• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Right, Left and coddling

Ziggurat said:
Gorsuch was approved with a narrower margin than most justices, but not by the narrowest margin. Clarence Thomas was approved 52-48. And Stanley Mathews was approved 24-23. Simple majority suffices. That has always been the case.

The difference was not the percentage of senators voting in favor or against Gorsuch. The difference was the attempt by the minority to filibuster his nomination, and the decision to circumvent that filibuster through a rules change. But the filibuster rule is itself a purely senatorial invention.
Click to expand...

Senatorial invention....thank you. I couldn't think of a good phrase and could only come up with that it isn't special from any other rule
 
Upchurch said:
It was also a simpler time ...if you were a child at the time. ...or watched too much Happy Days in the 70s.
Click to expand...

This virtually requires that one ignore the outright plans to use state force to target nonwhite people ("Muslim" ban, nationwide Stop and Frisk, his open hatred towards Hispanic people).

I have no doubt that some people did exactly that when they voted for him, stating "Oh, he won't really do those crazy things", "Oh, he's only talking about the violent Hispanics, not my friends." "Oh, it's really Obama that divided us along race, Trump says he'll bring black voters into the GOP." and so forth.

This was, obviously, a stupid risk to take, but we all do sometimes. But I fully expect that anyone who honestly believed that, to have necessarily abandoned him by now.
 
Mumbles said:
This virtually requires that one ignore the outright plans to use state force to target nonwhite people ("Muslim" ban, nationwide Stop and Frisk, his open hatred towards Hispanic people).

I have no doubt that some people did exactly that when they voted for him, stating "Oh, he won't really do those crazy things", "Oh, he's only talking about the violent Hispanics, not my friends." "Oh, it's really Obama that divided us along race, Trump says he'll bring black voters into the GOP." and so forth.

This was, obviously, a stupid risk to take, but we all do sometimes. But I fully expect that anyone who honestly believed that, to have necessarily abandoned him by now.
Click to expand...

When Trump was sworn in, aleCcowaN claimed his support wouldn't drop, and I argued against it. I couldn't believe 40% of Americans could support a narcissitic racist buffoon. Once it became clear who he really was, his support would crumble, like Bush's at the end of his term.

I was very badly mistaken about that. I totally misread the mood of the country. Maybe living in California gave me the wrong impression about the country as a whole. AleCcowaN says he sees parallels between Trump supporters and the Pinochet supporters he knew. He's probably right. These are scary times.
 
kellyb said:
Honestly, I've never heard of people worrying about it. It sounded radioactive. I honestly think y'all are stretching to find a leftwing equivalent to, say, the rightwing fear that all the guns are going to be confiscated to usher in martial law and tyranny, but okay. At least I know what sort of thing you were thinking of now.
Click to expand...

I didn't finish the thread so maybe this has been said . . .

But really, you can't find irrational fears on the left?

Climate change is going to destroy the world, soon! We have to do something soon before it's too late! But no, don't increase nuclear power because radiation! Ooooo....scary! Let's just change the kinds of light bulbs we use, that'll do the trick.

Kids are starving! You can't end free lunch programs because kids are starving! I mean, yeah, kids are starving despite the fact that we have free lunch programs but they will starve more! Oh! Don't genetically modify food so that it's hardier and produces better and we have more food for those starving kids! That's too scary!

People are dying and going bankrupt and they have no opportunity! Rich people are stealing all our money! Let's tax them more and make them pay for healthcare and college for the rest of us because if we don't, financial collapse!

Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill! He's going to start a nuclear war because he's just that crazy!

OK, most of those were a little over the top but not too far off the mark. But I also think it's a little over the top to say that people on the right fear gun confiscation, martial law and tyranny. Sure, there are some really wacked out people that think something along those lines but like I said, they are wacko. The left has it's wackos too.
 
At last, a list!
xjx388 said:
I didn't finish the thread so maybe this has been said . . .

But really, you can't find irrational fears on the left?

Climate change is going to destroy the world, soon! We have to do something soon before it's too late! But no, don't increase nuclear power because radiation! Ooooo....scary! Let's just change the kinds of light bulbs we use, that'll do the trick.
Click to expand...
Climate change is not going to destroy the world, ever. It is going to move climates all over the world out of the stable configuration our species has enjoyed during its lifetime back into the more chaotic shifts that have been the norm for most of the planet's lifetime. There are Republican districts crying out for help with the rising seawater and being ignored because it's not politically correct to acknowledge reality.
Kids are starving! You can't end free lunch programs because kids are starving! I mean, yeah, kids are starving despite the fact that we have free lunch programs but they will starve more! Oh! Don't genetically modify food so that it's hardier and produces better and we have more food for those starving kids! That's too scary!
Click to expand...
Um, DUH? Of course more children will starve if you take away their food! That some children are still starving means they need more food, not less.
People are dying and going bankrupt and they have no opportunity! Rich people are stealing all our money! Let's tax them more and make them pay for healthcare and college for the rest of us because if we don't, financial collapse!

Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill! He's going to start a nuclear war because he's just that crazy!

OK, most of those were a little over the top but not too far off the mark. But I also think it's a little over the top to say that people on the right fear gun confiscation, martial law and tyranny. Sure, there are some really wacked out people that think something along those lines but like I said, they are wacko. The left has it's wackos too.
Click to expand...
Those wackos are President and Cabinet.
 
Upchurch said:
That's true, but it's also moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...

No, because my original post was never intended as discussing Constitutional law but to make clear legitimacy equates to fitness.

You may do all the math you want and even create a megastate with 270 electors to show "no majority of states...", but the Constitution not only level the electoral power of uneven states but requires a majority that promotes, on comparable totals of votes, the best regional reach getting the prize.

That put Trump there, fit for office, warts and all.
 
aleCcowaN said:
No, because my original post was never intended as discussing Constitutional law but to make clear legitimacy equates to fitness.

You may do all the math you want and even create a megastate with 270 electors to show "no majority of states...", but the Constitution not only level the electoral power of uneven states but requires a majority that promotes, on comparable totals of votes, the best regional reach getting the prize.

That put Trump there, fit for office, warts and all.
Click to expand...

Presidents can become unfit, once they've been elected. I had a very small hope that Trump might grow into the office. I think now his mental unfitness for the job is obvious.

If Trump were a Democrat president, with a perfectly good Democrat VP waiting to take over, he would have been forced to resign after Charlottesville. And probably before that.
 
Fudbucker said:
Ignorance of civics is an American past-time, and there's plenty to go around on both sides.

"The APPC survey, conducted Aug. 9-13 among 1,013 adults in the United States, finds that 53 percent think that people who are here illegally do not have any rights under the Constitution. That incorrect belief is especially strong among self-identified political conservatives – 67 percent think it is accurate, compared with 48 percent of moderates and 46 percent of liberals."

This is more alarming than not knowing the Senate confirms justices. believing that a class of people is not protected by the constitution can lead to all sorts of problems.

There is a difference between being ignorant about how government works, and believing in stuff that is blatantly wrong: Climate denialism, birtherism, creationism, massive voter fraud...

People not knowing about senators confirming justices doesn't concern me much. The current President claiming climate change is a Chinese hoax, Obama was born in Kenya, and millions of illegals cost him the popular vote concern me greatly.
Click to expand...

I share your concerns, but you're making ignorance an almost exclusive problem of the Republicans, and that's not true.

Besides, I dissent with the whole approach here. Suppose 60% of Republicans are smokers, as 30% of Democrats are. You're saying "smoking is nasty and Republicans are to blame for all the lung cancer in this country". That's not only unfair but it doesn't propose anything. You might argue you're proposing them to quit, but they won't, because you're not giving anything but your imperial wishes of how you think the world would be. From the smoker standpoint, you're just taking away something they're comfortable with and not providing anything in its place.

Any sound strategy for 2020 should include to appease the moderate Republicans and Republican leaning independents. I'm not seeing anything of that here. On the contrary, the "constantly on edge" strategy that Democrats who believe to be reasonable are following is bound to fail miserably.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Here you go. Apparently the 2013 use of the special rule did not solve the problem of empty judge benches in the states as something like a third are still not filled.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Apparently the rules only prevent filibustering, but they don't imply changing any majority need to confirm a justice (If I'm wrong you'll certainly will correct my mistake)
 
aleCcowaN said:
I share your concerns, but you're making ignorance an almost exclusive problem of the Republicans, and that's not true.
Click to expand...

It's not ignorance that's the problem. Ignorant people can be educated. The problem with the Right is they believe factually incorrect things, and they believe them strongly. This is not exclusive to the Right, but it is a far bigger problem on that side.

Take climate change. If Republicans simply said, "I don't know" about it, that would be one thing. Instead many of them believe there's a cabal of scientists cooking the books to get grant money and every country on earth is in on it. Or it's some way to usher in a one-world-government. It's no coincidence Trump called global warming a Chinese hoax. He didn't say, "we need more information", which is wrong but forgivable. He went straight for the conspiracy brass ring because he knows what sells with his supporters.

There are two popular political shows at night: Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow. The difference between those shows is night and day. There's also Tucker Carlson, who might as well call his show "The White Power Hour" (I stole that from someone).

Besides, I dissent with the whole approach here. Suppose 60% of Republicans are smokers, as 30% of Democrats are. You're saying "smoking is nasty and Republicans are to blame for all the lung cancer in this country". That's not only unfair but it doesn't propose anything. You might argue you're proposing them to quit, but they won't, because you're not giving anything but your imperial wishes of how you think the world would be. From the smoker standpoint, you're just taking away something they're comfortable with and not providing anything in its place.

Any sound strategy for 2020 should include to appease the moderate Republicans and Republican leaning independents. I'm not seeing anything of that here. On the contrary, the "constantly on edge" strategy that Democrats who believe to be reasonable are following is bound to fail miserably.
Click to expand...

It's ironic you bring up smoking. The conservative Heartland Institute (which churns out anti-global warming nonsense) was busy back in the 80's and 90's disputing the links between smoking and cancer. Maybe they still do.

But you're right. The strategy I use, which is labeling Trump supporters as idiots and moral degenerates, is probably not going to be successful in bridging the divide in this country. I think liberals can overwhelm them by sheer numbers, but the results won't be pretty.
 
Problem seems to be associating either of the two main USA national parties as being left wing, the Democrats and the Republicans are right wing parties.
aleCcowaN said:
What about only 41% of Democrats knowing each state has two senators, as opposed to 58% of Republicans? What about only 31% of Democrats knowing the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice, as opposed to 50% of Republicans? (Taken from Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - 2016 National Civics Survey Results)
Click to expand...
 
aleCcowaN said:
No, because my original post was never intended as discussing Constitutional law but to make clear legitimacy equates to fitness.
Click to expand...

I've only ever questioned your erroneous claim that the majority of the people had anything to do with it. It not only doesn't but he never had it. The only thing that matters is that he had the majority of electoral votes, which makes him legitimate.

I will happily question your legitimacy equals fitness assertion, which is absurd.
 
Fears of climate change are coming from the climatologists. That's not irrational at all, for real. Even if you don't believe the climatologists, and you're right and the climatologists are wrong, the people who do believe the climatologists aren't being irrational.

Likewise, worrying about children going hungry in America is super legit.
 
kellyb said:
Fears of climate change are coming from the climatologists. That's not irrational at all, for real. Even if you don't believe the climatologists, and you're right and the climatologists are wrong, the people who do believe the climatologists aren't being irrational.

Likewise, worrying about children going hungry in America is super legit.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the fears are aligned with the predictions of climatologists. That is up for debate.


For example

A) I'm irrationally scared of spiders

B) that is rational. Spiders can bite you

E) I'm worried a bite will cause me to change into an arachnid
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Fears of climate change are coming from the climatologists. That's not irrational at all, for real. Even if you don't believe the climatologists, and you're right and the climatologists are wrong, the people who do believe the climatologists aren't being irrational.

Likewise, worrying about children going hungry in America is super legit.
Click to expand...

I have a slightly different take on where exactly the 'fear' originates... I think climatologists are pretty disciplined in restricting their predictions to the physical.

The primary dangers from climate change are human, so the meaningful predictions are about how we will be affected in terms of human population migration, economics, and ultimately political stability and personal safety. These come from many sources, including the CIA's analysts and petroleum company strategy papers, which tend to align.

Whenever parties that are motivated to find different results have convergent models, I elevate them. Consilience resonates with my scientific education and experience.
 
Darat said:
Problem seems to be associating either of the two main USA national parties as being left wing, the Democrats and the Republicans are right wing parties.
Click to expand...

I am perpetually amused by this claim. From the standpoint of political science theory, it is transparently false. If both the Democrats and Republicans were both right-wing parties, then the Democrats would almost never lose an election, since even though they are right of center, they are still closer to the center than the Republicans.

If you mean, compared to certain other countries, then I can understand the sentiment. But you might stop to ask yourself why this is true. My guess is that for the last 70+ years, the US has provided the defense for Europe and Japan. If you take defense off the table, then pretty much the only thing left to argue about is how much social spending is enough.
 
Brainster said:
My guess is that for the last 70+ years, the US has provided the defense for Europe and Japan. If you take defense off the table, then pretty much the only thing left to argue about is how much social spending is enough.
Click to expand...

And the US has been doing a **** job because Europe has been taken over by Muslims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom