Total posts: 31
-->
@RationalMadman
Not if the 49% are significant enough in potency to severely harm the 51% if a war broke out, no.
But if the 51% controls all the weapons and has the economic wherewithal, then it's fine?
The goal is a system where no change is needed for as long as possible. This is the ultimate system always. This is achieved by informing many people of many things and letting the majority analyse what is best. At times a smarter minority is welcome to actively challenge and unite as a lesser party or band of individuals preaching against the state's views but if they begin to lie to win the debate, I support arresting them and silencing them.
So society now has a well-defined goal: the majority, acting in their self-interests, try to create a system where no change is needed. But what do you mean by not needing change? Do you mean that it does not need change because it is just, or because it conforms with all the interests of the majority, or just descriptively that it doesn't have to be changed because the status quo works well enough, or something else?
You've also laid out that it is in the majority's interest to educate everyone ("informing many people of many things"). No argument there.
As far as your views about the minority challenging the system, am I to understand this as you saying that the minority may speak out when and only when it would be expedient for the majority to let them do so?
I'm off until later tonight.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Why maximize individual freedoms? Let's say you consider freedom to keep all the money you earn a valuable freedom. To maximize that, there would be no taxation of any kind. The police force, fire department, hospitals, even army would have to be private. Let's say the hospital owners charge a lot of money to stay there, so much that thousands of poor cannot afford it. They die because of illnesses that are easily treatable. Is the situation I described impossible? Would it be prevented always by charity? How do you know? If not, is that morally okay that thousands of people die because they can't afford the high price the hospital owner charges? If it's not okay, how do you reconcile that?libertarianism is about individual freedom, so my philosophy is about maximum individual freedoms (not total for obvious reasons) and that can't happen when government controls more.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Something I was typing before I saw your response, added here:
It's not like I'll just say, "why?", "why?", "why?" and nothing else. The questions aren't arbitrary and designed to "fool" you. Sure, you might find yourself caught in a contradiction and some point, struggling to explain some view you hold. And then you'll very likely have to revise some view. That's not an attack on you. Anyone, myself included, would have to do that when cross-examined. Questions are far, far more dangerous than answers are to the fragile "peace" (read: absence of tension, rather than true philosophical blooming) of the mind. And that's a great thing.
Now to your current response:
My question to you did turn out to be useful, because very, very few people don't believe in rights but do believe in democracy. I would have totally straw-manned you had I not asked that.
So, let me make sure I've got your stance right: You've said that the goal of government is to maximize some "good". There are no rights; the majority, acting in their own self-interest, decides what good is and that's that. If the ancient Greek practice of ostracizing were brought back, fine. If 51% of the voters say kill the other 49%, fine. Is that accurate?
If so, I'll argue later that does not bring about the "best for all", and if so, another scenario: According to your stance so far, if 51% of voters says murder is fine, fine. But I suspect you'd say that murder is against their self-interest. If so, how do you know? And if they do in fact act against their self-interest, is there an appropriate remedy?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Chill out. All I asked was how you square your believe in democracy with your disbelief in minority rights. It's not impossible to do. Majoritarian conceptions of democracy have existed; just think back to ancient times.Give me a better outline, you 'everyone is wrong' preaching excuse of a debater.There is blatantly a right theory if there is a wrong one.
When I say you only gave your opinion, that's not meant as an insult. It's just meant as a description of what you did.
It's like if I said, "I'm a liberal of an optimistic kind, who wants the best for everyone, and who believes that pluralism is a natural, good result of a free society."
It's like if I said, "I'm a liberal of an optimistic kind, who wants the best for everyone, and who believes that pluralism is a natural, good result of a free society."
The last half of the sentence says something more concrete, but can you rebut the first half? It's very likely you have a picture in your head of what I mean by "optimist liberal". But it's equally likely that your idea of what that means doesn't match what I mean, so you could spend five paragraphs rebutting something I didn't say. That's why I asked you questions; so that we can talk about what you actually think rather than what your outline gives as as a vague shadow of what you think.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Why do you believe it should be kept as small as possible? Why not, say, as big as it can possibly get, where a small group of central planners decide every aspect of your life, every resource you consume, every person you meet, everything you learn, even who you marry?
Obviously I don't think it should be anywhere near that big, but I'm interested in why you think it shouldn't be.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Being sinister doesn't mean wrong. Why is my theory wrong? I'm waiting.
You haven't given a theory. You just described the outline of your opinion, more or less.
But there is something already questionable. You describe yourself as a social democrat, and yet from what you say, you are extremely hostile to minority rights, typically considered a pillar of democracy. I don't know exactly what you would say is or isn't a "disturbance" or "problem", but a minority in any democratic system will cause political conflict in government. The level of that conflict varies, so perhaps you can say where you'd draw the line. But assuming your answer is strict, as you lead me to believe, how is suppression of the minority possibly democratic?
Best (as adjective):1) of the most excellent or desirable type or quality.
But what is "the most excellent or desirable type or quality" for everyone? What is good for people to have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Instead of asking how one would draw the line, I think a more fitting question is how to know when a line is being crossed.
I think that's mostly the same question, but it does raise an important difference. It allows that there are certain cases we know are clearly wrong, and some that are more questionable. I think that in a case like this, it's important to remember that the right to religious liberty (assume for the purposes of this discussion that whenever I say "religious", it includes atheists) is a negative right. It stops the majority from doing certain things to the minority. And if there's a circumstance in which a religious majority legislates on an issue drawn largely by religious fault lines against a religious minority, I think that clearly crosses the line. It becomes harder to distinguish when, as in the case of India, the religious majority obfuscates the issue. I'm not sure how to make the distinction between obfuscating the issue and mere coincidence, though. And "drawn largely by religious fault lines" is also pretty fuzzy.
Is separation of church and state a one-sided thing, something that only religious people can violate?
In case it wasn't clear in my answer above, my answer to this is no. Separation of church and state is separation of state and church.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
What do you mean by "hard" paleoconservatism? What is that opposed to? What "racial elements"? What constitutes a "race"? What sort of consequences would your views have for the US, one of the most (wonderfully, IMO) pluralistic societies to ever exist?
And, what is the role of government in society? Why?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm a social democrat of a cynical kind (not humanist kind) I want the best for all as it's the most sustainable outcome and am merciless to the disruptive minority.
What do you mean by "cynical"? What constitutes "the best", and why is it sustainable? What is a "disruptive minority" and what do you mean by "merciless"? That sounds extremely sinister.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That's fair; I think most people decide things in some way similar to that. When I'm thinking, I tend to compare my views on a given philosophical issue to my views on a related one.My philosophy is issue dependent.
How about this one, then: What is the role of government in a society? Why should they have that role?
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Morality, as far as I can see, is just the emotions of people. I don't think there is a whole lot of thinking to do about emotions, in this regard, whereas political thought has the capacity to be far more empirical. In light of this, I'll refer to political thought alone.
I think a reasonable definition of morality is, "the answer to the question, 'what ought I (not) do?'". It's a functional definition, as our morality allows us to make value judgments about how we should act in any given situation. Morality and emotions are intertwined, sure. If you think something is wrong, you're likely to feel disgust when someone does it. But I don't think that makes morality bunk. If you've ever seen a video that was just gross--say, a video in which someone has a very snotty sneeze--you probably felt grossed out. But you wouldn't say that video was immoral. Whatever is immoral is immoral for a reason. There are lots of documentaries out there about the sins of our farming industry, for instance. An omnivore may see such a documentary and feel repulsed, and decide that slaughterhouses are immoral. But if you ask that person why they feel that way, they wouldn't say that slaughterhouses are immoral because repulsive. They would instead invoke, say, the right of animals not to suffer gratuitously. Did they change their mind because of emotions? Yes, to an extent.
But their reasoning is independent of that.
I used to argue with family members who opposed same-sex marriage. Some indeed were so petty as to want it banned because it was "gross". But all offered the additional justification of "marriage is between a man and a woman something something Bible". And if you've ever taken part in a thought experiment as a group, say the trolley problem, you'll find that there are moral questions which don't have much to do with emotions, as some people dutifully cross the room to let the five die because of their belief in the categorical imperative not to use someone as a means to an end. Could you argue that these more abstract decisions flow from concrete emotional ones? Sure.
Even if you do that, though, morality has an objective answer because of what it is. If morality is the question "what ought I (not) do?", some answer is correct, even if the answer is, "nothing in particular". And whatever is right, there is a reason for its correctness.
tl;dr emotions and morality are connected but separate
That aside, I take issue with your assertion that political thought is more "empirical". What do you mean by that?
Yes, the average, hell even the above average person, does do political philosophy a disservice with heuristic views, but at the same time people need identity, in order to function.I believe that there are individuals who recognise the shortcoming of heuristics, yet are bound by time constraints. The time required to evaluate permutations in possible paths, for any issue, is staggering. Given enough thought, I think it becomes readily obvious that one cannot become an expert on all political topics, let alone a handful. Add to that a full-time job, children, wife/husband, friends etc, and there isn't a chance in hell. So, we defer to expert opinion, and make leaps in faith in trusting them. This, in turn, weakens our political position, because our position is not reached by our own thoughts/processes, but rather faith, to varying degrees, in others.Therefore, it is not necessarily that the vast majority of us are poor at political, but that the majority simply do not have the time necessary to reach worthwhile conclusions, and thus resort to heuristics/appeals to authority.
Philosophical issues are so complex that even a lifetime of thought probably won't "solve" even one thing. I agree with you there. But that's not what I think makes people bad at political philosophy. I don't think deferring to experts is bad, either, although many people have poor understandings of what constitutes an "expert". Where people go wrong, IMO, is in their unwillingness to think responsibly, to admit not only that the other side is possibly right in some respects, but also that, in the face of the vast amount of information on Earth alone, there are bound to be some beliefs you and I hold, even dearly, that are wrong. Conviction in your philosophical beliefs is perfectly fine; that's what a belief is, as you can't believe something you hold no conviction in. But, being unwilling to entertain a differing view is (in most cases) counterproductive and makes you worse at thinking. Thinking mostly about the crowds who say "liberals/conservatives are out to destroy America" or "vaccines gave my child autism and you can't tell me otherwise it's all a big corporate conspiracy", for instance.
tl;dr people are bad at political philosophy because they aren't cautious and self-questioning enough
"Identity" is an abstract concept, so please elaborate.
As to my political philosophy being wrong, I'm yet to incur the rigidity of self-ascribed identity politics :)
What is the role of government in a society?
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
@Greyparrot
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@coal
The OP was evidently misleading. What I meant by "your political philosophy" was not your political philosophy but your political philosophy. I hope you'll forgive me, because I think that question is far more interesting. Labels are useful descriptively, but there's problems with them:
1) One label encompasses a broad range of views. What is libertarian? Is all that entails following the non-aggression principle? If so, what do you take the consequences of the NAP to be? How does that inform your views on abortion? Is taxation theft? There are many questions we could ask, and different libertarians would take different positions on them. And what does centrist mean? I assume that it's not that you believe abortion is wrong 50%. Minarchism is more strictly defined, but even that can lead to different consequences, depending on how you define aggression, for instance.
2) Labels are reductionist. I mean, that's what they're designed to be. That's good for their purposes, but says nothing about why you believe what you do. I'm a liberal (not "classical", Rawlsian). But how did I arrive at which positions, and how do my beliefs inform each other?
3) Attacking a label leaves one wide open to strawman accusations: "Other libertarians might believe x, but I don't!"
So, I hope you'll do me the kindness of fleshing your ideas out a little, being a little more specific about what you personally believe the role of government is, for instance, and why you believe what you do. What do you think makes your stance right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Separation of Church and State was a mistake, and it was never successfully implemented anyways (until recent times with the rise of secularism)
What do you mean by "mistake", "successfully", "recent", and "secularism"?
It causes deaths to those who engage in what those opposed to abortion consider to be causing murder themselves? I don't think that's an incentive to support abortion law at all. As one opposed to abortion, I believe abortion should warrant death to the mother themselves (with the exception of rape and life in danger).
🤔
Abortion opponents do consider abortion as taking a life, sure. I disagree with that, but there's something more pressing--and somewhat disturbing--in your case I want to take up. Abortion historically was permissible until as late as the quickening, and many major religions have nuanced, diverse, and conflicting views on the issue, within the religions themselves (1). How can you possibly justify the death penalty for abortion? Murder is different--it is an act more or less universally condemned. Discussions of the DP itself aside (though obviously how you justify use of the DP matters to this discussion, and feel free to add that), abortion is an issue surrounded by extreme moral uncertainty. That is, you cannot possibly know when morally significant life begins, because when it begins is subject to what you argue constitutes morally significant. Even defining "life" by itself is a headache and a half. Life as scientifically defined so far can't give a definitive answer; it's a description of things we've observed that signify an individual life, and it faces immense controversy (2). One possible answer is to say that all life is morally significant. Bacteria clearly aren't, so you could refine that to say "all human life". But then we're just begging the question: what is life, and furthermore, what does it mean to be human? Is a clump of human cells "human life"? And if you cede that life does not begin at conception, where can you possibly draw the line? There's a general range of times people believe acceptable--late-term is generally considered life, for instance--but can you pin down the exact point at which abortion stops ending a pregnancy and starts ending a life?
The point of all that is not to say that there is no answer to "what is life?". The point is that to call for the DP for an issue which I don't believe you can possibly claim to have finally solved is, IMO, prideful and harmful. It's no answer to say that we must act upon our beliefs. Witchcraft trials, once upon a time, were the result of beliefs. Those beliefs were well-founded in the religious and scientific literature of the day. And yet, they were wrong, and they killed scores of innocent people. Of course we have to act on our beliefs. But we have to act on them responsibly. Advocating for the death penalty for an issue that not just US citizens, but many people across times and cultures have disagreed vigorously about, is extreme.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I don't disagree with your analogy's consequence. Certainly, religious leaders should be allowed to speak out about political issues. But I'm not sure what issue you have to be religious to oppose or support, outside of laws that would increase the power of the church (e.g. appointing many high-level church officials as government leaders, or teaching one particular religion in schools to the exclusion of others, or doing religious tests in the government).
Still, say the majority religion wants to ban the killing of cows. There are nonreligious reasons to do so. For instance, you may afford animals a great deal of rights, and say that it is categorically wrong to ever kill a cow because cows have the right not to suffer. Or you may justify it because you believe that meat consumption is wasteful and a threat to the environment. This isn't a hypothetical. In India, where law continually restricts everyone's ability to butcher cows and sell meat, one justification the government provided for closing tens of thousands of meat shops and slaughterhouses was "officials were enforcing environmental norms mandated by the courts in 2015." (1) Their nonreligious claims about the issue go even further in the article. But that case seems to me like a clear violation of separation, despite the fact that there were plausible nonreligious reasons to enact the law. Am I wrong? Or, is there a further distinction to draw between the Argentinian abortion law and the Indian cow protection laws?
I'm curious as to how you actually draw the line, and how you justify that. The difference between the pope lobbying senators in a Catholic country and the pope actually dictating policy, for instance, may have moral significance you can draw out, but it is otherwise pretty thin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Want to elaborate more on "no challenge to the separation of church and state"? The country is overwhelmingly Catholic, and leading Catholic figures strongly encouraged the government to vote no. For instance, "https://www.lacapital.com.ar/la-ciudad/el-arzobispo-local-pidio-los-senadores-que-voten-contra-del-aborto-legal-n1654634.html". Even the pope, who is Argentinian, got involved: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/09/argentina-abortion-defeat-shows-enduring-power-of-catholic-church. Where do you draw the line of separation?
To be fair to the estimate, it's hard to estimate something that's done illegally. Another estimate I saw elsewhere was 500,000. I don't think 350,000 sounds inflated--while legal, contraceptives seem discouraged from what I've read so far. Legal enforcement of Argentinian abortion law seems haphazard. Some women have gone to jail, some doctors operate relatively unperturbed, judging by this article: http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-argentina-abortion-20171029-htmlstory.html. Punishing women for abortions strikes me as extreme and ineffective. Misoprostol doesn't seem extremely hard to get, and women in countries where it's illegal already risk their lives for abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly who is losing out here?
The workers, seems to me. Also, Uber has had some pretty significant oversights like https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/03/technology/uber-lyft-background-checks-new-york-terror-attack-suspect/index.html?iid=EL before. If you don't want to read it, most important quote is: "For example, Massachusetts runs government background checks on drivers who are already approved to work for Uber and Lyft. Thousands of drivers failed these government screenings for inappropriate criminal charges and driving histories." Those background checks are stricter now, but they still don't fingerprint their drivers where they aren't legally required to, for instance.
While I agree that ride-sharing probably reduces congestion overall, I don't necessarily agree that ride-sharing reduces congestion in NYC specifically--the people taking cars there are people who likely would have taken the subway otherwise. Still, I am suspicious about how much taxi drivers might have influenced the decision; the article also notes that another reason workers supported the cap is that it means the increasing demand for ride-sharing will translate to increased demand for them personally. I like the ability to set a pay-floor, but I am uncertain about the cap.
Created:
Posted in:
P.S. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
Created:
Posted in:
As far as incentivization goes, given that for all the Trump admin's policies the number of people crossing the border is the same, "incentives" is probably the wrong way of addressing the issue; the better path is comprehensive reform which would make legal immigration far easier and far more easily regulated, while making illegal immigration harder.
Sorry about derailing the thread. I think I've at least shown, through my arguments, that A) one can find the way Trump treats immigrants intolerable and not be insincere in that, B) the right, ironically, is overemotional about the issue, and C) the issue is far less toxic for Democrats than the right would have you believe, and may turn out to be a boon.
I'll leave this here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
For the sake of the thread, I'll leave my arguments as they stand. Of course the people who discussed with me are welcome to respond once more, and I might talk in another thread, but this has veered way off course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, yes, parents put themselves and their children at risk because they want "free stuff". Reminds me of how popular a game Russian roulette is; hundreds of my friends died and hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country and a billion people across the globe and quintillions across the universe and octillions across the multiverse died because they wanted "free stuff" and pulled the trigger one too many times. Yes, we love Russian roulette, don't we? Gotta have our "free stuff" no matter the risks, right? Either you're overstating this drastically or there's a lot more bank robbers in the US than I remember.
The GPI is a good source, but you're using it in a misleading way. I'd say dishonest, but I think you just looked at it, thought, "huh, that fits my narrative", and didn't actually check what the site was. Here is a list of the factors that the US, rank 121, ranks especially badly on that causes it to be shown as not peaceful: incarceration, nuclear and heavy weapons, weapons exports, external conflicts fought. Not great, but not something that makes the US bad to live in (except the incarceration). Let's compare that to Peru, rank 74. Perceptions of criminality 4/5 (higher is worse, the US is 3/5), violent demonstrations 4/5 (US 2/5), homicide 3.3/5 (US 2.7), violent crime 3/5 (the US is 1/5). Or Argentina, rank 66. Perceptions of criminality 4/5, security officers & police 5/5, homicide 3.1/5, violent demonstrations and violent crime both 3/5. You get the idea. Only Chile approaches the US. And the GPI doesn't consider the economic situation of each country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I never said his rise was because of that, it was in spite of it. Hence it was a moral blow, BUT, his approval rating kept rising. How does it feel knowing you type all that, over something that wasn't said?
No need to be triggered over a simple conversation.
You said it rose because of the "hypocrisy" which the issue exposed.
Let me repost exactly what you said:
"treatment of immigrants intolerable" Ah yes, getting angry at someone for enforcing laws that ones own party spearheaded. Family seperations was a moral blow, but his approval didn't drop in the midst of it, it kept rising. Mainly because it highlighted the hypocrisy. Family seperations are wrong, sure. But trafficking is a legitimate concern, illegal immigration poses far more danger to children in terms of death and rape/assault.
Important part bolded for emphasis. If you meant something other than what you said, okay. But that's what you said.
As for "abolish ICE", you're grossly oversimplifying the candidates stances. Booker dodged the question, which means he probably wouldn't. And Warren, at least, wants to replace it with... er, something (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/politics/elizabeth-warren-ice-immigration-protests/index.html). Which technically, yes, abolishes ICE. But replacing something is different from just getting rid of something and replacing it with nothing, which seems to be the idea most people have of abolishing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
His argument isn't anything close to whataboutism. It's about the lesser of 2 evils.
If you're saying he said that about family separations, I could grant that as an interpretation of what he said, though that's a bad argument and still doesn't support his "highlighted hypocrisy" argument.
This is an apples/oranges comparison. The media has shown far fewer extreme candidates on the right jockeying for a leadership position in the party than candidates on the left. With the overwhelming party bias of the media, if there was smoke, you can be sure they would find the fire.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
Created:
Posted in:
Article summary:
New York City passed laws to "cap the number of for-hire vehicles for a year while the city studies the booming industry. The bills also allow New York to set a minimum pay rate for drivers." According to the NYTimes, NYC is Uber's largest market.
NYC is also a hotbed of discontent for Uber workers. Conditions of employment are evidently so bad that, "[t]he battle over Uber’s future in New York has been prompted in part by growing concerns over financial turmoil among drivers — a problem underscored by six driver suicides in recent months." Taxi drivers, displaced by Uber drivers, also celebrated the cap.
Uber has had several other issues, as well--the NYTimes cites worker complaints about "gender discrimination and harassment", additionally, you may recall the self-driving Uber vehicle that killed a pedestrian in Arizona.
Uber and Lyft, of course, are upset with the move. They argue that it will force them to charge higher prices, and according to an Uber spokesperson, "'[t]he City’s 12-month pause on new vehicle licenses will threaten one of the few reliable transportation options while doing nothing to fix the subways or ease congestion.'" One Republican who voted against the measures said "that limiting Uber to help yellow taxis was similar to regulating Netflix, the streaming service, to help Blockbuster, the video rental chain."
This hits upon one of the great issues of our time--the explosion of technological growth and our inability to reckon with its consequences. Ride-sharing companies are an incredible innovation in that they make personal transportation far easier. But in our zeal to embrace innovation, lots of people end up losing out. The same story plays out in many ways. Facebook and the ease of spreading fake news and accessing user data, among other sins; Google and privacy concerns; problems keep arising. Yet, the innovations themselves are valuable.
To what extent should Uber be regulated? Are the concerns about its disregard for workers valid, or is this just a play by a taxi industry on its last legs to survive a little longer?
Discuss.
Created:
Posted in:
What I'm most interested in:
A) how this relates your ideas about separation of church and state
B) your thoughts about abortion law when its illegality is ineffectively enforced and causes deaths
Created:
Posted in:
I'm definitely not a beginner, and I'm definitely in.
*Beginner Sign Up Sheet*
1. WarriorQueenForever
2. Smithereens
3. JusticeWept
4.
5.
6.
7.
Created:
Almost everyone, myself included, is terrible at political thought and moral thought. There are so many conflicting considerations on so many issues that while there is a right answer as to what we ought to do, we clearly don't stop and reflect enough. Take abortion, for example. Do you know when morally significant life begins? Can you honestly say that you have worked through all the ethical knots of abortion and really, truly know that it is permissible or impermissible?
So this is your chance to prove yourself. Here's your mission, should you choose to accept it:
Explain yourself.
The question is purposefully broad. You could equate politics with your whole worldview, or define it another way. Either way, I'll question you.
Created:
Posted in:
Article Summary:
In June, the lower house in Argentina "narrowly approved a bill allowing women to terminate pregnancy in the first 14 weeks". But it failed in the Senate, due at least partially to the intervention of Catholic Church leaders. Argentina has been distancing itself from the Church; it "became the first country in Latin America to allow gay couples to wed" in 2010.
Argentinian health minister Adolfo Rubenstein, "testified in Congress in favor of legalization and has estimated that some 354,000 clandestine abortions are carried out every year in the country." Supporters are concerned about the welfare of women, as "[c]omplications as a result of those abortions are the single leading cause of maternal deaths in the country, according to Mariana Romero, a researcher at the Center for the Study of the State and Society, a nonprofit organization."
Detractors included the vice president, while the president promised to support the result either way. Abortion opponent Maria Curutchet said, "It was a very emotional day . . . We were out in huge numbers and showed that we will defend the two lives, no matter the cost.”
The bill's failure sparked various riots, demonstrations, and celebrations. Supporters vowed to keep fighting: "'We will no longer be silent and we won’t let them win,' said Jimena Del Potro, a 33-year-old designer who fought back tears as she spoke. 'Abortion will be legal soon. Very soon.'"
Discuss.
Created:
Posted in:
Never
Never
Gonna give you up
Never
Gonna let you down
Never
Gonna run around and desert you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Buddamoose:Family seperations was a moral blow, but his approval didn't drop in the midst of it, it kept rising. Mainly because it highlighted the hypocrisy. Family seperations are wrong, sure. But trafficking is a legitimate concern, illegal immigration poses far more danger to children in terms of death and rape/assault.
If you want to make that a narrative, you're going to need to provide evidence for it. Here is strong evidence that the separations issue was not connected to the rise in his approval rating:
Simply put, a policy unpopular with the overwhelming majority of voters is not going to make one's approval rating rise, generally speaking.
You can throw the idea that it "highlighted hypocrisy" out there, but if you don't have anything backing that, it doesn't even qualify as an argument. Otherwise, this is just an abstracted whataboutism.
We can argue about the demerits of his immigration policies in another thread (though that you think that it's bad parenting to take a chance on a better life rather than a certain suffering is questionable; why do you think undocumented immigrants take such a perilous journey to get here? If I were a parent in that situation, I'd choose the same way), but I think the effects of family separation clearly are not what you think they were.
The other confusion you seem to have is conflation of progressives and the Democratic party. "Abolish ICE" is coming from the most liberal states in the Union--California and New York, for instance. There are liberals in other states. It would be akin to describing the Republican party by the actions of Mississippi, when the most popular Republican governor in the country is in Massachusetts! Obviously the Republican party as a whole isn't as liberal as Baker, but if you describe either party at its most liberal or conservative, you're going to create a picture that is alien to reality. There hasn't been much polling done on this; all I could find was this, at the height of Trump's family separation policy crisis https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/immigration-ice-abolish-poll-708703
Given the context of the poll, the support is probably lower now than it was then. I'll grant you that it gives a plurality of support to pro-abolish Democrats, but it also shows how divisive the issue is, and therefore probably too politically toxic for any Democrat to touch in the primaries and 2020.
Given the context of the poll, the support is probably lower now than it was then. I'll grant you that it gives a plurality of support to pro-abolish Democrats, but it also shows how divisive the issue is, and therefore probably too politically toxic for any Democrat to touch in the primaries and 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
tl;dr I'd cautiously favor Democrats right now, but it's way too soon to tell. Whether economic growth continues and whether the Democrats field a good candidate are important questions that have no answers yet.
Created:
Posted in:
We're in an almost-historically long run of economic growth right now, and I doubt it's sustainable. Recessions happen about once every ten years or sooner, and it's been about ten years since the last one. Combine that with the fact that middle class incomes have stagnated, and that will kill a lot of enthusiasm for Trump if it happens before the end of 2020 (which is pretty likely). That's especially bad for him since he's already unpopular with a good economy, and since that would provide a strong case to voters of why they need economically left policies to keep them from getting screwed over.
Single-payer is, more or less, a partisan issue at the moment. I would expect it to drive turnout for the left, while not really affecting poll numbers.
Single-payer is, more or less, a partisan issue at the moment. I would expect it to drive turnout for the left, while not really affecting poll numbers.
"The insanity of the left" is a partisan complaint; I would expect it to drive turnout for the right, while not really affecting poll numbers. Remember that the left also has pretty charged and founded attacks about the insanity of the right--if not founded for you personally, you should at least know they're pretty well founded for a leftist and to an extent for independents as well. As for what independents buy more, I'm sure they find both parties insane, as they have for a while; it's a matter of who they think is more tolerable. I've talked with some independents who hate Trump but like his economics but find his treatment of immigrants intolerable but like his social positions otherwise but (et cetera). I think that if the left doesn't provide an inspiring candidate, many independents just won't vote.
As for the candidates themselves, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion about that until 2019 when we know the full roster. I don't find any of the current candidates inspiring, but there's still a full year for someone to emerge on the left.
Created: