logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Are voters frickin ignorant?, Are they stupidly self serving?
Gray Seal
post Apr 3 2018, 03:38 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,421
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Current events are mass public displays of disgust that guns are used to kill people. They wish the world to know they do not like people being killed with guns. It appears there is much back clapping and rejoicing about their successful out cry.

Meanwhile, we are having primaries. At least here in Illinois we did. Big money backed candidates are winning the primaries. Yep. These will be ones we have as options in the general elections from our blessed two major parties. Big money is behind both choices. Who do you think is gonna win? I predict big money.

Meanwhile, a spending bill is passed and signed. A huge spending bill. There is not money to pay for it. Along with many areas, the bill spends unprecedented amounts on military. Yes, we wish to kill people with guns or even better mass killing devices. Is there any dissent from the public? How about those participating in the marches? Voters like guns. Lots of guns. Whatever force government wishes is theirs.

People are blooming ignorant. They do not know. They don't really care. But hey, they do go on marches. They are looking good. Who needs a idea or a real principle when you can look good?

Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Gray Seal
post Apr 7 2018, 02:28 PM
Post #21


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,421
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Big money, to me, is when a candidate has lots of advertising.

This is when you get a half dozen or more shiny cards in the mail.
This is when you hear political ads on the radio.
This is when you see political ads on the television.

I call it the Shiny Card Rule. When you see any of this you know big money is behind a particular candidate. Voters should never vote for such candidates. Regular people who wish to take a turn as a representative can not afford this nonsense. It is big money fascism. Unfortunately, voters obey this nonsense. It has to stop. Do not vote for big money.

This is specific and not an empty slogan.

As far as being smart enough, if government is proper and good, there is not that much to understand. Government should not be doing a lot. Detailed sophisticated decisions should be left to individuals and their advisors. All a voter should be asking is: Is this person honest? Will they protect my freedom?

It is when government is given the role of deciding all that it gets all too complicated with information overload.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 7 2018, 03:00 PM
Post #22


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



I like the shiny card rule, Gray Seal. smile.gif
But the people with money (who want the position of power) would eat that person alive.
They'd never have another day of peace again.
Lawyers and paid propagandists would hound him or her and their families and staff 24/7 looking for dirt and publish rumors.
Unlike a private citizen, once a person becomes a public figure (particularly a public political figure) it's virtually open season on them as libel and slander laws don't apply.

Edited to add:
One way to avoid powerful and corrupt interest in political positions is to curb the cash benefits. No more follow-on paid speaking engagements in foreign countries for hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars. No more creating a private "charity" that funnels money from international sources. No more honorary "University Laureate" positions that pays a few million dollars a year (as government entities in turn throw 55 million into that university). It's all unbelievably corrupt and riddled with conflict of interest. If we want to see someone like Truman in office, who walks out of office and takes the public bus home, the incentives have to change (less disincentive for honest people to run, and less incentive for dishonest people to run).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 8 2018, 01:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Apr 7 2018, 09:44 PM
Post #23


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 3 2018, 11:38 AM) *
Current events are mass public displays of disgust that guns are used to kill people. They wish the world to know they do not like people being killed with guns. It appears there is much back clapping and rejoicing about their successful out cry.

Meanwhile, we are having primaries. At least here in Illinois we did. Big money backed candidates are winning the primaries. Yep. These will be ones we have as options in the general elections from our blessed two major parties. Big money is behind both choices. Who do you think is gonna win? I predict big money.

Meanwhile, a spending bill is passed and signed. A huge spending bill. There is not money to pay for it. Along with many areas, the bill spends unprecedented amounts on military. Yes, we wish to kill people with guns or even better mass killing devices. Is there any dissent from the public? How about those participating in the marches? Voters like guns. Lots of guns. Whatever force government wishes is theirs.

People are blooming ignorant. They do not know. They don't really care. But hey, they do go on marches. They are looking good. Who needs a idea or a real principle when you can look good?

Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?


In short, yes, some voters are ignorant or misguided. dry.gif

I couldn't help but chuckle at some of what you wrote, not in a way that I'm not taking your thread seriously, quite the opposite, but that sounds a lot like me ranting when I'm watching the news. Just to see how far gone some in the media and government are shouldn't be surprising or shocking to me at this point but somehow it still is. My girlfriend Lizzy sometimes finds my little rants amusing, at least until she gets frustrated with current events herself. She doesn't debate too much and hasn't voted yet because she feels there's not much we can do to change things. To her credit the movements which are suppressing Americans and pitting us against one another are strong and they're doing what they can to radically change America into a nation that doesn't resemble what made it successful and strong in many aspects.

Some are doing this because they don't view America as a successful nation at all, they're laser focused on everything they can find that's wrong and ignore the rest, it's always the flaws, always the negative, that's the America some see so transformation is the goal. It's not just big government that's complicating things, I think that plays a key role but I consider as well that some are trying to silence those who they disagree with and take away their ability to get their message out, (that in order to help transform our nation).

They have a huge bag of ticks, another would be ignoring or denying that there's a problem when there's clearly a problem, or ignoring something positive if it suits them. At a certain point, I have to take a step back and seek out the things that are still encouraging. On an individual level, I think many people are still relatively reasonable and courteous; if they could apply that to the movements they support we'd be better off. It's when they put their political, debate, or voting hats on when things get complicated.

Many voters are lost because they're so sidetracked by their emotions that facts are disregarded and the truth becomes secondary to how they feel. Most people who keep up with current events are going to get frustrated with how unfair or thoughtless others can be, but to base a vote or broad stance entirely on that without learning what the implications or counterarguments may be is a huge factor to why America is struggling.

Politicians, media pundits, and college educators are often using those with shared frustrations to their advantage, some even intentionally exacerbate things or create hysteria and man are they slick while doing it. Those types are trying to make it to where people no longer trust those who have a different point of view because doing that helps prevent the easily influenced among us from exploring other viewpoints, they don't want to lose their base is what it boils down to.

As I've mentioned to you before, I believe there are positives that are developing as well, I just hope there will be enough in the way of positive developments to have us hit a critical turning point. Lasting and meaningful change is likely to happen from the bottom up when more people start looking at what they can do, rather than what others can do for them. We can't expect that type of change across the board, there will always be the misguided and selfish among us, but it may very well just take a shift where just enough people get tired of what's happening to have us hit that turning point.

As for the anti-gun movement you mentioned "Never Again", it's an absolute mess. The movement has been hijacked by people who wish to manipulate those who are frustrated and scared, it's a prime example of what I mentioned earlier about playing on peoples emotions. Our youth are understandably concerned, but some of the members and leaders of this new movement have, in a short amount of time, began to appear as divisive as those who are manipulating them, David Hogg being the best example that I can think of. Some in this movement are confusing vulgarity and smear tactics with assertiveness and strength.

Did you see that CNN town hall with the parkland students and NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch? What a circus act that was, the most hated person in the room was one of the most mature ones I heard speak that night and I'm not just comparing her to the students. Members of the audience booed and screamed obscenities, even over the most benign of comments like her telling the parkland students "look at how far you all could go as a result of voicing your beliefs", that actually got the audience upset, it's some of the most bizarre behavior....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AtOU0dDXv8

The part I'm referencing is about 40 seconds into the video but she was insulted from the very start, it didn't take long.

As this is happening, students who don't agree that more gun restrictions are the answer are being largely ignored by the mainstream media and the left. Thousands of students across America are getting around this by calling into lesser-known conservative podcast and radio programs and, from what I've seen they're doing so in a way that's far more civil and constructive, making this about the thousandth thing I've seen in the last few years which points to a cultural and behavioral difference between the left and right. This also suggests that students who are acting out aren't doing so simply because the shooting was horrible, there's a little more to it. As for the adults, if this is all about listening to what our youth have to say, then they'd be more willing to lend an ear and encourage students on both sides of the argument.

One of the areas I part from you on is in regards to the left and right, I don't think they're self-serving or troubled to the same degree, (see my response to Droop below), but whatever the case may be I think things are going to continue to be frustrating for a wide range of Americans for the foreseeable future, we'll get through it but something has got to give. I'll leave it at that because I tend to get carried away and go on for quite a while on these things.

_________________________________________________________________________

Droop

QUOTE
To a large degree this is my issue with conservatism and libertarianism. For whatever reason you all don't see the corrupting nature of power in its truest form. Thus you keep pointing at things like "governments" The government can't be corrupt, its inanimate, its a conceptual way of seeing things. But the people who are in the government can be corrupt. The politicians can. But what is corrupting them. Well power or the desire for more power.


I have just a couple things to address, perhaps you and I can have a different kind of exchange than in the past. On this, have you considered that when someone is saying the government is corrupt that they're refering to the people within it as a collective? When doing so perhaps it should be added that some public servants are worse than others, but regardless I think most people understand that a government without people is just a concept. Perhaps you're being too literal, I say that because you're talking to someone who's often very literal but sometimes reading between the lines is better, that's something that I have to consider at times as well.

I usually phrase things like this....

QUOTE
"Just to see how far gone some in the media and government are shouldn't be surprising or shocking to me at this point but somehow it still is." (stated above)


You and I have talked about phrasing before, but it's been a little while. I try to phrase things like that because I know that what I'm saying doesn't apply to every individual but that doesn't mean there's not a huge problem to deal with. Things like media pundits often being biased tongue.gif You're phrasing things the way you are because you're considering the government alone without people is inanimate and that makes sense as well but it seems we have slightly different motives for the literal phrasing.

QUOTE
Yes and the further Right i go the more i see voters voting in a self serving manner. It's a reason why liberals are chastised for their "bleeding hearts". The people the left choose to vote in aren't usually running on a self serving platform as are the people on the Right.


I don't see that at all, I see the opposite. I don't say that because I'm being biased, I want to know what the truth is. If I'm wrong, I want to know. One of the worst things a person can do is go around and repeat something that isn't true. I say what I do because of current events, it's in regards to the actions of many leftist compared to those on the right. The things each side support can be a mixed bag, you'd argue that Americans who want to protect America first and foremost would be self-serving, and I think that's fair, that's not to say that all people who want what's best for America don't care what happens elsewhere, but you could view that as self-serving.

However I could point at wealth redistribution as self-serving when the rich and middle class are disregarded for the benefit of the poor and disabled. I happen to be a moderate on that issue and think that the poor do need assistance. Believe me, I understand, I'm poor, disabled, and on government assistance, but I think there's a reasonable middle ground that we should be seeking out. For many it's one or the other, what bothers me are those who continuously characterize the middle or upper class as selfish or worse. Not only do they want them to help them out they often don't make an effort to suggest that perhaps many of these individuals do care about the poor. I've even witnessed quite a few people on government assistance who abuse the benefits they have, so I have an inside view into this. What I ask is who's benefiting from wealth redistribution and who's taking the action of getting something from others?

So we can both point to policies that encourage a self-serving attitude on both sides. To look at this another way some self preservation is a good thing as long as there's some awareness and consideration for others. If I wanted to make an issue out of this I could argue that conservatives are often concerned about national security because protecting our country benefits all Americans, while wealth redistribution and affirmative action are helping and nurturing those who are in select groups. Having said that, sure some take it too far and are war hawks or get carried away, just as some who want wealth redistribution take it too far.

Policy is definitely a mixed bag, where I see the biggest difference is when we look at what's happening with social trends and behaviors. Again, many people break the mold and no person within a group is exactly the same but due to so many incidents, some of which I've pointed out at AD, I can't help but see that there's social and behavioral difference between the left and right. It's in regards to the sheer multitude of violent protest, nasty comments, and resistance to the concept of free speech. To me all of that is self serving because it disregards the saftey or beliefs of others. This happens on both sides, but as I've mentioned before, (along with other examples), I can't think of a typically right-wing institution that has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security if someone who's not violent simply walks through the door to speak.

That's what we're seeing at colleges like UC Berkely. It's often been the case that when someone who's conservative comes to speak about their beliefs, students and other protesters are so divisive and unaccepting that they can't control themselves, some even assault others and smash things up. What's the conservative equivalent to that?

Specifically, I'm talking about a neccesary and otherwise respectable institution or company that is composed of primary conservatives. To be comparable it'd be an institution or company where political, social, or moral issues are important to the function of that institution and they'd have to behave in a fashion where they have to beef up their security by spending massive amounts of money if someone who doesn't share their beliefs comes to speak. Otherwise, many of the members of that institution, along with other protesters team on the person they oppose and get violent or scream obscenities to prevent that person from being there.

Both sides have protesting movements and rogue individuals who behave this way, we could compare those at another time. I think my point with the question above is to address the fact that extremist on the left have infiltrated necessary institutions and companies in a way we haven't seen in a long time.

To me that's just one of many indicators of a social and behavioral difference between the left and right, there is so much more that points to the same conclusion. That trend could chance because I don't think individuals in any group are inherently troubled or damaging to our country, we all have the power to change our lives. Also, I'm willing to change my beliefs on this if new and relevant information is provided, as I said before it's obviously a bad thing to walk around and repaeat something that's false, the truth is what matters so I don't want to support any political group on issues or statements that are wrong or false.

This post has been edited by net2007: Apr 7 2018, 10:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Apr 9 2018, 04:04 AM
Post #24


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None






QUOTE(Gray Seal)
And I can not think of anything on the left platform (or right) which in not self serving.


What is self serving about a heterosexual fighting for Gay marriage?


QUOTE
I do wish to take power away from government and give it to individuals. Liberty. Freedom. A voluntary society. No authoritarianism.
But in past debates, when you break down what you really want. you want to take the power from you and make your own government with some neighborhood friends. And everyone that comes in your neighborhood would have to follow your laws or face violence. People born is your little society would be subject to the law and at whatever age they are adults would have to follow the law or be exiled. You call it freedom, you call it liberty, but its just your version on how government should act. Societies will always require governance. Just cause you refuse to call it "government" doesn't mean it isn't.

QUOTE
I do agree with your points on the use of the military. To label it as right wing is nonsense. Unless you are saying both major parties are right wing. That would a good recognition of the true situation of US politics. Both parties are right wing and left wing authoritarianism. Controlled by big money. By the way, big money and government hand in hand is not capitalism, it is fascism.
If both major parties are controlled by big money... then yes they are both right wing. Democrats are left of the Republicans, but the party mostly consists of center, center right politics. Many western democracies are like this. The difference in politics left vs right is far more noticeable in domestic affairs. But that's another debate I think. Capitalism will always turn to fascism.

Answer the question. Do you support an individual getting big money?? If so, that big money will be used to create more opportunities for the person with big money. I say again to you Gray Seal you need to truly understand power. You seem to understand that "government" power needs to be limited, but for some reason don't seem to understand that freedom and liberty requires ALL power be limited.

Mrs P

QUOTE
Well...yes and no. There are definitely corrupt people in power, but most of the problems aren't due to some Dr Evil (along with his motley assortment of supporters) at the top...or anything close. People do want to succeed. The "one year to put in a sink" example I gave above was a real one.
We were able to procure a local contractor to completely renovate the club...the only thing they handed to the larger (large government contractor) was the sink. The entire club (new carpet, paint, et al) was finished in 3 months. The one sink took 16 months. An explanation of exactly why would take a book...but the bottom line problem is processes over results. That does't mean processes don't have their place (they are more efficient in some cases...the reason they exist in the first place, and the bigger the entity the more processes.
I have about a hundred similar examples on the civil engineering end in particular.
I would think that most problems exist due to LOTS of people wanting to succeed in spite of the social good. They seek advantage over their fellow human. The more we exhibit this behavior the more corrupt we and our creations are.

QUOTE
Remember that line from Men in Black where Will Smith says, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it"?
Don't I know it. When judging right wing vs left wing politics Mrs P. Which one is more likely to say... "we have to go over to that other country and kill those humans or else they are going to kill us."?

QUOTE
I have just a couple things to address, perhaps you and I can have a different kind of exchange than in the past. On this, have you considered that when someone is saying the government is corrupt that they're refering to the people within it as a collective? When doing so perhaps it should be added that some public servants are worse than others, but regardless I think most people understand that a government without people is just a concept. Perhaps you're being too literal, I say that because you're talking to someone who's often very literal but sometimes reading between the lines is better, that's something that I have to consider at times as well.
Kind of like when they say make America great again, they mean... I'm not sure what they mean. Kind of like when they call someone a traitor, because he told the world their government was spying to them. He a traitor to America they say, but he wasn't a traitor to the indivuals that wanted to know... so maybe in this case America is an entity to some people.

I do get your point though and I don't mean to make it seem like I don't get that for "expedience sake" we might say "corporations think..." "Hate America..." "government is corrupt" The trouble is that when expedience of that statement becomes so normative that it becomes part of a reasoning process, I'm willing to break it down. No need to think more of it than that.

So again, if we think our politicians in the government are corrupted, what do you think is corrupting them.

QUOTE
I don't see that at all, I see the opposite. I don't say that because I'm being biased, I want to know what the truth is. If I'm wrong, I want to know. One of the worst things a person can do is go around and repeat something that isn't true. I say what I do because of current events, it's in regards to the actions of many leftist compared to those on the right. The things each side support can be a mixed bag, you'd argue that Americans who want to protect America first and foremost would be self-serving, and I think that's fair, that's not to say that all people who want what's best for America don't care what happens elsewhere, but you could view that as self-serving.
For me there is nothing NOTHING wrong with putting America and Americans first, IF it does not come at the expense of other humans. But yes, you are wrong and I am not so sure you want to know. If you think in "America First terms" you are already admitting bias.


QUOTE
Policy is definitely a mixed bag, where I see the biggest difference is when we look at what's happening with social trends and behaviors. Again, many people break the mold and no person within a group is exactly the same but due to so many incidents, some of which I've pointed out at AD, I can't help but see that there's social and behavioral difference between the left and right. It's in regards to the sheer multitude of violent protest, nasty comments, and resistance to the concept of free speech. To me all of that is self serving because it disregards the saftey or beliefs of others. This happens on both sides, but as I've mentioned before, (along with other examples), I can't think of a typically right-wing institution that has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security if someone who's not violent simply walks through the door to speak.

That's what we're seeing at colleges like UC Berkely. It's often been the case that when someone who's conservative comes to speak about their beliefs, students and other protesters are so divisive and unaccepting that they can't control themselves, some even assault others and smash things up. What's the conservative equivalent to that?
I don't know. I have no clue what you may or may not call a "false equivalency". Allow me to ask you this, whats the death count so far on this horrible thing liberals do. When liberal "shout down" what they believe is hate speech, but still free, denying conservative viewpoint being heard who is dying? In contrast when many conservatives support killing citizens because an officer feel threatens, that has a death toll in human lives. When many conservatives support foreign wars, what's the cost of human lives. But let's be fair, there is this very human process called justification. And when you are dealing with a group of people that can justify dropping nukes, what in the world could I say in a debate to change their mind. Anything can be justified.

Getting back to the debate of corruption. Business interest understand justification. They understand the type of people that need to merely feel "threat" as provocation for a blank check in terms of action. All they have to do is provide justification.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Apr 9 2018, 05:15 AM
Post #25


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?

A circus-like atmosphere is part and parcel of intentional wedge politics. And by wedge I mean both parties are fomenting negative optics about as many superfluous issues as possible because that is where the money is. There is no left or right anymore, there is oppressed and oppressor.

Without principles, money becomes the glue that holds things together. Without that you have force. Take a good look around you because the money won't last forever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Apr 9 2018, 02:00 PM
Post #26


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,421
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(droop224)
What is self serving about a heterosexual fighting for Gay marriage?
It is self serving to want government to make law to your own morals. Government should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a personal commitment made voluntarily. At least it should be. Government control makes it into a an advantage grabbing fiasco with lawyers happy to pick up the crumbs from legal action. Look at the advantage people seek because they are married.

QUOTE(droop224)
But in past debates, when you break down what you really want. you want to take the power from you and make your own government with some neighborhood friends. And everyone that comes in your neighborhood would have to follow your laws or face violence. People born is your little society would be subject to the law and at whatever age they are adults would have to follow the law or be exiled. You call it freedom, you call it liberty, but its just your version on how government should act. Societies will always require governance. Just cause you refuse to call it "government" doesn't mean it isn't.
I do not beat around the bush. The structure of society should be based upon freedom. There should be no law and use of violence to enforce them. Society will always need a means to defend against violence. With freedom you must respect the freedom of others. With freedom you have to be honest. With freedom you can not use violence to gain advantage. In my neighborhood you would not have to follow law or face violence.

droop224.... property rights. Do you think we should have privacy rights?

Fascism is an offshoot of socialism. Fascism has nothing, nothing to do with capitalism. This is an important concept. It is vital to comprehending what big money fascism is. Capitalism is freedom. Fascism is not. Authoritarian socialism is not freedom.

QUOTE(droop224)
Do you support an individual getting big money??
I support people making voluntary exchanges. I recommend against voting for people who have big money backing.

I agree with you that all power (whether private or public), all use of force to impose morals or gain advantage must not be part of society.

-------

Trouble, you state what is obviously going on. It is scary. I share your concern. Force is winning over freedom as the moral compass we should be following.

-------

net2007, another gem post from you. thumbsup.gif

QUOTE(net2007)
One of the areas I part from you on is in regards to the left and right, I don't think they're self-serving or troubled to the same degree...
Hmm. "..to the same degree" At lest we agree they are self serving. The degree, I insist, are not more than a few digits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 9 2018, 02:09 PM
Post #27


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 8 2018, 11:04 PM) *
Mrs P

QUOTE
Well...yes and no. There are definitely corrupt people in power, but most of the problems aren't due to some Dr Evil (along with his motley assortment of supporters) at the top...or anything close. People do want to succeed. The "one year to put in a sink" example I gave above was a real one.
We were able to procure a local contractor to completely renovate the club...the only thing they handed to the larger (large government contractor) was the sink. The entire club (new carpet, paint, et al) was finished in 3 months. The one sink took 16 months. An explanation of exactly why would take a book...but the bottom line problem is processes over results. That does't mean processes don't have their place (they are more efficient in some cases...the reason they exist in the first place, and the bigger the entity the more processes.
I have about a hundred similar examples on the civil engineering end in particular.

I would think that most problems exist due to LOTS of people wanting to succeed in spite of the social good. They seek advantage over their fellow human. The more we exhibit this behavior the more corrupt we and our creations are.


Not in my opinion Droop. IMO "most problems" (at the least the ones I've referenced) have nothing to do with people (lots or even few) wanting to succeed in spite of the social good.
Everyone likes to work for a successful organization. People weren't working 12 hour days and not succeeding because no one wanted to succeed and/or leadership didn't want to be successful. That's not what was happening. It's in everyone's interest to succeed. I'll say again, there are innumerable examples of this in government. Even the club at our base here...it's a benefit to the dorm residents but due to government contracts it's hard for the club to compete. A keg costs 300 dollars from the contractor, 100 from local business. They have to use the contractor. I'm sure somewhere up the budget pipeline there was a reason, and it probably had something to do with large contracts, just like HMOs and so many other colossal enterprises.

Then there's the undermanning. Most of our groups (Operations, Maintenance, Medical, Logistics, Comm, ad nauseum ect) are only 50 percent manned. They are doing their jobs with half the number of people required, and about 100 times the number of regulations an ordinary business would have. These regulations/requirements just about all generate from “good intentions”. You don’t really get a nanny state from bad intentions. Soon everyone is wearing diapers because this or that guy crapped himself. Then they have a monitor to make sure everyone is wearing diapers…and then a program to make sure that monitor is monitoring the diapers, then a diaper inspector because….woudlnt’ want those diapers to leak. Because the Washington Post said diapers were leaking and Congress is angry! And so on.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Remember that line from Men in Black where Will Smith says, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it"?
Don't I know it. When judging right wing vs left wing politics Mrs P. Which one is more likely to say... "we have to go over to that other country and kill those humans or else they are going to kill us."?


If we truly compare the number of deaths due to leftist policies with conservative policies, conservatives pale in comparison. Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge....you've actually (in the past) cited Che as a fine example to emulate so those are all reasonable examples.
But let's just take Obama. Ten times the number of drone attacks as the previous administration. The State department policy of essentially duty to defend everyone was catastrophic.
Under Obama (really Hillary's state department policy...after she left Kerry was better but the damage was already done), we destroyed Libya in order to "save" it, along with a lot of other parts of the ME. Don't get me started with Clinton’s (the would-be-first-gentleman's) frivolous military fiascos.

There aren’t a lot of really informative military blogs anymore. I used to follow several (Neptunus Lex (formal Naval pilot, RIP), Abu Mugawama (became a beltway warrior, RIP), and Intel Dump) There’s a reason they've gone the way of the passenger pigeon, and it’s much the same reason we aren’t going to see a lot of honest political leaders.
The cost to gains equation doesn’t figure anymore.

Intel Dump was unusual (and I used to reference it here, back in the day) as it was written by an Army JAG named Phil Carter, and had a more liberal bent to it than the others. It was informative, and Phil Carter had served a number of years to include a year’s stint working with the Iraqi police as an embedded advisor in Baqubah. Phil campaigned heavily for Obama, and was ecstatic when he was elected. Carter was then appointed the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, and the chief architect of the Obama administration plan to close Guantanamo Bay. He was appointed in March and resigned a mere eight months later “for personal reasons”.
Then he went ghost.
We know what happened to that plan and I always suspected Carter must’ve encountered a very harsh and frustrating lesson as reality smashed his dreams. So did Obama (the reason he didn’t close Gitmo).
People don’t know what they don’t know.
So I tend to give folks a lot of leeway when it comes to military decision making.
We’re all working with incomplete data.

(the rest of the quotes below those two are net's, not mine)

Edited to add:
I mentioned something about protocol earlier, and you responded that you understand what I meant.
You might understand to a degree, but I really doubt anyone here (or most anywhere, outside of those who have to know) understand the full degree of what I'm talking about.
It's just not something anyone understands until they have to.
We were blessed and fortunate enough to have a really great protocol person. I don't think there's a better one anywhere, she has been in this business a long time.
She actually worked for the White House (Obama) before she was here. Without her, we'd be toast. There's actually legal requirements involved in who you hang out with and who you invite to this or that event (including to one's own home...and keep in mind I am required to entertain often, much of it out of pocket, it's not elective. If I invite one person that means I must invite five other, or ten others, of fifty or one hundred...depending. It all has to do with potential conflicts of interest and none of it is particularly interesting, but all of it is very important legally...gifts are another big one. What you are expected to give, what you can and cannot receive and so forth...the list goes on)

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 9 2018, 05:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Apr 10 2018, 05:28 PM
Post #28


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,941
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 6 2018, 06:09 PM) *
Julian, you know who else needs to be regulated? Voters. They are doing a poor job. Why continue to let them vote? A government agency needs to decide who get to vote.

Yes, the previous paragraph was facetious. As to regulating journalists and politicians. How about not reading/watching bad journalists? How about not voting for bad politicians? This blooming reliance upon government to do it for you is pathetic and it does not work. Regulation is the problem not the solution.

If the argument is that the general public is incapable of making decisions on their own for themselves how in the world can you expect them to pick out good politicians who can do it for everyone? Gosh awful logic to think this. Bizzaro.


Stuff and nonsense.

Does the fact that the medical and legal professions are regulated (by the professionals themselves, for the most part) stop you going to your local woo-woo merchant to see a homeopathic reiki chiropractioner for some acupuncture? Nope. All it does is stop them calling themselves a doctor and performing open heart surgery on you.

Does it stop you taking legal advice from your window cleaner? Nope. It doesn't even stop you asking her to represent you in court if you really, really want her to, but you'd most likely get a better result if you asked your lawyer to wash your windows.

It's about introducing some kind minimum standard, below which nobody can fall and still call themselves a journalist, or stand for office (or more particularly, expect to remain in it).

All I'm suggesting is that nobody not so 'vetted' and regulated could claim to be in the business of facts. They can be paid to express their opinion, certainly, but that's not journalism, it's a branch of the entertainment business. And nobody who doesn't understand the basics of the Constitution could stand for the Presidency, much less get elected to it then proposing policies that are not only in Constitutional grey areas but outright forbidden by it.

Few have confidence in national politicians or mass media and in a body of population big enough that you cannot know or research everything for yourself and have to delegate your news gathering to other sources, or the proper administration of tax monies (and even libertarians don't generally want that abolished completely) to politicians of some kind, would it not be helpful to have some kind of third-party validation of "this person conforms to the minimum standards expected of someone in such a position" beyond what the mass media - or other third parties of unknown provenance - themselves say about these people?

And why is it ok to register and regulate a lawyer but NOT a journalist or a politician. Isn't an incompetent lawyer rather less likely to do you harm than either of the other two? Maybe you should just use your window cleaner after all next time you're arrested on a capital charge?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Apr 10 2018, 05:57 PM
Post #29


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,421
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Perhaps it is different in England but you can not give medical advice if you are not a doctor in the United States. It is not just a prohibition upon heart surgery.

You better have a member of the local bar association hired or you will not get fair treatment in the local courts. Nothing is as highly regulated in the United States as the judicial system.

It is about having your own minimal standards from whom you will do business with. It is having some sort of minimal understanding that freedom is better than authoritarian control. A little bit of fascism is still fascism. It does not make it OK if you say it is just a little thing.

What sort of minimal journalist standard do you have for yourself that is so overwhelming that you need the government to step in for you?

-----

90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. The Constitution has been trashed. It is time for a revolution and start over. Now with the experience of 200 years, we can do a much better job establishing a Constitution which protect freedoms. Unfortunately, the people would rather have authoritarian government at this point in time.

People are ignorant. They know little of what the Constitution says. Then there is knowing how Constitution cases have been decided. For example: United Citizens. Most people have not read the court opinion and believe it is some sort of establishment of corporations as people. It is just plain ignorance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Apr 11 2018, 02:11 AM
Post #30


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,367
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?

Probably not, because real principles can mean something to one voter, nothing to another, and degrees in between.

Examples abound on how this voting block believes in less government, but only if they aren't hurt by the constricting; that voting block is for higher wages, as long as it includes them -- and the list goes onward to infinity, so it seems.

It is wise to choose your battles carefully, so if such-and-so group has ignored this-and-that issue, it's because bringing about positive change in the poop typhoon of existence requires intense focus. But then something can happen in which diverse groups find common ground, if only cosmetic, and big changes can meld together. Whether that's good or bad depends on who's doing the judgment. I think the Religious Right was bad, for example. I think the newer generations are right to do things like protest firearm violence, accept gender fluidity (clumsy, but I don't have anything better right now), question the high costs of education, resist wars on foreign soil, and a lot more.

My hope is that reading comes back as a more popular pastime than Facebook, that more people figure out their own ways than following leaders of dubious persuasions, and that peace and love rule the universe.

flowers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Apr 15 2018, 08:39 PM
Post #31


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Gray Seal
QUOTE
QUOTE
One of the areas I part from you on is in regards to the left and right, I don't think they're self-serving or troubled to the same degree.
..Hmm. "..to the same degree" At lest we agree they are self serving. The degree, I insist, are not more than a few digits.


You're probably right, I think I'm of the stance that the two sides are simply a few more digits more off than what you believe. I explain the reasons why some to Droop below in a very long-winded reply, hopefully not too long, I can get carried away for sure.

droop224
QUOTE
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 9 2018, 12:04 AM) *

I have just a couple things to address, perhaps you and I can have a different kind of exchange than in the past. On this, have you considered that when someone is saying the government is corrupt that they're refering to the people within it as a collective? When doing so perhaps it should be added that some public servants are worse than others, but regardless I think most people understand that a government without people is just a concept. Perhaps you're being too literal, I say that because you're talking to someone who's often very literal but sometimes reading between the lines is better, that's something that I have to consider at times as well.
Kind of like when they say make America great again, they mean... I'm not sure what they mean. Kind of like when they call someone a traitor, because he told the world their government was spying to them. He a traitor to America they say, but he wasn't a traitor to the indivuals that wanted to know... so maybe in this case America is an entity to some people.

I do get your point though and I don't mean to make it seem like I don't get that for "expedience sake" we might say "corporations think..." "Hate America..." "government is corrupt" The trouble is that when expedience of that statement becomes so normative that it becomes part of a reasoning process, I'm willing to break it down. No need to think more of it than that.

So again, if we think our politicians in the government are corrupted, what do you think is corrupting them.


Sorry for the delay, I still struggle to find time to write and I find this to be an important topic so I've got a very detailed reply for you, (particularly in regards to the second half of the post.) It's a long reply but if this topic is important to you, read this one carefully. Any information you have to show, I'll take a look at.

I'm trying to take you at your word that the focus on phrasing hasn't at times been an attempt to distract from the substance of a debate. In regards to "Make America Great Again", I get where you're coming from. It sounds to me like it means Trump is attempting to make America great for those who agree with him on what would make America great. That's having the effect of frustrating anyone who disagrees's with his policies or morals, in fact, he's agitated the opposition to the point where they'd be quick to say that he has no morals and want's to destroy our country. However, it's all about perspective and this has happened before.

While he was often more elegant in his approach, Obama's "Yes We Can" was basically the same thing. To conservatives, all that meant was "yes we can" say and do things which will appeal to Obama and those who support him, (generally the left), while ignoring conservatives nearly every step of the way. I think both Obama and Trump have done good things for those who think as they do, I usually take them at their word that they're trying to help but neither one of them understand or care that they haven't done much to unite our country.

I'm glad conservatives are at least getting more in the way of representation and policy consideration, the left having another 4 to 8 years of special treatment wouldn't have been very fair but at some point, we need someone who makes a genuine effort to address the divisiveness that we're seeing. It'd take more than short statements that sound good, they'd have to give both sides policy consideration and recognition that goes beyond saying two sentences at a rally. I don't expect any president or elected official not to have some degree of bias or preferred policy stances, but they should at least make some effort to find middle ground and areas we can work together because our country is in a fragile state, most of us can agree on that much.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I don't see that at all, I see the opposite. I don't say that because I'm being biased, I want to know what the truth is. If I'm wrong, I want to know. One of the worst things a person can do is go around and repeat something that isn't true. I say what I do because of current events, it's in regards to the actions of many leftist compared to those on the right. The things each side support can be a mixed bag, you'd argue that Americans who want to protect America first and foremost would be self-serving, and I think that's fair, that's not to say that all people who want what's best for America don't care what happens elsewhere, but you could view that as self-serving.


For me there is nothing NOTHING wrong with putting America and Americans first, IF it does not come at the expense of other humans. But yes, you are wrong and I am not so sure you want to know. If you think in "America First terms" you are already admitting bias.


Okay, so why am I wrong? Also, whether or not I think America should be first should be a separate argument.

Your comment was...

QUOTE
Yes and the further Right i go the more i see voters voting in a self serving manner. It's a reason why liberals are chastised for their "bleeding hearts". The people the left choose to vote in aren't usually running on a self serving platform as are the people on the Right.


and I said I don't see that at all and that I'm not saying that out of a bias. That's a left Vs. right statement rather than an America Vs. Russia, Iran, or North Korea statement. I'm basing my stance on an overwhelming amount of information that, thus far, others haven't been able to debunk or come up with a counter that overwhelms the information I'm providing. I do have a degree of bias, just as others do, but I'm not basing my argument on my personal feelings is what I'm saying. You've heard me say many times that I agree with the right on only slightly more issues than the left, and you've heard me criticise conservatives many times, by the standards of the 1960's I could have easily been a Democrat. That being said, I can understand the skepticism, you don't know me personally.

With that said, let's look at the situation at hand with the question I asked below on colleges, along with a few other things, then we can take it from there if you have more substantiation...

QUOTE
QUOTE
Policy is definitely a mixed bag, where I see the biggest difference is when we look at what's happening with social trends and behaviors. Again, many people break the mold and no person within a group is exactly the same but due to so many incidents, some of which I've pointed out at AD, I can't help but see that there's social and behavioral difference between the left and right. It's in regards to the sheer multitude of violent protest, nasty comments, and resistance to the concept of free speech. To me all of that is self serving because it disregards the saftey or beliefs of others. This happens on both sides, but as I've mentioned before, (along with other examples), I can't think of a typically right-wing institution that has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security if someone who's not violent simply walks through the door to speak.

That's what we're seeing at colleges like UC Berkely. It's often been the case that when someone who's conservative comes to speak about their beliefs, students and other protesters are so divisive and unaccepting that they can't control themselves, some even assault others and smash things up. What's the conservative equivalent to that?
I don't know. I have no clue what you may or may not call a "false equivalency". Allow me to ask you this, whats the death count so far on this horrible thing liberals do. When liberal "shout down" what they believe is hate speech, but still free, denying conservative viewpoint being heard who is dying? In contrast when many conservatives support killing citizens because an officer feel threatens, that has a death toll in human lives. When many conservatives support foreign wars, what's the cost of human lives. But let's be fair, there is this very human process called justification. And when you are dealing with a group of people that can justify dropping nukes, what in the world could I say in a debate to change their mind. Anything can be justified.

Getting back to the debate of corruption. Business interest understand justification. They understand the type of people that need to merely feel "threat" as provocation for a blank check in terms of action. All they have to do is provide justification.


Comparing the left and the right on whether or not they want to take military action is complicated for a couple reasons. The first thing I'd state is that many on the left appear to be much more willing to take military action than you are. I'm not downing you for the beliefs you hold but have you heard the Democrats recently on whether or not we should have taken military action in Syria? Even Chuck Schumer has been quoted saying that punishing Assad is "the right thing to do". Admittingly this is upsetting some progressives within the Democratic party, but the same can be said for conservatives who thought we shouldn't be in Syria or Iraq.

Right here at AD, we see a great deal of skepticism in regards to taking too much military action from members like Conservpat if I remember right, and Gray Seal as you can see. DTOM wasn't a liberal either and he put up some of the strongest skepticism to the Iraq war. So you have neocons who want to fight in most situations, but there are conservatives and libertarians who certainly don't want to go to war unless it's under extreme circumstances. Laura Ingraham, who's very conservative, has been complaining about us taking military action in Syria and a substantial portion of Trump voters favor Trump because he was stating that we need to be involved with our own country rather than nation-building. He's certainly up and down on this issue and sends mixed signals with how involved we should be but that's frustrating many conservatives. At a minimum we're not involved in a ground war and regime change, that's a step away from Bush Jr. but we'll see what happens.

It's not so black and white where conservatives want to take military action while liberals don't, but at minimum I'd agree that conservatives have more commonly supported military action so let's look at what that means in the context of this conversation. I don't think bringing up the right's support of military action is a moot point by you, it's a factor that's fair to mention. I'm sure there are conservatives who put little thought into what they're supporting, don't consider the consequences, or support taking military action due to some internal urge to incite violence. That being said, that's not applicable across the board and there are other things to consider as well, such as cause and effect.

This is important, we're talking about a difference in hostility between the left and right so in that context I'd point out that those who support military action are reacting to things like people being gassed with toxic chemicals. In the most recent gassing, it was primarily women and children who were affected...

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/sy...orces-1.5978733

It's very rare that an American citizen is personally assaulting others when they support military action in a situation like this, and If you want to frame it in a way that they're encouraging violence on other humans, that's fine as long as you're detailed. They're wanting action taken against those who put others in a life or death situation, the most violent among us. The purpose of that gas attack, as with many hostile nations and terrorist organizations is completely different, they're often specifically targeting those who pose little or no threat and they do so on purpose. Now, whether or not that means we should take military action is still very complicated, there's a lot to consider when something like this happens.

However, let's go back to the behaviors of the left in colleges like UC Berkeley to contrast this. The cause of their aggression is often simply not wanting to hear the opinion of someone who doesn't think like them which suggest they're more commonly triggered by things that are far less severe. Let's be honest here, when Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro show up at a college like UC Berkely they're not bringing canisters of chlorine gas to wipe out college students. I've actually watched some of these events from start to finish when Ben Shapiro goes to speak and I don't see what the fuss is about. He's not encouraging violence, and he's typically not debating whether or not we should use military force either. More than anything he's being critical of the left's stance on free speech and giving rather tame conservative talking points by comparison to those who are reacting to his presence.

The effect of a conservative speaker going to colleges like UC Berkley is often that students and other protesters are personally harassing or getting violent with others as they do things like smash up public property or block up traffic. That's extremely self-serving and it's over something minor by comparison to dictators and terrorist who intentionally target civilians with lethal attacks. So reacting to words being spoken with violence and personal attacks is a bit different than someone advocating for taking military action when they're reacting to violent actions that are taking place on those who pose little or no threat. It's also different in the sense that advocates for taking military action are far less commonly personally assaulting others if they don't get their way.

Again, I don't think your point is moot or has no impact on this topic, I don't doubt that there's a subsection of conservatives who support military action because that's a reflection of their own violent tendencies or something of that nature. As for our active military personnel specifically there's about 1.3 million of them, many of whom are not involved in active combat, I don't know what would be self-serving about a medic risking his life to save a life but when our actions have unintended consequences that's certainly a consideration. I'd just emphasize that there are differences to consider when using the military as an example.

In regards to the violence and vitriol in left-leaning colleges, I asked this question...

"What's the conservative equivalent to that?"

You replied....

"I don't know. I have no clue what you may or may not call a "false equivalency".

I'd consider what I wrote in the last post after I asked that question to avoid a false equivalency. To show a conservative equivalent, your example wouldn't have to perfectly match the example I gave but it should fit some of the primary characteristics. For example....

1. The company or institution should have a conservative majority, obviously.

2. Preferably politics should be important to the function of the company or institution, or the people within it. Left-leaning colleges are often very verbal places when it comes to politics and those beliefs are so important to them that they think it's damaging to hear beliefs that don't match theirs.

3. The institution or company should be sizable and it shouldn't be an isolated incident you show. If you show me one example of three people preventing a liberal from speaking at a local gun shop, that obviously doesn't have the impact that colleges do when we're talking about 100's of people acting ridiculous again and again at different times and at different colleges.

4. To speak of the behavior, it has to be extreme. A place where the behavior has been bad enough that the members will do things like smash up public property, assault others, draw attention from outsiders who also assault others, ignore or reject those within the company or institution who stray from the majority opinion, etc. etc. It doesn't have to be exact but it has to be bad enough that they're required to take drastic action, like spend 100's of thousands of dollars on security when someone who's not being violent simply comes to give an opinion. If you need an example of this happening just let me know, what I stated here isn't a fair representation of all college students but I don't see anything quite like this happening at a typically conservative institution or company.

Also, it's not as if I have to narrow things down to what's happening at colleges to come to the conclusion I have on the left. (bear with me on the rest of this) Would you be willing to look at the way conservatives reacted to Obama being elected and honestly state that the level of violence and vitriol was near as bad as the way the left reacted to Trump being elected? I don't see how anyone can look at Trump election reactions and Obama election reactions and honestly state that there wasn't a huge difference between the two when all is considered. Now , some may look at that and say it's due to the nature of Trump and how some view him as a threat to our society but I think that they'd be forgetting that a fair chunk conservatives felt the same way about Obama, they feared what the implications were of an Obama presidency and hated that he got elected. That says nothing of the fact that a difference in the level of hostile protest between the left and right, predates Trump announcing he was running for president.

It's in so many events where there's this contrast of behavior, the way pro 2nd amendment students are debating solutions to the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School is often quite different than how students who are gun restrictions advocates are debating, and that's after the fact that the pro 2nd amendment students have been largely disregarded by both the media and various schools. I'd be willing to debate that in detail with confidence that the students who are pro second amendment are, on average, behaving more respectfully and civilly towards others, though there are exceptions.

Perhaps I'm overdoing it here, but there's also a lot of statistical data that backs my argument. I haven't seen any polling or surveys addressing this topic specifically and I wouldn't trust one that asks (Who's more violent or self-serving, the left or the right?). not everyone is going to answer that honestly and I wouldn't rule out the potential for a left or right wing company trying to confirm their own bias on this so sometimes it's necessary to get sneaky and look at data created by those who weren't trying to answer a question like that.

There's a lot of indirect evidence that leftist are on average more violent and less respectful towards others, and when it's combined with everything else the results are conclusive enough for me. For starters, looking at crime statistics is revealing in key areas, for example, the contrast in the crime rate between suburban and urban areas is worth a mention....

QUOTE
"Among these 48 major metropolitan areas, the violent crime rate was 433 (offenses per 100,000 population known to the police), approximately 10% above the national rate of 392 in 2011. The violent crime rate in the historical core municipalities, or urban core (See Suburbanized Core Cities) was 911 offenses per 100,000 population. In the suburbs, which consist of all municipalities not comprising the historical cores, the violent rate was 272 offenses per 100,000 population. Thus, the urban core violent crime rate was 3.3 times the suburban violent crime rate (Figure 1)."


http://www.newgeography.com/content/003799...res-and-suburbs

So the crime rate is often lowest in areas where there are more conservatives, (I'll assume for now that I don't have to prove that there are higher concentrations of conservatives in the suburbs, but ask if you need that.) A number of similar sources I've read state that there are trend changes occurring but none that I've read suggest that there isn't a difference in the crime rate or that the opposite is true. It's reasonable to question how much of a role political beliefs play in these figures, that's a debate I'm happy to have and It's fair to point out that things like a difference in living conditions play a role, but the bottom line is that those who lean left, on average, commit more crime and are more violent. I wouldn't conclude that from those figures alone because I have seen some mixed data when looking at rural vs urban but the numbers I provided here are corroborated when looking into the crime rates by age group.

In every field of crime that I've read on the story is similar, the older you are, the less likely you are to commit a crime and the older a person is, the more likely they are to be conservative as well. I'm not talking simply about senior citizens committing less crime, it tapers off gradually by decade. 40-year-olds are substantially less likely to commit a crime than a 20-year-old, and a person is very capable to commit a crime at the age of 40, they more often simply chose not to do so.

With age comes maturity and a higher awareness of the consequences of committing a crime or hurting another person, and the older age groups happen to be the more conservative age groups on average as well.....

https://ucr.fbi.gov/additional-ucr-publicat...arrest93-01.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/...-the-us-by-age/

How do you counter these figures? I don't see how this isn't ironclad proof that people on the left are on average more likely to commit a crime or hurt another person. To answer your question, a lot of people die at the hands of those who are on the political left, they may not be killing others in the name of their political beliefs in every case but this does beg the question of what positive impact does leftism have on a person when there's this difference that's clearly present with how they're behaving? Regardless the individuals behind the beliefs are more likely to do things that hurt others, all of this is relevant because there's nothing more self-serving than completely disregarding others to the point you're hurting them physically, or taking things from them. We can argue about policies that both sides support which could be viewed as self-serving, but....

1. the way the left goes about debating policy or defending a stance is more often more self-serving than the approach of the right... (address my prior arguments on college and high school students or the difference in how adults behaved on the left and right when Trump and Obama were elected for that) and...

2. statistics show that on a personal level those who are on the left politically are, on average, more violent, more willing to commit a crime, and therefore less considerate of others.

There's a lot that throws a wrench in the narrative that conservatives are more self-serving or less considerate of those who don't think or look like them. Similar arguments to those seem like they're often intertwined in leftist ideology as if it comes standard. This conventional wisdom of the left couldn't be further from the truth though. That's because much of it is based on assumptions and speculation, especially in heated race related debates.

Not to say I'm not confident in my debates, but there are few political topics where I feel as confident as I do on left and right wing behaviors. Media bias is another topic where I feel I have the most experience but I've stated before that matters of politics and race are often more subjective than matters of science and there's often a little grey. Even in this situation I feel there's some grey, it's not a one size fits all argument where if a person is on the political left they're guaranteed to be more violent, dangerous, or self serving than a conservative but I don't see how saying leftist are on average more prone to fit those descriptions, isn't a true statement. I want you to be able to debunk though if I'm wrong, I've been challenging the left on this for a while.

In key areas, we really come from a similar mindset Droop, we don't want people fighting for a cause with a blatant disregard for others, we just have different ideas on who's doing that more. To Gray Seals point, both sides are guilty of this but the left is often responding in a self-serving manner more radically and over things like simple disagreements. I'm not debating whether or not each side has a problem with self-servitude or a disregard for others, I'm debating the intensity and frequency of this behavior on each side. This is something I want to have right because it has at times been the tie-breaking factor that has me siding with the right given my policy beliefs are so split. The left has some ideas that I can get on board with but modern liberals and Democrats have strayed far away from where these movements once were, I don't take joy in that, I think it's unfortunate given both sides can contribute good things.



This post has been edited by net2007: Apr 16 2018, 02:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Apr 16 2018, 05:08 PM
Post #32


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,941
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 10 2018, 06:57 PM) *
Perhaps it is different in England but you can not give medical advice if you are not a doctor in the United States. It is not just a prohibition upon heart surgery.


So there are no herbalists, acupuncturists and other practitioners of 'alternative medicine' in the whole USA? Or they are there, but nobody ever uses them?

QUOTE
You better have a member of the local bar association hired or you will not get fair treatment in the local courts. Nothing is as highly regulated in the United States as the judicial system.


You don't say. I used the law and medicine as examples of where regulation (the idea that you have to be registered with the AMA or the ABA) is a good thing, and you've cited back at me evidence that it's a good thing in a post challenging my assertion that it's a good thing.

How do you know that any given lawyer or doctor is what they say they are? A lawyer or a doctor, I mean? Don't you kind of assume that they are a registered practitoner of their profession to the standards they claim? Or is that so basic you assume that they are what they say they are on their own say-so? What objective standard do you apply to them - before you have met them, seen them work, or heard or read other people's recommendations - to tell you to approach them? Do you check at all?

QUOTE
It is about having your own minimal standards from whom you will do business with. It is having some sort of minimal understanding that freedom is better than authoritarian control. A little bit of fascism is still fascism. It does not make it OK if you say it is just a little thing.


QUOTE
What sort of minimal journalist standard do you have for yourself that is so overwhelming that you need the government to step in for you?


I don't have a huge problem. The people that do have a huge problem are too ill-informed (by their chosen media outlets, operating to low or no journalistic standards) to be able to form a useful opinion.

QUOTE
90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. The Constitution has been trashed. It is time for a revolution and start over. Now with the experience of 200 years, we can do a much better job establishing a Constitution which protect freedoms. Unfortunately, the people would rather have authoritarian government at this point in time.


*sigh*

First off, a revolution is one spin round. You end up facing the same direction. Calling for a change in direction is not going to be usefully served by revolution, not least because those most interested in revolution are often those motivated solely by breaking down the present system. Until you can determine, in detail, what comes afterwards, you cannot have anything except blind faith that the outcome of a revolution will be any better than the status quo ante. So, what changes would you make to the post revolutionary Constitution that would avoid ending up where you started out?

It's in that spirit that I floated the - dare I say, revolutionary? - idea that those wishing to make a living as a professional journalist and/or politician should have some basic vetting in place to ensure they are a fit person to hold that office. After all, we do it automatically with doctors and lawyers. We trust that system. So, why don't we set up a NEW system that works in a similar way, that WE can trust? That's not "fascism" or "authoritarian control", because we already do it for doctors and lawyers and you yourself have pointed out it would be risky in the extreme to put such trust in anyone who is not demonstrably qualified in those fields.

QUOTE
People are ignorant. They know little of what the Constitution says. Then there is knowing how Constitution cases have been decided. For example: United Citizens. Most people have not read the court opinion and believe it is some sort of establishment of corporations as people. It is just plain ignorance.


What is the cured for ignorance? Is it to ignore those you deem to be ignorant? Should the entire electoral process ignore those who are deemed - by some external authority of some kind - ignorant? (And isn't that what the media/electoral process is doing now, which is causing so many problems?)

Or is education the answer to ignorance? Education being, among other things, the distribution of pertinent information. Such as - oh, I don't know - which political candidates are adequately qualified to stand? After all, people are ignorant. Politicians are people (most of them, anyway). If they are ignorant, constitutionally, wouldn't it be a good idea to prevent them standing (certainly to prevent them winning)? If someone professing to be a journalist doesn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, wouldn't it be a good idea to stop thinking of them (or employing them) as a journalist? They can be a 'columnist' or a 'commentator' (or a stand-up comedian or street-corner haranguist) but maybe they should not be given the privileged status of 'journalist', with the extra public attention that commands.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Apr 23 2018, 07:32 AM
Post #33


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?


Perhaps the better question is why are the parties moving their platforms away from real principles? This requires thinking about why the hot seat isn't so comfortable any more.

Along with corruption there is an element that we the public are not grasping. The political class in general is in an increasingly untenable situation. Raising funds for anything is a challenge. The whole of society is culturally, morally and fiscally in a contraction phase. While centered around debt the problem is like grasping the tail of an elephant. You know there is something more to the tail but how much you don't know. An ungovernable state is not just an American problem. It is something that afflicts all the allies.

Big money was an absolute necessity as the Democratic party ran out of money before the full election cycle and the result was the Clinton campaign was able to purchase the electoral outcome of Madam Clinton and Mr. Sanders debates. Money has become a lock out mechanism keeping out the qualified because these people haven't swallowed the rhetoric. This is for the Kool Aid drinkers only. Once you make that realization the rest makes sense. This is the downside of apathy when you think about it because big money wants apathy so they "It" can continue unobstructed. How to counter those who purposefully deal in dismal outcomes will require a creative approach.

The bad news is this has been a long time coming. Sure you can call up Citizens United and you'd be correct, but a democratic republic that is long in the tooth becomes a plutocracy. Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban have almost single handedly captured the process. Why? Because the culture equates money with political expression. To convince people that money may not be the highest expression of citizenship is a cultural challenge Gray Seal.

My worries are around the grandstanding. Considering the year the Navy had last year I'm concerned with ships running aground. I'm concerned the Russians overplayed their technological advancements and fell into a Pentagon trap. I'm concerned that once someone with experience realizes Russian missiles are changing Naval power dynamics the Pentagon will sacrifice one of their older fleet for the sole purpose of locking in a new Cold War. It will be reminiscent of the USS Liberty that will take the Russiagate propaganda campaign to dangerously new levels.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Apr 25 2018, 09:01 PM
Post #34


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 7 2018, 08:28 AM) *
Big money, to me, is when a candidate has lots of advertising.

....
I call it the Shiny Card Rule. When you see any of this you know big money is behind a particular candidate.


Yes, indeed. So, you can simplify your rule. You know a candidate has big money behind him if you simply know who he is. If you don't know who it is...maybe he doesn't...yet.

The reality is every candidate gets big money behind them. It's necessary to have big money to win. Candidates aren't running to lose...so they get the money. 95% of politics is about getting the money. and that's probably a low estimate.


This post has been edited by Hobbes: Apr 25 2018, 09:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Apr 26 2018, 11:32 AM
Post #35


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,941
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Apr 25 2018, 10:01 PM) *
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 7 2018, 08:28 AM) *
Big money, to me, is when a candidate has lots of advertising.

....
I call it the Shiny Card Rule. When you see any of this you know big money is behind a particular candidate.


Yes, indeed. So, you can simplify your rule. You know a candidate has big money behind him if you simply know who he is. If you don't know who it is...maybe he doesn't...yet.


I thought that, too. It strikes me that the only way to have politics work the way Gray Seal describes is at the local level.

One of the things the British do is they mandate that certain television broadcasters (the terrestrial networks) HAVE to make space available for 'party political broadcasts' (in proportion to share of the vote at the previous national election). And, political advertising is banned from network television.

Now, the television environment is changing because of new delivery methods (who watches the ads on their TiVo box? Who doesn't resent the way YouTube ads interrupt what you were watching far more than they do for broadcast TV?) and the specifics of the system need to be updated.

But there's a nub of principle - that all candidates should have the right to access prospective voters and present themselves and their ideas - which may be of use to take big money out of the equation, or diminish it's influence. It does, of course, have First Amendment implications - the likes of Fox News may not want to promote the likes of Bernie Sanders and those to his left, especially if they aren't getting paid to do it. Nor are MSNBC likely to want to show what are in effect campaign ads for candidates to the right of Trump. However, "freedom of the press" is not only meant to mean that editors and proprietors can say what they like (that's more freedom of speech); the 18th century idea of "freedom of the press" was more that everyone should have access to the platform provided by the media, rather than that the platform of the media can do or say whatever it wants (to the point of excluding contrary opinions). Radio phone ins, newspaper letters pages and - dare I say - Twitter are more akin to the idea of "freedom of the press" than television news networks being able to have editorial bias. (You can't not have editorial bias - and that's protected by freedom of speech anyway.) My point is that "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" are subtly different, if linked, and that a case could be made for mandatory access to political advertising.

And with the number of elected offices in the USA at all levels dwarfing those in the UK, there's going to be a lot more complexity involved.

I didn't promise it would be THE answer. But it could prompt some useful thoughts on getting to one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 18th, 2018 - 07:49 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.