Fall US Elections

[Manopolus]

I am going to vote for 'Kodos' this November that way I cannot be blamed for any of the bad stuff that will happen after the election.

Please don't. We need all the sane people to vote that we can get (assuming that you are, in fact, sane). The crazies don't actually outnumber us, but they do have a greater tendency to vote, due to the angst factor.

 

[daenku32]

Well my State isn't electing a Senator this election cycle, so we are just about turning the House away from the right-wing fascists and towards progressive liberals.

 

[RandFan]

Without opining on whether those cases were decided correctly, I'll note only that the damage caused by incorrectly upholding a state law (as conservatives are prone to do) is generally less than the damage caused by incorrectly upholding a Federal law (as progressives are prone to do).

Who determines damage? Is what you consider damage not subject to confirmation bias and ad hoc/post hoc rationalization?

 

[The_Animus]

Saying no comment, or saying why you can't/won't comment isn't the same as responding to the actual statement or question.

Otherwise you'd have to similarly mock every investigator who says they can't comment on an active investigation, anyone who answers "no comment", and anyone who pleads the fifth.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand

 

[Crossbow]

Please don't. We need all the sane people to vote that we can get (assuming that you are, in fact, sane). The crazies don't actually outnumber us, but they do have a greater tendency to vote, due to the angst factor.

Aw shucks!

One of the few times I have a half-way funny post, then someone ruins the joke by appealing to the 'better angels of my nature'.

OK, you win! I will vote sanely this November as opposed to voting for 'Kodos'.

 

[Spindrift]

Aw shucks!

One of the few times I have a half-way funny post, then someone ruins the joke by appealing to the 'better angels of my nature'.

OK, you win! I will vote sanely this November as opposed to voting for 'Kodos'.

Are you sure that's possible?

 

[ehcks]

Aw shucks!

One of the few times I have a half-way funny post, then someone ruins the joke by appealing to the 'better angels of my nature'.

OK, you win! I will vote sanely this November as opposed to voting for 'Kodos'.

Take the third option. This year, somewhere on my ballot, I am writing in Bugs Bunny. Maybe one of the unopposed positions.

 

[coalesce]

I get upwards of anywhere of 50 to a 100 emails A DAY asking, begging, PLEADING for money from several Democratic candidates and organizations. With almost all of them, the hyperbole meter is cranked to 11 and it's so tiresome. I've written back to another of them, depending on how ridiculous their sales pitch is ("I'm sending you this from my phone at 4AM because it's so important..."), telling them that I already donate $15 a month to a democratic fundraiser to be spread out to different candidates nationwide and because I had to declare bankruptcy last year, money os very tight. I know my responses won't be read, but holy jeez, have they no shame, Senator?

Michael

 

[Crossbow]

Are you sure that's possible?

Well, ...

At least in my area it is possible.

 

[Crossbow]

Take the third option. This year, somewhere on my ballot, I am writing in Bugs Bunny. Maybe one of the unopposed positions.

I did something like that once before.

Many years ago, somewhere between the Primary election and the General election, the Attorney General got into some serious legal trouble, but since he was so heavily favored to win, the other party did not even try to get someone to run against him.

Therefore, at the time of the General election, he was unopposed but still in that serious legal trouble.

So, I put in a write-in vote for "Mice & Rats" that year.

 

[sunmaster14]

By all means, opine.

Well, this isn't really the right thread, but ... I think the Constitution is silent on laws restricting privacy, sodomy, or single sex marriage, so I think the conservative wing had it right. Which is not to say that I don't favor an expansive right to privacy, sodomy and single sex marriage. I do actually, but as a matter of principle it should be done through legislation. I don't think that it's the responsibility of 9 unelected, bureaucrats-for-life to catch the laws up to modern moral standards. It gives them too much power, and it short-circuits the process of shaping public opinion.

 

[sunmaster14]

Who determines damage? Is what you consider damage not subject to confirmation bias and ad hoc/post hoc rationalization?

I kind of explained this in the part of my post you snipped.

Damage is determined by how many people are harmed, how much they are harmed, and whether there are ways to mitigate or reverse the damage. If a state passes a bad law, and it is wrongly upheld, only that state's residents are hurt. Furthermore, the residents can leave, and pressure for change can be brought to bear on the state government from outside as well as inside. When the Federal government passes a bad law, people have fewer options for avoiding its consequences.

Since I'm speaking in very general and theoretical terms here, I don't see any problems with post hoc rationalization.

 

[Brainster]

Saying no comment, or saying why you can't/won't comment isn't the same as responding to the actual statement or question.

Otherwise you'd have to similarly mock every investigator who says they can't comment on an active investigation, anyone who answers "no comment", and anyone who pleads the fifth.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand

How can I say this without my post getting sent to AAH? Basically, the pinned irony meter is a way of saying that the post I was responding to struck me as very ironic. If you look back at that post you will perhaps get the meaning.

As for the Senate elections being all about the Supreme Court, it's a bit ridiculous. Obama may have to trim his sails a tad in getting a nominee through a Republican Senate, but five Republicans voted for Elena Kagan when she was nominated, and nine Republicans voted in favor of Sonia Sotomayor. Plus there is always the possibility that Ginsburg could step down after the election but before the new Senators are confirmed. Any Obama replacement for Ginsburg would not change the balance of power on the SC as she is reliably liberal; the real battle would be if Justice Kennedy stepped down, as he is the swing vote on most of the 5-4 decisions.

 

[RandFan]

I kind of explained this in the part of my post you snipped.

Okay, let's go back and have a look.

Without opining on whether those cases were decided correctly, I'll note only that the damage caused by incorrectly upholding a state law (as conservatives are prone to do) is generally less than the damage caused by incorrectly upholding a Federal law (as progressives are prone to do).

Other pressures can be brought to bear by people outside the state in order to induce change (e.g. boycotts), and for the people in the state, it is usually possible to vote with one's feet.

I apologize but I don't see anything about assessing damage. The fault could well be mine. That there are mechanism to mitigate or reverse harm does not speak to the fact as to whether or not there is harm. That's what we need to first address.

Damage is determined by how many people are harmed, how much they are harmed, and whether there are ways to mitigate or reverse the damage. If a state passes a bad law, and it is wrongly upheld, only that state's residents are hurt.

(feel free to treat these questions as rhetorical. Gven your final statement I can live with your response) I'm not trying to be difficult but how is this not begging the question? Before we can determine how many people are harmed we first need to determine if they were harm. Same with "how much harm". What is the objective criteria for harm?

Furthermore, the residents can leave, and pressure for change can be brought to bear on the state government from outside as well as inside. When the Federal government passes a bad law, people have fewer options for avoiding its consequences.

A.) It's not at all easy for the disadvantaged to leave. The disadvantaged are often the people hurt by bad state laws. B.) People can and do leave America.

Since I'm speaking in very general and theoretical terms here, I don't see any problems with post hoc rationalization.

You left out ad hoc and confirmation bias. I'm not sure what you mean but if you are saying that you are simply expressing an opinion then that's fine. Just understand that to be compelling you would need to control for confirmation bias and demonstrate why the opinion isn't simply justification of your bias.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I will vote for a Republican to replace Nancy Pelosi, but I'm not optimistic.

I understand you are stating support for the corporate fascists. I must admit I'm not overly fond of Pelosi, but do you really want to give even more power to the people who want you to starve without medical care?

Are we naked because the State does not operate cotton plantations, textile mills, and clothing stores? Are we starving because the State does not operate farms, ranches, flour mills, slaughter houses, and grocery stores? Why suppose that organized violence (the State) has anything to contribute to the pension industry (Social Security), the medical services industry (Medicare, ACA), or the education industry, beyond its role in the lawn care industry or the kitchen utensil industry, an original assignment of title and a stable system of contract law?

Fascism is very distinctly right wing. Sorry, but it's true. If you knew what fascism was, you would know that.

A. Use of the terms "left wing" and "right wing" indicates a tribal, one-dimensional view of a multi-dimensional political continuum. Abortion policy, immigration policy, drug policy, defense policy, environmental policy, education policy, et cetera, are not logically connected. Some socialist countries banned abortion and some socialist countries mandated abortion, for example.

B. Mussolini was a socialist before he invented fascism, with the idea that the State could direct commerce and social policy without direct State ownership of the means of production. Read Mussolini, "The Doctrine of Fascism" (Somerville and Santoni, Social and Political Philosophy (Anchor, 1963)). Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's National Socialism were both socialism variants.

C. After the fall of the evil empire Robert Conquest wrote that the West had, as yet, incompletely learned two important lessons: (1) the limits to the amount of good that organized violence (the State) can accomplish and (b) the stultifying effects of bureaucracy, public or private.

 

[Manopolus]

B. Mussolini was a socialist before he invented fascism, with the idea that the State could direct commerce and social policy without direct State ownership of the means of production. Read Mussolini, "The Doctrine of Fascism" (Somerville and Santoni, Social and Political Philosophy (Anchor, 1963)). Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's National Socialism were both socialism variants.

1. That "variant of socialism" is what most would call corporatism, actually. Any relation to actual socialist principles is rather suspect. Admittedly I don't know all the specific details of the economic plan, but as I understand it, it was a far cry from socialism.

2. Other aspects of the ways that the public was being manipulated by the governments were distinctly right wing... book burning, using religious rhetoric to support policies, ethnocentrism/patriotism, etc. These things are a long way from anything that would ever be called "liberal," although there may be some links to socialism... dunno. I don't think of full-blown communism as being all that leftist, actually, due to the tendency for civil rights issues. "the end justifies the means" is certainly NOT a liberal point of view.

Admittedly, the semantics and the cultural change since sort of makes it an odd and ambiguous question. I suppose you could say that some of the economics was vaguely leftist, but the cultural aspects were most certainly right wing in no uncertain terms if you're comparing it to today's political environment. The emphasis was on authority, the control of the populace and uniformity as opposed to accepting diversity. The concept of personal freedom of any sort was not even given lip service.

Here's a gratuitous link that vaguely supports the "culturally right wing" notion, if you wanted one:

http://explorepdx.com/britt.html

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

1. That "variant of socialism" is what most would call corporatism, actually.

The labels matter less than the policies. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances. Between compulsory and forbidden there's room for "we recommend it but we won't make you", "we don't care one way or the other whether you do or not" and "we don't recommend it but we won't stop you". Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State (government, generally) actors.

Any relation to actual socialist principles is rather suspect. Admittedly I don't know all the specific details of the economic plan, but as I understand it, it was a far cry from socialism.

Socialism in practice is a far cry from socialism in theory. Capitalism in practice is a far cry from capitalism in theory. Christianity in practice is a far cry from Christianity in theory. You get the idea.

2. Other aspects of the ways that the public was being manipulated by the governments were distinctly right wing... book burning, using religious rhetoric to support policies, ethnocentrism/patriotism, etc.

Use of the term "right wing" indicates a tribal, one-dimensional view of a multidimensional political continuum.

Did Mussolini's fascists burn books?

How often have you heard some politician argue from Christian principles for State provision of charity? Seems to me you call anything you oppose "right wing" without consideration of the wide variety of regimes which censor books, appeal to patriotic sentiment, or allude to religious tradition.

These things are a long way from anything that would ever be called "liberal,"...

Today, in the US, liberal policies are a long way from anything that would be called "liberal" in the classical (19th century) sense (i.e., libertarian).

... although there may be some links to socialism... dunno. I don't think of full-blown communism as being all that leftist, actually, due to the tendency for civil rights issues. "the end justifies the means" is certainly NOT a liberal point of view.

Admittedly, the semantics and the cultural change since sort of makes it an odd and ambiguous question. I suppose you could say that some of the economics was vaguely leftist, but the cultural aspects were most certainly right wing in no uncertain terms if you're comparing it to today's political environment. The emphasis was on authority, the control of the populace and uniformity...

You mean equality?

... as opposed to accepting diversity. The concept of personal freedom of any sort was not even given lip service.

Personal freedom, huh? What do you think of K-12 tuition vouchers or subsidized homeschooling? What about freedom of contract (repeal minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws)?

 

[Manopolus]

Personal freedom, huh? What do you think of K-12 tuition vouchers or subsidized homeschooling? What about freedom of contract (repeal minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws)?

What about them?

The government is not in any way required to provide for your child's religious education when you decide that you don't want them to learn the facts about evolution. Seriously, that's not a freedom issue. You can educate your child with any material you want outside of a public school, whether they are attending one or not. You just can't make the government pay for it, because that is asking the government to subsidize your religion. Don't try to pretend that this isn't what the "school voucher" thing is all about because it is patently obvious that it is. How about your child's right to an actual education based on reality rather than a psuedo-education based on superstition?

The other is an economic issue. The thing is, minimum wage only falls under the category of "freedom" if you are filthy rich and taking advantage of other people's labor at a value that falls under the poverty level. For the rest of us, having access to more money creates more freedom. Rich people already have enough rights and advantages that the rest of us do not. They don't need more than they already have, and they aren't being treated unfairly by any standard in this society. If said people were being treated unfairly, they wouldn't be rich enough to have someone on payroll anyway.

Seriously, the rich don't have the "right" to trample all over anyone that doesn't have the resources that they do. That isn't what civil rights means. In reality, it would take less than one hour a day of work from each person in the country to provide us all with food and shelter, as well as basic necessities. That sort of means that some of us obviously aren't getting a fair value from our labor. The overall problem can't be fixed in its entirety, but a higher minimum wage can certainly help. I'm actually for a system where people get a minimum income whether they actually have a job or not... yeah, it's sort of socialist, but it solves some things. An actual job would have to pay more than a level of pure survival by default in this case. Don't pretend that the money isn't there to do that when the top 1% has 50% of the wealth. The money is there, it's just distributed inappropriately.

...and the idea that the government doesn't "have the money" to do anything is patently ridiculous anyway. The government prints money. Yeah, there's some consequences in the larger economy, but there is virtually nothing that is possible to do which is too expensive for a government unless it requires buying foreign products (like entire islands or something). EVER. The whole "deficit" thing is mostly record keeping, not actual debt.

Are you really against anti-discrimination laws? What, you want to hire all straight white males because you're a bigot or something? Again, that is only "more freedom" if you are filthy rich. For the masses, it is just the opposite. The results of not having some sort of standard in place pretty much means that minorities effectively get to be second-class citizens. Again, the fact that a person has the money to make such a decision sort of goes to show that they aren't being unduly repressed in any fashion. The vast majority of us don't have that luxury, and therefore it cannot be considered a "right" of any sort.

 

[jj]

Today, in the US, liberal policies are a long way from anything that would be called "liberal" in the classical (19th century) sense (i.e., libertarian).

You're serious about that, now? Liberal means libertarian? Freedom is strength? War is peace?

 

[Manopolus]

Today, in the US, liberal policies are a long way from anything that would be called "liberal" in the classical (19th century) sense (i.e., libertarian).

You're serious about that, now? Liberal means libertarian? Freedom is strength? War is peace?

Yeah, I almost missed that one. No, liberal did not mean anything close to libertarian in any century. The term also wasn't invented in the 19th century (it was around well before that). Sometimes the stupid burns so much that I can't help but skim over most of it.

I'm surprised that there isn't some sort of allusion to the belief that being willing to do anything for money is somehow an ethically superior philosophy in there somewhere at this point. It looks like standard libertarian sociopathic fantasy.