrary opinion. Why do you think this place has become such an echo chamber? My inbox is full of comments from posters who have abandoned political discussion here and ask why I still bother.

Oh, you poor thing.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Oh, you poor thing.

You must have been itching to break that one out... What, you just couldn't wait any longer, like for a more applicable post to use it?

Who, or what, in the post you quoted was Cliff scapegoating?

I get the frustrations from both sides, but irrelevant memes don't help and aren't a good look for anyone.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

I at no point said all liberals are entitled or delusional.

Well, you sort of did.

Originally Posted by blankall

From my experience with the college educated and liberal crowd, there are many of them with delusions of grandeur and entitlement. Your assertion that the working class are largely motivated by a desire for extravagant wealth and fame is downright bizarre.

Now if you want to back track on that and say that not all college educated and liberal crowds are like that, then fine. I have no problem with that. I hope you can understand that when I say a particular group exhibits certain traits it is also a generalization and not every single one of those people who ascribe to that ideology completely, and as a result may not fall completely in that classification.

Both liberals and conservatives can be delusions can be entitled. My point is that stating one group is entirely negative is divisive and unproductive.

No doubt. That has never been in question. The issue is which is more harmful to society as a result of maintaining these delusions and harboring their entitlement?

I also at no point have provided any support for Trump or stated that his pandering was "good. I stated it was merely successful, which it was.

Again, you appeared to infer something else, but I will accept your clarification. No harm, no foul.

The working class has an absolute point that nothing is being done to help them under the current system. We've got a system where: manual labour jobs are leaving North America or not seeing proper wage increases; property prices have been rising dramatically for a decade; middle earning wages get taxed heavily; post-secondary education costs are out of control, and the value of earning a degree is replaced by nepotism; social mobility is dying; and just about anyone earning a significant amount of money can tax shelter those earnings in a private corporation.

And I agree with everything you say here. They absolutely have a point on each of these issues. Now, the larger question is, which of the two sides of this argument have provided greater traction on each of these issues, and which one has been front and center to infringement of rights or access on each of those issues? Are Republicans more likely to be the champion of the working class to guarantee systemic improvements to the various issues identified, or have they proven they are more inclined to be a roadblock and weaken systemic access?


So if you, as a voter, are looking for greater access to each of those things you alluded to, why in all things holy would you believe that the Republican Party would be worthy of your vote? When, in the past 60 years, have they done anything for the working class? The Republican Party is the Party of the elites. It is the Party of the rich. It is the Party of wealth transfer, but from the poor to the rich. What would lead you to believe that Republicans would have any interest in anything but self-enrichment?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by New Era

Well, you sort of did.





Now if you want to back track on that and say that not all college educated and liberal crowds are like that, then fine. I have no problem with that. I hope you can understand that when I say a particular group exhibits certain traits it is also a generalization and not every single one of those people who ascribe to that ideology completely, and as a result may not fall completely in that classification.

My exact quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

From my experience with the college educated and liberal crowd, there are many of them with delusions of grandeur and entitlement. Your assertion that the working class are largely motivated by a desire for extravagant wealth and fame is downright bizarre.

At no point did I say "all" or generalize anyone. I would state there are many people from all walks of life who are delusional.

Originally Posted by New Era

Well, you sort of did.
No doubt. That has never been in question. The issue is which is more harmful to society as a result of maintaining these delusions and harboring their entitlement?





Again, you appeared to infer something else, but I will accept your clarification. No harm, no foul.





And I agree with everything you say here. They absolutely have a point on each of these issues. Now, the larger question is, which of the two sides of this argument have provided greater traction on each of these issues, and which one has been front and center to infringement of rights or access on each of those issues? Are Republicans more likely to be the champion of the working class to guarantee systemic improvements to the various issues identified, or have they proven they are more inclined to be a roadblock and weaken systemic access?


So if you, as a voter, are looking for greater access to each of those things you alluded to, why in all things holy would you believe that the Republican Party would be worthy of your vote? When, in the past 60 years, have they done anything for the working class? The Republican Party is the Party of the elites. It is the Party of the rich. It is the Party of wealth transfer, but from the poor to the rich. What would lead you to believe that Republicans would have any interest in anything but self-enrichment?

The issue is that the current liberal system is not working for the working class. It serves only special interest groups and the upper middle class.

If people want to push the Clintons are liberal agenda. Then you need to take into account the effect of free trade agreements with Asia and South America, the loosening of securities restrictions, and the establishment of the corporate tax sheltering system have had on the working classes in the USA. This was, as several posters have stated in here, one of the most liberal presidents ever, and his economic policies turned a bad situation into a disastrous one.

Your assertion that liberals should always be the choice for the working class because they mean well isn't going to get you anywhere with anyone.

I'm not supporting conservative economic policy. In fact, I believe that different situations call for different approaches, and that anyone who states that one party's position is always the right choice is not only wrong but downright dangerous.

We may simply be in a situation where there are no parties genuinely supporting working people, and you can't expect the working class to vote Democrat again after they've been let down for the last 8 years.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

The issue is that the current liberal system is not working for the working class. It serves only special interest groups and the upper middle class.

And the proposed conservative system is an even worse system. Conservatives want to eliminate the entire social safety net and make social mobility a thing of the past. They want a return to the robber baron era where the rich owned everything, the poor were endured servants and had to buy from the company store, and people stayed in the damn class they were born into. Conservatives care ONLY about THEIR special interest groups and the top 1%.

If people want to push the Clintons are liberal agenda. Then you need to take into account the effect of free trade agreements with Asia and South America, the loosening of securities restrictions, and the establishment of the corporate tax sheltering system have had on the working classes in the USA. This was, as several posters have stated in here, one of the most liberal presidents ever, and his economic policies turned a bad situation into a disastrous one.

The Clintons are far from the "liberal" agenda. They are centrists and more Third Way thinkers. They are definitely more friendly with corporations than they are individuals.

Your assertion that liberals should always be the choice for the working class because they mean well isn't going to get you anywhere with anyone.

I don't disagree with you. But given the two choices that exist in the United States, there is no choice. If you are looking for anyone to represent the poor or those looking for social mobility, the only choice are the Democrats. Republicans have no interest in social mobility. Their only desire is to enrich themselves and make certain they maintain that economic advantage.

I'm not supporting conservative economic policy. In fact, I believe that different situations call for different approaches, and that anyone who states that one party's position is always the right choice is not only wrong but downright dangerous.

Again, I don't disagree, except to say that the Republicans have done NOTHING for the working class in my lifetime. Not a damn thing except to disenfranchise and eliminate their access to the mechanisms that would allow for the mobility we all hope to achieve, and that which is central to the American dream. Things are much different in Canada and I strongly support the greater focus on social responsibility that all Canadians embrace. This is one characteristic that I wish Americans understood and would embrace with greater zeal. But they don't, and they are entrenched in their ways, which is very dangerous indeed. What is even more dangerous are those who don't know how the system works, think they can view the American system through their social lens, and apply their systemic understanding to the behaviors of the political parties in this country. This is almost a form of appeasement and allowing the absolutely abhorrent behaviors of a Party set on pillaging the country's coffers from the many, for the benefit of the few, to become acceptable and condoned.

We may simply be in a situation where there are no parties genuinely supporting working people, and you can't expect the working class to vote Democrat again after they've been let down for the last 8 years.

This is true, but in a binary system you must choose sides. But to choose sides you must understand the responsibility of those in power and the ability to affect change. Democrats held power of two branches of the government for two years, and yes were ineffective (and to clarify, the Democrats have held the majority in zero years of the last eight). This was in part because the Republicans used the filibuster to bring Washington to its knees. I mean, what part of Mitch McConnell coming right out and stating that Republicans would not cooperate with Obama, nor aid him in passing any legislation, did you miss? How did you miss the Republicans preventing a President from nominating his Supreme Court Justice, while ramming their through just two years later? One Party has done everything in their power to govern, while the other has been central to destroying every norm of governance! But it is the Democrats who let the working class down?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by you&me

You must have been itching to break that one out... What, you just couldn't wait any longer, like for a more applicable post to use it?

Who, or what, in the post you quoted was Cliff scapegoating?

I get the frustrations from both sides, but irrelevant memes don't help and aren't a good look for anyone.

I'm sure Cliff appreciates you coming to defend his honour but if you followed this thread and Cliff's other posts, you would know that he regularly rails against the media, immigrants and minorities (or at least their 'values'), 'extreme' liberals (even though he supposedly identifies as liberal), and although not listed - PC speech. One day he was lamenting that he couldn't freely discuss his opinion that many folks identifying as Trans, were just 'going through a phase' or trying to be cool.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm sure Cliff appreciates you coming to defend his honour but if you followed this thread and Cliff's other posts, you would know that he regularly rails against the media, immigrants and minorities (or at least their 'values'), 'extreme' liberals (even though he supposedly identifies as liberal), and although not listed - PC speech. One day he was lamenting that he couldn't freely discuss his opinion that many folks identifying as Trans, were just 'going through a phase' or trying to be cool.

I'm hardly a defender of Cliff's and don't particularly like the way he debates, but that's a pretty extreme mischaracterization of his stances.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm sure Cliff appreciates you coming to defend his honour but if you followed this thread and Cliff's other posts, you would know that he regularly rails against the media, immigrants and minorities (or at least their 'values'), 'extreme' liberals (even though he supposedly identifies as liberal), and although not listed - PC speech. One day he was lamenting that he couldn't freely discuss his opinion that many folks identifying as Trans, were just 'going through a phase' or trying to be cool.

I'm not defending Cliff's honour or even any of his posts.

But you quoted him and then posted a stupid meme that had nothing to do with anything he said.

This is a fascinating thread with a lot of interesting discussion from various (degrees of) points of view. I maintain that cheap shots using irrelevant memes aren't a good look for anyone, no matter which 'side' it comes from.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm sure Cliff appreciates you coming to defend his honour but if you followed this thread and Cliff's other posts, you would know that he regularly rails against the media, immigrants and minorities (or at least their 'values'), 'extreme' liberals (even though he supposedly identifies as liberal), and although not listed - PC speech. One day he was lamenting that he couldn't freely discuss his opinion that many folks identifying as Trans, were just 'going through a phase' or trying to be cool.

Edit - double post.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

I strongly disagree with this, and I'd like to know what you're basing it on.

The only areas that Hillary consistently supported that were left of Obama had to do with unions, who also happened to be some of her of her biggest financial contributors.

Bill Clinton was responsible for much of the de-regulation of the stock market, decreased corporate taxes, free trade agreements, lowered capital gains taxes, etc... Bill Clinton was also in support of heavy oil exploration and building pipelines. He also dismantled the federal welfare program. Clinton was very economically conservative in many ways.

He was very liberal, for his time, in other ways on social issues like gay rights, drugs, and abortion. But once again, everything was relative and his policies would be considered very conservative in today's day and age. For example, don't ask don't tell or his policy of repealing the law which outright banned abortion counselling in federally funded institutions.

Caveat here is you can't compare them to today's left and right positions as none of them will look good, such is the beat of progress.

I agree with cliff about LBJ and his 'great society', but there is also the hawkish militarism. jFK same deal. The fact that LBJ knew this at the time I think adds more weight to it as a negative outcome or positioning relative to 'the left'. It has irrevocable distinction in tarnishing his progressive legacy.

Bill Clinton was a southern democrat which has its own baggage, but I believe in many ways should actually indicate more credit. Being comfortable with black people. Being the first sitting president to visit south africa and having his VP and wife in attendance for Mandela's inauguration (as compared to Reagan's support for apartheid....)

Hell, admitting he smoked pot in college was such a massive departure, to the progressive side of the coin, and yet it's all but forgotten, even as a punch line.

Many of his steps to free the market may ultimately appear less than progressive, and I would be inclined to agree, but the context of emerging from the Cold War and jump-starting the us economy plagued by deficits from the previous Republican administrations. Raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting defense spending don't seem to be very conservative policies but he did those things in his first term.

He 'Changed' the welfare program, he didn't 'dismantle' it, and while various issues have since been exposed stemming from those decisions, the changes had positive outcomes for some, perhaps even many, or most. This is probably in if the weaker points of his legacy to be sure, but when taken alongside cutting black unemployment in half, I think it is neutral outcome for his progressive legacy. He was also working with a GOP controlled Congress, and the nation wasn't in mourning to the extent that LBJ was able to capitalize on. Theres a pragmatism necessary there.

Hillary was firmly to the left of obama economically and it was more than just union support. She was for the individual mandate for healthcare that Obama never ended up endorsing as an example.

Like LBJ, her centrist appearance is mostly due to her hawkish foreign policy, and that conflicts a bit with her progressive credentials. Oil exploration, fracking, pipelines, these are all foreign policy markers for the Clinton's, not progressive back patters.

The reason Putin interfered on behalf of Trump has little to do with Trump in my mind and everything to do with preventing Hillary from becoming president and moving swiftly to.cripple Russia's energy economy. That won't win her any progressive environmental atagirls but it represents an existential turning point for.our society.

So while none of them are Karl Marx, I think calling Obama the most liberal or lefteing.president to be massive overstatement bordering in hyperbolic.

Obama was a bob dole presidency if Bob Dole were a younger black man in 2008.

[TorqueDog]

This is annoying:



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ppened/574867/

The Munk debates hold a special place in Canadian public life. For more than a decade, they have brought the learned, the preeminent, and the notorious to Toronto’s 2,800-seat symphony hall to test controversial ideas before a highly informed audience. Never before, though, had they ignited the fierce controversy that exploded around the scheduled debate between Bannon and me.

Over the next hours, I took calls from television and radio bookers: Would I come on their air to defend the debate?


I declined, again and again. I’d written an answer, and I wanted to deliver it once—at the debate itself. Some did not want to hear that answer or any other. They decided to shut down the debate by force and threat. They tried to block the entrance to the debate venue, then harassed attendees as they sought to enter. One police officer was punched in the face. Fear that protesters would slip into the event obliged the organizers to search every bag and wand every entrant—delaying the start time by 45 minutes. Even with that delay, many ticket-holders were unable to take their seats. One protester nevertheless managed noisily to disrupt Bannon’s opening statement, before being drowned out by audience applause and removed by police.


Forceful interruption of public events is almost always wrong. If I see you reading a book I dislike, I have no right to grab it from you. In a free society, there can be no equivalent of the Saudi religious police, monitoring public behavior and discourse and interrupting things of which they disapprove.

Irrespective of your opinion of David Frum's views (or Steve Bannon's, for that matter), Frum's bang-on here. Even if I disagree with both speakers, I have no right to prevent you from listening to a discussion between them (especially one you paid money to go see), and similarly you haven't the right to stop me either.


Listening and trying to understand viewpoints that conflict with our own serves many purposes; amongst them, understanding what you're opposing (if you should still oppose those viewpoints after hearing them explained), and using those contrasting ideas to critique your own held beliefs on the subject(s). In short: critical thought, civil discourse, thinking outside your own point of view... these are all useful exercises, and I find it illiberal in the extreme to behave in such a manner so as to prevent people from listening to a debate.