US Government Shuts Down... Again

[swansont]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Well, they did with Lincoln and JFK, anyway.

Garfield and McKinley, too. Reagan was shot and wounded. Teddy Roosevelt was shot while campaigning. FDR was shot at just before his inauguration. Ford was shot at, twice (sort of. Squeaky Fromme's gun was loaded but didn't have a bullet in the chamber). Others shot at the White House while presidents were inside. A few more plots were thwarted before a gun could be fired.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Perhaps defence spending is an important part of America's modus operandi.

No doubt. Beyond the rhetoric even Republicans understand that to have a stable economy the Govt needs to employ people andspend money. Presidents like FDR and Eisenhower envisioned those jobs/spending being primarily in infrastructure and public services but as the Women movement and Civil Rights threatened the nature of control specific groups of people had over the population many began to look at limiting infrastructure and service as a way to mute people and maintain their advantage. Govt employment is still needed though so we pour all the cash that should be put into infrastructure and services into the military to ensure the money is still circulated. Large military contractors like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and etc could just as easily be building a national high speed rail system, electric charge stations for cars, LED embedded roads, updating our drinking water infrastructure, and etc rather than building bombs. Same money could go to the same companies to do other projects which would be considerably more beneficial to the public overall but various groups do not want to help the public at large.  

[John Cuthber]

When your country spends more of "defence" than the total of the next half a dozen or so highest spending countries added together, it's pretty clear you are not actually spending on "defence" as such. It's a pork barrel.

 

It's a bit like social security spending, it keeps a lot of people off the dole queues. That's fine in a way, but most of the people it "employs" could get useful jobs, rather than working out clever ways to kill people.

Many countries have similar schemes where people who lack the basic intelligence or life skills are looked after and provided with an opportunity to do work that suits what capabilities they have- such as making simple furniture  or street cleaning. They work, and their salaries are subsidised by the government, but at least there is some sort of service provision in exchange. It does a good job of raising the morale of the workers too, as they feel they are contributing to society. Since a civilised government would be paying for their upkeep anyway, it's quite a reasonable system.

In the US, it seems that  the state has decided to run "sheltered employment" for people via the military. Historically, that made sense. Squadies didn't need to be bright. (That's not to say that some were not intelligent; those who were tended to be spotted + promoted).

However we now have a system where the government pays a lot of money to bright  well qualified people to get them to do something that's fundamentally undesirable.

In doing so, it robs other sections of industry of that talent, and I can't see how that benefits the economy.

And the fate of those who would be in sheltered employment in other countries, isn't pretty in the US.

[EdEarl]

54 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There could be another 3 parties it doesn't erase the the multi trillion dollar annual debt we'll be faced with. Party aside to dig out of this whole a lot of very unpopular things will need to happen. We need large increases in taxes among wealthier citizens (by wealthy I don't strictly mean billionaires), massive changes to bank regulations to protect consumers, changes to capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, massive defense spending cuts, and etc. Doing those things will certainly have immediate (but short term) negative impacts on the economy. For example I think we all agree Defense spending needs to shrink. Military Defense jobs makes up over 10% of all manufacturing jobs in the country. The Defense industry employs 4 million people. Cuts to Defense spending will result in the loss of a lot of jobs and problem shrink national GDP for a couple years. I can't imagine any party being able to sell purposely creating a recession for the long term good.

 

44 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think a lot of people wish we could hit a reset button; liberal and conservative alike. That makes 3rd parties appealing as they represent a new direction or fresh start. Reality is that a reset is impossible. Doesn't matter who we elect we already have the laws, agencies, debts, and etc we have. Businesses can go bankrupt, sell off sections, hire in new management and start over but our govt cannot. Whomever is elected into office (any elected office) has to directly take on the current state of affairs. It is an unbroken chain. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't end just because Bush wasn't POTUS anymore. 

There is no button of course, people will have to endure whatever changes occur.

If people will not vote for real change, days of no jobs will be forced by automation. That will increase the pain to deadly levels, do you think people will endure the pain or riot? The current economic system will cannot continue indefinitely, a mass extinction seems to be in progress. We face an existential threat. The best alternative is for people to manage themselves and their political and economic processes to eliminate climate change and ill affects to the environment. What you are saying is man seems to be killing himself and much of the environment. I hope you are wrong and we can make the hard changes. 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

When your country spends more of "defence" than the total of the next half a dozen or so highest spending countries added together, it's pretty clear you are not actually spending on "defence" as such. It's a pork barrel.

 

It's a bit like social security spending, it keeps a lot of people off the dole queues. That's fine in a way, but most of the people it "employs" could get useful jobs, rather than working out clever ways to kill people.

Many countries have similar schemes where people who lack the basic intelligence or life skills are looked after and provided with an opportunity to do work that suits what capabilities they have- such as making simple furniture  or street cleaning. They work, and their salaries are subsidised by the government, but at least there is some sort of service provision in exchange. It does a good job of raising the morale of the workers too, as they feel they are contributing to society. Since a civilised government would be paying for their upkeep anyway, it's quite a reasonable system.

In the US, it seems that  the state has decided to run "sheltered employment" for people via the military. Historically, that made sense. Squadies didn't need to be bright. (That's not to say that some were not intelligent; those who were tended to be spotted + promoted).

However we now have a system where the government pays a lot of money to bright  well qualified people to get them to do something that's fundamentally undesirable.

In doing so, it robs other sections of industry of that talent, and I can't see how that benefits the economy.

And the fate of those who would be in sheltered employment in other countries, isn't pretty in the US.

It's difficult for the powerful to see their weakness'.

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

 

There is no button of course, people will have to endure whatever changes occur.

If people will not vote for real change, days of no jobs will be forced by automation. That will increase the pain to deadly levels, do you think people will endure the pain or riot? The current economic system will cannot continue indefinitely, a mass extinction seems to be in progress. We face an existential threat. The best alternative is for people to manage themselves and their political and economic processes to eliminate climate change and ill affects to the environment. What you are saying is man seems to be killing himself and much of the environment. I hope you are wrong and we can make the hard changes. 

I agree people should vote for real change but people also must be realistic about how much can change  at once. Obama was President for 8yrs and for 6 of those years had a combative Congress. I think Obama did about the best job he possibly could have all things considered but a lot of people, Sander supporters specifically, feel he was a disappointment. I have heard many progressives voice disappointment that Obama didn't accomplish X, Y, and Z. I think many of those people are delusional about what is possible in 8yrs. Back to my earlier point nothing resets when new people come to office. Obama became President in the middle of a depression. We were losing a half million jobs a money, foreclosures were at record highs, annual deficit was over 1.6 trillion, and we were fight 2 wars overseas. Obama had to address all that. Change is possible but it is also incremental. No President or Congress can get us from where we are today to an annual budget surplus in 4yrs. It would take 4yrs just to get our annual deficits to even freeze and another 4yrs after that to reverse. Obama is proof that the public doesn't reward success. We need to go several election cycles with consistent policies rather than the calls for massive change.  Obama managed to cut the annual deficit in half during his tenure. Currently it is already up 20% and rising under Trump. I stress the deficit because  without money the Govt can't afford to do anything. The sort of changes progressives are hoping for: single payer, free education, govt supported daycare, infrastructure spending, and etc have costly initial price tags that save money in the long term. Problem is that with power constantly swinging back and forth there is never a long term.

Separately Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections (28yrs) yet amazingly control every branch of govt. Having more parties to shake things up is a thought people mutually support but is the 2 party system really the problem? Republicans win 1 national vote out of 7 yet get to call all the shots? Rather than being apathetic towards the 2 major parties I think people should be extremely  pissed off  that their votes aren't respected. Let's strive to fix gerrymandering, voter suppression, and our electoral system. We do that first and I think the 2 parties become more responsive to what the majority of citizens actually want. We can talk about new parties but ultimately have what we have so we should strive to fix what we have rather than just pontificate about how nice it would be to have something else which doesn't exist.

[EdEarl]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I agree people should vote for real change but people also must be realistic about how much can change  at once. Obama was President for 8yrs and for 6 of those years had a combative Congress. I think Obama did about the best job he possibly could have all things considered but a lot of people, Sander supporters specifically, feel he was a disappointment. I have heard many progressives voice disappointment that Obama didn't accomplish X, Y, and Z. I think many of those people are delusional about what is possible in 8yrs. Back to my earlier point nothing resets when new people come to office. Obama became President in the middle of a depression. We were losing a half million jobs a money, foreclosures were at record highs, annual deficit was over 1.6 trillion, and we were fight 2 wars overseas. Obama had to address all that. Change is possible but it is also incremental. No President or Congress can get us from where we are today to an annual budget surplus in 4yrs. It would take 4yrs just to get our annual deficits to even freeze and another 4yrs after that to reverse. Obama is proof that the public doesn't reward success. We need to go several election cycles with consistent policies rather than the calls for massive change.  Obama managed to cut the annual deficit in half during his tenure. Currently it is already up 20% and rising under Trump. I stress the deficit because  without money the Govt can't afford to do anything. The sort of changes progressives are hoping for: single payer, free education, govt supported daycare, infrastructure spending, and etc have costly initial price tags that save money in the long term. Problem is that with power constantly swinging back and forth there is never a long term.

Separately Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections (28yrs) yet amazingly control every branch of govt. Having more parties to shake things up is a thought people mutually support but is the 2 party system really the problem? Republicans win 1 national vote out of 7 yet get to call all the shots? Rather than being apathetic towards the 2 major parties I think people should be extremely  pissed off  that their votes aren't respected. Let's strive to fix gerrymandering, voter suppression, and our electoral system. We do that first and I think the 2 parties become more responsive to what the majority of citizens actually want. We can talk about new parties but ultimately have what we have so we should strive to fix what we have rather than just pontificate about how nice it would be to have something else which doesn't exist.

It is unrealistic to think real change will wait for political change.

IMO The least time 80% of jobs will be eliminated by automation is 12 years. Even if it were 25 years, jobs will be gone before politics as usual can changes as you suggest. We must try to make political changes, but we cannot afford to be patient. It really is time to expect the impossible and hope better than usual is good enough. Clearly, the impossible is beyond our reach, but the usual is not enough.

[MigL]

If you look at amounts spent by country as a percentage of GDP on defense, the US is not the highest.
If you only look at absolute values, the results are skewed because the US is an extremely rich country, and can spend ( and waste ) a lot of money.
There are countries where defense spending has reached double digit % of GDP ( Saudi Arabia in 2014 )
And years where Russia's % GDP spending has been higher than the US.
( not that I'm defending the 'pork barrelling'; 2.2 bill dollars for ONE bomber ? ) )

A lot of valid points have been made regarding what's happened, and what needs to happen.
Yet these are your fellow citizens who voted in the likes of D Trump, as is their right.
Yet everytime discussion with a Republican comes up, the 'racist', 'fascist', 'white-supremacist' and 'nazi' labels start flying.
It is not just the two parties that can't work together. it is even intelligent people like the members of this forum.

Assuming that most people who vote Republican are either protecting their self interests ( those cannot be swayed ) or uneducated, afraid of changes, and feel their Government has failed them ( who can be swayed ); would it make sense to concentrate on the second group, to educate them, have a government that shows concern for them, and show them the error of their current ideology, instead of calling them names and blaming them for everything that's gone wrong ?

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

It is unrealistic to think real change will wait for political change.

IMO The least time 80% of jobs will be eliminated by automation is 12 years. Even if it were 25 years, jobs will be gone before politics as usual can changes as you suggest. We must try to make political changes, but we cannot afford to be patient. It really is time to expect the impossible and hope better than usual is good enough. Clearly, the impossible is beyond our reach, but the usual is not enough.

Women Rights and Civil Rights were real change and both were political. It is politicians that created Social Security and Medicare. Real change absolutely can be accomplished. In my opinion taking an apathetic view that it can't only aids and encourages those who don't want change in the first place. 

Yes most jobs that exist today will be gone decades from now. That has been the case  since onset of the industrial revolution. People use to make a good living walking around cities hand lighting street lamps. Protecting those jobs was hardly a good argument for not developing an electrical grid. The invention of the car put many carpenters who built stagecoach's for a living out of work.  

My grandmother was born in 1909 in Nebraska without running water or electricity. She passed away in 1996 in Berkeley CA. You reference expecting the impossible; she went from a time when flight didn't exist to actually using commercial flight herself several times. She went from huddling around a neighbors radio to hear world news to having 24hr cable TV news in her living. Every aspect of society as she knew changed during her lifetime. None of those changes happened overnight though. It was all incremental. The world is always changing in significant ways. China and India of today compared to just 50yrs ago are incredibility different. Just 30yrs ago Germany was separated into 2 nations by a wall. Today Germany is one of the strongest economic powers in the world. You say we can't be patient but I don't see how we can afford not to be. Watching the world change is like watching grass grow in that it is absolutely happening and at the maximum speed it can within a given environment and yet from moment to moment is undetectable. 

[EdEarl]

That you think it essential to be patient seems unrealistic when 80% of people have no jobs, little or no food, clothing, shelter or medical care. There aren't enough jails to hold them. Asking such people to be patient is asking them to lay down and die. What do you think can be done to avoid this scenario?

[iNow]

Things can change quickly. Things can change slowly. We have plentiful examples of progress and regress, both incremental and rapid or sweeping. 

The government is shutdown. Compromise is needed. There is blame to assign.

There is a pox on all houses, though some houses are clearly poxier than others. 

That’s what this thread is about. 

[John Cuthber]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet everytime discussion with a Republican comes up, the 'racist', 'fascist', 'white-supremacist' and 'nazi' labels start flying.

There may be a reason for that...
"Here Are 13 Examples Of Donald Trump Being Racist"
From
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
 

"Yet more proof: Donald Trump is a fascist sympathiser"

From
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/29/donald-trump-britain-first-fascist-sympathiser

 

"Either Trump is himself a white supremacist or he is a fan and defender of white supremacists, and I quite honestly am unable to separate the two designations."
from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/opinion/trump-white-supremacist.html


and I guess you just have to write of Nazi as legitimate hype since there's not really a Nazi party for him to join.

And, I can't help wondering if the problem is not 

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is not just the two parties that can't work together.

so much as that nobody in authority should be able to work with someone like that.
 

 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet these are your fellow citizens who voted in the likes of D Trump, as is their right.

It's there right to vote for him.
It's not his right to lie incessantly to get that vote. It's the equivalent of lying on your CV/resume. You should expect to get sacked.

[MigL]

No argument about D Trump, John.
But I was talking about educating your fellow citizens, instead of calling THEM names.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you look at amounts spent by country as a percentage of GDP on defense, the US is not the highest.
If you only look at absolute values, the results are skewed because the US is an extremely rich country, and can spend ( and waste ) a lot of money.
There are countries where defense spending has reached double digit % of GDP ( Saudi Arabia in 2014 )
And years where Russia's % GDP spending has been higher than the US.
( not that I'm defending the 'pork barrelling'; 2.2 bill dollars for ONE bomber ? ) )

I am not sure what you point is there is a lot of better things those other Countries could be spending there money on too. Saying Russia does it too doesn't add anything to what's been discussed. 

 

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

A lot of valid points have been made regarding what's happened, and what needs to happen.
Yet these are your fellow citizens who voted in the likes of D Trump, as is their right.
Yet everytime discussion with a Republican comes up, the 'racist', 'fascist', 'white-supremacist' and 'nazi' labels start flying.
It is not just the two parties that can't work together. it is even intelligent people like the members of this forum.

It is a persons right to be racist too. Just because racist people successfully get their guy elected doesn't mean they cease to be racist. Whether it is Nazis with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" or Trump questioning why the U.S. allows people in from "shithole" countries when what we need is more people from Norway it is obvious racism is part of the partisan political dynamic. I see no reason to ignore it. My govt (U.S.) is shutdown currently in part because Republicans want immigrants who have been living here for decades, many legally (200,000 Salvadorians and 60,000 Haitians legally), deported because they come from "shitholes".  It is blatantly racist and saying as much is perfectly appropriate. 

 

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Assuming that most people who vote Republican are either protecting their self interests ( those cannot be swayed ) or uneducated, afraid of changes, and feel their Government has failed them ( who can be swayed ); would it make sense to concentrate on the second group, to educate them, have a government that shows concern for them, and show them the error of their current ideology, instead of calling them names and blaming them for everything that's gone wrong ?

Turnout is what wins election in the U.S.. People don't flip. If we look at the numbers by group (male, female, White, Black, Latino, Asian, Christian, Jewish, etc) there are painfully consistent election after election. We does change is how many of specific groups bother to show up. Republicans appear to understand this better than Democrats which is why there are so many prominent Republicans that make no bones about the fact they only plan to serve specific groups if elected. I don't see Republicans top toeing around the way they talk about abortion, immigrants, welfare, and etc for fear of turning away anyone. Rather Republican double and triple down to rally their target audience. If Democrats stop pointing out that the Republican party welcomes and runs cover for bigots it isn't going to win them a single extra vote in Coeur d'Alene Idaho. 

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

The government is shutdown. Compromise is needed. There is blame to assign.

"Nearly nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) favor allowing young immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children to remain in the U.S. – a policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This is a view that spans partisan lines. "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-support-daca-but-oppose-border-wall-cbs-news-poll/

Compromise always seems like the most equitable solution but how much compromise should be needed when the overwhelming majority of the nation is actually in agreement?

 

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

No argument about D Trump, John.
But I was talking about educating your fellow citizens, instead of calling THEM names.

Is calling them uneducated really any better than call them Racist? A rose by any other name....

[MigL]

No Ten oz, no-one has a right to be racist, as that infringes on other's rights.

Yet the fact remains that nearly half of the voters in the last election were dissatisfied with the way government functioned. Enough to vote in a 'wild card' like D Trump.
If not educating some of that half ( and showing them the error of voting D Trump ) what do you propose ?
Further alienating them with taunts of 'racist/bigot/ nazi' ?
Taking away their vote ?
Deporting them ?

Or continuing on as before and hoping for a different outcome ?

[EdEarl]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Women Rights and Civil Rights were real change and both were political. It is politicians that created Social Security and Medicare. Real change absolutely can be accomplished. In my opinion taking an apathetic view that it can't only aids and encourages those who don't want change in the first place. 

Yes most jobs that exist today will be gone decades from now. That has been the case  since onset of the industrial revolution. People use to make a good living walking around cities hand lighting street lamps. Protecting those jobs was hardly a good argument for not developing an electrical grid. The invention of the car put many carpenters who built stagecoach's for a living out of work.  

My grandmother was born in 1909 in Nebraska without running water or electricity. She passed away in 1996 in Berkeley CA. You reference expecting the impossible; she went from a time when flight didn't exist to actually using commercial flight herself several times. She went from huddling around a neighbors radio to hear world news to having 24hr cable TV news in her living. Every aspect of society as she knew changed during her lifetime. None of those changes happened overnight though. It was all incremental. The world is always changing in significant ways. China and India of today compared to just 50yrs ago are incredibility different. Just 30yrs ago Germany was separated into 2 nations by a wall. Today Germany is one of the strongest economic powers in the world. You say we can't be patient but I don't see how we can afford not to be. Watching the world change is like watching grass grow in that it is absolutely happening and at the maximum speed it can within a given environment and yet from moment to moment is undetectable. 

 

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

That you think it essential to be patient seems unrealistic when 80% of people have no jobs, little or no food, clothing, shelter or medical care. There aren't enough jails to hold them. Asking such people to be patient is asking them to lay down and die. What do you think can be done to avoid this scenario?

There are no alternative jobs being created for most factory workers when they are replaced by a lights out operation. Don't worry, AI will replace CEOs, other executives, educators, maintenance, construction, etc., every job.

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

No Ten oz, no-one has a right to be racist, as that infringes on other's rights.

Racist is a personal belief or feeling. People absolutely have the right to feel or believe whatever they want. 

 

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

Further alienating them with taunts of 'racist/bigot/ nazi' ?

How many voters did Trump alienate by claiming Obama was born in Kenya, refusing to show his taxes, denigrating other Republicans, and etc? In this partisan environment Motivating ones base is more important than being polite to the opposition. Clinton was considerable more careful in her language towards the opposition than  Trump was and yet Trump won. Anyone that is offended by people accurately calling out racist doesn't vote Democrat anyway and won't under any circumstance. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

That’s what this thread is about. 

 

Really? It seems more like a complaint thread so far.

 

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Anyone that is offended by people accurately calling out racist doesn't vote Democrat anyway and won't under any circumstance. 

 

Actually, Trump supporters were actively called racist, sexist, bigots, white-supremacists, etc.

I myself was called racist and sexist at my school.

If their attempt was to sway the opposition by calling them names and telling them they're evil, they failed miserably.

So change it from "Anyone that is offended by people ACCURATELY calling out racist" to "Anyone that is offended by people calling them racist" and you'll be correct.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Is calling them uneducated really any better than call them Racist? A rose by any other name....

1

This is easy to test.

 

Walk up to someone and politely suggest they're uneducated and they'll be mildly offended.

Scream across the road at people walking down the road calling them sexist, racist, nazis, and they'll be largely offended.

 

So, I'll do something that is frowned upon by some people. I'll use common sense and decide suggesting they're uneducated is better than calling the racist, sexist, nazis.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It is a persons right to be racist too. Just because racist people successfully get their guy elected doesn't mean they cease to be racist. Whether it is Nazis with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" or Trump questioning why the U.S. allows people in from "shithole" countries when what we need is more people from Norway it is obvious racism is part of the partisan political dynamic. I see no reason to ignore it. My govt (U.S.) is shutdown currently in part because Republicans want immigrants who have been living here for decades, many legally (200,000 Salvadorians and 60,000 Haitians legally), deported because they come from "shitholes".  It is blatantly racist and saying as much is perfectly appropriate. 

1

Yes. Perhaps instead of calling the people who voted for Republicans because Democrats insisted on calling them racist, you should just call the Republicans in office racist.

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

No argument about D Trump, John.
But I was talking about educating your fellow citizens, instead of calling THEM names.

OK, what's the difference between being racist and being an apologist for a racist and supporting them while decrying anyone who points out that trait?

To paraphrase Forrest Gump (and that seems a reasonable approach) Racist is as Racist does.

So, if we have people here supporting an unquestionably racist man, are they not, themselves, also racist?

 

And if it's true that they display racist behaviour then is describing them as such "name calling" or just description?

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

There are no alternative jobs being created for most factory workers when they are replaced by a lights out operation. Don't worry, AI will replace CEOs, other executives, educators, maintenance, construction, etc., every job.

I don't agree with that at all. For starters what will be the point of having AI CEOs of companies if no one on the planet can afford the products those companies create? Not being able to imagine what jobs will look like in 20yrs doesn't mean there won't be any. Millions of people today work in jobs that didn't exist 20yrs ago. Innovation both creates new jobs and and makes old jobs obsolete. Over the last 25yrs or so over a billion people globally have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Automation and computers have not been detrimental. 

"but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people."

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I myself was called racist and sexist at my school.

So you voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore, and etc in Previous election but in 2016 switch to Republican because you were called names at school? 

 

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes. Perhaps instead of calling the people who voted for Republicans because Democrats insisted on calling them racist, you should just call the Republicans in office racist.

It doesn't matter what I call them; they will vote the way they vote. If you understand Republicans in office are racists but vote for them anyway in part because you are angry that liberal call you racist for supporting racist than you are way more interested in the way those who oppose racism behave than actual racism. Racism is a deal breaker for me. I would not vote for someone I understood to be a racist just to get back at random acquaintances I don't like.  

[Raider5678]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

So you voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore, and etc in Previous election but in 2016 switch to Republican because you were called names at school? 

1

That wasn't the point. The point was that if you're trying to get people to switch over to Democrat's side, perhaps you should scream from the rooftops that they're Racist, Sexist, and evil.

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It doesn't matter what I call them; they will vote the way they vote. If you understand Republicans in office are racists but vote for them anyway in part because you are angry that liberal call you racist for supporting racist than you are way more interested in the way those who oppose racism behave than actual racism. Racism is a deal breaker for me. I would not vote for someone I understood to be a racist just to get back at random acquaintances I don't like.  

 

Voter turnout is the key. You're not making anyone like you more by calling them racist as soon as they disagree with you on one subject.

And more and more people's opinions don't align 100% with a party. Yet as soon as someone's opinion differs from the parties, they're a racist, sexist, bigot and people like you make sure they know that's how you feel about them.

And that decreases voter turnout. 

But hey, by all means. Help the Racist Republicans keep their jobs.

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, what's the difference between being racist and being an apologist for a racist and supporting them while decrying anyone who points out that trait?

To paraphrase Forrest Gump (and that seems a reasonable approach) Racist is as Racist does.

So, if we have people here supporting an unquestionably racist man, are they not, themselves, also racist?

 

And if it's true that they display racist behaviour then is describing them as such "name calling" or just description?

You need to understand the concept that just because all insects are bugs, not all bugs are insects.

 

In reality, it is not so much them being apologists for a racist, or supporting them, that makes you think they're racist.

It's that they don't agree with you 100% on a particular subject.

 

If someone's old grandpa says something racist and the grandson apologizes to someone for it, does that make the grandson racist?

 

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, what's the difference between being racist and being an apologist for a racist and supporting them while decrying anyone who points out that trait?

It is very strange logic. Liberal should be careful not to call those who openly support racists names they don't like because it pushes those people away yet the racists they support can just double and triple down on the racism no problem.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

It is very strange logic. Liberal should be careful not to call those who openly support racists names they don't like because it pushes those people away yet the racists they support can just double and triple down on the racism no problem.

I'm trying to help solve the problem and remove racist people from office.

But if you insist on keeping immature practices such as name-calling and labeling, then there is no point.

These people are called racist when they aren't racist at all. So when you tell them they're racist and so is someone else, do you really think they're gonna trust you that the person you're calling racist is racist? You've already made one false accusation out of emotion rather than logic, so why would they believe you on the second?

You've removed so much of the power of the word racist. It's no longer just a few extremely hateful people, it's now half the population. So people care a lot less if the president is racist because wo and behold, they happen to be racist too.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That wasn't the point. The point was that if you're trying to get people to switch over to Democrat's side, perhaps you should scream from the rooftops that they're Racist, Sexist, and evil.

No it is the point. If you still voted Trump despite him claiming Obama was born in Kenya, refusing to show his taxes, "grab them by them by the pussy", and all his daily lies than nothing was going to stop you.

 

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Voter turnout is the key. You're not making anyone like you more by calling them racist as soon as they disagree with you on one subject.

Yes, turn out is key! How did Trump get turn out; by worry about who he might be offending or preaching to the choir?

[EdEarl]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I don't agree with that at all. For starters what will be the point of having AI CEOs of companies if no one on the planet can afford the products those companies create? Not being able to imagine what jobs will look like in 20yrs doesn't mean there won't be any. Millions of people today work in jobs that didn't exist 20yrs ago. Innovation both creates new jobs and and makes old jobs obsolete. Over the last 25yrs or so over a billion people globally have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Automation and computers have not been detrimental. 

"but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people."

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

OK, it seems our dissonance is one of two things. You don't think robots will be capable of doing anything we can do and/or a zero cost economy doesn't make sense to you. Although, your reasons may run deeper.

IMO we have or nearly have a super computer big enough to run a conscious AI. If not, it won't be many years. Moreover, several groups developing conversational AI are continually improving their systems. I know one developer said that he thought he would make a conscious AI before 2030, which is not reliable info. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of money being spent on AI. For grins, let's consider what it means.

The first AGI may run slow, in which case it may develop faster computer hardware, and compress years of advancements into months. The second AGI starts the design of a super robot to give the intelligence legs. That development is compressed in time, and another AGI starts working on resource manufacturing systems. More copies automate all factories, fields, mines, shipping, etc. And, soon robots will do everything, except where we do for ourselves.