Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Only to a SJW.

No reform of government. No accountability of government or private officials (note the thread on the Wells CEO).

Yes, equal rights for HBTQ people is only important to SJWs. You're completely right and not insane at all.

That gak only matters to rich people.

Sure, or gay people. Or people with gay children, or gay friends, or gay coworkers. But sure, whatever.

 Frazzled wrote:
It did not come through the democratic process. It came via lawsuits. It wasn't "government reform." frankly govenrment shouldn't be involved in the first place.

The SCOTUS has been a vehicle for social reform for almost as long as it's existed, and I'm pretty sure their checks are drawn from the US treasury, making that, in fact, government reform by any reasonable measure.

If you mean it didn't go through Congress, that's true. I will definitely and freely concede that social change also can come via legislature, but that does not make it the only valid avenue by any means. An additional wrinkle is that with how our Congress now operates, if the Senate was on fire, they'd filibuster Obama to prevent him from grabbing a fire extinguisher.

Don't mean gak if you're hungry or just got laid off. Its a piece of paper and not the covenant itself which was being done BEFORE the courts decided it was ok to do it.
Again the reform didn't come from the government. There has been no improvement in the govenrment.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except there has been no incremental reform and increased accountability.

Sweeping generalizations are rarely accurate. Multiple agencies have adopted bodycam and other equipment designed to increase accountability. Agencies have also reviewed use of force policies. But since it is agency by agency spread across the country, it is harder to see. This is a separate issue from national political accountability issues, and has to be dealt with locally. So it really depends on what you are talking about.

Any call to "burn down" a system is reactionary and likely to end in disaster unless we are talking a truly oppressive, broken regime. Looting and rioting will damage communities and is a perverse way to protest injustice to those communities. Likewise, Trump represents an irresponsible approach to governance that is reactionary and not advocating coherent policies. However, so long as people continue to support such methods, they will continue to draw people away from legitimate coalition building and fact based decision making.

Sweeping generalizations are rarely accurate. Multiple agencies have adopted bodycam and other equipment designed to increase accountability. Agencies have also reviewed use of force policies. But since it is agency by agency spread across the country, it is harder to see. This is a separate issue from national political accountability issues, and has to be dealt with locally. So it really depends on what you are talking about.

Cameras don't matter if nothing is done. Were the cops who shot the two women in LA convicted of anything-nope. How about the cop shooting the old lady in a class-nope.
Anyone convicted of the kid dying in the van in Baltimore? How about the guy compressed to death in NY? How about the CHLer shot in the car getting his wallet with his fiance posting about it in real time? How about former secretaries of state who intentionally bypass security measures to transfer secret emails? How about the regulators on the job in 2008 crisis? How about the business executives on the job during the 2008 crisis? How about the Wells CEO?How about the executives at the VA? Has the VA been fixed yet? It goes on and on and on..,

Funny how Fraz's argument changed from 'there have been no incremental changes' to 'bad things still happen' so the changes didn't happen.

You are arguing that since things aren't perfect that there haven't gotten better at all.

 skyth wrote:
Funny how Fraz's argument changed from 'there have been no incremental changes' to 'bad things still happen' so the changes didn't happen.

You are arguing that since things aren't perfect that there haven't gotten better at all.

I'm arguing things haven't gotten better in a material way. Millions of Sanders and Trump voters agree with me. Your mileage may vary.

That is not how incremental changes work. You can't expect perfection. It will never happen. That things aren't completely perfect does not mean they haven't gotten better.

Of course, it can be argued that Trump supporters don't have the firmest grip on reality to begin with. Especially after being continuously being fed the lie that government is always bad and can never do anything right...

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Funny how Fraz's argument changed from 'there have been no incremental changes' to 'bad things still happen' so the changes didn't happen.

You are arguing that since things aren't perfect that there haven't gotten better at all.

I'm arguing things haven't gotten better in a material way. Millions of Sanders and Trump voters agree with me. Your mileage may vary.

It does indeed vary; I put a little dot next to Sanders' name during the primary, but I'm certainly not about to completely dismiss the progress that has been made in favor of the progress I want. Baby steps and compromise. It's slow and painful, but the pressure builds up.

You see progress. I see the US becoming just like every other American nation with a few wealthy elites, and the peasants. I see open borders with both parties importing cheap labor (H1B visas anyone). I see increased crime, a never ending "war on drugs," and both parties playing chickenhawk across the globe.

Funny...crime has been decreasing...you just hear about it more when it happens.

 skyth wrote:
Funny...crime has been decreasing...you just hear about it more when it happens.

Not this year.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Funny...crime has been decreasing...you just hear about it more when it happens.

Not this year.

AFAIK, yes this year. There has been an uptick in some cities, but that's it.

Besides, one year does not a trend make.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/

Some cities? You mean like LA, NY, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, Austin...

From historic lows and still at the bottom end of the last 20 years. It is way too small a sample size to draw much from (maybe that some of these cities have developing issues?). Read the link, it has a pretty good explanation. We are not seeing some huge crime wave and live in a period of historically low crime for the US. However, some areas continue to be more dangerous than others.

 Frazzled wrote:
Some cities? You mean like LA, NY, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, Austin...

Yes, there has been a slight uptick in crime. The overall trend, however, is down. And has been for a long time now. Violent crime is not a growing problem in america, it's the lowest it's been since the 70's or so, and continues to go down.

 whembly wrote:
I'll agree up to a point lordy...

The old school media/blogosphere are a liberal/left-wing tilt. I think the reason why folks like Hannity/Limbaugh are so popular is that they're all compressed in a very small aspect of media/culture. (namely talk radio / cable news).

EDIT: Just read this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-stop-and-frisk-228486

Trump is calling for nationwide stop and frisk?



fething dumbass....

Well, at least I can finally get someone other than myself to touch me if this happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point all I want to know is if it is too late for a Krueger Voorhees "No Lives Matter" ticket. Kinda like the Cthulhu ticket but with less Godzilla type monsters. The Conan of Cimmeria ticket is looking ever better as well.

Looks like Obama's legacy will be the introduction of racism into a non-racist America.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ohio-chair-no-racism-until-obama-193029485.html

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like Obama's legacy will be the introduction of racism into a non-racist America.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ohio-chair-no-racism-until-obama-193029485.html

Well he, Trump, does "...love the uneducated.", glad to see he hires them as well. What a gak bag.

Is there anyone keeping a tally of how many coordinators have resigned from this campaign? I'd love to see a comparative analysis simply to satisfy morbid curiosity.

Fun fact for the day - in 1912 the Republican party platform contained no mention of the word God, and the only use of the word “faith” was in the expression “faith in government”.

While “faith in government” was pushed aside as the party and its big business interests came to oppose the growing government and its welfare programs, you still didn’t see God mentioned. In fact, 60 years later, in 1972, there was no mention of God in the party platform.

Then in 1976 and 1980 you see mentions of God, and also large portions on abortion. In 1984 you see a section added opposing conventional sex education. In 1988 a new section is added calling for controls on pornography.

In 1992 there are now four references to God and seven to “family values”. There is a new section added opposing any minority protections for homosexuality, and supporting the banning of any gay people from the military. In 1996 they increase their position on homosexuality, endorsing a federal ban on any state recognising same sex marriages.

2000 was actually saw an easing back in the religious rhetoric, with only one mention of God. In 2004 they were back in the swing of things, with a whole section dedicated to banning same sex marriage, and now there’s a call for a law that any unborn that survives an abortion to be considered a person (seriously, this was a thing). 2008 saw just references to God, and a repeat of their 2004 positions.

2012 saw things kick in to high gear, with 10 references to God and 19 to faith. There is also the first reference to “war on religion”, because Christian politics is always more fun when you mix in some paranoia.

In 2016 God is mentioned 16 times. Faith is mentioned 26 times. Abortion is to be banned with no exception, even for the health of the mother or in the case of rape. They’ve stopped arguing for the option to teach the bible in school, now it is to be required. There is a call for legislators to use religion to guide all lawmaking. They continue to reject gay marriage even though it is now law and popularly supported, and looks to make acts of homophobia protected in law. And now transgender has become the latest fear campaign, with a very weird fixation on public bathrooms.

It is impossible to read that and continue to pretend the Republican party is fine. This is not just a Trump thing. Trump happened because the Republican party hasn’t just taken up a position of religious extremism, it has built that extremism around hate.

 Frazzled wrote:
No accountability of government or private officials (note the thread on the Wells CEO).

The Democrats created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency that investigated Wells Fargo, built the case, then levied and collected the fine.

Republicans have wanted to shut the CFPB from the day it opened, and have played funny buggers trying to avoid appointing a director so that the CFPB couldn’t begin to use its powers.

I think there is a fair argument that the Dodd Frank reforms don’t go far enough, and that the CFPB should have been given greater powers so that execuives at Wells Fargo might have faced individual charges.

But you are attempting to make the argument that nothing has changed, and nothing will change whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge. This is an active denial of reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I see the US becoming just like every other American nation with a few wealthy elites, and the peasants.

Then you better hurry up and start voting for the party that supports increasing the tax burden on the rich, and do whatever you can to make sure the party that wants to continue cutting taxes on the very rich doesn’t get anywhere near power.

I see increased crime

You see contrived nonsense. Crime is on a steep 20 year decline. The only way this can be denied is if people go looking for single uptick in specific regions. And the only reason anyone would do that is if they want to believe in rising crime as part of some greater fantasy.

 sebster wrote:
I think this campaign, starting with Sanders’ run, has shown that mainstream, practical Democratic politics just doesn’t register with the kids at all. And the left wing that is on-line is much more radicalised, and is a growing share of the market every year. Democrats will go where the audience is, go where the votes are. Individual Democrats might be reluctant, but many will simply be challenged and replaced in primaries by more radical opponents, same as we’ve seen in the Republican party.

I could be wrong. This Trump nightmare could provide a sobering point, a realisation of what extremist politics eventually brings. Or maybe the underlying drivers of this increasing radicalisation will fade for some reason. But what I described is a reasonably likely medium term future for the US, I believe.

I think this is both right and wrong. The success of Sanders and weak enthusiasm for Clinton will likely push the democrats to the left, assuming the republican party doesn't completely destroy itself and cause a realignment of the entire party system. But I think you're wrong about it being "radical" elements that are gaining support on the left. The platform that is getting support from younger people can be pretty well summed up by "let's do things that are mainstream policies in Europe", possibly with a little more outrage about corruption in the system. Things like free college tuition aren't "radical" at all, and even the most wishful thinking ideas about regulating the banks are aimed at a problem with a lot of mainstream outrage (even if there isn't agreement on what the solution is). The people that could legitimately be considered "radical" don't really have much power at all, and often seem to be random bloggers with single-digit readers (at least until the right-wing outrage machine finds them). So I think the end result, even if the party moves left, is that the democrats will continue to be a functioning party that elects legitimate candidates.

Contrast this with the republican party, where things have gone beyond wishful thinking to outright pride in not caring about reality. IMO the clearest example of this was in one of the republican debates, Kasich said something like "I oppose illegal immigration, but we need policy ideas that work within what is possible to accomplish" and was torn apart for being "soft" on illegal immigration. That's no longer a functioning party capable of electing people that can govern the country (even if you disagree with their policies) in a responsible manner, it's a competition to see who can pander the hardest to the worst racists and generally awful people. And now that Trump has shown the path to winning primaries we can expect this trend to continue.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think this is both right and wrong. The success of Sanders and weak enthusiasm for Clinton will likely push the democrats to the left, assuming the republican party doesn't completely destroy itself and cause a realignment of the entire party system. But I think you're wrong about it being "radical" elements that are gaining support on the left. The platform that is getting support from younger people can be pretty well summed up by "let's do things that are mainstream policies in Europe", possibly with a little more outrage about corruption in the system. Things like free college tuition aren't "radical" at all, and even the most wishful thinking ideas about regulating the banks are aimed at a problem with a lot of mainstream outrage (even if there isn't agreement on what the solution is). The people that could legitimately be considered "radical" don't really have much power at all, and often seem to be random bloggers with single-digit readers (at least until the right-wing outrage machine finds them). So I think the end result, even if the party moves left, is that the democrats will continue to be a functioning party that elects legitimate candidates.

Contrast this with the republican party, where things have gone beyond wishful thinking to outright pride in not caring about reality. IMO the clearest example of this was in one of the republican debates, Kasich said something like "I oppose illegal immigration, but we need policy ideas that work within what is possible to accomplish" and was torn apart for being "soft" on illegal immigration. That's no longer a functioning party capable of electing people that can govern the country (even if you disagree with their policies) in a responsible manner, it's a competition to see who can pander the hardest to the worst racists and generally awful people. And now that Trump has shown the path to winning primaries we can expect this trend to continue.

I think a position can’t be seen as conventional or radical just by looking at the position. For example, it is possible to believe in free college funded through tax increases and spending cuts, with a focus on STEM courses as part of an overall welfare and growth program. That wouldn’t be radical. On the other hand, if you believe in free college as an absolute, with no interest or regard for how it might be paid for, but simply as a matter of principle, well then it’s a pretty radical belief.

I read an anecdote recently about one of the socialist parties that is actually part of the ruling coalition in Italy’s government. They want a considerable increase in the pension. Nothing too radical about that, except the size of the increase they’re arguing for would bankrupt the country. When challenged on this the party said they didn’t care about the finances, this was a matter of justice. That’s when a simple idea like a pension increase becomes radical.

We saw this a lot during the Sanders campaign. I was on board with a lot of his policy suggestions, but the manner in which he argued for them was, well, fairly similar to the way Republicans make their arguments. The economic numbers put up Sanders were terrible, and when errors were pointed out the numbers were just reworked to produce the same result. Sanders supporters seemed entirely uninterested that his policy positions were written on a bed of wishful thinking.

It wasn’t so bad that we need to hit the panic button yet. Sanders on the whole was probably a little more reality based than Kasich, and Kasich was a lot more reality based than anyone else in the Republican primary. But it was quite telling, I think, to note how little interest Sanders’ supporters gave to the basic lack of reality in his policy positions. I pointed it out a lot of times, and I never even got a “that’s bad, but on the whole I still like him”, instead I just got quickly rebuffed as if stuff like that should ever even matter at all.

Let that kind of thing fester, or worse encourage as a means to draw the youth in the party, and Democrats could be in for a rude shock as an ideological movement begins to take hold of the party, same as what happened to the Republicans. It is miles from certain, but it’s probably more likely than the hope that Republicans will suddenly reject the crazies from their party.

 sebster wrote:

I think a position can’t be seen as conventional or radical just by looking at the position. For example, it is possible to believe in free college funded through tax increases and spending cuts, with a focus on STEM courses as part of an overall welfare and growth program. That wouldn’t be radical. On the other hand, if you believe in free college as an absolute, with no interest or regard for how it might be paid for, but simply as a matter of principle, well then it’s a pretty radical belief.

Or what courses will be covered, though most programs in the US have some form of STEM component so it's hard to really pare it off as a series of fields unto itself. Well, at least beyond the obvious ones like physics, biology, chemistry, the various stripes of engineering, math, etc. That being said the US does list statistics, applied math, and GIS as STEM for the purposes of immigration all of which are standard components of most decent social science/humanities degrees.

 sebster wrote:

Sanders supporters seemed entirely uninterested that his policy positions were written on a bed of wishful thinking.

Several of my friends who were particularly ardent Sanders supporters also think a global minimum wage is both desirable, and workable. I'm sure not all, or even most, Sanders supporters believe such things but I know a significant minority certainly did; calling into question their judgment on economic matters.

Though, to be fair, I think for many people Sanders was considered the most likely to ardently defend, if not expand, Obamacare. Everything else he said was just ancillary proof of that.

I think there are a couple of major differences between the two sets of "radicals":

1) The left-wing "radicals" (at least the ones with any real power) tend to run into "good idea, but the math doesn't work" kinds of problems. And that makes it a lot easier to salvage some kind of possible policy from the wishful thinking. Maybe $X doesn't work as a minimum wage, but $Y does and is worth fighting for. But there's really nothing you can do with "deport all the Muslims and don't let any more in". Aside from being a morally appalling policy it just isn't possible to implement anything remotely resembling that in the real world.

2) The mainstream left does a better job of keeping the fringe from running things. We just saw a primary election where Clinton won on a platform largely consisting of "I want to do what my opponent wants, but in a way that actually works" and the problems with Sanders' numbers were brought up instead of unanimously laughed out of the debates and treated as extremist nonsense. I think that, even if there's a lot of pressure to move left, there are still enough people in charge saying "we have to work within the bounds of what is possible" to keep the party from descending into utter lunacy.

And, speaking anecdotally, the "Clinton is just as bad" element of the left doesn't seem too impressive. They're great at reposting facebook memes, but they don't have much more than "the system sucks" outrage and a love of absurd conspiracy theories. It's the kind of thing people grow out of and then look back on with some embarrassment. And I think it's something where the "radicals" are really loud but outnumbered by people who liked Sanders but aren't going to put on the tinfoil hat about all the anti-Clinton stuff.

 sebster wrote:
[
I think a position can’t be seen as conventional or radical just by looking at the position. For example, it is possible to believe in free college funded through tax increases and spending cuts, with a focus on STEM courses as part of an overall welfare and growth program. That wouldn’t be radical. On the other hand, if you believe in free college as an absolute, with no interest or regard for how it might be paid for, but simply as a matter of principle, well then it’s a pretty radical belief.

Perhaps it was the thought process that it really didn't matter that it was made up gak, because the first step of negotiating is putting out a crazy, out-of-reality number/idea and then working backwards. I think a lot of the D-base "learned" that lesson with the ACA. If you take something off the table as "too extreme" you simply narrow your own negotiating power and end up compromising on something even further away from where you wanted to go.

I don't know if I am making any sense, but essentially it was a statement of belief more than a statement of policy.

Sure, "free college for everyone!" is certainly a great idea on paper, the problem is turning it into a reality, and that's where negotiation and critical decision making comes in.

 sebster wrote:

Spoiler:

Fun fact for the day - in 1912 the Republican party platform contained no mention of the word God, and the only use of the word “faith” was in the expression “faith in government”.

While “faith in government” was pushed aside as the party and its big business interests came to oppose the growing government and its welfare programs, you still didn’t see God mentioned. In fact, 60 years later, in 1972, there was no mention of God in the party platform.

Then in 1976 and 1980 you see mentions of God, and also large portions on abortion. In 1984 you see a section added opposing conventional sex education. In 1988 a new section is added calling for controls on pornography.

In 1992 there are now four references to God and seven to “family values”. There is a new section added opposing any minority protections for homosexuality, and supporting the banning of any gay people from the military. In 1996 they increase their position on homosexuality, endorsing a federal ban on any state recognising same sex marriages.

2000 was actually saw an easing back in the religious rhetoric, with only one mention of God. In 2004 they were back in the swing of things, with a whole section dedicated to banning same sex marriage, and now there’s a call for a law that any unborn that survives an abortion to be considered a person (seriously, this was a thing). 2008 saw just references to God, and a repeat of their 2004 positions.

2012 saw things kick in to high gear, with 10 references to God and 19 to faith. There is also the first reference to “war on religion”, because Christian politics is always more fun when you mix in some paranoia.

In 2016 God is mentioned 16 times. Faith is mentioned 26 times. Abortion is to be banned with no exception, even for the health of the mother or in the case of rape. They’ve stopped arguing for the option to teach the bible in school, now it is to be required. There is a call for legislators to use religion to guide all lawmaking. They continue to reject gay marriage even though it is now law and popularly supported, and looks to make acts of homophobia protected in law. And now transgender has become the latest fear campaign, with a very weird fixation on public bathrooms.

It is impossible to read that and continue to pretend the Republican party is fine. This is not just a Trump thing. Trump happened because the Republican party hasn’t just taken up a position of religious extremism, it has built that extremism around hate.

.

And now you know why I fear the erosion of the First Amendment so much.

 Frazzled wrote:
You see progress. I see the US becoming just like every other American nation with a few wealthy elites, and the peasants. I see open borders with both parties importing cheap labor (H1B visas anyone). I see increased crime, a never ending "war on drugs," and both parties playing chickenhawk across the globe.

Except those states that are beginning to legalize Marijuana and Seattle who is going to open up public areas where heroin users can safely use.

But sure, "never ending war on drugs."

Well, well, well, looks like Ted Cruz will be sucking it up and swallowing his pride:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/index.html
I do look forward to the lingual gymnastics he will be using to do it, though.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, well, well, looks like Ted Cruz will be sucking it up and swallowing his pride:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/index.html
I do look forward to the lingual gymnastics he will be using to do it, though.

I wonder if it's because his buddy (Mike Lee) is on Trump's SCoTUS shortlist..

Does anyone else thinks that these endorsement games is frick'n worthless??

I can't see such a small bone like that being enough for Cruz. I wouldn't be surprised if the party leadership basically told him to do it or get thrown under the bus. Remember, even his fellow senators can't stand him, so he may have been told to do it or he will never get anything he wants in the Senate. At least, I'd like to think they hammered at him like that. There was a story going around that some top GOP official mentioned something about punishing the last few holdouts that weren't endorsing Trump.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I can't see such a small bone like that being enough for Cruz. I wouldn't be surprised if the party leadership basically told him to do it or get thrown under the bus. Remember, even his fellow senators can't stand him, so he may have been told to do it or he will never get anything he wants in the Senate. At least, I'd like to think they hammered at him like that. There was a story going around that some top GOP official mentioned something about punishing the last few holdouts that weren't endorsing Trump.

I think it's more likely that the party apparatchik is forcing his hand.

You'll know this is likely when you see Mike Lee eventually endorse (as he's been one of the biggest NeverTrumper out there).