Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64548 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #100 on: February 26, 2019, 11:03:21 AM »
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.

I guess that's why there were four other categories posted to make up the 15% (that you forgot to quote).

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10147
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #101 on: February 26, 2019, 11:07:19 AM »
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.

I guess that's why there were four other categories posted to make up the 15% (that you forgot to quote).
There is a difference between "forgot to quote" vs. "don't know about the other items".

If you have accurate numbers for the others, please provide.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #102 on: February 26, 2019, 11:08:39 AM »
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.

The other categories are definitely higher.

4% of the population were willing to say, out loud, that they would never vote for a black candidate.
You have to wonder what percentage are smart enough not to say it out loud, or are just unaware of the bias that will prevent them from ever favouring such a candidate.
40% said they would never vote for a Muslim (which explains the push to "accuse" Obama of secretly being a Muslim)

Yes, that's a religion, not a race, but I think we know what's going on.

Toque

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10147
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #103 on: February 26, 2019, 11:24:11 AM »
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.
The other categories are definitely higher.
I can believe that. :)

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2903
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #104 on: February 26, 2019, 11:25:32 AM »
From an Australian perspective, the extremes of the conservative fringe, and the left/green fringe have been kept at bay largely because of our compulsory voting system. 

It's hard to get elected on a base of 25% of the population when 87% of the population turns out and votes (91% of registered voters and an all time low last election).

It's also hard to get elected with extreme policies when the voting system is not first past the post.

Maybe electoral reform could help the US with the extremity of it's current political debate.
I agree that our system seems to encourage the more extreme positions. I'd start by eliminating partisan primaries. If parties want to make an effort to unite behind a candidate before an official election in which all voters have a say, they can do it on their own - there's no need for public subsidy of party decisions.

I'd like a way to rank candidates rather than having to pick just one. This would allow me to express who may favorite candidate is without risking "throwing away my vote" on a candidate who has "no chance of being elected". I think we might find a lot of centrist "no chance of being elected" candidates do much better than initially predicted. I'd be satisfied with a single transferable vote system, but would prefer range voting system.

I'd also like to see multi-seat legislative districts with voting systems designed such that the representatives elected each represent the views of a different set of voters within the district. This would help neutralize gerrymandering. For most local governments, the entire body would be a single district. For most states, each county would be a district, for the House of Representatives many states would be a single district (perhaps states with more than 5 representatives could choose to create multiple districts with 3-5 seats per district).

The GOP has become so repulsive, I don't know what else to do than fight them as hard as I can. I wish there were more nuanced choices, but there aren't. There are two sides, and you have to pick one if you want to have any chance of making a difference.
Or work to change the system that promotes there only being two sides - but neither of the two sides who benefit from the current system will support this.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #105 on: February 26, 2019, 12:12:49 PM »
robartsd, I would LOVE ranked choice voting.

They did it in Maine for the 2018 election:

http://www.rcvmaine.com/how_does_ranked_choice_voting_work

I hope to see more states adopt this soon.

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #106 on: February 26, 2019, 12:42:44 PM »
Watchmaker asked "@ericrugiero, just a prompt for further discussion--how do you approach disagreement? Are you as kind, open-minded, fair, generous, and collaborative as you can be?"  I try to be, but of course we all fall short sometimes.  Most people that know me would say that I do tend to fit that description for the most part.

Great! In your original post, you said that too many people were just looking to bash on trump (paraphrasing). Mathlete made a interesting post about Obama's biggest lie, which, if you buy his argument, shows that there's a real difference in the behavior of the current and the last president. What do you think about Mathlete's point? Could it be that some rational people go after Trump  because he genuinely does more objectionable things then other presidents have?

And, if there is an asymmetry in the behavior of Obama and Trump, then wouldn't any neutral news source also, if they want to be accurate, reflect that asymmetry? Is it left leaning if NPR reports on all of Trumps lies (numerous) just as they did on Obama's lies (fewer)?

Norioch

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #107 on: February 26, 2019, 01:03:15 PM »
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #108 on: February 26, 2019, 01:12:32 PM »
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.

This. To a point that almost got to be infuriating sometimes. Because his willingness to believe he could somehow find a way to work with Republicans who openly said anything he was for, they opposed, felt so impossibly naive. To the point of being reminiscent of that old saw about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #109 on: February 26, 2019, 02:05:59 PM »
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.

This. To a point that almost got to be infuriating sometimes. Because his willingness to believe he could somehow find a way to work with Republicans who openly said anything he was for, they opposed, felt so impossibly naive. To the point of being reminiscent of that old saw about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Remember the "beer summit?" Part of me rolled by eyes when he did it. But maybe it helped heal things for those 2 individuals even if it didn't help us heal as a country.

http://archive.boston.com/news/politics/gallery/073009_beer_summit_obama/

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #110 on: February 26, 2019, 02:08:53 PM »
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.
Okay, here's a quick one.
Recess appointments (which were done knowing full well they would engender bitterness) (and did) (and were found unconstitutional in a few cases)
Did Obama do it? Yup. Did W? Yup did Clinton? Yup. It's been awhile (Reagan) since presidents had had the decency not to exercise that power.

Another: 'You didn't build that.' Remember when Obama wrote off much of America has bible thumpin idiots? Clinton seemed to think it was divisive (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4645566&page=1    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008). Just as Romney's 'takers' comment was divisive.

Oh and there are executive actions. I'll preface this by saying, it's pretty darn impossible for these NOT to be divisive (even to colleagues on the same side of the aisle). They are constructed by the President's team and don't receive the deliberation, hearings, and debate that is the domain of Congress.

edit: uggggh I just got into the pissing match of 'Your team did this'; 'What about..?';'Yeah, but your team did that'; 'But, what about..?'; ad nauseum.
Sometimes I just don't like the moral righteousness of partisans and have to speak up.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 02:21:57 PM by JZinCO »

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #111 on: February 26, 2019, 02:39:22 PM »
Okay, here's a quick one.
Recess appointments (which were done knowing full well they would engender bitterness) (and did) (and were found unconstitutional in a few cases)
Did Obama do it? Yup. Did W? Yup did Clinton? Yup. It's been awhile (Reagan) since presidents had had the decency not to exercise that power.

Another: 'You didn't build that.' Remember when Obama wrote off much of America has bible thumpin idiots? Clinton seemed to think it was divisive (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4645566&page=1    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008). Just as Romney's 'takers' comment was divisive.

Oh and there are executive actions. I'll preface this by saying, it's pretty darn impossible for these NOT to be divisive (even to colleagues on the same side of the aisle). They are constructed by the President's team and don't receive the deliberation, hearings, and debate that is the domain of Congress.

edit: uggggh I just got into the pissing match of 'Your team did this'; 'What about..?';'Yeah, but your team did that'; 'But, what about..?'; ad nauseum.
Sometimes I just don't like the moral righteousness of partisans and have to speak up.

"You didn't build that." was my first thought as well. It sat fine with me because even though I'm a successful person, I generally think "bootstrapping" and "self-made" are mostly mythology. He's right. Everyone gets help, and the most successful people get the most and the best help.

He should have had the political foresight to see how that comment would play though.

Regarding the guns and religion comment, the whole context is,

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Again, I think he's right. When the world doesn't reward struggling people with the opportunity they think they're entitled to, things get nasty. Jews were scapegoated as the cause of post-war Germany's problems just as Mexicans and Chinese manufacturing are scapegoated today. There are lots of racists and opioid addicts in the Midwest who would be perfectly pleasant people if $60K manufacturing jobs with pensions still existed.

But those comments play to academics and intellectuals. An aspiring president should choose his words more carefully.

---

Both of these examples are valid criticisms and examples of Obama being divisive. I agree. But with Obama, it is a matter of choosing his words more carefully. There is a good faith interpretation that you can make from what he says.

There is no good faith way to interpret Donald Trump spreading false propaganda about black crime. There's no good faith way to interpret him saying that an American judge can't be impartial because he's Mexican. There's no good faith way to interpret moving on women "like a bitch" and grabbing their pussies without permission.

Not even in the same stratosphere of divisiveness.

Nickel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Location: Portland
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #112 on: February 26, 2019, 02:46:51 PM »
I occasionally get frustrated with comments in this forum but I'm frequently disappointed with comments from both liberals and conservatives elsewhere who don't seem to be able to see both sides of an issue and make logical arguments for why they believe what they do. So many comments (on facebook, twitter, tv, etc) are inflammatory and lack the logical arguments needed to change anyone's mind.

When beliefs are based on feelings (indoctrination, tribalism, family, friends, media, habit, religion, identity), they tend to be immune to facts, logic and argument.  (Galileo's heresy, flat earth, climate change denial, etc.) Having lived the first 20+ years of my life in a fundamentalist, Christian, conservative family, my beliefs and views changed gradually because of education and curious inquiry.  When I learned the truth, e.g., about our governments' actions in Latin America, or how the Bible was compiled, it caused me to question "everything" and fearlessly seek truth.  That is a path some are only willing to take so far, because it can shatter one's core beliefs or relationships.

The "liberal" and "conservative" labels are part of the problem.  They reinforce tribalism, rather than get to the truth.  Is it fiscally "conservative" to exacerbate our national debt by giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy?  Wrong question.  Is it wise?  Does it work best for society as a whole, including future generations? 

When your "tribe" does something, it not only defines your tribe, it compels you to defend it and reinforce your feelings about it Sometimes, it gets ridiculous.  The lengths that some good, well-meaning people go to defend Trump's actions is shocking.  When it becomes impossible, they sometimes get quiet or angry.  I can make compelling arguments in favor of separating children from their parents at the border, or eugenics, or genocide ... (see Deuteronomy). But if you ever find yourself making those kind of arguments, it is time to retrace your steps and find out how you lost your way on the path of human decency.

Why can't we all agree to get of gerrymandering?  Why can't we enact campaign finance reform that reduces political bribery/corruption?  These should be nonpartisan issues.  But many "conservative" and "liberal" politicians will do almost anything to protect their wealth/power, and voters are too easily duped into supporting their tribe and opposing the other tribe to hold their representatives accountable.


 

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #113 on: February 26, 2019, 02:48:03 PM »
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.
Okay, here's a quick one.
Recess appointments (which were done knowing full well they would engender bitterness) (and did) (and were found unconstitutional in a few cases)
Did Obama do it? Yup. Did W? Yup did Clinton? Yup. It's been awhile (Reagan) since presidents had had the decency not to exercise that power.

For context...

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42329.html
Quote
President Obama made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time positions. During his presidency, President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions and 44 to part-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 to full-time positions and 72 to part-time positions.
...
In each of the 32 instances in which President Obama made a recess appointment, the individual also was nominated to the position to which he or she was appointed. In all of these cases, a related nomination to the position preceded the recess appointment.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/
Quote
By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obamaís term, for a total of 147.

Reidís point is actually a bit stronger using these these revised numbers. Using these figures, blockages under Obama actually accounted for more than half of the total, not less then half. Either way, it's disproportionate by historical standards.

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #114 on: February 26, 2019, 02:52:54 PM »
Watchmaker asked "@ericrugiero, just a prompt for further discussion--how do you approach disagreement? Are you as kind, open-minded, fair, generous, and collaborative as you can be?"  I try to be, but of course we all fall short sometimes.  Most people that know me would say that I do tend to fit that description for the most part.

Great! In your original post, you said that too many people were just looking to bash on trump (paraphrasing). Mathlete made a interesting post about Obama's biggest lie, which, if you buy his argument, shows that there's a real difference in the behavior of the current and the last president. What do you think about Mathlete's point? Could it be that some rational people go after Trump  because he genuinely does more objectionable things then other presidents have?

And, if there is an asymmetry in the behavior of Obama and Trump, then wouldn't any neutral news source also, if they want to be accurate, reflect that asymmetry? Is it left leaning if NPR reports on all of Trumps lies (numerous) just as they did on Obama's lies (fewer)?

I do agree that Trump is more objectionable in his behavior and mannerisms than Obama.  Obama is very polished and does a very good job of looking and acting presidential.  Trump is controversial and seems to almost enjoy antagonizing opponents (and the media).  So, I can appreciate the argument that NPR might object to Trump's antics a little more and report on them accordingly. 

But, lets not carried away and say Obama didn't lie very much.   
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/?utm_term=.4c8d79086518 
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #115 on: February 26, 2019, 02:53:41 PM »
I'm perfectly okay discussing Obama's divisive rhetoric. He is not above criticism. But while we're discussing two or three select quotes from an 11 year stint as the most admired man in the country, we should also note that last week, not for the first time, Donald Trump called the press the enemy of the people.

Yesterday, he said that, "Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they donít mind executing babies AFTER birth." Which of course, stems from a bullshit interpretation of a Senate vote.

It's fine to acknowledge that two parties can be deficient by some metric. Just as long as we don't ignore the obvious reality that one side is orders of magnitude worse.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #116 on: February 26, 2019, 03:02:01 PM »
I thought when someone said that Obama was being "divisive" I thought they meant racially divisive, not say appointing a judicial nominee during recess which the Republican party didn't like.

"You didn't build that" I have to think about that. Most of the successful people I know would agree with that statement. So if successful people agree with that statement, it doesn't seem that controversial. Not that these people are saying they didn't put a whole lot of hard work into getting where they are. But that they acknowledge that they wouldn't be where they are, without other factors, whether it was being born in the US, or being able to immigrate to the US. Being born white. Having family members loan them money, and even having particular individuals in their life who believed in them early on, etc. Simply being born in the US is such a huge advantage it would be silly not to acknowledge this. It doesn't take away from anyone's success to acknowledge this, and one would want to create an environment where more people can succeed, not less. For example it is really really hard to succeed in some countries due to the corruption of the government. The only people who "succeed" in those countries are people who are corrupt government officials, or the businesspeople working with the corrupt officials.   

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #117 on: February 26, 2019, 03:09:36 PM »
I'm perfectly okay discussing Obama's divisive rhetoric. He is not above criticism. But while we're discussing two or three select quotes from an 11 year stint as the most admired man in the country, we should also note that last week, not for the first time, Donald Trump called the press the enemy of the people.

Yesterday, he said that, "Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they donít mind executing babies AFTER birth." Which of course, stems from a bullshit interpretation of a Senate vote.

It's fine to acknowledge that two parties can be deficient by some metric. Just as long as we don't ignore the obvious reality that one side is orders of magnitude worse.

What a surprise now Democrats are being called "baby killers".

In real news, with real human children, Trump made it a federal crime to cross the border. And enforced de facto, parents being separated from their children at the border. Parents are the primal, number one protectors of their children. Parents and children separated, children in a foreign country. And now, many of these children are unaccounted for (at least 1500). There are real concerns these children are ending up with human traffickers.   
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #118 on: February 26, 2019, 03:16:24 PM »
I do agree that Trump is more objectionable in his behavior and mannerisms than Obama.  Obama is very polished and does a very good job of looking and acting presidential.  Trump is controversial and seems to almost enjoy antagonizing opponents (and the media).  So, I can appreciate the argument that NPR might object to Trump's antics a little more and report on them accordingly. 

But, lets not carried away and say Obama didn't lie very much.   
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/?utm_term=.4c8d79086518 
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds

Of course Obama lied. But he was held accountable. By voters. By Republicans. By the so-called liberal media. And I wrote a big long post a page ago about how he answered for one of his biggest false statements and took responsibility.

Trump lies much more, and takes responsibility for nothing. And he's not held responsible by his party (89% approval among Republicans).

I'm glad you referenced the Washington Post Fact Checker, because Trump just made a comment on the WaPo Fact Checker a week ago.

Quote
The Washington Post is a Fact Checker only for the Democrats. For the Republicans, and for your all time favorite President, it is a Fake Fact Checker!

He doesn't like the Washington Post, likely because they accurately report on the bad things he does. And conservatives follow suit. Per Pew Research, conservatives rated the Washington Post "more distrusted than trusted."

Personally, I consider The Post the paper of record and it's silly to think that there's enough bias there that they're simply making things up. But fine, whatever. Maybe Republicans think they're biased.

Where is the high quality, conservative leaning outlet that does original reporting and robust fact-checking then? There isn't one. That's why even conservatives cite Politifact and WaPo.

There aren't any high quality, conservative leaning outlets that do robust original reporting because by and large, conservatives do not values these things. This isn't just liberal rhetoric from me either. I have data.

In the same Pew Research survey, consistent conservatives were found to trust only seven outlets, and among them, only one subscription newspaper.  The other trusted outlets?

-Fox News
-Breitbart
-The Drudge Report
-Glenn Beck
-Sean Hannity
-Rush Limbaugh

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #119 on: February 26, 2019, 03:46:03 PM »
I do agree that Trump is more objectionable in his behavior and mannerisms than Obama.  Obama is very polished and does a very good job of looking and acting presidential.  Trump is controversial and seems to almost enjoy antagonizing opponents (and the media).  So, I can appreciate the argument that NPR might object to Trump's antics a little more and report on them accordingly. 

But, lets not carried away and say Obama didn't lie very much.   
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/?utm_term=.4c8d79086518 
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds

I agree that Obama also lied. It sounds like we both agree that he didn't lie nearly as much as Trump does. I'm less certain that we agree on this next point: Obama's lies were not as egregious as many of Trump's. I only have time right now for one example, but lets look at the the first one from the WaPo article:

ďMore young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across AmericaĒ

Obama was wrong, by a factor of 2.5 times. But he was probably referring to this story which had recently been in the news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21001543/ns/us_news-life/t/more-blacks-latinos-jail-college-dorms/

In short, the report says that more black people live in prison cells than dorm rooms in the US. That is very different from what Obama said (critically it doesn't count college students who live off campus). But it's not qualitatively different from what he was trying to say and if he'd gotten his facts right, his point would still have been reasonable (that there are too many young black men in prison).

I'm not here to defend Obama. But the point I hope I'm making is that it is not bias to treat his lies and Trump's lies differently, since the nature and scope of their lies are different.




robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2903
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #120 on: February 26, 2019, 03:57:51 PM »
robartsd, I would LOVE ranked choice voting.

They did it in Maine for the 2018 election:

http://www.rcvmaine.com/how_does_ranked_choice_voting_work

I hope to see more states adopt this soon.
I'd modify the process for eliminating candidates to reduce the number of rounds. In each round eliminate as many candidates as possible such that the remaining candidates combined have a majority of votes and each have more votes than any eliminated candidate.

I'd also allow ranking only a subset of candidates (optional preferential voting) - if they all get eliminated, your vote doesn't transfer to another candidate, but it still is counted as a vote for determining how many votes makes a majority. Due to these votes that do not go to any remaining candidate, it is possible that you'd come to a round where no candidate can be eliminated but no candidate has a majority. The candidates remaining in this round could then be subjected to a runoff where voters are required to rank all candidates (full preferential voting). I could see replacing primaries with an optional preferential voting round in which the candidates in the last round that has multiple candidates advance to the next round face off in a full preferential voting general election (even if the next round would have found a winner).

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #121 on: February 26, 2019, 05:23:37 PM »
He should have had the political foresight to see how that comment would play though.
....

But those comments play to academics and intellectuals. An aspiring president should choose his words more carefully.

---

Both of these examples are valid criticisms and examples of Obama being divisive. I agree. But with Obama, it is a matter of choosing his words more carefully. There is a good faith interpretation that you can make from what he says.

There is no good faith way to interpret Donald Trump spreading false propaganda about black crime. There's no good faith way to interpret him saying that an American judge can't be impartial because he's Mexican. There's no good faith way to interpret moving on women "like a bitch" and grabbing their pussies without permission.

Not even in the same stratosphere of divisiveness.
Agree, Obama's professorial rhetoric in general was not received well by many people. Noone wants to feel talked down or as if they were an idiot (in some circles this is called mansplaining).

To those who replied to my comments. I can't say you're wrong. Truly there is no epitome of a bad politician moreso than Trump. But you're in engaging in a tu quoque logical fallacy. It really doesn't matter whatsoever if Obama's divisiveness was well-intentioned or not built on falsehoods. It still rubs people the wrong way and still is not the way to make progress.

I truly just don't use situational ethics and I'm not a consequentialist. It's wrong or it's right. There are degrees of severity, sure. But I can't hold one political figure on a pedestal while I criticize another for the same actions. It doesn't matter if Obama lies less than Trump. They still did it and exercised the same lack of restraint.
I'm just saying, we should everyone accountable with every instance of bad behavior.

If you don't believe me, here is an example of why that matters:
- Obama expanded on the use of executive orders to sidestep barriers (as did his predecessors) or cover up scandals, creating precedents in the court system for a further expanded power of the presidency. Most of us sat by and were like 'Well, yeah we should let Obama disempower Congress.. after all they are holding him back'
- Do we not expect Trump to do the same? Why should we be outraged when we were part of creating that potential.
I say we hold politicians of all stripes accountable, NOT engage in a pissing contest of who does it worse (else we get back to the 'What about...?' loop of endless bickering).
The solution is that we as citizens need to be ever vigilant for abuses of power and dangerous or counterproductive speech, NOT let it slide or argue it away when our priorities are aligned. Because, we don't know when some jagoff (Trump) or even some smooth talking, progressive but REAL authoritarian will take the mantle.

/libertarian-esque rant
 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #122 on: February 26, 2019, 05:35:13 PM »
Mansplaining is a man explaining something obvious to a woman who already knows it.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #123 on: February 26, 2019, 06:37:28 PM »
Mansplaining is a man explaining something obvious to a woman who already knows it.
Thanks for splaining ;)

Should I mansplain to you why the same professorial/ belittling tone that Obama would use is mansplaining?...
the dictionary definition of mansplaining is the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
Obama was frequently cited as speaking in a condescending or patronizing tone (source: google 'Obama patronizing', see media articles)
Hence Obama's style of rhetoric, in another context is the same style that is cited as mansplaining.

edit: Here is a classic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=102&v=caBzcSYLnEI I could easily see how someone in this woman's shoes being talked to in this way (notice her head nodding like 'yes, yes, okay just answer my question and stop telling me how it is') would call this mansplaining.
 Look I am an academic. I speak like this everyday; the reason I do it is because I am aware of the curse of knowledge. As a tactic to make sure I don't lose listeners, I have to assume the listeners aren't already up to speed. So it's no judgement, but I'm acknowledging that this style of rhetoric is indeed off putting.

open/shut, back to the Off-topic topic?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 06:51:20 PM by JZinCO »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #124 on: February 26, 2019, 07:17:17 PM »
Mansplaining is a man explaining something obvious to a woman who already knows it.
Thanks for splaining ;)

Should I mansplain to you why the same professorial/ belittling tone that Obama would use is mansplaining?...
the dictionary definition of mansplaining is the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
Obama was frequently cited as speaking in a condescending or patronizing tone (source: google 'Obama patronizing', see media articles)
Hence Obama's style of rhetoric, in another context is the same style that is cited as mansplaining.

edit: Here is a classic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=102&v=caBzcSYLnEI I could easily see how someone in this woman's shoes being talked to in this way (notice her head nodding like 'yes, yes, okay just answer my question and stop telling me how it is') would call this mansplaining.
 Look I am an academic. I speak like this everyday; the reason I do it is because I am aware of the curse of knowledge. As a tactic to make sure I don't lose listeners, I have to assume the listeners aren't already up to speed. So it's no judgement, but I'm acknowledging that this style of rhetoric is indeed off putting.

open/shut, back to the Off-topic topic?

Nope.

But nice try, guy.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 07:22:01 PM by Kris »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #125 on: February 27, 2019, 06:09:59 AM »
I thought when someone said that Obama was being "divisive" I thought they meant racially divisive, not say appointing a judicial nominee during recess which the Republican party didn't like.

They were. They moved the goalposts.

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #126 on: February 27, 2019, 06:46:20 AM »
What a surprise now Democrats are being called "baby killers".

In real news, with real human children, Trump made it a federal crime to cross the border. And enforced de facto, parents being separated from their children at the border. Parents are the primal, number one protectors of their children. Parents and children separated, children in a foreign country. And now, many of these children are unaccounted for (at least 1500). There are real concerns these children are ending up with human traffickers.   
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html

I've been staying away from the abortion topic because it's so controversial and unlikely for anyone to change their mind.  But, it is a good example of a very controversial topic where there is a logical argument on each side that ends up in very different place depending on your starting beliefs. 

Pro-Choice Perspective (you can correct me if I'm wrong).  Before birth, we are a fetus that isn't human, has no rights and does not need to be protected.  Because the fetus is in a woman's body, it will have a major impact on her life.  She should have the freedom to choose what to do with her life and her body.  It's not fair for others (especially men who are not impacted the same way) to tell her what she has to do with her body.  How is it consistent for pro-life people to not take major action on situations like the migrant children mentioned above?  They don't care about people or they would take action on that and many other situations. 

Pro-Life Perspective.  From conception we are a human being that should be protected.  There is a very real and significant impact on the life of the mother if she has to carry the baby to term which should not be minimized.  But, this impact pales in comparison to the taking of another human life.  We are not allowed to kill someone else because their life causes us inconvenience.  All human rights matter but we don't have any other situations like killing 700,000 babies/year in the US.  How is it consistent for the pro-choice people to point fingers over 1,500 children (not that they don't matter) and then support killing babies? Shouldn't we address the biggest problem?  Adoption is an option which does impact the mother's life significantly but ends up in a much better place for the baby.

To me, there is a logical argument for each side if you accept the starting point.  We just start in two very different places.  I can respect the argument and the people who believe it for the most part (I do have an issue with celebrating abortion).  I think if we understand the arguments and keep in mind that both sides mean well (for the most part) we can be much more civil in our disagreement. 


mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #127 on: February 27, 2019, 06:54:27 AM »
I'm just saying, we should everyone accountable with every instance of bad behavior.

I say we hold politicians of all stripes accountable,

The solution is that we as citizens need to be ever vigilant for abuses of power and dangerous or counterproductive speech,

Of course. 100%. No one could possibly disagree with these statements in a vacuum. But it's here where we get back to having to recognize objective realities. Liberal Democrats are held accountable. Because institutions that are commonly thought of as liberal (newspapers, fact-checkers, etc.) hold them accountable, and the democratic base has trust in these institutions.

Honesty and Accuracy

I've already made a big long post about how Obama was held accountable, and took responsibility for his false claim that people could keep their current plan under Obamacare, so I won't cover that again. Here's another example though:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a firebrand, so she tends to get fact-checked a lot for someone who is a freshman congresswoman in office for less than two months.

When she felt that the editorial process in Politifact and the Washington Post's Fact Checks were unfair, she made pointed criticisms, while accepting responsibilitty for being wrong or not as accurate/clear as she should be,

Quote
Facts are facts, America. We should care about getting things right. Yet standards of who gets fact-checked, how often + why are unclear. This is where false equivalency+bias creeps in, allowing climate deniers to be put on par w/scientists, for example. For example, it looks like @PolitiFact has fact-checked Sarah Huckabee Sanders and myself the *same* amount of times: 6.

Sheís been serving for almost 2 years. Iíve served 4 days. Why is she fact-checked so little? Is she adhering to some standard we donít know about?

This culminated in exchanges with The Post and Politifcat in which we all got to learn a bit more about the fact-checking process, Ocasio Cortez saying that her words aren't meant as an attack, but legimitage questions, and that she respect the importance of the job journalists and fact-checkers do.

But when these very same institutions Fact Check Donald Trump, he simply dismisses them as straight up fake. He did it last week:

Quote
The Washington Post is a Fact Checker only for the Democrats. For the Republicans, and for your all time favorite President, it is a Fake Fact Checker!

And his base agrees with him. They don't call him out on this bullshit. Per Pew Research, they also agree that The Washington Post is not trustworthy. Even OP, who seems like a really nice guy, refers to this practice of the media checking the president as:

our media as a whole and many other people are so caught up in trashing Donald Trump and anyone they disagree with that we can't have a reasonable and open discussion

Racism

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) admitted to wearing blackface at a party in the 1980s. I don't think this makes him a horrible person or anything, but it creates enough doubt over whether he can govern equally for all races, that I think it's a legitimate topic of discussion. The Democratic Governor's Associate has called for him to resign. It's ultimately on Northam for whether or not he actually steps down. I suspect he won't, but the pressure is there. He has less political leeway now.

Donald Trump spread false and dangerous rhetoric about black people. He "both-sides" Charlottesville, drawing false equivalence between counter protesters and murderous Neo-Confederates and Nazis. Republican congressman Steven King is a white nationalist. These guys face comparatively little pressure because their base could not give a shit.

Sexual Misconduct

A story came out about Senator Al Franken unwantedly kissing Leanne Tweeden. A juvenile photo he took of her while she was sleeping lent a lot of credibility that this behavior was in his character. He faced pressure from fellow Democrats and resigned.

The same month that he resigned, Republican stood by Roy Moore as extremely credible accusations of pedophila surfaced.

Donald Trump:

Quote
We don't need a liberal person in [the Senate], a Democrat, Jones

Sarah Sanders:

Quote
The president wants people in the House and Senate who support his agenda.

Kellyanne Conway:

Quote
I'm telling you we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through.

And in the end, Moore got over 600K votes from the Republican base. Thank god it wasn't enough, but only barely.

---

I am on board with holding everyone accountable. I think I do a fair job of it personally, and I support institutions like The Times, The Post, Politifact, etc. that hold everyone accountable.

Right now, I'm holding conservative Americans accountable, because I think they're asleep at the accountability wheel.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #128 on: February 27, 2019, 07:06:30 AM »
What a surprise now Democrats are being called "baby killers".

In real news, with real human children, Trump made it a federal crime to cross the border. And enforced de facto, parents being separated from their children at the border. Parents are the primal, number one protectors of their children. Parents and children separated, children in a foreign country. And now, many of these children are unaccounted for (at least 1500). There are real concerns these children are ending up with human traffickers.   
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html

I've been staying away from the abortion topic because it's so controversial and unlikely for anyone to change their mind.  But, it is a good example of a very controversial topic where there is a logical argument on each side that ends up in very different place depending on your starting beliefs. 

Pro-Choice Perspective (you can correct me if I'm wrong).  Before birth, we are a fetus that isn't human, has no rights and does not need to be protected.  Because the fetus is in a woman's body, it will have a major impact on her life.  She should have the freedom to choose what to do with her life and her body.  It's not fair for others (especially men who are not impacted the same way) to tell her what she has to do with her body.  How is it consistent for pro-life people to not take major action on situations like the migrant children mentioned above?  They don't care about people or they would take action on that and many other situations. 

Pro-Life Perspective.  From conception we are a human being that should be protected.  There is a very real and significant impact on the life of the mother if she has to carry the baby to term which should not be minimized.  But, this impact pales in comparison to the taking of another human life.  We are not allowed to kill someone else because their life causes us inconvenience.  All human rights matter but we don't have any other situations like killing 700,000 babies/year in the US.  How is it consistent for the pro-choice people to point fingers over 1,500 children (not that they don't matter) and then support killing babies? Shouldn't we address the biggest problem?  Adoption is an option which does impact the mother's life significantly but ends up in a much better place for the baby.

To me, there is a logical argument for each side if you accept the starting point.  We just start in two very different places.  I can respect the argument and the people who believe it for the most part (I do have an issue with celebrating abortion).  I think if we understand the arguments and keep in mind that both sides mean well (for the most part) we can be much more civil in our disagreement.

I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #129 on: February 27, 2019, 07:08:32 AM »
The basis of the pro life movement that humans are humans at conception (corrected) i.e. they have a "spirit", is based on religious scripture. While it is a compelling argument for those who are of those religious sects, it is NOT a logical argument. It is also a relatively recent interpretation of scripture, based on a pope (not part of original scripture).
We are a country where for our government we have separation of church and state. We are free to follow our faiths, so for example if your religion prohibits abortion, you are free NOT to get an abortion. We also have freedom FROM religion. That means that you cannot prohibit someone else from having an abortion, simply because your religion prohibits it. It is a religious prohibition, not a scientific, moral or legal one.

Scientifically speaking, I would say that pro choice people would say that an fertilized zygote and embryo is a "potential person". They are not yet a person, but have the potential to become a human. There is no guarantee that fertilized egg will develop into a human. In fact if you factor in fertilized eggs, over 70% miscarry before becoming a "human". In contrast, a born human, does not spontaneously abort or cease to exist. A born human also does not depend on another person's life in such an intimate matter, to exist.

During the early parts of pregnancy, unless you were a doctor/involved in her care, you would not even know she was pregnant. That person's status is a personal medical one, between that woman and her doctor.
It is an issue of privacy.

Legally speaking, we have the concept of bodily autonomy. It is the reason that for example, a person cannot be forced to say give a kidney to another person even if they can get by perfectly fine with only one kidney, and donating that kidney would save that other person's life.  A police officer does not even have the right to order person's blood to be drawn, without their legal consent. Consider that with the highly invasive concept of forcing someone to bear a child they do not want.
Legally speaking a unborn baby does not have the same rights as a born human. There are a few exceptions to this, especially when getting to a point where the unborn human could exist independently of the mother, but in generally legally speaking a fetus is not considered to be human or have the same rights as a human.   
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 10:32:59 AM by partgypsy »

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Location: oh
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #130 on: February 27, 2019, 07:48:08 AM »
I am actually pro-choice, but I do understand the view points of both sides.  This is such a contentious issue.  Don't you think the New York legislatures act of "celebrating" instead of just doing what they think is right and quietly walking away could be viewed as an act of divisiveness.

Also, I know this isn't going to make sense.  I did not vote for Trump,  I am not for the wall, I think that declaring an emergency and building it anyway is an abuse of power, but unlogically I was a little glad Trump did it anyway.  a) there is no way it's going to stand up in the courts.  b) I saw Nancy Pelosi as gloating over the victory.

Gondolin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #131 on: February 27, 2019, 07:57:12 AM »
Quote
To those who replied to my comments. I can't say you're wrong. Truly there is no epitome of a bad politician moreso than Trump.
....
I say we hold politicians of all stripes accountable, NOT engage in a pissing contest of who does it worse (else we get back to the 'What about...?' loop of endless bickering).
The solution is that we as citizens need to be ever vigilant for abuses of power and dangerous or counterproductive speech, NOT let it slide or argue it away when our priorities are aligned. Because, we don't know when some jagoff (Trump) or even some smooth talking, progressive but REAL authoritarian will take the mantle.

See, you wanted this to come across as a series rational, patriotic, even-handed, non-partisan arguments that logically leds to a simple conclusion sane person would agree with.

What it actually looks like is run-of-the-mill centrist cowardice coupled the elitist "above it all" attitude of a Gary Johnson voter. Trump's actively burning down the house but Obama lit a match once so it must be ok. You're the real patriot, ready to jump into the fray when a "real" authoritarian threat arises but till then no need to dirty your hands.

Of course, I doubt you meant to make such divisive comments but, as I believe you said upthread, the perception of the audience is the driving reality.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #132 on: February 27, 2019, 08:22:51 AM »
Abortion is a great example of a topic where I think there can be reasonable disagreement. Picking where human life begins is going to be completely arbitrary. I think it's a bad idea for liberals to die on this hill. If conservatives think a fetus is a human being, then it rationalizes a hell of a lot of the things they do, and the rhetoric they use on the issue. I think that's fair to some extent.

I agree with legalized abortions for a number of reasons.

1.) It's a woman's body and I don't think the state can compel her to use it to keep a fetus/person alive.

2.) Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will instead, keep access to safe abortions as a privilege for the rich, and restrict the poor to no access, or dangerous access. This widens the achievement and opportunity gap between the rich and poor.

A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #133 on: February 27, 2019, 08:42:35 AM »
A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.

Agreed.

But another way to reduce abortions would be to provide support for people to raise children so that the task becomes less impossible/daunting.  Things like extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded food programs, enrichment programs would all help do this.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5501
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #134 on: February 27, 2019, 08:49:57 AM »
A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.

Agreed.

But another way to reduce abortions would be to provide support for people to raise children so that the task becomes less impossible/daunting.  Things like extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded food programs, enrichment programs would all help do this.

This.

And if I saw conservatives devote even a tiny fraction of their efforts towards these things -- working to elect lawmakers who supported them, for example -- instead of all of their time and attention toward removing a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I might feel a lot less cynicism toward the whole "pro-life" movement.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #135 on: February 27, 2019, 08:59:29 AM »
Abortion is a great example of a topic where I think there can be reasonable disagreement. Picking where human life begins is going to be completely arbitrary. I think it's a bad idea for liberals to die on this hill. If conservatives think a fetus is a human being, then it rationalizes a hell of a lot of the things they do, and the rhetoric they use on the issue. I think that's fair to some extent.

I agree with legalized abortions for a number of reasons.

1.) It's a woman's body and I don't think the state can compel her to use it to keep a fetus/person alive.

2.) Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will instead, keep access to safe abortions as a privilege for the rich, and restrict the poor to no access, or dangerous access. This widens the achievement and opportunity gap between the rich and poor.

A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.

I don't know if there is a way to reduce abortions to zero because even the pill has a non-zero contraceptive rate. Condoms break. But there are methods that have shown to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and hence abortions, but pro-lifers do NOT promote these methods. Programs like sex education and access to contraceptives not only are not encouraged, but often actively blocked, which we have seen in states that say do not have good sex education, the abortion rate rises. What is going on here? It's not just about "every life is sacred". It's the view that pre-marital sex is prohibited, a sin, and if a female -for whatever reason-including rape or child molestation, does get pregnant, she needs to bear the cost of that "sin" by carrying that child. It's about controlling women and their bodies. It's not about the sinfulness of the men, because men's role in the conception, even in case of child molestation or rape, are not part of the conversation. Nor what happens to the child after it is born. So, it's really not about the sacredness of "life" even though it is framed that way, unless you feel the life of the female or the life of the child post-birth is somehow irrelevant, just those unborn souls.     

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #136 on: February 27, 2019, 09:09:10 AM »
I am on board with holding everyone accountable. I think I do a fair job of it personally, and I support institutions like The Times, The Post, Politifact, etc. that hold everyone accountable.

Right now, I'm holding conservative Americans accountable, because I think they're asleep at the accountability wheel.

+1.

And btw, it's not a responsiblity that I enjoy having.  So as soon as they're ready to take it back, I'll be glad to be rid of it.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 09:15:06 AM by shenlong55 »

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #137 on: February 27, 2019, 11:10:10 AM »
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #138 on: February 27, 2019, 11:31:06 AM »
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #139 on: February 27, 2019, 11:45:28 AM »
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Do they choose to elect people to represent them that would also be "in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved?"  If not, why should I believe their words over their actions?

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #140 on: February 27, 2019, 11:56:16 AM »
Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time. 

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #141 on: February 27, 2019, 12:02:16 PM »
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?

GuitarStv - I'm pro-choice and I agree with you (I think this point is fairly non-contentious) that in the US there is some correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. But I 'm not sure that I believe the language you first used is true for any significant portion of the population ("the life of the child [is] punishment for sin"). And I think we're all better served letting others explain their motivations rather than making that assertion. I think you can construct rational, consistent positions that are pro-life and anti-welfare.

For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.



mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #142 on: February 27, 2019, 12:09:11 PM »

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

ericrugiero

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #143 on: February 27, 2019, 12:18:08 PM »

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success. 

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #144 on: February 27, 2019, 12:36:38 PM »

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13310
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #145 on: February 27, 2019, 12:37:30 PM »
Well, the Conservatives have Andrew Scheer now that they ditched Stephen Harper, and the Liberals have Justin Trudeau.  And of course the NDP (who didn't make the title) have Jagmeet Singh, who just won his by-election.  The Liberals have the advantage of sitting in the middle between a very conservative Conservative party, and a socialist NDP Party.

As you can see I haven't read the comments yet - have you been happy about the slashes Harper made to Federal budgets?  Do you like the tax reforms that give more money to parents of young children?  Do you like what Trudeau has done since taking office?  Or do you think his handling of the Chinese executive extradition was bungled?

Or maybe the title was about Ontario politics?  We also have a Conservative party, presently in power with the brother of the notorious late mayor of Toronto as leader (Doug instead of Rob Ford), a Liberal party that lost the last election, and an NDP party.

Of course if the OP had said liberal and conservative, instead of Liberal and Conservative (i.e. official party names), s/he could have been referring to any country.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #146 on: February 27, 2019, 12:39:44 PM »

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #147 on: February 27, 2019, 12:50:43 PM »
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?

GuitarStv - I'm pro-choice and I agree with you (I think this point is fairly non-contentious) that in the US there is some correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. But I 'm not sure that I believe the language you first used is true for any significant portion of the population ("the life of the child [is] punishment for sin"). And I think we're all better served letting others explain their motivations rather than making that assertion. I think you can construct rational, consistent positions that are pro-life and anti-welfare.

For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.

That's not logically consistent though.

If life is meant to be competitive, then the mother has every right to compete against her unborn child.  My suggestion that support for programs to make raising children more attractive was made because I accept that life is competitive.

If you don't want to help life after it's born, that's fine.  But it makes the same life less competitive immediately after conception.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #148 on: February 27, 2019, 01:09:41 PM »
Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?

Welfare removes some of the disincentives to not have babies. I'm pretty sure this is self-evident.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, just a fact. I know of one family in particular that have had near double-digit children that would have literally been half-starving without welfare (they literally speak fondly of "the government cheese"). Almost all of these kids grew up to be very successful.

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #149 on: February 27, 2019, 01:27:05 PM »
Latest news is that Trump's administration has cancelled title x funding to women's health clinics that provide abortion services or referrals. At the same time, they're putting in a gag order so that clinics can't tell their patients about all their medical options, including abortion, and clinics that lie to their patients can be funded.
This is not about pro-life, this about misogyny and control of women's bodies by the religious right. This will prevent women from accessing health care, close some of the only clinics that provide reproductive care for women, especially poor women, and lead to poorer health outcomes, which are already embarrassingly bad for a wealthy country.
Nobody who is truly pro-life should support this dehumanization of women. It's an assault on human rights and serves no valid purpose. Until conservatives stop doing shit like that, I could never support them, date them or honestly be friends with them. I respect myself too much. If that's divisive, too bad.