Total posts: 2,049
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure how I could make my question any more clear. I'm asking if you think the feds should have any constitutional influence in foreign trade like they do now under the Commerce Clause because you didn't mention foreign trade in your theoretical revision. What that federal influence could mean is the power to restrict trade, the power to implement sanctions, the power to impose tariffs on foreign goods, etc.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay... does that mean you think the feds should be able to regulate trade with foreign nations or not?
Created:
Posted in:
I am still not sure why the administration is still spending so much propaganda redefining what a recession is instead of actually helping people.
How is the government supposed to help people? They've already called for more oil drilling, although people succumbing to ridiculous lies that oil companies have decided to significantly raise prices at a given point in time just because they're suddenly "uncertain about their future" is one of the most amusing things to witness. They've done this over and over throughout history and people fall for it every single time despite being the biggest, richest and most powerful oligopoly on planet Earth lol. That's great PR for you.
We are decades or more away from going green and lobbyists will continue to fight it every single step of the way. Big Oil is still one of the most significant and in-demand industries on the planet, and that won't change anytime soon (which ironically, conservatives keep pointing out but then fall victim to the convenient messaging that Big Oil is just trying to tighten their belts and gauge people because of Democrats and because they're scared they won't survive which is why they need to keep posting record profits... LOL okay... sure Jan). Poor little oil tycoons. Won't somebody think about the oil tycoons?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know that. The commerce clause has several facets including the empowerment of the feds to influence trade with foreign governments. I'm asking how/if that would be included in the revision.
Created:
Posted in:
The people demand and deserve truth. Not political gaslighting of reality into some fake reality.
It's so amusing to see people whine about redefining "recession" while shrugging off Trump's completely ridiculous, made-up and PRE DETERMINED baldfaced election lies that he continues to assert smugly (even after January 6) despite having no good evidence, no backing by his highest ranking political allies or even family members for that matter, and no theories that haven't been disproven at every single level through internal and external investigations, vote recounts in every challenged state, and dozens of failed court appeals across the country. Where are the threads about that gaslighting?
Like how can ya'll sit there and pretend to give a shit about political games while endorsing a lying, power hungry douchebag? Have a little shame. Have a little self decency instead of making yourselves look like a bunch of bootlicking shmucks. Even Fox News acknowledges that Trump continues to assert brazen falsehoods with no factual basis at all, and we know political candidates have made siding with Trump's big lie essentially their #1 campaign strategy despite being a totally fabricated untruth. We're just going to pretend like that's not problematic? Oh okay. Sheesh. Let's just empower nothing but people who deny reality and refuse to accept the outcome of elections if they are not victorious - what could possibly go wrong?
Gee... it's almost as if the brazen and blatant gaslighting of tens of millions of people across the country isn't actually that dangerous. It almost seems like repeatedly lying and making false claims isn't immoral and is actually good for the country! Golly, It's actually not a big deal at all! I guess gaslighting is only problematic if Democrats do it, duh. I mean who cares if Trump completely denies all aspects of objective, provable reality and continues to brainwash scared and struggling poor people to profess their diehard allegiance to him above all and denounce all other aspects of U.S. government and institutions that don't validate his lies? NBD. That's patriotism. I get it now.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What about foreign trade?
Created:
Posted in:
Too bad if China is upset about the visit to Taiwan. We're upset about a lot of things China does. This visit is something Trump fans should be celebrating (god forbid) and Pelosi has a long history of criticizing China which they've never acknowledged. It shouldn't be a partisan thing to be wary of China when they've admitted many times that their long-term goal is to obliterate our influence on the world stage and be the most powerful nation on Earth. They're certainly on their way.
Maybe rocking the boat with China wouldn't be the worst thing. It wouldn't lead to physical war; at least not anytime soon. It'd be a trade and commerce war which is inevitable anyway. We're poised to suffer badly once China decides they're strong enough, so it's best we start rectifying some stuff and address a lot of the supply chain issues, intellectual property theft, tech abuses, labor concerns, and lots of other problems sooner rather than later. It couldn't hurt to give a little pushback to Beijing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You said you wanted the clause reworded "to give the power to deregulate (destroy) state barriers to the free market instead of regulating (creating) barriers."
I understand exactly what that means. I'm asking you how you would like to word that ideology. I'm asking you to specify the exact terminology you would use to convey this ideation of solely destroying barriers and not creating them. What part of my question is confusing to you? Write the text you would like to see the clause changed to. I'm not sure how I could be any more direct with what I'm asking, sorry :/ Do you know what an "example" means?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Ouch! Hope ya don't put a spell on me.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because it was the genesis of the authority granted to the government to tell you what you had to do with your property or body for the good of the "State."
How is that different than the justification of the Tax and Spending Clause or General Welfare Clause? It's the same principle behind all three. As far as which is the most problematic I think they're at least on equal footing. The government's size and scope is so massive as a direct result of those clauses. And I don't see what "body" had to do with the Commerce Clause specifically.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes and in post 70 I asked you what the clear and precise language should be.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not hostile to rich white guys! The only one I hate is Bill Gates because he SLAUGHTERS PEOPLE. I completely agree with you. He's murdering right out in the open... have you seen what's happening in Africa? The "life saving vaccines" he's giving to people? Please. Liberals remain complicit in this mass genocide and won't open their eyes until it's too late. I've already went to my job's HR department to ask if we can uninstall Microsoft Office Suite before Bill Gates starts invading our brains and harvesting memories through Microsoft Word. People think it's an innocent little program to draft documents and spreadsheets. Oh no. It's part of his next strategy to kill everyone on the planet. I'm on your side.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To re-cap: you think brutal force is warranted if the majority agrees to succumb to brutal force, which just sounds like you're explaining how government works.
You think clear and precise language is required to legitimize the Commerce Clause, but either don't know what the language should be or refuse to answer what the language should be (I'll point out the constitution is not exactly known for very explicit directives -- just look at the 2A).
And despite using the term "illegal invaders" to describe illegal immigrants (so edgy), you didn't answer my question about how feds would go about prosecuting interstate crimes generally; you only pointed out that states can sue each other in regard to certain land and water disputes.
All in all not a very fruitful conversation on my end but we can agree to disagree. The Court has scaled back congressional power significantly in the last few decades re: the Commerce Clause so it's heading in the right direction.
It's weird to me that you would consider the Commerce Clause more problematic than either the General Welfare Clause or the Tax and Spending Clause of the constitution. Plus I'll never get over you thinking it's more egregious to be told politicians can dictate someone's wheat farming than politicians dictating someone's sexual privacy, medical care or bodily integrity. There is no logical explanation for that. Body > Property in every aspect of law but whatevs. We've digressed pretty far from the OP.
We actually don't have to wait for the EPA to do something either.
I'm pretty sure the court has still not issued a ruling in that case, 17 years later.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I know but that's far too small of any interest to justify two Senators
Washington DC has more people than Vermont and Wyoming.
Another kooky idea I've had is to rewrite the Constitution to give each state one Senator and then the top 50 most populous cities elect a Senator. That would definitely create new imbalances in power but would also be far more democratic then the current scheme. DC would get a Senator in that scheme.
The most populous cities would be changing quite often though. Maybe not the top 10 but certainly the bottom 10.
Created:
-->
@badger
capitalism as found in the west depends entirely upon the poverty of other nations.
How will they escape poverty without the west trading with them?
Chinese manufacturing wages are set to be on a par with Eastern European wages by 2030.
Not if they keep it up with their insane lockdowns :)
What happens when the poor aren't so poor?
The world is a better place?
China is a bit of an anomaly. Capitalists will point to the fact that 800 million Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty in the last ~40 years indicating that sweatshops might not be all bad, eh? Kind of a win-win for all maybe? But China is not actually a capitalist country. They employ some free trade but between lockdowns, regulations, central planning, government subsidies and yes some exploitation it's not a very "free" society economically or otherwise.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have complete faith in American central planners to create a poor class to exploit when they can't find any overseas.
They already have. And he's not American :P
Created:
-->
@oromagi
We don't need the District of Columbia anymore, dissolve that district and let Washington become a city in Maryland.
Democrats want D.C. to become a state along with Puerto Rico.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why that party?
Because I was asking you about financing social programs which have historically been supported by Democrats.
Now let's get back to my question (not the one about how we would investigate or prosecute interstate crimes ~ that's a different question that went unanswered). You said "I'm all for the government taking from the majority with brutal force and giving it to minorities as long as the majority is OKAY with that." I asked how you would know if the majority were okay with it. Also if the people are okay with it then why does it require BRUTAL FORCE?
All of these transgressions against free Americans could be solved immediately if the clause were reworded (or if need be, translated via SCOTUS) to give the power to deregulate (destroy) state barriers to the free market instead of regulating (creating) barriers. Clear and precise language is necessary.
The constitution is specifically what outlines the power that government has to do certain things. I asked you how the feds would have the authority for federal oversight of interstate state commerce disputes without the commerce clause in the constitution. It looks like you acknowledge that there needs to be a clause in the constitution which gives the feds that power, so now you're okay with the commerce clause but want to reword it. Fine. How so? If clear and precise language is necessary then specify what you think it should say.
Suppose Mississippi wants to start sending toxic pollutants downstream to another state. Who regulates that? Because every individual state is going to want to regulate in a way that benefits and protects their state the most.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Absolutely! He's part of the Illuminati and wants to kill as many people as possible. Liberals are totally on board. Stay woke.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm all for the government taking from the majority with brutal force and giving it to minorities as long as the majority is OKAY with that.
How do you know people are okay with it though - by Democrats coming into power?
Government should enforce contracts so yes there needs to be federal oversight for that.
And what exactly do you think empowers that federal oversight - which aspect of the constitution?
But please don't praise the government for doing bad things just because the good things supposedly cancel it out...c'mon man.
I didn't praise the government for doing "bad things" which is why I criticized some applications of the commerce clause, but you can't disregard the entire principle just because it's been weaponized or misused. That's like saying we should abolish the military because of the military industrial complex and how many times we've engaged in unjustifiable wars.
Name me some modern examples. We can go from there.
Again? There are so many real world examples you can Google in addition to the ones I've already presented to you.
Here's a made up example of something that could happen without the commerce clause: Florida could say to its people that they're only allowed to sell oranges to fellow Floridians, and if they sell to anyone outside the state they will have to pay a tariff.
Another example: One million people commute to NY from neighboring states to work. Without the commerce clause, New York could pass a law that says only New Yorkers could work in New York.
And how would you investigate and prosecute crimes across state lines? That is a HUGE aspect of the commerce clause that will continue to be extremely significant despite how many times you ignore it.
It depends on how they do it.
It it not socialism to provide healthcare or welfare if it's done a certain way? What way is that?
Well let's take a cold, hard look at the alternative. If Rural areas saw no benefit for being in a Union, (and vice versa for Urban areas), then we now have the ground laid for a 2nd secession. Is that really worth saving a few bucks in the budget?
So "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs." I see.
City-folk trade with rural areas for mutual gain. Meanwhile rural areas continue to shit all over wealthy urbanites who subsidize their way of life, and then vote against civil rights that liberals care about to add insult to injury. Doesn't exactly seem like a fair trade.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
That's right. I'll engage with everyone else who disagrees with me on this subject except for you. It's because I'm terrified of you and you alone. Everybody else's arguments I can handle but not yours. You have me terrified. I'm shaking.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
He said defining "characteristics," as in physical differences...not genetic.
Lmao how the fuck do you think your physical attributes are determined? It's genetics, genius.
I can't believe you're still tagging me in posts even though I've ignored you the last 10 times lol. I'm sure someone else will entertain you by arguing back but I have no interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you really arguing the Constitution isn't interpreted through the lens of precedent?
Precedent is a very important factor in interpreting the constitution. What I said is that judges are beholden to the constitution over precedent per the Supremacy Clause. Without this principle they would have not been able to overturn Plessy v Ferguson or any other case. It's happened hundreds of times.
I can find a ton of people in your social circles that disagree; especially in regards to losing Roe v Wade as an established precedent.
Just because those people want to preserve the constitutional right to an abortion doesn't mean they think precedent should be ironclad. There are a lot of cases they want to see overturned, like pretty much all of the recent high profile ones for example.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you know people are okay with it - by Democrats coming into power?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought in our discussion about the Commerce Clause you said we should abolish federal agencies, though in retrospect you said regulatory agencies. My point was that FEMA wouldn't exist if we eliminated federal agencies but I guess you are okay with them after all.
In that convo you said "There should never be a system where central planners have the right and the authority to take with brutal force from the minority and give to the majority under Democratic Socialism." Why is it not socialism for Congress to use tax and spending powers to help provide utilities and paved roads to red states that can't afford it then?! Is it only socialism when the money goes to healthcare? Explain.
Do you think we should not provide relief to Rural areas or are you (obviously) hard core FOR it
I think we should do things Trump style and hold the money hostage until they concede on their dumb ass social policy. You wanna pass a "Don't Say Gay" bill? That's fine then you don't get any tax money to rebuild after your next hurricane, sorry. Godspeed.
because you are also all for restricting commerce as a supporter of the Commerce clause?
I explained to you (multiple times with multiple examples) how the commerce clause not only restricts commerce but protects commerce. You ignored every single one of those examples because duh, what could you possibly say in response? That you didn't know about those things? Oh god no. Heavens forbid.
And of course you had no response whatsoever as to how interstate issues would be resolved without the commerce clause. Nor did you have a response to how we would prosecute interstate crime without the commerce clause. We both know your quip about the Patriot Act was a useless reply that didn't answer the question lol. It's weird that you would come at me from a tone of condescension when you constantly have to dodge my points because you don't know how to respond to them. Very ballsy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thett said “I don’t really think it’s possible, electricity running water and paved roads throughout the country is good for everyone and worth the cost, and do you really want 95% of the landmass of your country in third world conditions?”
Do you agree with this? I HIGHLY doubt it since you want to abolish the Commerce Clause and said you consider Wickard v Filburn to be among the greatest tarnishes in United States history right up there with the Trail of Tears lol. I presume you do think rural areas should go without basic utilities and left to fend for themselves in response to natural disasters that disproportionately target where they live. I mean you're not a socialist, right?
Created:
Getting rid of the Electoral College might be considered radical policy-wise.
Created:
Radical idea I don't agree with but can defend: Inheritance should be abolished.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, like those Covid lockdowns that never happened???
A group that said I could work from the comfort of my own home for 2 months vs. a group who says I shouldn't work at all because it's been bad for men... hmm. Good point, I do have a lot to think about!
The best worst choice as usual.
Is it possible for you to pay less taxes than you already do? Don't tell me it's because of gas prices.
I would never wish that misery on anyone, especially a black guy.
Lol. I'm sure she is lovely.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Is it really sarcasm.
Well I genuinely think Trump supporters are awful if that's what you mean :)
I never said I was above the cognitive biases behind tribalism and partisanship. I showed polling highlighting there is misunderstanding on all sides. Then I said the so-called "anti elites" are condescending snobs themselves who have no business reiterating that they are the true Americans and city dwellers aren't, especially since the majority of Americans live, work and visit those cities plus they rely on those cities to subsidize them financially.
If your point in commenting in this thread is that I too attack and criticize the people who actively try and take away my rights, you are correct. I do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right! I'm rooting for the team that supports my right to make decisions about my own body... go figure. I'm rooting for the team that doesn't chide me for working outside the home so I can provide for myself instead of relying on a man to support me; the team that fought for my right to reap the social and financial benefits of marriage to a person I actually love (which for me have been pretty significant - it's not peanuts in that tax return).
I mean who knows what the future holds but for now I'm siding with the team that doesn't go out of their way to ridicule my trans friends, doesn't pretend there are no issues with law enforcement, doesn't look down on brown people as inferior and doesn't consider it a moral armageddon if their children know that gay people exist and are worthy of respect. Call me crazy.
If my taxes or cost of living escalated exponentially as a direct result of this team, or if this team significantly hindered my ability to profit in any way, or if I could no longer own a gun legally because of this team, then my preferences might change as I see no shame in being a fair-weathered fan. I don't wear anybody's jersey. I'm generally not into diehard allegiance to a particular group let alone one leader, especially a group of power hungry central planners. I look at how these teams directly impact my life and my prioritized values at a given time.
What about you? What factors go into your clear preference as the central planners of choice? Do you own a corn field? Did your wife leave you for a black guy?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Make America Subsidized Again <3
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I find it absolutely weird that central-planning fans act concerned about monocropping when the same central planners made that possible through endless corn subsidies
There's only one solution: TRUMP 2024! Red Wave!
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because racial/ethnic groups are absolute.
Not sure about that.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Lol all of my sarcasm probably flew right over your head, to the surprise of no one.
Created:
Excerpt from Why Democrats Keep Losing Rural Counties Like Mine
The signs of desperation are everywhere in communities like mine. A landscape of collapsed barns and crumbling roads. Main Streets with empty storefronts. The distant stare of depression in your neighbor’s eyes. If you live here, it is impossible to ignore the depletion.
Okay, so they want the government to step in and help? Because that is antithetical to their rhetoric on government and what their party supports.
It seems clear that middle America is resentful of being duped by the GOP all these years who never gave a shit about helping rural communities. Admittedly it's been fun watching Mitch McConnell and the rest of them have their comeuppance in the wake of Donald Trump. For decades they have focused on cultural wedge issues and claimed to be the party of the "working class" despite being backed by the richest and most powerful people for obvious reasons. Conservatives have even been tricked even into believing stuff like Big Oil are the good guys which is insane (oh sure, no dishonest filthy rich tycoons in that industry!) especially given how much they rely on the land.
Republicans seem to blame all of their struggle on liberals because liberals are doing better than them (in their view), much like Germans were okay with blaming the Jews for their hardship because they resented that Jews were better off financially. It's wild to watch people who have been exploited for decades foist all of their anger on the group that has tried to secure healthcare, welfare, social security and other benefits to poor people falling on hard times (which they accept). And it's hard to take people seriously who lament that Obamacare will not let them see their own doctors [RAGE!] while in the next breath say they haven't seen a doctor in 20 years because they can't afford it. "In Canada you'd have to wait 5 years to see a doctor!" Yeah well that's 15 years less than you have waited so far, right Bob? (I'm not saying I support Medicare for all btw, just that there seems to be some pretty deep rooted cognitive dissonance among this group.)
Created:
There is a sense in conversations that people in rural America are not getting their fair share of attention, resources, and respect. They think they deserve more, and that cities and the people within them are getting more than they deserve. They mainly blame racial and ethnic minorities, but also white urban elites.
People living in rural communities across the US face difficult odds. American economic growth and recovery is concentrated in a small number of highly populated urban counties, such as LA County in California and Miami-Dade in Florida. The rural population is declining, from more than half of the US population in 1910 to just 20% in 2010. The abandoned main streets show the wear and tear of an economy that has shifted away from rural people, and of public policy that has forgotten to pay attention.
You could say that low-income neighborhoods in our cities show similar scars. But there is no sense of common cause here. It is the cities that are home to the decision-makers who have brought on this mess, according to rural Wisconsin. This includes corporate CEOs, but more importantly, in their view, it includes government, and Democrats who say more government is the answer.
So this seems like some cognitive dissonance IMO. Their argument is that policy and resources have been focused on helping those in cities instead of rural areas, while at the same time they say policy and resources are not the answer. What do they expect government to do or not do in order to help them then? It's not like they pay a lot of taxes.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Most of the people I’ve known who are most like that aren’t rural people themselves but the type of people who drive an off road truck that never goes off road and live in the suburbs. . . They want to imagine themselves as salt of the earth farmers or oil field roughnecks because maybe their grandparents or something were even though they work in finance for a Fortune 500 company.
I know exactly the kind of people you're talking about, especially in suburbs. Staten Island is the one Republican borough of NYC which I call "Statenbama" because it's riddled with people who drive their empty pick-up trucks 15 mph since that's all city traffic affords them. Going over potholes is their version of off-roading. I'm like what are you guys hauling in that gas guzzling monstrosity... meatballs? (Staten Island is very Italian.)
Rather than look down on rural America there are many here who sort of idealize it like you said. For instance when Yellowstone became popular (great show btw) so many of my guy friends said they fantasized about being cowboys and romanticized the lifestyle portrayed in the show. The show itself does a great job showing the disconnect between city-folk and ranchers insofar as how they view each other, and how city folk vacation in "the country" because they sort of long for that beauty and simplicity which they are in turn mocked for.
It seems very clear to me that "anti elites" are just as elitist as those they criticize. I mean we are literally at the point where they look down upon educated people. The more prestigious your college, the more of an "idiot" they think you are. Amy Coney Barrett was appealing to conservatives because she went to Rhodes College and graduated from Notre Dame law school as opposed to an ivy league.
Everyone knows that people living in cities or suburbs lack certain skills. When it comes to hunting, farming, navigating nature, guns, etc. there is a huge divide between what someone from Montana knows vs. someone from Queens. The jabs about rural people being stupid and uneducated (even though statistically they are less educated) are often about them being close-minded, and at the same time a defense mechanism to attacks about us being useless, ungodly heathens. If you look up "why do rural people hate cities" or something there are all these answers on Quora about how cities are disgusting, that we don't have "real food," etc (and I use Quora as an example because those answers come directly from the people as opposed to polished journalists).
So in my observation, ridicule of middle America tends to be more of a defensive response to the criticism that middle America throws upon us. They are very open about how much they resent or look down on our jobs (not "real jobs"), our lifestyle and our values but then rage about being victims of elitism whenever they're mocked for theirs. There's no difference, just mutual misunderstanding.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you think of the philosophy that ying and yang need to be embraced and not derided in a functioning society?
I wouldn't be able to embrace anyone who threatened or belittled my family and bodily autonomy.
Created:
I should add that I know the whole GOP doesn't make $40,000 a year (they've been the party supported by most rich elites for obvious reasons) nor do I mean to disparage those making 40K in any way, shape or form. I'm saying that people in middle America making 40K a year only see THEMSELVES as "working class" while considering urbanites making 40K "lazy" or "freeloaders" or whatever. I was pointing out the mindset of a particular group of people (the group that Luke Bryan is pandering to in his dumb song) who think that just because they might be less educated or less wealthy that they can't be elitist also, because that is exactly what they are. They look down on atheists, they look down on LGBT people, they look down on higher education, they look down on people living in towns with populations greater than 200,000, etc.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Good. Dogs are a lot cuter than human fetuses.
Created:
To me the fact that Democrats seem to agree with each other on virtually every topic, and vice versa for Republicans, always seemed to be a big clue that everyone is a bit brainwashed or beholden to pretty overt psychological biases. Is it just a coincidence that your party is right about almost everything? I guess it makes more sense to think that people from the other party are just evil and stupid rather than examine our own cognition.
Created:
Here is a PDF of the below article from Penn State.
Republicans can’t understand Democrats
Only one in four Republican voters felt that most or almost all Democratic voters sincerely believed they were voting in the best interests of the country. Rather, many Republicans told us that Democratic voters were “brainwashed by the propaganda of the mainstream media,” or voting solely in their self-interest to preserve undeserved welfare and food stamp benefits.
We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country. We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might. For example, a 64-year-old strong Republican man from Illinois surmised that “Democrats want to help the poor, save Social Security, and tax the rich.”
But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote “I don’t want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy!” Indeed, roughly one in six Republican voters answered in the persona of a Democratic voter who is motivated by “free college,” “free health care,” “free welfare,” and so on. They see Democrats as voting in order to get “free stuff” “without having to work for it” was extremely common – roughly one in six Republican voters used the word “free” in their answers, whereas no real Democratic voters in our sample answered this way.
Among the Republicans who seemed to try hardest to take the perspective of sincere and patriotic Democratic voters, the most common attributions were related to immigration. As in this Republican woman from Washington who said, “Democrats welcome all people into the country whether they are here legally or not.”
Democrats return the favor: Republicans uninformed or self-interested
Democrats inferred that Republicans must be “VERY ill-informed,” or that “Fox news told me to vote for Republicans,” or that Republicans are “uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.”
Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest – whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want “free stuff,” many Democrats believe Republicans think that “I got mine and don’t want the libs to take it away,” or that “some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.”
Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side. Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, “I like a dictatorial system of government, I’m a racist, I hate non-whites.”
Democrats think many Republicans sincere, and point to policy
Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers. More than four in ten Democratic voters (42%) felt that most Republican voters had the country’s best interests at heart (combining the top two bars in the figure below). And many tried their best to answer from the other’s perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans’ “harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.” A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to “stop abortion… stop gay marriage from ruining our country… and give us our coal jobs back.”
Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOP’s “opposition to Obamacare,” “lower taxes” and to support a party that “reduced unemployment.”
Taking the perspective of others proved to be really hard
The divide in the United States is wide, and one indication of that is how difficult our question proved for many thoughtful citizens. A 77-year-old Republican woman from Pennsylvania was typical of the voters who struggled with this question, telling us, “This is really hard for me to even try to think like a devilcrat!, I am sorry but I in all honesty cannot answer this question. I cannot even wrap my mind around any reason they would be good for this country.”
Similarly, a 53-year-old Republican from Virginia said, “I honestly cannot even pretend to be a Democrat and try to come up with anything positive at all, but, I guess they would vote Democrat because they are illegal immigrants and they are promised many benefits to voting for that party. Also, just to follow what others are doing. And third would be just because they hate Trump so much.” The picture she paints of the typical Democratic voter being an immigrant, who goes along with their party or simply hates Trump will seem like a strange caricature to most Democratic voters. But her answer seems to lack the animus of many.
Democrats struggled just as much as Republicans. A 33-year-old woman from California told said, “i really am going to have a hard time doing this” but then offered that Republicans “are morally right as in values, … going to protect us from terrorist and immigrants, … going to create jobs.”
Voters like these – baffled but not hostile – would seem to represent an opportunity. Their answers tell us that they might actually be interested in better understanding those at the opposite end of the political spectrum and that motivation could be the first step of a long journey toward reducing incivility and polarization. Whether such voters can long endure in today’s media and social media environment is a critical question – if they can endure and even grow, then the prospects for bipartisan cooperation in areas of shared concern will be possible. If not, polarization will continue to rise.
Created:
The title of this thread is based off some polling I read about that I will link in the next post.
In another thread I giggled about Pie lamenting "Elitists looking down on middle America. What’s new?" literally right after he said "[those same people's] cities are absolutely fucked." In other words it's snobby and unwarranted to snub your nose at another group's culture in this country, but only if you're liberal. For some reason conservatives get a pass for their snobby ass elitism because they make $40,000 a year. But the definition of elitism doesn't have anything to do with wealth; it's about a general superiority complex and conservatives are as guilty as anyone else. The same way liberals virtue signal with their wokeism (to an extent... I don't agree with all the whining about society's shift in being more inclusive or considerate) conservatives obviously virtue signal with their hypocritical bible thumping and "save our children" bullshit.
Yesterday I heard one of the dumbest country songs ever called Country On by Luke Bryan. Essentially he rattles off a bunch of occupations and tells them to "country on" over and over again throughout the song, those occupations being farm boys, truck drivers, soldiers, cops, firefighters, barkeeps (lol) and cowboys. He shout outs musicians and "hometowns" too although admittedly I don't know what a hometown is.
Anyway he's clearly pandering to a certain group of people and those people seem to think that they are the "true America," that they are REAL Americans. But people born and bred in New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC et. al. are also REAL Americans, Jimbo. Doctors are true Americans. Lawyers are true Americans. Stock brokers are true Americans. These cities that rural folks hate account for where the vast majority of Americans live, where the majority of American wealth is generated and where the top 10 tourist destinations for international travelers are because they're exciting and interesting places. But middle America HATES these places and HATES the majority of their fellow Americans, constantly putting them down the same way they accuse liberal elites of snubbing their nose down on them.
Pie said in another thread (sorry to call him out btw lol it's not about him) something along the lines of how city-folk have no business mocking the intelligence of farmers because urbanites don't know how to grow crops. Um, okay? And people visiting New York City from Oklahoma spend 13 hours trying to navigate the subway system and streets of NY which go in alphabetical and numerical order. People adapt to the demands of their environment. Obviously most New Yorkers don't know how to grow potatoes; their livelihood doesn't depend on it. An Idahoan doctor may not know how to grow potatoes either but that doesn't mean the doctor is less intelligent, less American, less patriotic or less valuable. And neither are country bumpkins... although I'm tempted to throw in that if those bumpkins are homophobic then they indeed are less valuable lol.
The increased disdain and hatred between liberals and conservatives is really thought provoking. It's not just that they disagree - they think the other side is straight up EVIL which is really interesting to me. And the fact that America's greatest cities are being portrayed by Fox News as third world hell holes despite being the most sought after places to live, work and visit is really wild. Can't we all just get along??? I hope everyone but Trump supporters has a nice weekend!
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
And in America, documented immigrants have the same rights the native born do.
Correct. We give birthright citizenship to those BORN in America.
Why?
For one thing the unborn, especially early in pregnancy, have zero cognitive function at all whatsoever. Why don't animals have the same rights as humans? Because they are not cognitively equivalent to neurotypical humans. And neither are the unborn.
Now I presume your next statement will be something along the lines of "babies and toddlers don't have the same cognitive status as older humans" and that's true. But toddlers and babies are no longer physically inhabiting someone else's body, and we generally consider killing those outside the womb murder. It is not okay to kill a baby or anyone outside the womb because someone else will presumably take care of the baby that is born; the baby is no longer reliant on someone else to survive that's unwilling to host it.
One fundamental role of government is to manage competing interests: the rights of the individual vs. the rights of others. The unborn should not have a right to physically inhabit another person's body against their will, and the government has no business prosecuting women or doctors on behalf of the unborn that have no rights. The unborn have no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to due process, no right to anything at all so why would they have the right to live inside of someone else's body against that person's will?
Honestly I don't anticipate the conversation getting much more interesting if you simply disagree. I highly doubt you're interested in changing your mind so the convo may not be fruitful.
Conjoined twins rely on the other person’s body to live. This does not mean it is acceptable for one twin to murder the other on the grounds of bodily autonomy. Why does being born matter?
I just explained.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Thats a funny anecdote...I dont know how old you are but it surprised me to learn that majorities said they didnt approve of interracial marriage until the 90s. I'm sure some of the people who say yes in the polling are lying but no doubt there's been a huge cultural shift in a short period of time
The thing is even people who said they approved of interracial marriage in the 90s were NIMBY liberals. They're fine with it as long as it's not their daughter. That is very common for gays too. Many who are "totally okay" with it still reject or feel shame about their gay children. And people who are fully on board with gay marriage and adoption still use rhetoric that suggests being gay is less-than or negative. That's why I empathize with black mistrust of white liberals who are often times all-talk.
The reason black people keep calling everyone racist (and I agree that is horrible messaging for some of their legitimate grievances) is because even liberals who proclaim to be so open minded and inclusive harbor negative prejudice. We can sit here and say that it's rational and logical to defer to stereotypes and prejudice in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that many are victims to unjust or racist actions even if we find them justifiable. For instance, we can point out the criminality rate of blacks vs. whites and justify prejudice or suspicion of black people, but wouldn't you be annoyed (and arguably oppressed) if a cab driver wouldn't stop for you just because you were black, or if the police targeted you for stop-and-frisk searches just because you were black, or if cops used excessive force in a legitimate arrest because they presumed things about you they wouldn't if you were white? At that point it's not just a social issue but a rights violation.
There's always going to be some friction in a multiracial society, I think to talk about "oppression" is something totally different.
I agree. I think they are referring to rights violations (which before BLM were more rampant as there was no spotlight on it) and the more egregious things that can happen as a result of racism other than just having someone follow you around the store. Trayvon Martin is a perfect example. There's no way George Zimmerman calls the cops over suspicion of a white boy walking around in a hoodie because he "doesn't belong there" or whatever. And if George Zimmerman did call the cops and kill a white boy for no reason, the vast majority of the country would have been outraged vs. 50% defending his actions. That's the kinda stuff I think is legitimate. Philando Castile was shot 40 seconds into his traffic stop for broken tail lights. He told the cop he had a gun, and the cop shot him while he was sitting in the driver's seat not one, not two but seven times while Castile reached for his license that the officer asked him to produce. Now would the cop have reacted that way in a panic if Castile was white? I don't know though I suspect not given how many Americans are legal gun owners. But I do know the NRA would have been all over that in defense of his 2A rights. Instead they were silent and the officer was acquitted of all charges.
A shop owner following around a black lawyer who never committed a crime in his life is obviously a humiliating and negative experience but I also don't know how you can possibly get rid of people holding stereotypes. It's pretty weaksauce compared to state oppression past or present. Some of the drug crime stuff might actually qualify, I haven't looked into it that much but I know the true purpose of the drug war was to create a justification for locking up potential criminals BEFORE they committed violent crimes so I can see how that would tangle up a lot of people who did nothing wrong in communities with lots of crime, which would disproportionately impact black people. I feel like the entire thing is a tangled web. Some people hold and act on stereotypes of black people being criminals... but they actually are significantly more likely to commit crimes. There's a way to take in that information that's a healthy middle ground between being racist and refusing to believe your own lying eyes. And the very best thing that could happen is if this violent crime stopped which I really don't think is too much to ask.
I agree with all of this, but in response to the bolded part I think you are ignoring that black people who are not committing crimes are victims to a stereotype that there is nothing they can do about.
Note that Pope Francis said 1 in 50 priests are pedophiles. If that's the number the Catholic church is giving to the public, then we know the real number is MUCH higher. Yet I'm sure you'd have a good argument as to why we shouldn't look at or treat clergy and the Church (which was totally complicit) with suspicion or disdain despite these numbers.
I very much see your point that it would be illogical to disregard observations just because they have a negative connotation for a particular group. But I know you can see that people are oftentimes treated unfairly because of those stereotypes. It shouldn't be that controversial or difficult to acknowledgethose stereotypes exist, so I honestly don't understand the pushback by white people who go ape shit if you suggest they're racist. I get that it's not awesome to be called a racist, but at the same time we all know that we're all racist! We're sitting here justifying prejudice by citing crime statistics, so we can't turn around in the next breath and gaslight black people by saying "we don't see color."
That was some interesting information. To address your other question, I think affirmative action doesn't actually move the needle that much because it often ends up being counterproductive for the student because it puts them in classes with harsher competition that makes them more likely to drop out. But that's not the *intent*...it really would a hell of a benefit if used correctly.
100% agree. I remember sitting in a college class and my jaw dropping that some of the students could barely read. That's also a failing of the education system cuz they should not have graduated elementary school let alone be admitted into college but I digress.
We know that high crime rates aren't unchangeable to this because the big changes to the social and economic environment in the 1960s resulted in enormous (like 4x) increases in violent crime that slowly declined throughout the 80s and 90s as policies changed and the economy got better.
That's really interesting and something I would like to know more about. Do you have a book recommendation or other resource where I could learn more about this?
A social environment that condemns crime unequivocally and doesn't attempt to excuse it would help a lot.
Explain =/= Excuse. I could hear some of my liberal friends saying "not manufacturing guns would help a lot too." What about punishment though? When I went to Iceland I spent a good amount of time chatting up locals about their culture and the criminal justice system which is so ridiculously lenient (they're also a tiny, homogenous country with basically no crime at all). We have evidence that being too tough on crime can have a negative impact as well. By "condemn" do you mean punish more harshly or what?
It truly shocks me how much some white liberals will bend over backwards to dismiss, deny, and ultimately justify crime.
But haven't you justified a lot of ridiculous behavior or positions taken up by trumpkins? Hillbilly Elegy and content like that are forays into the world of poor, rural whites that specifically try to explain or justify their diehard allegiance to a provocative, pathological liar. I get where you're coming from though. There are some things where I am just truly and genuinely dumbfounded by other people's perspectives and values and I could see how this would be one of them for you. The only thing I can say is that criminology is a whole (social) science that's worthy of digging into, especially when we have a massive prison population in this country with over 2.2 million people incarcerated. Canada is more culturally diverse than the US and has less crime plus one of the smallest prison populations in the world.
When true believers get elected such as the District Attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles (who will likely be recalled soon, thank God) they simply don't prosecute a lot of violent crimes because of equity concerns.
I haven't looked up the numbers today but iirc the crime stats are pretty much the same under the new prosecutors as they have been in the past decade. The DAs seem to be prosecuting violent crime at the same rate as their predecessors but scaling back on the prosecution of misdemeanors and non violent crime. I'm sure there is a political reason as well as personal values that make these guys a lot more lenient, but it's my understanding that a lot of low-level crimes aren't being prosecuted (or criminals are being released from jail early) because they don't have the resources or capacity to deal with them all.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
In the law we make distinctions when it comes to rights. Animals don't have the same rights as humans. Among humans, immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens; children don't have the same rights as adults; convicts and suspected criminals don't have the same rights as someone with a clean record; the mentally ill or cognitively impaired don't have the same rights as a neurotypical person, etc.
Despite the fact that fetuses are living human beings, they should not have the same rights as born persons. There is a difference in status between people that are born because they do not rely on inhabiting another person's body to live. In the case of conjoined twins, both of them are born so both have the right to not have their bodies violated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol why are you posting to Pie in a clear response to a point that *I* made?
People fleeing Manhattan in droves doesn't prove that it is an uninhabitable cesspool. The people that leave CAN'T AFFORD IT because demand and subsequently rent is so high. Are folks going to move out of Idaho and Montana to find more affordable housing? No. They're fleeing big cities where it's the most expensive and flocking to areas with lower costs of living. Fucking duh.
And yeah I knew you would bring up Barbara Boxer when you googled "politicians that got robbed" since you completely made up that whole bit in the first place.
Created: