20 of America's top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They're scared.
92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53034581]a civil war is not out of the question[/QUOTE]
I've been waiting for someone to say this. I've been saying this since before the election campaign for 2016 even started.
This only loudens the sirens that should be ringing globally, indicators of a third power's massive and virtually unrivaled growth. America's place on the world stage has been sort-of stagnating since perhaps the Vietnam War, a war I believe to be the first significant slip-up of such a scale experienced by the US. Of course, financially, the US' wealth and influence continuously grow through economic dealings and what-have-you.
However, I'm seriously concerned that perhaps in our lifetimes, or maybe just a few decades later, the age of easy American Hegemony will come to an end. China's development and refinement will soon turn it into a capable foe, and assuming its global infrastructure and investment projects go on as they should, it will yield impressive wealth and soft power with which it will be able to influence countries we know as being firmly within the American camp's geopolitical umbrella. Russia's ecomomy may see revitalization if the US' global role decreases, granting it more opportunity and resources than it has in the wake of recent economic sanctions laid against it.
Although I may not fully agree with how the US has been doing things and exerting its global power in recent history, I'd far rather live snugly within its sphere of influence than that of rival superpowers with no desire to uphold (or at least even pretend to support) principles of democracy and free speech and such. However far-fetched it may seem, I'm afraid that the age of Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania will be on the horizon once the American sun, brilliant but occasionally flamboyant, dwindles and sets.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53037416]If the vocal minority id a minority, why did the silent majority vote for a president who is racist and sexist. That makes no sense. If you vote for it then you are complicit.[/QUOTE]
Then something is seriously wrong if voting for one of two choices is considered complicit.
[QUOTE=Howlthrug;53037429]Then something is seriously wrong if voting one of two choices is considered complicit.[/QUOTE]
If issues like EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HUMANS isn't enough to vote for the person that hasn't shown themselves to be for electroshock therapy for gays, then the whole "freedom" thing flies out the window.
Despite your views on the econony, voting for a person that views darker skinned Americans as second class citizens forfeits any and all arguments you can make about "it's the lesser of two evils"
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53037435]If issues like EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HUMANS isn't enough to vote for the person that hasn't shown themselves to be for electroshock therapy for gays, then the whole "freedom" thing flies out the window.
Despite your views on the econony, voting for a person that views darker skinned Americans as second class citizens forfeits any and all arguments you can make about "it's the lesser of two evils"[/QUOTE]
Anyone wanted a prime example of the political divide in the US and why it won't go away? Because I found it right here.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53037525]Anyone wanted a prime example of the political divide in the US and why it won't go away? Because I found it right here.[/QUOTE]
So I should just accept the people that voted for a vehemently anti-gay shock therapy vice president and a president that thinks Mexicans that come over the border are rapists and drug dealers, [I]without a single comment on it?[/I]
"It's totally okay that you voted for the guy who thinks women should be punished for abortions"
"It's okay, I like you despite you voting for the guy who wants to ban transgender patriots from serving in the military"
[B]Get real[/B], actions have real consequences, as does voting, and you're currently seeing that in the form of one of the worst presidents that America has ever had. The political divide isn't just some imaginary "oh man, they're red so I hate them" when the effects of red policies have overwhelmingly been shown to take us all back decades in civil rights and economic progress.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53037525]Anyone wanted a prime example of the political divide in the US and why it won't go away? Because I found it right here.[/QUOTE]
Here, just because some people have a delusional idea about how things should go back to the good old days of Jim Crow, clean coal, and removal of legitimate restrictions because "they hurt business", doesn't mean they need to be entertained on anything else besides making them understand the world left that bullshit a long time ago in moving forward. If you feel like you've been left behind on that front, too tiggarty bad, and all that, especially if you happen to be a malcontent with a chip on your shoulder looking for scapegoats to blame your troubles on.
Most of us perfectly well understand the political divide is because of a fundamental disconnect among both sections of the population, but for anything to change, they have to come to a basic realization that supporting someone because "they're our team" without understanding, or caring, that they have their own agendas in mind and happen to be stuck fifty years in the past, might not be that good of an idea.
The world is changing, and its people have to change with it if they and their nations want to survive. Isolationism, Protectionism, and Regressionist politics don't help when it comes to that. For the same reason, single issue voting is doubly bullshit because you don't understand that sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the good of the many by a few, if we all want to survive. Far be it from me to be offensive, but many Americans, even educated ones, seem to have a blindness to the big picture, and a profound lack of compassion for their fellow citizens.
Both the regressive left and the far-right are equally dangerous to the notions on which America was founded. But, for anything to change, the people are gonna have to come together and make that change happen, instead of remaining divided and mistrustful of each other. But if you're too stubborn to realize that some points of view need to go back to the garbage bins of history, such as oh, Fascism and Nazism, and you choose to become part of these movements because you have a bellyful of anger against the world you wan't to take out on others, that's entirely your own fault, and not the fault of the people who these ideologies want you to hate.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;53035426]Here's a novel thought
Why be absolutely one way or the other? Why not just vote for the person that's going to do the better job? And why do we have to only have two parties that are at the extremes in either direction with nothing in the middle?
People need to fix their attitudes and then the country will get fixed[/QUOTE]
Because people's views on who's going to do the better job are subjective and prone to, like with trump, be filled with an incredible amount of bias.
And then the way our governments are set up and the inordinate amount of power the leadership's have ammassed over the last few decades make it imperative to either fully support one party or another. If the house and senate leaders didn't weild so much power and if minority parties had more rights to rule things would be a lot different
About the only time you get away with split party tickets is at the local level where the job is so narrowly tailored and the powers inherant to any individual post are negligable that you can have republicans and democrats work together, but even then national parties are starting to toss money in those races as well to try to instill the most conservative candidate or the most liberal one.
Money is such a fucked up problem with our election system because it is what has driven moderates out, as well as moderation because its the one factor that more than anything else, determines a race. The only way to counter the leverage of money, is with money.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53037525]Anyone wanted a prime example of the political divide in the US and why it won't go away? Because I found it right here.[/QUOTE]
You see here's the thing though, he's right. I mean this is what I have such a hard time understanding, political divide aside, how are the ones OK with the real overtly bad shit equally to blame as the ones who are like "uhh, why are you guys OK with the real overtly bad shit"?
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035579]If we're taking the OP's report seriously, then the millennials are the most open to authoritarianism and the most apathetic about democracy.[/QUOTE]
I feel like predictions about generations are no better than horoscopes sometimes.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53037538]So I should just accept the people that voted for a vehemently anti-gay shock therapy vice president and a president that thinks Mexicans that come over the border are rapists and drug dealers, [I]without a single comment on it?[/I]
"It's totally okay that you voted for the guy who thinks women should be punished for abortions"
"It's okay, I like you despite you voting for the guy who wants to ban transgender patriots from serving in the military"
[B]Get real[/B], actions have real consequences, as does voting, and you're currently seeing that in the form of one of the worst presidents that America has ever had. The political divide isn't just some imaginary "oh man, they're red so I hate them" when the effects of red policies have overwhelmingly been shown to take us all back decades in civil rights and economic progress.[/QUOTE]
You're gonna sit here with the attitude of "they are evil and must go", then tell ME to "get real" about the political divide in this country? You'll never close the divide by demonizing the other side and treating every one of them like the enemy. You're in the deepest us V.S. them mentality. You won't solve anything by digging your heels in and refusing to listen to the other side. But solving problems would have to be something you wanted in the first place to understand that.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53037577]Here, just because some people have a delusional idea about how things should go back to the good old days of Jim Crow, clean coal, and removal of legitimate restrictions because "they hurt business", doesn't mean they need to be entertained on anything else besides making them understand the world left that bullshit a long time ago in moving forward. If you feel like you've been left behind on that front, too tiggarty bad, and all that, especially if you happen to be a malcontent with a chip on your shoulder looking for scapegoats to blame your troubles on. [/quote]
If someone's being left behind and abandoned, the answer isn't so say "too tiggarty bad", it's to understand their problems and help them. Misery loves company. So if you're going to give them the finger, don't be surprised when they do everything in their power to do the same to you. That's not good for any society.
[quote]Most of us perfectly well understand the political divide is because of a fundamental disconnect among both sections of the population, but for anything to change, they have to come to a basic realization that supporting someone because "they're our team" without understanding, or caring, that they have their own agendas in mind and happen to be stuck fifty years in the past, might not be that good of an idea.[/quote]
Most don't understand that because most will vote red or blue because "they aren't the other guy, and I can't let his agenda be passed."
[quote]The world is changing, and its people have to change with it if they and their nations want to survive. Isolationism, Protectionism, and Regressionist politics don't help when it comes to that. For the same reason, single issue voting is doubly bullshit because you don't understand that sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the good of the many by a few, if we all want to survive. Far be it from me to be offensive, but many Americans, even educated ones, seem to have a blindness to the big picture, and a profound lack of compassion for their fellow citizens. [/quote]
I agree, but you're not going to solve this by brow beating one side or the other into submission.
[quote]Both the regressive left and the far-right are equally dangerous to the notions on which America was founded. But, for anything to change, the people are gonna have to come together and make that change happen, instead of remaining divided and mistrustful of each other. But if you're too stubborn to realize that some points of view need to go back to the garbage bins of history, such as oh, Fascism and Nazism, and you choose to become part of these movements because you have a bellyful of anger against the world you wan't to take out on others, that's entirely your own fault, and not the fault of the people who these ideologies want you to hate.[/QUOTE]
They do need to go back to the garbage bins of history, just like discrimination. But I digress. Your entire post is just a jab at one side while masquerading as a "we need to come to an understanding" post. You won't get anywhere in solving the issue of a divided America by completely disregarding what you view as the opposition.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;53037596]You see here's the thing though, he's right. I mean this is what I have such a hard time understanding, political divide aside, how are the ones OK with the real overtly bad shit equally to blame as the ones who are like "uhh, why are you guys OK with the real overtly bad shit"?[/QUOTE]
Because when it comes to our political divide, saying "well if the other side didn't have shitty views, we wouldn't have the divide" isn't going to solve anything. Instead of trying to fix the divide, you're just widening it because you don't want to fix it. You just want to "beat the enemy".
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53037643]You're gonna sit here with the attitude of "they are evil and must go", then tell ME to "get real" about the political divide in this country? You'll never close the divide by demonizing the other side and treating every one of them like the enemy. You're in the deepest us V.S. them mentality. You won't solve anything by digging your heels in and refusing to listen to the other side. But solving problems would have to be something you wanted in the first place to understand that.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely am if that's the position you're gonna put in my mouth.
Conservatives and Democrats are evil in the things that make them evil. The things that make them evil are defined by facts, statistics and general human values.
So if someone is saying "you, a citizen, should not have the same rights as another citizen" then I will think of that position as evil, no matter where it comes from.
If someone says "We should make voting as hard as possible, knowing it factually and objectively disproportionately targets minorities" then that is evil, no matter who says it.
If someone says "We should subsidize coal more and divest from renewables, despite the scientific fact of global warming" then that is also evil, no matter if it's a democrat or republican.
If someone says "Fracking is definitely a good idea" then that is an evil statement, because we KNOW of the environmental impact of it.
It's [B]purely coincidental[/B] that the GOP party platform officially holds more evil values than the Democratic platform.
It's [B]purely coincidental[/B] that the democratic platform supports fewer policies which unnecessarily kill American citizens.
But hey if you wanna melt my position down to "oh he just hates them darn redneck hicks" then that's on you buddy.
:snip: misunderstanding
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53037689]I absolutely am if that's the position you're gonna put in my mouth.
Conservatives and Democrats are evil in the things that make them evil. The things that make them evil are defined by facts, statistics and general human values.
So if someone is saying "you, a citizen, should not have the same rights as another citizen" then I will think of that position as evil, no matter where it comes from.
If someone says "We should make voting as hard as possible, knowing it factually and objectively disproportionately targets minorities" then that is evil, no matter who says it.
If someone says "We should subsidize coal more and divest from renewables, despite the scientific fact of global warming" then that is also evil, no matter if it's a democrat or republican.
If someone says "Fracking is definitely a good idea" then that is an evil statement, because we KNOW of the environmental impact of it.
It's [B]purely coincidental[/B] that the GOP party platform officially holds more evil values than the Democratic platform.
It's [B]purely coincidental[/B] that the democratic platform supports fewer policies which unnecessarily kill American citizens.
But hey if you wanna melt my position down to "oh he just hates them darn redneck hicks" then that's on you buddy.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I'm melting it down to. Instead of talking about the divide or how we can solve it, you're only in here to shit all over the side you're not on. Hence, why it's the perfect example of why such a large divide exists in the first place. I mean if you're fine with the divide, more power to you. But some of us would like to close it and start moving forward. And shitting on, dismissing, or otherwise trying to get the GOP to go away isn't going to happen. We need to understand that and work with them to bring everything to a point where we can start moving forward.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53037816]That's not what I'm melting it down to. Instead of talking about the divide or how we can solve it, you're only in here to shit all over the side you're not on. Hence, why it's the perfect example of why such a large divide exists in the first place. I mean if you're fine with the divide, more power to you. But some of us would like to close it and start moving forward. And shitting on, dismissing, or otherwise trying to get the GOP to go away isn't going to happen. We need to understand that and work with them to bring everything to a point where we can start moving forward.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that Democrats should subscribe to Republican ideals for the sake of mending the divide?
[QUOTE=_Axel;53037845]So what you're saying is that Democrats should subscribe to Republican ideals for the sake of mending the divide?[/QUOTE]
It sounds to me like he's saying you ought to treat them as normal people who are wrong about X, Y, or Z issue instead of treating them like fascist evildoers. Your goal should be to get them alongside you, not destroy them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037856]It sounds to me like he's saying you ought to treat them as normal people who are wrong about X, Y, or Z issue instead of treating them like fascist evildoers. Your goal should be to get them alongside you, not destroy them.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing though, it took a civil war to realize that slavery was dumb and dehumanizing, and extremely degrading. It then took several decades for African Americans to even partially throw off the racist attitudes of the white population. Ordinarily, once it's proven that something is degrading and dehumanizing, it should be swept off into a corner to die. Sadly you can't do something like that in a clean and neat manner because prejudices are tough to overcome, if you can overcome them at all. I personally have no problem with a conservative as an individual minus the shit attitude that comes with said label if they're among the diehards.
You can be conservative in your leanings as long as you make the effort to make sense instead of backpedaling on everything because Obama did it, or voted conservative on a single issue, such as healthcare because what's mine is mine, or guns because the Democrats can't get it out of their heads to ban them completely. If you're that afraid of losing your guns why not take reasonable political action and put forward a set of demands that make sense, instead of going "they'll take my guns from my cold dead hands first"?
Politics and voting has always been about give and take, which the GOP in America have proven again and again means only take, but not give. The party of Lincoln fell extremely far, to the point when Republican senators are revolting because they no longer recognize the ideals it once held. But, the GOP also has a problem with those who revolt - they end up becoming RINOs and are no longer trusted again, to say nothing of never getting funds for reelection to prop up another asshole who does subscribe to the party whip.
People are sick and tired of wishy-washy bullshit and some things should be left to die permanently if conditions are gonna improve. But, those in power don't want that or else they'd be finished, see the republicans becoming afraid of millennials increasingly rejecting their platform and policies.
Don't be surprised if people get mad if you support any of this crap even by omission, the few months Trump and the GOP have been in power have already proven what will happen if you give the money men the keys to every branch of government. People are being actively fucked over by that orange asshole's decisions and you're here saying that we should handle others with kid gloves because their feelings might get hurt? For fuck's sake the GOP is literally the feelings party, many of their platforms make absolutely no sense if you dissect them even superficially.
I'm not saying that we should call them fascists, but they have to realize they've contributed directly to the ongoing collapse of the state of affairs in America by believing the smooth words of a reality tv star and failed businessman. There's also the small matter of them literally not caring that Obamacare going under will mean close to 25 million Americans no longer being able to afford healthcare, because "I dont need insurance im disgustingly healthy"
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53037898]Here's the thing though, it took a civil war to realize that slavery was dumb and dehumanizing, and extremely degrading.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I don't think this is a true summation of what happened and is an incorrect assumption to start with. The civil war wasn't needed to get people realize what was wrong about slavery, that was already happening. The civil war was needed to pry slavery away from those who directly benefited from it. There's a reason people made Jim Crow laws in the south. They wanted to force the people to stay segregated. They knew blending would happen if they let it.
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53037898]You can be conservative in your leanings as long as you make the effort to make sense instead of backpedaling on everything because Obama did it, or voted conservative on a single issue, such as healthcare because what's mine is mine, or guns because the Democrats can't get it out of their heads to ban them completely. If you're that afraid of losing your guns why not take reasonable political action and put forward a set of demands that make sense, instead of going "they'll take my guns from my cold dead hands first"?
Politics and voting has always been about give and take, which the GOP in America have proven again and again means only take, but not give. The party of Lincoln fell extremely far, to the point when Republican senators are revolting because they no longer recognize the ideals it once held. But, the GOP also has a problem with those who revolt - they end up becoming RINOs and are no longer trusted again, to say nothing of never getting funds for reelection to prop up another asshole who does subscribe to the party whip. [/QUOTE]
This part just rings hollow to me because what you're describing is an issue with American politics as a whole, not the GOP.
Remember when the Bush tax cuts were called "tax cuts for the rich" by democrats insistently... until Obama got into office and made sure everyone knew he would leave the majority of those cuts, which weren't for the rich, in place? That's just one example that jumped into my head. The rest of your reasons for why the GOP do what they do is simply a case of what I was talking about in my very first post in this thread. You're not actually addressing the real reasons differences that exist between the left and right. You're going after the most shallow, demagoguery available and concluding the other side is bad based on it. (I can promise you that there's a hell of a lot more nuance behind being against universal healthcare than "what's mine is mine.")
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037904]I can promise you that there's a hell of a lot more nuance behind being against universal healthcare than "what's mine is mine."[/QUOTE]
Oh I'm sure there's a lot of nuance behind refusing to adopt a tried-and-true system when your healthcare is significantly more expensive than anywhere else in the developed world, where you can't get bankrupt through medical bills.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53037960]Oh I'm sure there's a lot of nuance behind refusing to adopt a tried-and-true system when your healthcare is significantly more expensive than anywhere else in the developed world, where you can't get bankrupt through medical bills.[/QUOTE]
Yes, there is, and the fact that you seem incredulous to the claim tells me that you have no clue about why people hold the positions that they do. Their concerns might be some combination of the following, in no specific order:
1) A foundational assumption that more than basic healthcare has never been a human right, and didn't suddenly become one now.
2) The US is the marketplace for worldwide drug manufacturers. If you take away that marketplace, we may very well see a drastic collapse in new drug investment.
3) A more free market would solve many of the issues we currently have, as shown by the less-regulated healthcare industries like eye-correction surgery and plastic surgery.
4) The US system is actually very good when you look at metrics that are most dependent on the quality of a healthcare system, and least dependent on lifestyle and social issues: like cancer survival rates.
5) Current publically run healthcare systems in the US are crap, and there's absolutely no reason to think the government would do better if everyone were on them.
You may think these are all bad reasons, but note that none of them are summed up by "what's mine is mine." When you meet someone against universal healthcare, it might be a good idea to actually listen to them and respond to their real concerns.
1) lol
2) Other healthcare systems still need drugs
3) Correlation != causation. Those 2 sectors are "optional" ie none life saving, so the demand is more elastic so if the price is too high people just won't bother. If someone is going to die they'll put themselves and their family into huge debt to get it if they can (or more realistically people will feel pressured into working shit jobs with shit pay in order to get work provided healthcare they couldn't otherwise get)
4) Depends on the metrics you choose. [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#7e51b581576f[/url]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037975]1) A foundational assumption that more than basic healthcare has never been a human right, and didn't suddenly become one now.[/quote]
What would you even define as basic healthcare? Being able to not die when it's preventable? That's not a possibility for every US citizen.
[Quote]2) The US is the marketplace for worldwide drug manufacturers. If you take away that marketplace, we may very well see a drastic collapse in new drug investment.[/quote]
This is going to need a more extensive explanation. Why would universal healthcare get rid of the drug marketplace altogether? You know drug manufacturers exist in non-US countries with universal healthcare right?
[Quote]3) A more free market would solve many of the issues we currently have, as shown by the less-regulated healthcare industries like eye-correction surgery and plastic surgery.[/quote]
Eye-correction and plastic surgeries are by and large non-vital. One can abstain from them and be totally fine. The same can't be said of most of the medical industry. When your life or health is at stake, you're not in a position to bargain, and as such the mechanics are completely different. Plastic surgery is way too different with regular treatments to be a relevant comparison.
To the contrary, when it comes to regular healthcare, universal healthcare systems end up costing much less and providing cover for much more people, if only for the bargaining power it provides.
[Quote]4) The US system is actually very good when you look at metrics that are most dependent on the quality of a healthcare system: like cancer survival rates.[/quote]
Gonna need some actual numbers on this.
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035412]I theorize that much of it comes from the nature of discussion getting more and more shallow over time. We fail to address the real underlying differences and fundamental assumptions that give reasoning to our specific policy positions. For example, look at the issue of taxation on the wealthy. The general conversation goes something like this: The republican party lowers taxes on the wealthy > The democrats say that the Republicans are shills and don't care about the poor. > The republicans say that the democrats just want to keep the poor dependent on them. > etc.
Neither of these positions are true for the vast majority of either side. There are extremely nuanced views that absolutely need to be out in the open if we are to come to any understanding.
For this issue specifically, one major difference that I see is the basic idea of whether a person has a fundamental right to money they've legally collected. You often hear people on the left side of the spectrum refer to tax breaks as giving money back to the rich. They see that tax money as rightfully belonging to the government, or the society at large. So by lowering taxes, you are actually taking money from the society and giving to the wealthy. Of course, this sounds horrendous! How bad of a person do you have to be to want to take money from the poor and give it to the rich? The republicans must have evil intentions.
On the other side, the republicans see it as the rich person's money. By lowering taxes, they are simply letting people keep more of what belongs to them anyway. No one else has any rightful claim to it, and any taxation must be absolutely necessary to justify going against this basic fact. When the democrats call for higher taxes specifically on the wealthy, the republicans see it as equivalent to allowing theft based on a person having more money. Those democrats must be bad people!
A discussion about the nature of ownership, how it applies to taxes, and the how the responsibility of a person changes base on their wealth would be far more helpful than a discussion about the specific policy decision of raising taxes on the wealthy, yet we never hear those kinds of discussions. Most people haven't even considered it before.[/QUOTE]
While we're at it let's also address this. Most anti-taxation people base their beliefs on the assumption that money earned is money that is deserved, ie they think they live in a meritocracy, which is especially incorrect in the United States.
This is due to many factors but the most significant one, and one that is valid for any capitalist nation, is that owning money enables you to make even more money.
Assuming that the money that the rich person owns to begin with is completely deserved based on their merit (a gross oversimplification for the vast majority of cases) why would additional money gained due to owning said money be deserved? The person provided no additional work to deserve it? Why should mere ownership be considered a merit?
Hence why I find it hilariously stupid when right-wingers cry about the government "stealing" their money. They'd have to demonstrate that all of it was deserved in the first place to have a point.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037856]It sounds to me like he's saying you ought to treat them as normal people who are wrong about X, Y, or Z issue instead of treating them like fascist evildoers. Your goal should be to get them alongside you, not destroy them.[/QUOTE]
Kinda hard when many members of the right wing genuinely believe in crazy, absolute non sense like pizzagate, or that genuinely believe abortion rights, gay marriage, and marijuana legalization are the end of society and must be violently opposed. Those citizens, who have representatives who mirror those views.
You couldn't even find one fucking socialist in the US senate(Bernie is too weak on his socialism to actually count) but you can find genuinely insane people with religious beliefs that are beyond the fucking pale, or other mindsets the right has fostered for years.
You always seem to shit on young people, millennials, and the left, but you seem to always miss that the right is a huge part of all of this.
Honestly, I'm not going to make the whole argument right now. It's not the topic of this thread. My purpose of giving that list was to demonstrate that both your post, and the quip of "what's mine is mine," is more demagoguery than real representation of why people hold their positions.
Like I said, those arguments are up for debate. They aren't some hard set of objective facts, but if you really want to convince people, if you really want to bring people to your side, you need to actually address what they believe and not this evil maniacal strawman that you seem to have set up for yourself.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037975]Yes, there is, and the fact that you seem incredulous to the claim tells me that you have no clue about why people hold the positions that they do. Their concerns might be some combination of the following, in no specific order:
1) A foundational assumption that more than basic healthcare has never been a human right, and didn't suddenly become one now.
2) The US is the marketplace for worldwide drug manufacturers. If you take away that marketplace, we may very well see a drastic collapse in new drug investment.
3) A more free market would solve many of the issues we currently have, as shown by the less-regulated healthcare industries like eye-correction surgery and plastic surgery.
4) The US system is actually very good when you look at metrics that are most dependent on the quality of a healthcare system, and least dependent on lifestyle and social issues: like cancer survival rates.
5) Current publically run healthcare systems in the US are crap, and there's absolutely no reason to think the government would do better if everyone were on them.
You may think these are all bad reasons, but note that none of them are summed up by "what's mine is mine." When you meet someone against universal healthcare, it might be a good idea to actually listen to them and respond to their real concerns.[/QUOTE]
1) Everyone else decided it, and it works for them. Weird how you guys need to be the odd one out
2) Oh yeah, that's why PFIZER decided to no longer research drugs like alzheimers in a market that already conforms to what you say will generate more of these drugs. They're pulling out, while you say they won't.
3) Would it? You would god damn require me to cite that down to the detail, but you'll state it, and expect me to just believe it despite my country being a valid example of socialized medicine resulting in better health for the citizenry?
4) Yes, it's good if you can afford it, but it's terrible for anyone else and it's created a trillion dollar debt wave that will need to be dealt with in the future.
5) This is the only valid point you have.
You say "Listen to the people on the right, they have reasons why they believe what they do". God forbid you follow your own advice!
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53038067]Honestly, I'm not going to make the whole argument right now. It's not the topic of this thread. My purpose of giving that list was to demonstrate that both your post, and the quip of "what's mine is mine," is more demagoguery than real representation of why people hold their positions.
Like I said, those arguments are up for debate. They aren't some hard set of objective facts, but if you really want to convince people, if you really want to bring people to your side, you need to actually address what they believe and not this evil maniacal strawman that you seem to have set up for yourself.[/QUOTE]
Why is the LEFT the only one's who have to bridge that divide? Come over and be nice? Why do you give the right such a pass to be cruel, vindictive pricks while basically demanding the left be the bitch-boy in the discussion and just surrender?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53038070]Why is the LEFT the only one's who have to bridge that divide? Come over and be nice? Why do you give the right such a pass to be cruel, vindictive pricks while basically demanding the left be the bitch-boy in the discussion and just surrender?[/QUOTE]
See, I don't remember ever saying anything like that. In fact, I made sure to identify things both the left and right were doing in my very first post. I see this as a generalized problem in American politics.
For example, I said that the right has a tendency to accuse the democrats of just wanting to keep the poor on the government teat, and I think that's nothing more than an equivalent kind of demagoguery that ignores the real arguments of the left when it comes to welfare. It stands as a wall to any meaningful conversation.
Everyone just needs to realize that we aren’t determined by who we voted for in the last election. It is not the left or rights responsibility, it is a human responsibility.
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gbps;53034624]It's really really really hard not to shift most of the blame for this onto our cable news channels.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037975] 4) The US system is actually very good when you look at metrics that are most dependent on the quality of a healthcare system, and least dependent on lifestyle and social issues: like cancer survival rates.[/QUOTE]
Scandinavian here, gonna need the metrics you speak off
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53037416]If the vocal minority id a minority, why did the silent majority vote for a president who is racist and sexist. That makes no sense. If you vote for it then you are complicit.[/QUOTE]
Many reasons, ranging from as complex as the continuing social and economic collapse of rural America which is being completely ignored or even championed by the Democratic party to as simple as "Because Fox News told them to" which leads us back to the partisan media problem from earlier.
Trump's campaign was tailor made to sweep votes from poor rural Americans by appealing to their fears of job loss (especially in the coal producing states) and his tagline of "Make America Great Again" because many of these people either remember or learned from their parents of a time when their towns flourished as most of the workforce worked in the mines and quarries bringing in good money for hard work. Now these towns sit decaying, the population crashing, the residents addicted to drugs, jobs are scarce and everyone is poor. And you have an establishment that pays no attention to them at all, but suddenly here comes the golden Trump promising to bring back the prosperity days long passed, and restore your town's former glory. You are damn right they would vote for him, because [I]someone[/I] finally recognized them and their plight.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53038474]Many reasons, ranging from as complex as the continuing social and economic collapse of rural America which is being completely ignored or even championed by the Democratic party to as simple as "Because Fox News told them to" which leads us back to the partisan media problem from earlier.
Trump's campaign was tailor made to sweep votes from poor rural Americans by appealing to their fears of job loss (especially in the coal producing states) and his tagline of "Make America Great Again" because many of these people either remember or learned from their parents of a time when their towns flourished as most of the workforce worked in the mines and quarries bringing in good money for hard work. Now these towns sit decaying, the population crashing, the residents addicted to drugs, jobs are scarce and everyone is poor. And you have an establishment that pays no attention to them at all, but suddenly here comes the golden Trump promising to bring back the prosperity days long passed, and restore your town's former glory. You are damn right they would vote for him, because [I]someone[/I] finally recognized them and their plight.[/QUOTE]
You're right insofar as Trump did recognize their plight, and that desperate people will grasp at any hope, but the root of things is we've had little political will from the big men in the senate overall when it comes to people left behind by the march of progress. Finding alternatives for those left behind is a touchy job at best without the right amount of political will, and that's if you put your best foot forward and hope they accept training and new employment, even if it might at first be a downgrade to what they'd had before. Also, austerity and cuts won't help matters because without lots of investment in emerging fields you won't find very many new jobs creating themselves. On top of that, the cost of living, education, and healthcare has become just too damn expensive vis a vis the average salaryman's pay.
Nobody wants to end up left behind, but we don't have a good system in place to ensure that unemployment remains a temporary measure at best. And winding up as unskilled labor will suit people even less if that's what some genius might propose. A good beginning of bipartisanship which the republicans claim they want to explore with the democrats would be both parties looking into a way to accomplish this, without coming to blows over cost or screeching about the welfare state.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.