Not sure I'm liking Delaney anymore. Weird white, balding, Irish dude who talks with his hands like an Italian. Also, looks too groomed, just like what hurt Clinton. Robotic, not real...
Edit: Beto is losing me too. Bad night for my fellow Irishmen so far...
Well, truth be told, there aren't a lot of people in Alaska. I think they have guns to protect themselves from bears, not to shoot up schools. (...)
And less than 0,00(...)01% of guns are used to commit massacres. And lets be honest, the deadliest massacres in the human history was made by centralized governments, not by civilians owning guns.
Not sure I'm liking Delaney anymore. Weird white, balding, Irish dude who talks with his hands like an Italian. Also, looks too groomed, just like what hurt Clinton. Robotic, not real...
Edit: Beto is losing me too. Bad night for my fellow Irishmen so far...
I swear to god the only possible explanation for Delaney, who isn't even cracking 1% in the polls, getting THIS amount of time to speak tonight can only be explained by the fact that he is going to bat at every opportunity for private insurance and that pharma and that industry pay big advertising dollars to CNN. You couldn't consistently find 1 Democrat out of a 100 who would vote for this guy. He's only up there to make Warren and Sanders seem "radical" by comparison, and that he's willing to play that role makes me very nearly actively hate him. He's the exact type of milquetoast moderate coward that causes Democrats to pull their punches and lose. Warren and Sanders have it exactly right, if you are afraid of the big ideas in the face of THIS Republican Party, get the fuck out of the way and let someone else handle the lifting.
Well, truth be told, there aren't a lot of people in Alaska. I think they have guns to protect themselves from bears, not to shoot up schools. (...)
And less than 0,00(...)01% of guns are used to commit massacres. And lets be honest, the deadliest massacres in the human history was made by centralized governments, not by civilians owning guns.
There aren't enough people in one place to even have a massacre in Alaska. With the amount of guns on the planet, 0.00(...)01% is still dangerous. I know you're a gun enthusiast and I personally have no problem with that, but nut-jobs having access to SKS's, AK-47's and other military weapons here in the US is getting a little unpalatable to me. Background checks and waiting periods for those weapons aren't really much of a price to pay in my opinion. Whether or not it makes a difference is debatable, but it's worth a shot (or better wording, worth a 'try' to keep the 'shots' at a lower rate of fire). I'm fairly conservative so don't take this as a personal slight on legitimate gun enthusiasts...
Not sure I'm liking Delaney anymore. Weird white, balding, Irish dude who talks with his hands like an Italian. Also, looks too groomed, just like what hurt Clinton. Robotic, not real...
Edit: Beto is losing me too. Bad night for my fellow Irishmen so far...
I swear to god the only possible explanation for Delaney, who isn't even cracking 1% in the polls, getting THIS amount of time to speak tonight can only be explained by the fact that he is going to bat at every opportunity for private insurance and that pharma and that industry pay big advertising dollars to CNN. You couldn't consistently find 1 Democrat out of a 100 who would vote for this guy. He's only up there to make Warren and Sanders seem "radical" by comparison, and that he's willing to play that role makes me very nearly actively hate him. He's the exact type of milquetoast moderate coward that causes Democrats to pull their punches and lose. Warren and Sanders have it exactly right, if you are afraid of the big ideas in the face of THIS Republican Party, get the fuck out of the way and let someone else handle the lifting.
Well it seems even you and I can agree on one thing. Insurance is the biggest scam on the planet. If they were really for the little guy how in the Hell are their profit margins so high? I'm not only talking about health insurance, auto insurance is just as much of a scam. Home-owners insurance isn't quite as bad but they're making Hellacious profits too...
Edit: Forgot life-insurance, at least that ponzi-scheme isn't mandated. You'd have better odds of making money by betting 'red' on a roulette wheel in Vegas than by wasting your hard-earned dollars on life-insurance. Especially now with people living so long...
I swear to god the only possible explanation for Delaney, who isn't even cracking 1% in the polls, getting THIS amount of time to speak tonight can only be explained by the fact that he is going to bat at every opportunity for private insurance and that pharma and that industry pay big advertising dollars to CNN. You couldn't consistently find 1 Democrat out of a 100 who would vote for this guy. He's only up there to make Warren and Sanders seem "radical" by comparison, and that he's willing to play that role makes me very nearly actively hate him. He's the exact type of milquetoast moderate coward that causes Democrats to pull their punches and lose. Warren and Sanders have it exactly right, if you are afraid of the big ideas in the face of THIS Republican Party, get the fuck out of the way and let someone else handle the lifting.
That's pretty tin-foil hat. CNN also wants to create conflict because it makes for "good TV", and that means more people will watch and for longer.
Again, call me elitist or whatever, but the threshold for being invited to participate in a nationally televised debate needs to be higher than "he filed the paperwork and his immediate family supports him". And to be perfectly honest, all I jump to every time someone mentions Bullock on Twitter is that the Sheriff of Deadwood somehow worked his way into the Democratic field.
Again, call me elitist or whatever, but the threshold for being invited to participate in a nationally televised debate needs to be higher than "he filed the paperwork and his immediate family supports him".
I totally agree with that. I dont mind hearing from everyone, but there needs to be one debate with just Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg on it.
If the others break out, then maybe they get invited. Have a JV debate, or whatever for them.
Again, call me elitist or whatever, but the threshold for being invited to participate in a nationally televised debate needs to be higher than "he filed the paperwork and his immediate family supports him".
Don't forget their Twitter following...
In truth, most of these yahoos wouldn't be in the running if they'd even waited until November, at the earliest, for the first debate. This is for CNN ratings, nothing else. It worked, I'm watching...
Again, call me elitist or whatever, but the threshold for being invited to participate in a nationally televised debate needs to be higher than "he filed the paperwork and his immediate family supports him".
I totally agree with that. I dont mind hearing from everyone, but there needs to be one debate with just Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg on it.
If the others break out, then maybe they get invited. Have a JV debate, or whatever for them.
JV debate, I love it! They could set it up like a double-elimination tournament. I bet Vegas would like that too!
Edit: OMG! Some of these people wouldn't even make the Freshman team. It's embarrassing watching them match up against Sanders & Warren. Could it be a ploy to make the front-runners look better? I'm really curious now to see if Biden and Harris mop up the floor with the others tomorrow. I'm sorry but even Buttigieg doesn't look like he belongs with Bernie and Warren. Ryan is a good speaker, but he didn't have a 'moment' so he's likely toast. Bullock was strong but didn't stand out enough. Hickenlooper looked like a moron and Williamson looked like a ditz. Was anybody else there?
I feel bad for not taking more in-depth notes like I did for the last debate, but I've had to spend most of the time on my back because of my herniated disk, and I don't know how to hang my laptop upside down.
A lot of the debate has been about one common question: what if the Democratic candidate is too far to the left to beat Donald Trump? I personally am not that worried about that question, since Sanders is arguably the furthest to the left of any of the candidates, and yet he is remarkably popular among American conservatives. Same goes for Andrew Yang.
The question does strike me as very interesting from a conceptual perspective. Apparently the top priority of Democratic voters is making sure their candidate is likable to conservatives!
My first guess was that, once your view of the other party's candidate is low enough, any opponent seems like an improvement, and then the only thing that matters is beating them. But as far as I'm aware, the same didn't apply in 2012. A lot of conservatives thought the absolute worst of Obama, and yet, despite a presumably great need to win the general election, no one seemed to place any importance on whether Romney could appeal to liberals.
Same goes for 2016, really. Democrats deeply feared Trump and Republicans deeply feared Clinton, and while there were numerous calls, from left and right, for Clinton to appeal more to conservatives, I never heard of any calls for Trump to appeal more to liberals.
Liberals and conservatives still expect Democratic politicians to be bipartisan, but both sides seem to have lost any hope that Republican politicians would do the same.
I think the push on Progressives vs Moderates was done for a few reasons:
1 - Conflict is good TV (generally).
2 - The stage was really, REALLY divided on that front. Sanders and Warren are probably the vanguard of the left, and Bullock and Delaney are the most moderate.
3 - I think CNN is trying to hedge their bets. CNN has always been center-left in the news media world. They're not centrist, but they arent MSNBC. So their phrasing and approach is pretty consistent with that.
Which is exactly why they need to stop doing so. It's a mix of concern-trolling on one side by people who 90% of the time aren't going to vote for Democrats in the first place, and a self-defeating prophecy. Which is why Warren and Sanders made the rest of the field look like fools without the courage of their convictions, or, to be perfectly frank, revealed them to have no convictions whatsoever. The most important lines of the night were Elizabeth Warren saying "I can't imagine going to all the trouble of running for President to spend all my time talking about what we can't do" and, believe it or not, Marianne Williamson who even off in her own universe can state the obvious which is "I don't even know why some of you even call yourselves Democrats".
I feel bad for not taking more in-depth notes like I did for the last debate, but I've had to spend most of the time on my back because of my herniated disk, and I don't know how to hang my laptop upside down.
A lot of the debate has been about one common question: what if the Democratic candidate is too far to the left to beat Donald Trump? I personally am not that worried about that question, since Sanders is arguably the furthest to the left of any of the candidates, and yet he is remarkably popular among American conservatives. Same goes for Andrew Yang.
The question does strike me as very interesting from a conceptual perspective. Apparently the top priority of Democratic voters is making sure their candidate is likable to conservatives!
My first guess was that, once your view of the other party's candidate is low enough, any opponent seems like an improvement, and then the only thing that matters is beating them. But as far as I'm aware, the same didn't apply in 2012. A lot of conservatives thought the absolute worst of Obama, and yet, despite a presumably great need to win the general election, no one seemed to place any importance on whether Romney could appeal to liberals.
Same goes for 2016, really. Democrats deeply feared Trump and Republicans deeply feared Clinton, and while there were numerous calls, from left and right, for Clinton to appeal more to conservatives, I never heard of any calls for Trump to appeal more to liberals.
Liberals and conservatives still expect Democratic politicians to be bipartisan, but both sides seem to have lost any hope that Republican politicians would do the same.
I think that's because most voters (especially older, working voters - not necessarily elderly retired voters) lean conservative. Fear of change is pretty universal and liberals love change. Liberal ideas need to be well thought-out and communicated, while conservatives can use fear of change to scare people into voting for them. Honestly, even though Bernie is considered far-left, I find myself liking him the best of the Democratic crop. I have no idea why. Maybe it's because he seems to be the most genuine. I like Ryan because he's a good speaker and is more idealistically like me, but I still like Bernie better. I might even be tempted to vote for him. Go figure. I have 0% chance of voting for Harris, Buttigieg or Warren and a slim chance I'd vote for Biden (depending on tomorrow and further debates which I'm sure he'll be involved in). If anybody with a psychology background can explain this to me, I'm all ears!
Edit: If it's not obvious, I give this debate to Sanders hands-down...
Which is exactly why they need to stop doing so. It's a mix of concern-trolling on one side by people who 90% of the time aren't going to vote for Democrats in the first place, and a self-defeating prophecy. Which is why Warren and Sanders made the rest of the field look like fools without the courage of their convictions, or, to be perfectly frank, revealed them to have no convictions whatsoever. The most important lines of the night were Elizabeth Warren saying "I can't imagine going to all the trouble of running for President to spend all my time talking about what we can't do" and, believe it or not, Marianne Williamson who even off in her own universe can state the obvious which is "I don't even know why some of you even call yourselves Democrats".
So explain to me why I like Crazy Bernie. Don't discount this because I really believe my views might represent the not-so-far right. What is it about Sanders that's attractive where the others are 'meh' or worse to me. Is it charisma alone? I'd like to think not, but I can't explain it. His enthusiasm is very catchy compared to Warren's more polished responses. Is that all there is to it? I don't think I'm wrong about most likely voters leaning right, so there is definitely something magnetic about Sanders. I actually have changed my opinion about Biden being the best bet for getting rid of Trump after today (Biden can change my mind back tomorrow though).
Honestly, even though Bernie is considered far-left, I find myself liking him the best of the Democratic crop. I have no idea why... If anybody with a psychology background can explain this to me, I'm all ears!
Maybe your family was right about you being a closet liberal.
I do think it's unfortunate that the debate between left and right so often boils down to a liberal politician saying "we could solve that problem with this new policy" and a conservative politician saying "that would only make it worse." It feels unproductive, and honestly a little unbalanced. It's a lot easier to shoot down someone else's solution than to come up with one of your own.
I think my primary conceptual complaint with the GOP's philosophy is that it doesn't believe in trying to solve problems--it believes in letting problems solve themselves. The enduring refrain is "let the free market handle it." It seems like a defensible position until you realize that the reason the nation's problems exist is because they aren't solving themselves. That's why they're still here.
Wages have been stagnant for decades. Frankly, I'd consider wage stagnation to be worth government intervention if it persisted for just 3 or 4 years. What could be more important than people's paychecks?
I mean, eventually, a doctor has to perform surgery. Eventually, you have to get your oil changed. Eventually, you need to buy a new dishwasher. And eventually, the government has to solve a problem that doesn't resolve itself.
How many of our problems are actually solving themselves?
Honestly, even though Bernie is considered far-left, I find myself liking him the best of the Democratic crop. I have no idea why... If anybody with a psychology background can explain this to me, I'm all ears!
Maybe your family was right about you being a closet liberal.
How many of our problems are actually solving themselves?
I might 'come out' if Bernie wins the nomination. Seriously though, my parents and sister are so hung up on a candidate 'saying' that they're fundamentalist Christian that it's the only thing that matters to them (along with brainless support for Israel). The fact that Trump is clearly 'not' a Christian by any measure of the concept doesnt influence them. As long as he touts anti-abortion, anti-Muslim and pro-Israel, they're good with him. Even when they agree with my arguments to the contrary on many points, it doesn't ultimately affect their viewpoint. It's maddening!
I went on a long trip to Minnesota with my dad earlier this month and on the way back there was a ton of 4th of July traffic at the Mackinac bridge so we decided to stop at McDonald's and eat before sitting in traffic. There was a Muslim family sitting at a table there and my dad started spouting off about Muslims trying to take over the country and all that. I'd had enough of his talk and actually told him off about it. My exact words were, '"You know what I see over there dad? I see people". He told me, "Watch this." and proceeded to walk over to them, say "Hi" and goofed around with their kids. He then told me that his beliefs don't always jive with his actions. I was flabbergasted. I was proud of him and puzzled at the same time. He probably made those folks' day without any effort at all, and I told him that. People are not always what they appear...
Edit: I meant to address your question about problems solving themselves before I got side-tracked by my Upper Peninsula story. No, most of the worst problems haven't solved themselves. That's why I'm open to suggestions.
My dad is a great guy shackled by religion. Everybody in this Forum would love him if they met him. He'll have a shitload more people at his funeral than I'll ever have at mine and he's a full-on Trump supporter. I'm telling you all point-blank that conservatives aren't the evil fascists that you think.
He had heart-surgery yesterday so I'm feeling a bit heavy-hearted myself today. It wasn't anything serious (laser ablation to correct arrhythmia) but enough to make me realize that he won't be around forever...
Edit: Seriously, I'm his only son and I'll probably have to take a number to speak at his funeral. I'm not even sure my speech would even be the best one. He was a Junior High gym teacher and he gets e-mails from old students all the time. He's made more of a difference to more people than anybody I know. Liberals want the government to change things, real conservatives make a difference themselves. That's what I feel like I have to live up to (failing most of the time).
My dad is a great guy shackled by religion. Everybody in this Forum would love him if they met him. He'll have a shitload more people at his funeral than I'll ever have at mine and he's a full-on Trump supporter. I'm telling you all point-blank that conservatives aren't the evil fascists that you think.
He had heart-surgery yesterday so I'm feeling a bit heavy-hearted myself today. It wasn't anything serious (laser ablation to correct arrhythmia) but enough to make me realize that he won't be around forever...
I'm sure there were a lot of people in Nazi Germany who had popular funerals too. Popularity is not morality. Well meaning people can be misled.
I don't think Trump supporters are nazis, however, like the nazis, some are misguided. Some buy in to the lies. They either completely believe the lies or don't want to see them.
They may think they are doing the right thing but they're not and deep down we all know it.
What is after all an agenda that hurts people to benefit the rich led by a billionaire President that never tells the truth. This alternative fact spewing guy is a twitter internet troll. That's the guy people have put their faith in: a twitter internet troll.
That's not a righteous agenda. Supporters can fool themselves for now but the chickens will come home to roost - or maybe they won't and we'll all live in a brave new world of alternative facts where nothing means anything just whatever the dear leader says is the truth.
You think other politicians aren't seeing the "success" Trump has with snowing his supporters who blindly accept every lie he says at face value? Others will do the same thing. Maybe these people demonize "others" and lie won't always have your best interests at heart. Because one day it'll be your turn. Maybe your towns drinking water gets poisoned from contaminated drinking water due to a Trump's removing drinking water regulations.
Do you think your savior will help you then or will the response be "fake news! The response to the situation has been tremendous!"
The trump show is deck of cards stacked on a pack of lies. He has convinced some otherwise reasonable people, lots of people, that it's not a deck of lies. He has them believing that he tells the truth and it's everyone else, and your own lying eyes, that are lying. Because that's how cults and con men work.
My dad is a great guy shackled by religion. Everybody in this Forum would love him if they met him. He'll have a shitload more people at his funeral than I'll ever have at mine and he's a full-on Trump supporter. I'm telling you all point-blank that conservatives aren't the evil fascists that you think.
He had heart-surgery yesterday so I'm feeling a bit heavy-hearted myself today. It wasn't anything serious (laser ablation to correct arrhythmia) but enough to make me realize that he won't be around forever...
I'm sure there were a lot of people in Nazi Germany who had popular funerals too. Popularity is not morality. Well meaning people can be misled.
I don't think Trump supporters are nazis, however, like the nazis, some are misguided. Some buy in to the lies. They either completely believe the lies or don't want to see them.
They may think they are doing the right thing but they're not and deep down we all know it.
What is after all an agenda that hurts people to benefit the rich led by a billionaire President that never tells the truth. This alternative fact spewing guy is a twitter internet troll. That's the guy people have put their faith in: a twitter internet troll.
That's not a righteous agenda. Supporters can fool themselves for now but the chickens will come home to roost - or maybe they won't and we'll all live in a brave new world of alternative facts where nothing means anything just whatever the dear leader says is the truth.
You think other politicians aren't seeing the "success" Trump has with snowing his supporters who blindly accept every lie he says at face value? Others will do the same thing. Maybe these people demonize "others" and lie won't always have your best interests at heart. Because one day it'll be your turn. Maybe your towns drinking water gets poisoned from contaminated drinking water due to a Trump's removing drinking water regulations.
Do you think your savior will help you then or will the response be "fake news! The response to the situation has been tremendous!"
The trump show is deck of cards stacked on a pack of lies. He has convinced some otherwise reasonable people, lots of people, that it's not a deck of lies. He has them believing that he tells the truth and it's everyone else, and your own lying eyes, that are lying. Because that's how cults and con men work.
Or maybe the fundamentalist Christians feel like they're under fire and are circling their wagons. Democrats risk losing those folks' permanently if they ignore them. The way religion works, you risk one 'revival' undoing everything you worked for. Don't believe me? Look into prohibition.
Social liberalism is what is igniting most of the backlash. My company flying the rainbow flag last month doesn't affect me personally. I don't give a shit, but it amounts to a battle-flag to the religious right. Is it really accomplishing what you want? Is flying it over our embassies anything more than a 'fuck you' to them? Seriously people, religion is a powder-keg that should be left alone. It sucks that religion doesn't always keep up with the times, but targeting them and shoving your morals in their face might just backfire. Today's religion isn't anywhere close to what it was centuries ago. Conservative religion changes over time despite itself, Forcing it is very dangerous in my scientific opinion. Religion is not scientific by any means...
Edit: The slow change thing is exactly how I argue with my family. I'll bring up bullshit religious beliefs of centuries ago and ask them how if Biblical beliefs (from the actual Bible) are looked at differently now, how are their beliefs any different? It at least makes them think about it if nothing else...
My dad is a great guy shackled by religion. Everybody in this Forum would love him if they met him. He'll have a shitload more people at his funeral than I'll ever have at mine and he's a full-on Trump supporter. I'm telling you all point-blank that conservatives aren't the evil fascists that you think.
He had heart-surgery yesterday so I'm feeling a bit heavy-hearted myself today. It wasn't anything serious (laser ablation to correct arrhythmia) but enough to make me realize that he won't be around forever...
I'm sure there were a lot of people in Nazi Germany who had popular funerals too. Popularity is not morality. Well meaning people can be misled.
I don't think Trump supporters are nazis, however, like the nazis, some are misguided. Some buy in to the lies. They either completely believe the lies or don't want to see them.
They may think they are doing the right thing but they're not and deep down we all know it.
What is after all an agenda that hurts people to benefit the rich led by a billionaire President that never tells the truth. This alternative fact spewing guy is a twitter internet troll. That's the guy people have put their faith in: a twitter internet troll.
That's not a righteous agenda. Supporters can fool themselves for now but the chickens will come home to roost - or maybe they won't and we'll all live in a brave new world of alternative facts where nothing means anything just whatever the dear leader says is the truth.
You think other politicians aren't seeing the "success" Trump has with snowing his supporters who blindly accept every lie he says at face value? Others will do the same thing. Maybe these people demonize "others" and lie won't always have your best interests at heart. Because one day it'll be your turn. Maybe your towns drinking water gets poisoned from contaminated drinking water due to a Trump's removing drinking water regulations.
Do you think your savior will help you then or will the response be "fake news! The response to the situation has been tremendous!"
The trump show is deck of cards stacked on a pack of lies. He has convinced some otherwise reasonable people, lots of people, that it's not a deck of lies. He has them believing that he tells the truth and it's everyone else, and your own lying eyes, that are lying. Because that's how cults and con men work.
There's a grain of truth in what Trump's saying though. That's the problem. Neither party is 100% right in their platform. Sorry... The solution is fixing the problems with common-sense solutions. That might mean working together. Even if the Republicans are only 33.33333% correct, that means that the Democrats might be 33.33333% wrong (or vice-versa). Neither party is willing to compromise at all anymore. That is complete bullshit...
My dad is a great guy shackled by religion. Everybody in this Forum would love him if they met him. He'll have a shitload more people at his funeral than I'll ever have at mine and he's a full-on Trump supporter. I'm telling you all point-blank that conservatives aren't the evil fascists that you think.
He had heart-surgery yesterday so I'm feeling a bit heavy-hearted myself today. It wasn't anything serious (laser ablation to correct arrhythmia) but enough to make me realize that he won't be around forever...
I'm sure there were a lot of people in Nazi Germany who had popular funerals too. Popularity is not morality. Well meaning people can be misled.
I don't think Trump supporters are nazis, however, like the nazis, some are misguided. Some buy in to the lies. They either completely believe the lies or don't want to see them.
They may think they are doing the right thing but they're not and deep down we all know it.
What is after all an agenda that hurts people to benefit the rich led by a billionaire President that never tells the truth. This alternative fact spewing guy is a twitter internet troll. That's the guy people have put their faith in: a twitter internet troll.
That's not a righteous agenda. Supporters can fool themselves for now but the chickens will come home to roost - or maybe they won't and we'll all live in a brave new world of alternative facts where nothing means anything just whatever the dear leader says is the truth.
You think other politicians aren't seeing the "success" Trump has with snowing his supporters who blindly accept every lie he says at face value? Others will do the same thing. Maybe these people demonize "others" and lie won't always have your best interests at heart. Because one day it'll be your turn. Maybe your towns drinking water gets poisoned from contaminated drinking water due to a Trump's removing drinking water regulations.
Do you think your savior will help you then or will the response be "fake news! The response to the situation has been tremendous!"
The trump show is deck of cards stacked on a pack of lies. He has convinced some otherwise reasonable people, lots of people, that it's not a deck of lies. He has them believing that he tells the truth and it's everyone else, and your own lying eyes, that are lying. Because that's how cults and con men work.
Or maybe the fundamentalist Christians feel like they're under fire and are circling their wagons. Democrats risk losing those folks' permanently if they ignore them. The way religion works, you risk one 'revival' undoing everything you worked for. Don't believe me? Look into prohibition.
Social liberalism is what is igniting most of the backlash. My company flying the rainbow flag last month doesn't affect me personally. I don't give a shit, but it amounts to a battle-flag to the religious right. Is it really accomplishing what you want? Is flying it over our embassies anything more than a 'fuck you' to them? Seriously people, religion is a powder-keg that should be left alone. It sucks that religion doesn't always keep up with the times, but targeting them and shoving your morals in their face might just backfire. Today's religion isn't anywhere close to what it was centuries ago. Conservative religion changes over time despite itself, Forcing it is very dangerous in my scientific opinion. Religion is not scientific by any means...
Edit: The slow change thing is exactly how I argue with my family. I'll bring up bullshit religious beliefs of centuries ago and ask them how if Biblical beliefs (from the actual Bible) are looked at differently now, how are their beliefs any different? It at least makes them think about it if nothing else...
By social liberalism I think you mean treating people equally. I'm not at all convinced there's some 'hidden hand of history' that means there will be an inevitable move towards equal treatment if only people stopped agitating for it. If you think of all major advances towards equal rights (abolition of slavery, votes for women, universal education, universal healthcare, civil rights, gay rights etc) they've all come through a prolonged process of argument and struggle - and of course that process is far from complete.
I don't think it's realistic to say religion can just be left aside from arguments. For fundamentalists, religion is at the core of their life and all their views are colored by religious beliefs. I agree that it's possible arguments could sometimes be presented in a less confrontational way, but if we don't want to live in a religious society then differences of opinion do need to be addressed. It's good that you do that with your family, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that if someone's religious convictions are unshakeable you should arrange the world to suit them - to test that, just try replacing fundamentalist moslems for christians in any statement about the need to protect religious freedom ...
Incidentally, I don't accept either the view that religion will inevitably become more liberal over time if just left to itself. Some strands of religions have done this, but there are clearly large numbers of adherents to religions today who are far more conservative in their views than the founders of their original religions (who tended to be pretty liberal for their times). You're obviously familiar with the thinking of fundamentalist christians, but there are plenty of examples of extremists in all religions, e.g.:
# moslem - Al Qaeda and the Taliban
# hindu - increasing numbers of attacks in India on other religions
# buddhist - much of the human rights abuses in Myanmar are due to extremists.
There's a grain of truth in what Trump's saying though. That's the problem. Neither party is 100% right in their platform. Sorry... The solution is fixing the problems with common-sense solutions. That might mean working together. Even if the Republicans are only 33.33333% correct, that means that the Democrats might be 33.33333% wrong (or vice-versa). Neither party is willing to compromise at all anymore. That is complete bullshit...
Forget what Trump says look at what he does. He's every abusive boyfriend who swears he'll stop lying and stop hitting you if only (minor kernel of truth)...
No party is going to be perfect ever. They're a collection of people.
Why is neither party willing to compromise? Well, Democrats have been way too willing to compromise historically. Republicans lost their minds when Democrats beat them with a black President. They were not really compromising much before that to be honest but that really drove it home - they then stole a supreme Court Justice and dozens of federal court seats open that they're falling over themselves to fill now.
Why won't Republicans compromise?
Gerrymandering.
Seats are surgically calculated to remain Republican seats. So the only threat to an incumbent is for someone to primary them to their more radical right "oh mcjones has been working with the open boarder Dems! Vote for me, I believe in Q!"
Gerrymandering ensures there will be no compromise and the rigged Supreme Court blessed it courtesy of that stolen seat and the rest of the anti-american Republicans on the bench.
Things will get worse after 2020 redistricting in any state that remains under Republican control - they will rig the maps. Supreme Court says it's totally fine.
Speaking of this topic, the GOP in Michigan are going to court because voters approved an independent redistricting commission and they can't gerrymander as much as they want with that.
A agree with @Grond0 - every bit of social progress was fought for at high personal cost by progressives against the conservatives against their time. And every step of the way they had moderates telling them not to complain too loudly because it would hurt their cause. Just look at MLK complaining about the white moderates of his time. Progress is not automatic and does never come without a struggle.
As another story in this regard, the way Germany dealt with the Nazi past is often held up as exemplary, but open discussion and learning from that past started only in the late 60s when pushed by students and other young people, all the while being criticized for being too radical by mainstream newspapers. In contrast, one of the most prominent and powerful post-war conservative politicians said after achieving a complete economic recovery after the war, Germans had earned the right to never hear anything about Auschwitz again.
If left to conservatives and self-declared moderates we would still have monarchies, slavery, no equal rights for woman - let alone something like rights for LBTQ people.
There was a Muslim family sitting at a table there and my dad started spouting off about Muslims trying to take over the country and all that. I'd had enough of his talk and actually told him off about it. My exact words were, '"You know what I see over there dad? I see people". He told me, "Watch this." and proceeded to walk over to them, say "Hi" and goofed around with their kids. He then told me that his beliefs don't always jive with his actions. I was flabbergasted. I was proud of him and puzzled at the same time.
I don't see anything strange there, tbh.
When friends come over to your house, you're also very nice and friendly with each other, but even so they're still guests and you're the owner of the place. It would be utterly bizarre if people came to your place uninvited and you couldn't even say a word if you didn't feel charitable enough to let them stay.
Yet in politics it seems acceptable to not ask politely, but to threaten and demand that you let someone less fortunate to partake in your welfare. This is mindboggling. You'd think the example of USSR would have taught everyone that putting socialism at the top is a really bad idea.
A agree with Grond0 - every bit of social progress was fought for at high personal cost by progressives against the conservatives against their time. And every step of the way they had moderates telling them not to complain too loudly because it would hurt their cause. Just look at MLK complaining about the white moderates of his time. Progress is not automatic and does never come without a struggle.
...
If left to conservatives and self-declared moderates we would still have monarchies, slavery, no equal rights for woman - let alone something like rights for LBTQ people.
The only reason we dislike monarchy, slavery and discrimination is because we're used to not having those. It is possible that people who stood up for these things were wrong because their abolition had brought about better living standards for everyone, including conservatives. But we do not really know that for certain. Least of all we do not know for certain if following the modern progressive ideas will also improve life for everyone.
The only reason we dislike monarchy, slavery and discrimination is because we're used to not having those. It is possible that people who stood up for these things were wrong because their abolition had brought about better living standards for everyone, including conservatives. But we do not really know that for certain. Least of all we do not know for certain if following the modern progressive ideas will also improve life for everyone.
I suppose it's just conceivable that if I had been brought up in a society where slavery was the norm I wouldn't dislike it. I think that's highly unlikely though and if that were the case it would indicate that I was a very different person.
I accept that the world is a complex place and everyone's ideals are compromised to some extent - it's not always easy to know for instance whether goods you purchase have been produced using slavery or by exploiting child laborers. However, talking at the level of principles I could never agree with the proposition that someone else should be a slave in order to make me better off.
It also seems clear to me that no society based on slavery will improve life for everyone - if you include slaves in the calculation ...
Comments
Edit: Beto is losing me too. Bad night for my fellow Irishmen so far...
And less than 0,00(...)01% of guns are used to commit massacres. And lets be honest, the deadliest massacres in the human history was made by centralized governments, not by civilians owning guns.
I swear to god the only possible explanation for Delaney, who isn't even cracking 1% in the polls, getting THIS amount of time to speak tonight can only be explained by the fact that he is going to bat at every opportunity for private insurance and that pharma and that industry pay big advertising dollars to CNN. You couldn't consistently find 1 Democrat out of a 100 who would vote for this guy. He's only up there to make Warren and Sanders seem "radical" by comparison, and that he's willing to play that role makes me very nearly actively hate him. He's the exact type of milquetoast moderate coward that causes Democrats to pull their punches and lose. Warren and Sanders have it exactly right, if you are afraid of the big ideas in the face of THIS Republican Party, get the fuck out of the way and let someone else handle the lifting.
There aren't enough people in one place to even have a massacre in Alaska. With the amount of guns on the planet, 0.00(...)01% is still dangerous. I know you're a gun enthusiast and I personally have no problem with that, but nut-jobs having access to SKS's, AK-47's and other military weapons here in the US is getting a little unpalatable to me. Background checks and waiting periods for those weapons aren't really much of a price to pay in my opinion. Whether or not it makes a difference is debatable, but it's worth a shot (or better wording, worth a 'try' to keep the 'shots' at a lower rate of fire). I'm fairly conservative so don't take this as a personal slight on legitimate gun enthusiasts...
Well it seems even you and I can agree on one thing. Insurance is the biggest scam on the planet. If they were really for the little guy how in the Hell are their profit margins so high? I'm not only talking about health insurance, auto insurance is just as much of a scam. Home-owners insurance isn't quite as bad but they're making Hellacious profits too...
Edit: Forgot life-insurance, at least that ponzi-scheme isn't mandated. You'd have better odds of making money by betting 'red' on a roulette wheel in Vegas than by wasting your hard-earned dollars on life-insurance. Especially now with people living so long...
That's pretty tin-foil hat. CNN also wants to create conflict because it makes for "good TV", and that means more people will watch and for longer.
She'd probably rip fewer children from their parents, and have less horrible conditions in camps at the border. I'll take her over Trump.
So far, the winners of the debate have really been Warren and Sanders, with some Buttigieg moments too.
I totally agree with that. I dont mind hearing from everyone, but there needs to be one debate with just Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg on it.
If the others break out, then maybe they get invited. Have a JV debate, or whatever for them.
Don't forget their Twitter following...
In truth, most of these yahoos wouldn't be in the running if they'd even waited until November, at the earliest, for the first debate. This is for CNN ratings, nothing else. It worked, I'm watching...
JV debate, I love it! They could set it up like a double-elimination tournament. I bet Vegas would like that too!
Edit: OMG! Some of these people wouldn't even make the Freshman team. It's embarrassing watching them match up against Sanders & Warren. Could it be a ploy to make the front-runners look better? I'm really curious now to see if Biden and Harris mop up the floor with the others tomorrow. I'm sorry but even Buttigieg doesn't look like he belongs with Bernie and Warren. Ryan is a good speaker, but he didn't have a 'moment' so he's likely toast. Bullock was strong but didn't stand out enough. Hickenlooper looked like a moron and Williamson looked like a ditz. Was anybody else there?
A lot of the debate has been about one common question: what if the Democratic candidate is too far to the left to beat Donald Trump? I personally am not that worried about that question, since Sanders is arguably the furthest to the left of any of the candidates, and yet he is remarkably popular among American conservatives. Same goes for Andrew Yang.
The question does strike me as very interesting from a conceptual perspective. Apparently the top priority of Democratic voters is making sure their candidate is likable to conservatives!
My first guess was that, once your view of the other party's candidate is low enough, any opponent seems like an improvement, and then the only thing that matters is beating them. But as far as I'm aware, the same didn't apply in 2012. A lot of conservatives thought the absolute worst of Obama, and yet, despite a presumably great need to win the general election, no one seemed to place any importance on whether Romney could appeal to liberals.
Same goes for 2016, really. Democrats deeply feared Trump and Republicans deeply feared Clinton, and while there were numerous calls, from left and right, for Clinton to appeal more to conservatives, I never heard of any calls for Trump to appeal more to liberals.
Liberals and conservatives still expect Democratic politicians to be bipartisan, but both sides seem to have lost any hope that Republican politicians would do the same.
1 - Conflict is good TV (generally).
2 - The stage was really, REALLY divided on that front. Sanders and Warren are probably the vanguard of the left, and Bullock and Delaney are the most moderate.
3 - I think CNN is trying to hedge their bets. CNN has always been center-left in the news media world. They're not centrist, but they arent MSNBC. So their phrasing and approach is pretty consistent with that.
I think that's because most voters (especially older, working voters - not necessarily elderly retired voters) lean conservative. Fear of change is pretty universal and liberals love change. Liberal ideas need to be well thought-out and communicated, while conservatives can use fear of change to scare people into voting for them. Honestly, even though Bernie is considered far-left, I find myself liking him the best of the Democratic crop. I have no idea why. Maybe it's because he seems to be the most genuine. I like Ryan because he's a good speaker and is more idealistically like me, but I still like Bernie better. I might even be tempted to vote for him. Go figure. I have 0% chance of voting for Harris, Buttigieg or Warren and a slim chance I'd vote for Biden (depending on tomorrow and further debates which I'm sure he'll be involved in). If anybody with a psychology background can explain this to me, I'm all ears!
Edit: If it's not obvious, I give this debate to Sanders hands-down...
So explain to me why I like Crazy Bernie. Don't discount this because I really believe my views might represent the not-so-far right. What is it about Sanders that's attractive where the others are 'meh' or worse to me. Is it charisma alone? I'd like to think not, but I can't explain it. His enthusiasm is very catchy compared to Warren's more polished responses. Is that all there is to it? I don't think I'm wrong about most likely voters leaning right, so there is definitely something magnetic about Sanders. I actually have changed my opinion about Biden being the best bet for getting rid of Trump after today (Biden can change my mind back tomorrow though).
I do think it's unfortunate that the debate between left and right so often boils down to a liberal politician saying "we could solve that problem with this new policy" and a conservative politician saying "that would only make it worse." It feels unproductive, and honestly a little unbalanced. It's a lot easier to shoot down someone else's solution than to come up with one of your own.
I think my primary conceptual complaint with the GOP's philosophy is that it doesn't believe in trying to solve problems--it believes in letting problems solve themselves. The enduring refrain is "let the free market handle it." It seems like a defensible position until you realize that the reason the nation's problems exist is because they aren't solving themselves. That's why they're still here.
Wages have been stagnant for decades. Frankly, I'd consider wage stagnation to be worth government intervention if it persisted for just 3 or 4 years. What could be more important than people's paychecks?
I mean, eventually, a doctor has to perform surgery. Eventually, you have to get your oil changed. Eventually, you need to buy a new dishwasher. And eventually, the government has to solve a problem that doesn't resolve itself.
How many of our problems are actually solving themselves?
I might 'come out' if Bernie wins the nomination. Seriously though, my parents and sister are so hung up on a candidate 'saying' that they're fundamentalist Christian that it's the only thing that matters to them (along with brainless support for Israel). The fact that Trump is clearly 'not' a Christian by any measure of the concept doesnt influence them. As long as he touts anti-abortion, anti-Muslim and pro-Israel, they're good with him. Even when they agree with my arguments to the contrary on many points, it doesn't ultimately affect their viewpoint. It's maddening!
I went on a long trip to Minnesota with my dad earlier this month and on the way back there was a ton of 4th of July traffic at the Mackinac bridge so we decided to stop at McDonald's and eat before sitting in traffic. There was a Muslim family sitting at a table there and my dad started spouting off about Muslims trying to take over the country and all that. I'd had enough of his talk and actually told him off about it. My exact words were, '"You know what I see over there dad? I see people". He told me, "Watch this." and proceeded to walk over to them, say "Hi" and goofed around with their kids. He then told me that his beliefs don't always jive with his actions. I was flabbergasted. I was proud of him and puzzled at the same time. He probably made those folks' day without any effort at all, and I told him that. People are not always what they appear...
Edit: I meant to address your question about problems solving themselves before I got side-tracked by my Upper Peninsula story. No, most of the worst problems haven't solved themselves. That's why I'm open to suggestions.
He had heart-surgery yesterday so I'm feeling a bit heavy-hearted myself today. It wasn't anything serious (laser ablation to correct arrhythmia) but enough to make me realize that he won't be around forever...
Edit: Seriously, I'm his only son and I'll probably have to take a number to speak at his funeral. I'm not even sure my speech would even be the best one. He was a Junior High gym teacher and he gets e-mails from old students all the time. He's made more of a difference to more people than anybody I know. Liberals want the government to change things, real conservatives make a difference themselves. That's what I feel like I have to live up to (failing most of the time).
I'm sure there were a lot of people in Nazi Germany who had popular funerals too. Popularity is not morality. Well meaning people can be misled.
I don't think Trump supporters are nazis, however, like the nazis, some are misguided. Some buy in to the lies. They either completely believe the lies or don't want to see them.
They may think they are doing the right thing but they're not and deep down we all know it.
What is after all an agenda that hurts people to benefit the rich led by a billionaire President that never tells the truth. This alternative fact spewing guy is a twitter internet troll. That's the guy people have put their faith in: a twitter internet troll.
That's not a righteous agenda. Supporters can fool themselves for now but the chickens will come home to roost - or maybe they won't and we'll all live in a brave new world of alternative facts where nothing means anything just whatever the dear leader says is the truth.
You think other politicians aren't seeing the "success" Trump has with snowing his supporters who blindly accept every lie he says at face value? Others will do the same thing. Maybe these people demonize "others" and lie won't always have your best interests at heart. Because one day it'll be your turn. Maybe your towns drinking water gets poisoned from contaminated drinking water due to a Trump's removing drinking water regulations.
Do you think your savior will help you then or will the response be "fake news! The response to the situation has been tremendous!"
The trump show is deck of cards stacked on a pack of lies. He has convinced some otherwise reasonable people, lots of people, that it's not a deck of lies. He has them believing that he tells the truth and it's everyone else, and your own lying eyes, that are lying. Because that's how cults and con men work.
Or maybe the fundamentalist Christians feel like they're under fire and are circling their wagons. Democrats risk losing those folks' permanently if they ignore them. The way religion works, you risk one 'revival' undoing everything you worked for. Don't believe me? Look into prohibition.
Social liberalism is what is igniting most of the backlash. My company flying the rainbow flag last month doesn't affect me personally. I don't give a shit, but it amounts to a battle-flag to the religious right. Is it really accomplishing what you want? Is flying it over our embassies anything more than a 'fuck you' to them? Seriously people, religion is a powder-keg that should be left alone. It sucks that religion doesn't always keep up with the times, but targeting them and shoving your morals in their face might just backfire. Today's religion isn't anywhere close to what it was centuries ago. Conservative religion changes over time despite itself, Forcing it is very dangerous in my scientific opinion. Religion is not scientific by any means...
Edit: The slow change thing is exactly how I argue with my family. I'll bring up bullshit religious beliefs of centuries ago and ask them how if Biblical beliefs (from the actual Bible) are looked at differently now, how are their beliefs any different? It at least makes them think about it if nothing else...
There's a grain of truth in what Trump's saying though. That's the problem. Neither party is 100% right in their platform. Sorry... The solution is fixing the problems with common-sense solutions. That might mean working together. Even if the Republicans are only 33.33333% correct, that means that the Democrats might be 33.33333% wrong (or vice-versa). Neither party is willing to compromise at all anymore. That is complete bullshit...
By social liberalism I think you mean treating people equally. I'm not at all convinced there's some 'hidden hand of history' that means there will be an inevitable move towards equal treatment if only people stopped agitating for it. If you think of all major advances towards equal rights (abolition of slavery, votes for women, universal education, universal healthcare, civil rights, gay rights etc) they've all come through a prolonged process of argument and struggle - and of course that process is far from complete.
I don't think it's realistic to say religion can just be left aside from arguments. For fundamentalists, religion is at the core of their life and all their views are colored by religious beliefs. I agree that it's possible arguments could sometimes be presented in a less confrontational way, but if we don't want to live in a religious society then differences of opinion do need to be addressed. It's good that you do that with your family, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that if someone's religious convictions are unshakeable you should arrange the world to suit them - to test that, just try replacing fundamentalist moslems for christians in any statement about the need to protect religious freedom ...
Incidentally, I don't accept either the view that religion will inevitably become more liberal over time if just left to itself. Some strands of religions have done this, but there are clearly large numbers of adherents to religions today who are far more conservative in their views than the founders of their original religions (who tended to be pretty liberal for their times). You're obviously familiar with the thinking of fundamentalist christians, but there are plenty of examples of extremists in all religions, e.g.:
# moslem - Al Qaeda and the Taliban
# hindu - increasing numbers of attacks in India on other religions
# buddhist - much of the human rights abuses in Myanmar are due to extremists.
Forget what Trump says look at what he does. He's every abusive boyfriend who swears he'll stop lying and stop hitting you if only (minor kernel of truth)...
No party is going to be perfect ever. They're a collection of people.
Why is neither party willing to compromise? Well, Democrats have been way too willing to compromise historically. Republicans lost their minds when Democrats beat them with a black President. They were not really compromising much before that to be honest but that really drove it home - they then stole a supreme Court Justice and dozens of federal court seats open that they're falling over themselves to fill now.
Why won't Republicans compromise?
Gerrymandering.
Seats are surgically calculated to remain Republican seats. So the only threat to an incumbent is for someone to primary them to their more radical right "oh mcjones has been working with the open boarder Dems! Vote for me, I believe in Q!"
Gerrymandering ensures there will be no compromise and the rigged Supreme Court blessed it courtesy of that stolen seat and the rest of the anti-american Republicans on the bench.
Things will get worse after 2020 redistricting in any state that remains under Republican control - they will rig the maps. Supreme Court says it's totally fine.
Speaking of this topic, the GOP in Michigan are going to court because voters approved an independent redistricting commission and they can't gerrymander as much as they want with that.
https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/455332-gop-group-sues-to-block-michigan-redistricting-commission
As another story in this regard, the way Germany dealt with the Nazi past is often held up as exemplary, but open discussion and learning from that past started only in the late 60s when pushed by students and other young people, all the while being criticized for being too radical by mainstream newspapers. In contrast, one of the most prominent and powerful post-war conservative politicians said after achieving a complete economic recovery after the war, Germans had earned the right to never hear anything about Auschwitz again.
If left to conservatives and self-declared moderates we would still have monarchies, slavery, no equal rights for woman - let alone something like rights for LBTQ people.
When friends come over to your house, you're also very nice and friendly with each other, but even so they're still guests and you're the owner of the place. It would be utterly bizarre if people came to your place uninvited and you couldn't even say a word if you didn't feel charitable enough to let them stay.
Yet in politics it seems acceptable to not ask politely, but to threaten and demand that you let someone less fortunate to partake in your welfare. This is mindboggling. You'd think the example of USSR would have taught everyone that putting socialism at the top is a really bad idea. The only reason we dislike monarchy, slavery and discrimination is because we're used to not having those. It is possible that people who stood up for these things were wrong because their abolition had brought about better living standards for everyone, including conservatives. But we do not really know that for certain. Least of all we do not know for certain if following the modern progressive ideas will also improve life for everyone.
I suppose it's just conceivable that if I had been brought up in a society where slavery was the norm I wouldn't dislike it. I think that's highly unlikely though and if that were the case it would indicate that I was a very different person.
I accept that the world is a complex place and everyone's ideals are compromised to some extent - it's not always easy to know for instance whether goods you purchase have been produced using slavery or by exploiting child laborers. However, talking at the level of principles I could never agree with the proposition that someone else should be a slave in order to make me better off.
It also seems clear to me that no society based on slavery will improve life for everyone - if you include slaves in the calculation ...
In fairness - I thought her and Sanders (and Williamson) were the best up there today. So I'm fine with that result.