What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[tar]

Overtone,

 

The place has been functioning for the last forty years. In spite of some, because of others. I don't agree with your criteria upon which you judge who is who.

 

There are still wonderful hospitals, innovative companies, fantastic universities, incredible art and recreation establishments...the best of all sorts of human endeavors that exists in the U.S. and that the U.S. exports to the rest of the world. Republicans and Democrats make that happen, every day.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

The place has been functioning for the last forty years.

It's been increasingly malfunctioning - riding on the New Deal, but undermining it more and more. The rise ended around 1965, as the Vietnam War took effect, and the plateau as previously earned benefits rolled in lasted until around 1980 - but if you look at the stats, the break around 1982 is to the downside for pretty much everything.

 

It's like not maintaining your car: it'll run well for a while, then start picking up little glitches and problems, and then start stranding you here and there - by which point ordinary maintenance is not going to be enough. You're going to need bailouts, Triple A.

 

 

In spite of some, because of others. I don't agree with your criteria upon which you judge who is who.

I doubt you know what those criteria are.

 

 

There are still wonderful hospitals, innovative companies, fantastic universities, incredible art and recreation establishments...the best of all sorts of human endeavors that exists in the U.S. and that the U.S. exports to the rest of the world. Republicans and Democrats make that happen, every day.

Actually, there's not so much Rep contribution these days - and the Dems haven't been able to pick up the slack. Take a look around - all that stuff has been hollowed out, the seed corn eaten, running on last year's oil change and the fumes. The competent conservative who gets good things done right is no longer the Rep brand's real face. Even the makeup artists and spin doctors have to go back to Reagan just to find someone they can sell as that face - he's so far back the reality of his terms in office can be completely ignored - and finding a real one is something nobody is even going to attempt after Eastwood's debate with the chair.

Edited September 20, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

No, I don't know what your criteria are. I have some guesses from what you repeatedly rail against, but I don't really know. I think you dislike most of the stupidity I dislike, but you are blind to the substance and strength that conservatives provide. There are activities, like racism and sexism, pimping and drug dealing, cheating and lying, stealing and blackmail and such that most of us, whether Republican or Democrat, are very unwaveringly against. If a Republican does one of those things, it does not impugn all Republicans any more than a Democrat taking drugs impugns all Democrats.

 

That has always been my main theme in argument with you. That you are bias against Republicans. Bigoted if you will. Prejudice. You see no redeeming social value in a Republican, and view them as simply a human in error. In regards, to this thread, this "always" stance of yours is argument for my suggestion that the biggest problem with America is the lack of trust that the left has in the right, and the lack of trust that the right has in the left. There are plenty of endeavors that people involve themselves in, without asking how the other participants are registered.

 

Because, in the end there are more ways we agree than ways we disagree. If I think Paterson would be better without drug dealers, you would surely agree, for instance.

 

It would not however be useful for someone to tell me I am racist, because I see black and Hispanic gangs as the root of the problem.

 

Nor would it be proper for someone to say that drug infested cities always vote Democrat, and therefore the Democratic party line is bankrupt in its membership and the outcome of its leadership.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Overtone,

 

- - I think you dislike most of the stupidity I dislike, but you are blind to the substance and strength that conservatives provide.

I think you ascribe that substance and strength to the current Republican Party, because you think it is conservative and that's what being conservative means to you.

 

The issue is that the current Republican Party has little of that substance and strength. The virtues of conservative ideology are now found primarily in the Democratic Party.

 

There is a reality involved.

 

- If a Republican does one of those things, it does not impugn all Republicans any more than a Democrat taking drugs impugns all Democrats.

 

That has always been my main theme in argument with you. That you are bias against Republicans. Bigoted if you will. Prejudice.

My strongly negative assessment of the current Republican Party is based on reasoning from observation and evidence of the Party as a whole, its voting base and public discourse and political behavior and substantive support and apparent agenda. I include the observations and reasoning in posts.

 

Your ascription of that to prejudice and bigotry has no basis in my posts. It is a reflexive presumption - you are simply assuming that the current Republican Party cannot be as I describe it, but must instead be a normal political Party comparable with - say - the Democratic Party. Once you have assumed that, my assessment and descriptions cannot be based on reasoning and evidence, but must stem from some personal flaw of perception, and the otherwise unfounded bias or bigotry projection follows naturally.

Your assumption is wrong. It is blinding you to the evidence and reasoning that would lead to a more realistic description of the current Republican Party.

 

 

In regards, to this thread, this "always" stance of yours is argument for my suggestion that the biggest problem with America is the lack of trust that the left has in the right, and the lack of trust that the right has in the left

You present these mistrusts as if they were equivalently based in reality. Start here: Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are predominantly rightwing, ideologically - to the extent that the Republican Party has an ideology of that kind, anyway. That's a fact. Evaluate the expressions of mistrust with that in mind.

 

The bottom line is that the left in the US has very good reason to mistrust the right, while the right apparently has no idea what, who, or where the left is, or what's going on in general.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

There you have it.

 

Proved my point.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Overtone,

There you have it.

Proved my point.

Regards, TAR

Not in real life. Only in the world in which the Republican Party represents a conservative ideology, and its voting base provides substance and strength. In that world my assessment of the Republican Party is evidence of bias, rather than reason, and my mistrust of the voting base of the Republican Party is symmetrical and equivalent to the right's mistrust of the left. But that world is delusion and fantasy.

Look: You have addressed none of the issues with the Republican Party and its voting base. You have limited yourself to labeling my take as bias, as prejudice, as left mistrusting right, as failure to credit this or that person with strength and substance, you have in other words labeled me and my posting;

but you have never taken on, or even acknowledged, the central matter: the accuracy, the basis in reality, the physical factuality, of the relevant description of the Republican Party. I'm right about that Party and its voting base, and you know it.

And so it is reasonable, and in fact undeniable, that the current political nature of the current Republican Party and its core voting base - about 27% of the possible electorate, consistently, with some extra on particular issues, and disproportionately catered to by the media, which I shorthanded as a third of the country - is a reasonable candidate for the honor of "biggest problem America faces". You can argue the point, but not by simply denying that the Republican Party can possibly be that way. It's reality. Your reason needs to adjust to the facts in front of your face.

Edited September 22, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

Now you've gone too far Overtone!

A blatant attack on Clint Eastwood, ( post #52 ) ?

An attack on an American icon ?

 

Who's next on your hit list, John Wayne ?

[Willie71]

I think these arguments sometimes get sidetracked when people hold on to what they believe being a republican or democrat ideologically means. The only candidate who is truly left of centre is Sanders. Everyone else is centrist or right wing. Americans no longer have any left wing representation from the major parties. I know Sanders is running as a democrat, but he has been an independent for decades.

 

Regarding the parties as they stand now, both are pro corporate, pro war. They vary on the degree to which they go, but both are in the same camp. In terms of social programs and health care, the democrats are a bit more centre to centre left, and sanders is left.

 

The issue comes in when a large group of people think that the U.S. Should be a theocracy, and the Jesus was a gun loving libertarian. It's a bizarre set of beliefs that are unsubstantiable. The dismissing of science to the point of preventing laws from being informed by science is a conservative baby. The dismissing of evolution, climate science, and even recently the Pope is disturbing. Pretending there aren't race problems, income inequality, and severe problems with education and health care is appalling. For profit results in one win. Profit for the companies. Trickle down economics and austerity measures have been thoroughly study pies and refuted, but one party continues to push for their implementation.

 

The problem with America is that there is a good portion of people who are detached from reality.

[tar]

Willie71,

 

A good portion of the population may be detached from reality, but which portion is the detached portion is based on what your own model of the world suggests is the "right way" to be.

 

To a church congregation, the people who live outside the rules established by the church, are not living up to the standards of the community, and are detached from the understanding and common reality that everybody else in the congregation ascribes to.

 

Each person's "reality" is based on different team membership than the guy next to him.

 

Socrates inspected his own life and the life's of the people in his community, and questioned their proper behavior, their in-touchness with logic and sensibility and reality. The community put him to death...so who was in touch with reality, and who was detached?

 

To the scientific community, and to me and you, creation should not be taught in schools, because it is not true. But, in reference to this thread, and who is detached from reality, creationists are real. The basis of the U.S. constitution allows everyone to follow their own god, and such should not be dictated by the government, and the government should protect each individual's right, to follow their own god. Each individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is central to the "real" code that guides Americans. The "reality" of the situation though, is that people that believe in god, or that identify with a religion, be it Catholics, or Protestants, Jews or Muslims, Shinto followers, or Buddhist followers...or any other native religion, cult religion or regional religion, outnumber the people that do not identify with such a teaching.

 

Being that such is true, and is the reality of the situation, the people that are detached from reality are the people who feel they are in the majority, or are in the "proper" group, if they are among the people who find fault with the 75-90% of the population who identify with a religion.

 

So, whether you or I think the Pope has any special powers, does not change the fact that he actually does. What he says, moves millions to action. What he says and does brings people to tears. He has a large number of "followers". Should what he says affect politics? Change laws? Change how people feel about themselves and each other? If his words open people's hearts and minds to the suffering of others, and causes activity that reduces the suffering of a child, or a cripple, or a shunned individual, that is a good thing. Actually, really a good thing, and substantially part of reality. To discount all the Catholics in the world, as "problems", would be erroneous. To deride Catholics as being detached from reality would be actually an indication, that it was you, who was ignoring the facts, and wishing a large amount of things would change, so things could be right, in your model of how the world should be.

 

It has long been my litmus test of the truthfulness of my own worldview, and model of reality, that I should consider how many things would have to change, in order for my take to be right. If a large amount of things would have to change in order for me to be right, then I am probably imagining things.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

A good portion of the population may be detached from reality, but which portion is the detached portion is based on what your own model of the world suggests is the "right way" to be.

No, it isn't.

 

Reality is what will bite you in the ass regardless of what you think is the right way for it to be. It's the chair you trip over in the dark, because your model of the world was missing that chair. It is exactly what doesn't depend on your model. And no, not all models are created equal, in those terms.

 

Some people get bit a lot, and never learn why. They keep tripping over chairs, and denying the existence of chairs. Some entire groups are this way.

 

And others - this is the key point - don't get bit as much, or at least learn why. They sit down in the chairs and make themselves comfortable. Again, sometimes whole groups of people will be this way, all sitting down together.

 

They have different models, and some models are much more closely aligned with the reality of the teeth and the chairs than others. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d5/ac/c9/d5acc96b5c07ffb0cc6e82ab3cedf6d9.jpg

 

And it is not a law of the universe that all political Parties will feature equivalent representation of each kind of model. It's possible for one Party to be far less aligned with reality than another Party is, or than common sense would expect. It can happen. And in the case of the current US Republican Party, it has.

 

It has long been my litmus test of the truthfulness of my own worldview, and model of reality, that I should consider how many things would have to change, in order for my take to be right. If a large amount of things would have to change in order for me to be right, then I am probably imagining things.

The entire political history of the US for the past forty years would have to change, retroactively, for anyone who thinks the current Republican Party has been representing the substance and strength of conservative ideology, or even behaving as a reasonable and reality based entity attending to the interests of the American people in any respect, to be right in their take.

 

 

A blatant attack on Clint Eastwood, ( post #52 ) ?

An attack on an American icon ?

 

There's a hit piece out (updated from 1999) on Clint Eastwood, some pissed off "liberal" who got mad at one of his movies, or maybe the chair debate this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_McGilligan_(biographer) - decided to dig up the biographical dirt and publish it. It's worth reading if one is inclined to idolize the man. Unfortunately the author doesn't understand any of the movies - really misses the point of his films and so forth , which are his life's work after all. If the truism that good artists can be colossal jerks is well understood, there's little to learn from it - but anyone who has mistaken the movies for the man would benefit from a skim.

 

The movies are iconic. The man? - - as Ursula Le Guin once said, in the course of advising against meeting live authors: "The book is what is real".

Edited September 23, 2015 by overtone

[Willie71]

Willie71,

 

A good portion of the population may be detached from reality, but which portion is the detached portion is based on what your own model of the world suggests is the "right way" to be.

 

To a church congregation, the people who live outside the rules established by the church, are not living up to the standards of the community, and are detached from the understanding and common reality that everybody else in the congregation ascribes to.

 

Each person's "reality" is based on different team membership than the guy next to him.

 

Socrates inspected his own life and the life's of the people in his community, and questioned their proper behavior, their in-touchness with logic and sensibility and reality. The community put him to death...so who was in touch with reality, and who was detached?

 

To the scientific community, and to me and you, creation should not be taught in schools, because it is not true. But, in reference to this thread, and who is detached from reality, creationists are real. The basis of the U.S. constitution allows everyone to follow their own god, and such should not be dictated by the government, and the government should protect each individual's right, to follow their own god. Each individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is central to the "real" code that guides Americans. The "reality" of the situation though, is that people that believe in god, or that identify with a religion, be it Catholics, or Protestants, Jews or Muslims, Shinto followers, or Buddhist followers...or any other native religion, cult religion or regional religion, outnumber the people that do not identify with such a teaching.

 

Being that such is true, and is the reality of the situation, the people that are detached from reality are the people who feel they are in the majority, or are in the "proper" group, if they are among the people who find fault with the 75-90% of the population who identify with a religion.

 

So, whether you or I think the Pope has any special powers, does not change the fact that he actually does. What he says, moves millions to action. What he says and does brings people to tears. He has a large number of "followers". Should what he says affect politics? Change laws? Change how people feel about themselves and each other? If his words open people's hearts and minds to the suffering of others, and causes activity that reduces the suffering of a child, or a cripple, or a shunned individual, that is a good thing. Actually, really a good thing, and substantially part of reality. To discount all the Catholics in the world, as "problems", would be erroneous. To deride Catholics as being detached from reality would be actually an indication, that it was you, who was ignoring the facts, and wishing a large amount of things would change, so things could be right, in your model of how the world should be.

 

It has long been my litmus test of the truthfulness of my own worldview, and model of reality, that I should consider how many things would have to change, in order for my take to be right. If a large amount of things would have to change in order for me to be right, then I am probably imagining things.

 

Regards, TAR

There are ideas that are based on millenia old plagiarized texts that are supposed to be our guides for moral behaviour, and they could be if it wasn't for all the genocide, oppression, and intolerance of pleasure.

 

There are ideas based on math that requires us to believe that 5-2=7. Trickle down economics only makes sense to people who can't spot the flaw in the first sentence of this little paragraph.

 

There are ideas that open themselves up to scrutiny, evaluation, falsification, and repeatability. They allowed man to go to the moon with less computer power than an I-phone. They allowed us to predict events in the future with moderate to unbelievable accuracy. They allow us to calculate what tax rates need to really be to balance a budget and maintain functioning services.

 

I prefer to not want to belong to the group that lives by the first two paragraphs. If their reality is impervious to evidence and verification, it's a delusional reality. My reality may be incorrect, but I am open to testing that possibility.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Willie71

[puppypower]

The biggest problem with America is the government. The government is too large and creates all types of problems that are blamed on everyone else using spin. The government uses trickle down economics where all the money starts at the top and is metered out based on lobbyist and campaign donations.

 

The laws and regulations it has created, is more there to justify big government, and has caused many companies to ship jobs overseas due to excessive costs. The IRS and the tax code is based on a whose who of political donations and kickbacks. The IRS has also been used by this and other administrations as a weapon against the people. Politicians are allowed to lie and nothing can be done about it, since the fox is in charge of the chicken coop. Those in power have a different set of rules than the rest of us. They created national health care but all are exempt because what was given to the people is an over priced piece of crap, they themselves avoid.

 

The government is running huge national debts which will harm the future. They created the housing crisis by regulating the economy and backing poor lending policies. It squandered billions on corny capitalism connected to the green energy, which then got shipped overseas. It bailed out large corrupt banks and made laws that sounds like reform but which put the squeezed on little banks. The government starts wars and then it pulls out as a political stunt that disrupts the middle east, leading to millions of deaths and refugees. Its leaders don't enforce their own laws, allowing the elite to ignore security laws with a personal computer server designed to hide shady behavior.

Edited September 23, 2015 by puppypower

[tar]

Willie71,

 

Just so you know, I am an atheist, brought up Presbyterian.

 

Just so you know, I am registered Republican, which I did when I moved to a Republican district.

 

Just so you know, I campaigned for McGovern in New Hampshire and once had a 5-10 minute conversation with Peter Rodino at a campaign event in Essex County, New Jersey.

 

Just so you know, my departed mother was a mathematician (who knows what 5-2 is) who campaigned for Nixon, took us to Sunday school, and who was a teacher all her life, guided and helped and loved people 'til the day she died. She believed heavily in Jesus and his teachings and considered him alive, and considered herself to be in his embrace.

 

Just so you know, my living father is a retired Psychology professor, a strong Democrat, scientific and an atheist, also brought up in a faith that was United Brethren.

 

Just so you know, my wife is Episcopal and also was registered democrat when we were in Essex County and is now registered Republican as we are in rural, Northern Passaic county.

 

Just so you know, we raised our two daughters Episcopal, but like in my youth, my wife took them to church and Sunday school, and the father (me) only attended on special events.

 

My family and extended family consists of Republicans and Democrats, atheists and believers. None of us are "the problem." All of us are good people, that respect others, serve the community and the country (both my father and I are veterans.) All of us were or are good Americans, teachers, fire chiefs, computer experts, executives in steel and oil, clergy, school superintendents.

 

Overtone's black and white, Republican Party is bad view of the world is not anywhere close to realistic, when viewed from my position. I have lived a life where Republicans and Democrats coexisted and worked together to make the world safe and warm and pleasurable for all. Neither is the "problem".

 

The problem is when we try to move the other out from under the umbrella of America.

 

The whole point is to hold your umbrella over everybody, and everybody holds their umbrella over you.

 

I am very interested in the Pope's talk to congress today (is it today.) I am thinking he will say things that make party line Republicans feel uncomfortable. I am thinking he will say things that make party line Democrats uncomfortable. But I am thinking he will hold an umbrella over us all.

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

Tar, this goes back to the difference between what people believe republicans stand for, and what your current candidates actually stand for. There is a divide.

[tar]

Willie71,

 

I don't think I ever agreed with 100% of what any candidate, Republican or Democrat, stood for. I don't like the tea party, I don't like Fox, I don't answer the goofy Republican polls I am sent. Certain right wing stances, I find unworkable, and not reasonable. Certain left wing stances I find unworkable and not reasonable. It is a shame that we have such a two party system where you have to hold your nose, when you pull the lever, attempting to pick the lesser of two evils.

 

Back when I supported McGovern, I liked his stance on everything...then when he became front runner, he had to start moderating his position, to gain more popular support.

 

Politics. I hate politics.

 

It is not reasonable to expect somebody to fulfill all of my expectations as a representative or leader AND to fulfill all of your expectations, much less the expectations of 200 or 300 million people, each with their own will, desires, hopes and dreams.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Overtone's black and white, Republican Party is bad view of the world is not anywhere close to realistic, when viewed from my position.

Mistaking an assessment of the Republican Party for a view of the world is proof that from your position mine is invisible - along with major aspects of reality.

 

The Republican Party is pretty much wholly bad - that does not mean anything else in particular is good or bad entirely, that the rest of the world is black and white. For example: I specifically state - several times - that the Democratic Party is grey, a normal political Party with good and bad aspects, somewhat damaged but not irrecoverably trashed by the forces and efforts that have ruined the Republican Party.

 

Your worldview is based on assumptions that do not obtain. You are assuming that the current Republican Party has an ideology based in reason and concerning how best to govern the United States, that this ideology is conservative and right wing and the stances it produces are grounded in conservative and rightwing assessments of reality and matters of fact, that this Party is a normal political Party representing good faith analyses and efforts to govern the country well. You have no evidence that any of that is so.

 

You ascribe virtues of strength and capability to conservatively minded people, and of course correctly, but you then take for granted the Republican Party represents these virtues; apparently because by assumption the Republican Party is conservative. That is fantasy.

 

You also turn that around: you take denigration and negative descriptions of the Republican Party as referring to conservative people, because you assume the Republican Party represents virtuous conservatism, and therefore the people posting such denigration must be missing the virtues you know conservatives possess. That is delusion.

 

 

 

Certain right wing stances, I find unworkable, and not reasonable Certain left wing stances I find unworkable and not reasonable.

First, you have to know what they are. I'd be willing to bet good money you cannot set down in English sentences a single leftwing stance on a major political issue. Not a Democratic Party stance, not a Fox-labeled "liberal" stance, not an authoritarian vs libertarian stance, but an actual, bona fide, left wing ideological position on some issue that has left and right positions available in the public discourse.

 

Try this one: describe two or three of the major leftwing criticisms of the Occupation government of Iraq as put in place by the US following the invasion. That was the biggest and most significant foreign policy initiative of any US administration since Vietnam, and it was a disaster - what was done wrong specifically from a leftwing point of view?

 

Or try this: describe some differences between the left libertarian positions and the left authoritarian positions on a couple of current major issues.

Edited September 24, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

This page sums it up pretty nicely. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

I am thinking of a solution to the problem.

 

Or at least a way to look at other people, and to look at yourself, from an undelusional perspective, in terms of your views, as opposed to "their" views.

 

Stephen Pinker, a linguist pointed out in one of his books, the importance of first person, second person and third person, in the way we talk and how that effects the way we think and vice-a-versa.

 

He suggests, that the same idea, when framed in the first person is viewed as good, when framed in the second person is viewed as neutral and when framed in the third person is viewed as bad.

 

As in:

I am exploring my sexuality.

You are loose.

She is a slut.

 

Or:

 

I am thin.

You are skinny.

He is emaciated.

 

If one were to take any issue, challenge, idea, action, plan, or position and call it their own, frame it in the first person, use I and we and us, when talking about it and thinking about it, the thing can be seen in its best light.

 

Using the second person, the you, relieves one of the responsibility or ownership of the thing and makes it somebody else's problem...wasn't me...I had nothing to do with it, you did it.

 

Using the third person you take yourself completely out of it, and can ascribe all the evil in the world to it, or at least things you want to announce as out of your control and done in a manner you do not associate yourself with.

 

To this, as long as somebody is a republican and you are a democrat, the whole trouble, the whole problem has been caused by "them", whereas you and your team, your "we", has done it right.

And of course with the tables flipped, with someone associating with the republicans, the virtue and strength and capability and trustworthiness and all the "good" stuff accrues to you and all the bad stuff, the crime and drugs and broken marriages and poverty and cheating and whatever are assigned to "them" that are not "us".

 

To this, I propose an exercise. Attempt to use the words we, and us, in a manner that ignores party lines.

 

Regards, TAR

Or in line with the Pope, think of this as "our" world, and each other as family members.

[overtone]

Overtone,

This page sums it up pretty nicely. http://www.diffen.co...tive_vs_Liberal

It's irrelevant to anything I posted. I have been talking about the Republican Party, not "conservatives", and leftwing, not "liberal".

 

To this, as long as somebody is a republican and you are a democrat, the whole trouble, the whole problem has been caused by "them", whereas you and your team, your "we", has done it right.

I doubt Stephen Pinker regards physical reality as being infinitely manipulable by one's choice of descriptive vocabulary.

The notion that somebody like me would identify with the likes of the Clintons, say, as "we", is another of the strange delusions of the crowd in America that - for whatever reason - simply refuses to acknowledge the nature and behavior of the current Republican Party and its core electoral support.

 

Attempt to use the words we, and us, in a manner that ignores party lines.

All my employment of "we" and "us" ignores Party lines. This statement, for example: We need to do something about the current Republican Party, starting with and its backers's hold on the media. It's America's biggest problem.

 

I don't care what Party you're "in".

 

 

Or in line with the Pope, think of this as "our" world, and each other as family members

And the situation with the current Republican Party as needing an intervention, then. OK.

After all, how does a responsible family member handle things when their meth-addict stepfather has begun depleting their mother's savings and beating her? Say other kids are in denial, the people unfamiliar with the scene say there's two sides to every story, etc, - just spitballing here.

Edited September 24, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Good.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Side issue relevant to the OP: It occurs to me I may have misled, in a sense, when I simply dismissed that link claiming to compare conservatives and liberals.

 

 

This page sums it up pretty nicely. http://www.diffen.co...tive_vs_Liberal

It was of course beside the point for anything I was arguing, but it's worth noting in the thread here, about some problems America is facing, that the comparison there is an incoherent mess.

 

It's simply not true that conservatives favor less regulation and liberals favor more, or that conservatives favor less Federal role and liberals favor more, and so forth. In dozens of matters, from gay marriage to drug use to the military draft, the positions are reversed from what that comparison would have one believe. Combine that with the standard corporate media boilerplate incomprehensions of - especially - the "liberal" take on some stuff, and what's printed there looks quite a bit like an attempt to equate Republican Party campaign rhetoric and wingnut bs with honest conservatism. Do appearances deceive?

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I think the danger is in putting a label on someone and then expecting they have to live up to the label.

 

Once, years ago, I was in an elevator with about 12 to 15 people in NYC. I tried to guess, by dress and bearing and age and race, whether each was a Republican, or a Democrat. Never knew whether my guesses were correct or incorrect, but that is the point. You can't tell a person's affiliations, you have to ask.

 

Somebody might go to church and not believe in god for instance. Or someone might have been stuck by a Republican Campaign pin when they were twelve and hated everything Republican, since.

 

Couple years ago, when people were downgrading the angel believing right wing delusional crowd, and raising up the Pragmatic president, the pragmatic president crowd seemed to me to be a little surprised or taken aback, by a multifaith service the president held in Washington. I remember watching Biden at the service, and thought he looked a little uncomfortable. I always, from that, figured him as an atheist. Was surprised today to see him and Boehner behind the pope as the highest ranking Catholics in congress. Just can't tell, by looking at a person, about their beliefs, affiliations, hopes and dreams. But most importantly, one's judgement, intelligence and character is not either correlated to or caused by their political party or religion.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

 

 

I think the danger is in putting a label on someone and then expecting they have to live up to the label

The danger at issue is the nature and behavior of the current Republican Party, its cooption of the mass media, and its core electoral support.

 

Not the label, which would be "fascism" if anyone's interested, but the thing itself.

[puppypower]

The biggest problem is the democratic party's attempt to gain political advantage and hide bad policy by dividing the country. This approach of using emotional appeal, without the brain engaged, allows them to recruit minions and zombies, but it is not good for the country.

 

For example, the black lives matter movement does not address the real problem, which is the high rate of crime and murder in black communities, the worse of which are run by the democrats. All the large cities that have had demonstrations are run by democrats because these have the worse problems. Rather that address the flaws in liberal policy that have created this situation, a smoke screen is set up based on pitting cops against blacks.

 

The same is true of illegal immigration. Most people are for legal immigration, with America allowing about 1 million a year. But the democrats, consistent with the crime ridden cities they control, prefer their immigrants break the law. It has to do with corruption being part of the democratic party, causing them to relate to crime and see it as something that brings them benefit. Crime ridden inner cities benefits the democrats. It means large sums of money, such that there is incentive not to solve the problem but to distract from the solution.

 

Baltimore, which is a democratic controlled city, has the second highest per capita spending on education per pupil, in the country yet they have one of the highest rates of illiteracy in black neighborhoods. It is not about the evil Republican not supporting educaton; division emotion, but incompetence and corruption being favored by the democrat party zombie base.

[waitforufo]

The problem is the political class. They are all out of touch with the people. They all think we are incompetent in making our own decisions and create laws to force there ways upon us. They all work drive us apart instead of together. Ask any of them to list the goals they are attempting to achieve through politics and nowhere on that list will you find the word prosperity.

[swansont]

The biggest problem with America is the government. The government is too large and creates all types of problems that are blamed on everyone else using spin. The government uses trickle down economics where all the money starts at the top and is metered out based on lobbyist and campaign donations.

Trickle-down is a Republican policy. As for the size of government, that's a somewhat nebulous description. Are you talking number of employees, budget, or something else?

 

The federal government employs fewer people than it did 50 years ago, despite the fact that the population has grown by almost two-thirds (~190 million to >310 million) There's been an uptick in civilians and a reduction in military (there was a draft 50 years ago, and we have transitioned away from military doing jobs that civilians can do). As far as spending goes, our outlays have been around 20% of GDP for the last 40 years.

 

The laws and regulations it has created, is more there to justify big government, and has caused many companies to ship jobs overseas due to excessive costs. The IRS and the tax code is based on a whose who of political donations and kickbacks.

Citations needed

 

The IRS has also been used by this and other administrations as a weapon against the people.

Citation needed

 

They created national health care but all are exempt because what was given to the people is an over priced piece of crap, they themselves avoid.

Government already has a health plan for its employees, so in the broad picture, the ACA was never designed to help them. But I thought some were kicked off, to make them have to use the exchanges. And, of course, millions of people now have coverage that didn't before. Horrible turn of events, right?

 

 

The government is running huge national debts which will harm the future. They created the housing crisis by regulating the economy and backing poor lending policies. It squandered billions on corny capitalism connected to the green energy, which then got shipped overseas. It bailed out large corrupt banks and made laws that sounds like reform but which put the squeezed on little banks. The government starts wars and then it pulls out as a political stunt that disrupts the middle east, leading to millions of deaths and refugees. Its leaders don't enforce their own laws, allowing the elite to ignore security laws with a personal computer server designed to hide shady behavior.

Citation needed

Citation needed

Citation needed

Citation needed

Citation needed

Citation needed

 

The biggest problem is the democratic party's attempt to gain political advantage and hide bad policy by dividing the country. This approach of using emotional appeal, without the brain engaged, allows them to recruit minions and zombies, but it is not good for the country.

 

 

Citation needed. Remind me which party is against education of the population? I don't think it's the Dems.

 

For example, the black lives matter movement does not address the real problem, which is the high rate of crime and murder in black communities,

There are lots of movements that don't address these issues. "Black lives matter" is meant to address one particular phenomenon, so this is a non-sequitur.

 

The same is true of illegal immigration. Most people are for legal immigration, with America allowing about 1 million a year. But the democrats, consistent with the crime ridden cities they control, prefer their immigrants break the law. It has to do with corruption being part of the democratic party, causing them to relate to crime and see it as something that brings them benefit. Crime ridden inner cities benefits the democrats. It means large sums of money, such that there is incentive not to solve the problem but to distract from the solution.

You will be ecstatic to know that there has been no net influx of "illegal" immigrants the last ~8 years (there's been a net reduction).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

 

Also that violent crime rates have been falling

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-violent-crime-1970s-level-20141110-story.html

 

"The violent crime rate last year was 367.9 for each 100,000 in population, down 5.1 percent from 2012. The rate has fallen every year since at least 1994, the earliest year for readily accessible FBI data, and the 2013 figure was about half the 1994 rate."