> My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views.
This absolutely goes both ways; that is the biggest problem.
One of the most destructive trends in recent political discourse is the tendency to seek out the worst, rather than the best, arguments from the opposing side.
Instead of engaging with articles from The National Review or Mother Jones, we just dunk on the most outrageous morons and trolls we can scour on Twitter or Reddit.
Yup, this is exactly the problem with modern politics. Take the absolute worst of the other side and project it to all of them. You like Republicans? You can't be anything other than a neo nazi racist white supremacist extremist. You leaning left? Then you have to be a communist shill who wants to tax every remotely financially successful person to death and take all liberties away from everyone ever. It's really tiring.
This argument would have more weight if "the worst" was rightfully repudiated by Republicans instead of reelection, pardons, denialism, or blistering conspiracy theories. There are outrageous acts on both sides but only the Left consistently calls out the missteps of their own.
This is just lazy. It took sub-1 second to google for this information.
"However, after George Floyd’s death, Joe Biden repeatedly condemned violent protests. In a May 31 post on his blog shortly after George Floyd’s death, he wrote, “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not.”"
oh really? So this election had historic turnout and Biden more votes than anyone else in history because they had no effect? historically red states switching to blue?
you don't think that the dem's loved people rioting in the streets because of racism while Trump was president (hint, they like it more than they would if it was under them!)
Not sure what you’re referring to. Failing to condemn white supremacists? That’s a talking point which is more about taking Trump’s erratic speech patterns out of context than it is a reflection of his actual statements or personal views. https://youtu.be/RGrHF-su9v8
If intransigence is justified by any violent idiocy among the opposition, we will have mass intransigence indefinitely.
We cannot reasonably ask for peaceful daytime demonstrations to be considered separately from after-sundown looting and arson if we aren't willing to make likewise considerations.
On the contrary, this type of "both side-ism" is exactly what sabotages honest discussion. The sides are not anywhere near equal in their willingness to use violence to achieve their means.
One side has leftists rioting in the streets and looting storefronts. The other side has conservatives plowing their cars through liberal protestors at full speed and murdering them.
One side has leftists setting police cars on fire. The other side has conservatives plotting to kidnap and/or murder mayors and governors.
One side has leftists throwing milkshakes at so-called "independent journalists". The other side has political candidates bodyslamming real journalists.
No, it's the concept of "sides" that sabotages honest discussion. It's just extremists who are very loud and amplified by others. They do not represent the majority in the middle.
There is no group with better humans. It's a failure of context, nuance and understanding if you think so.
Exactly. Side-ism — or the uncritical oversimplification of the complexity that is American politics and American demographics - is about as useful as racism. Honestly, what’s it good for?
No there absolute is: it's the side which hasn't ongoingly and repeatedly attempted to murder members of the other.
Property is not lives, and your "but the middle!" is meaningless: the middle if it exists is a group of people going "well, someone's dead, but also what about that vacant Wendy's?"
Nobody really thinks that way. Better to discuss individual policies which will show that the vast majority of people comprise a complex mix of perspectives.
I'm not going to engage with you in this violence score-keeping exercise, but I will say that it should be apparent to anyone capable of popping their media bubble that you are cherry-picking.
The first one is a good example. The second one is about a mentally ill British man whose "assassination attempt" never had any chance of success.
Should we count as political violence the plot to kill Barack Obama with a "death ray"? I think there's a distinction to be drawn between political violence and crazy people being crazy.
Interestingly, reading the pages you linked and dredging up the Death Ray link induced me to notice that (1) the previous shooting of a Congressperson was by a right-wing terrorist, and (2) that page about Obama recounts something like 6 very real plots to kill him mixed in among a bunch of variously mentally ill people being delusional. I think it's pretty clear which way the wind blows here.
How about the high level democrats literally creating a list of "Trump Supporters" with the express purpose of "ejecting them from polite society" aka canceling them socially, and economically,
Goodness me. I hate talking politics but let's not make the mistake of getting into false equivalency.
The Trump presidency has gathered a cesspool of supporters and sycophants who:
1. Have at best maintained prosperity and growth (mostly by keeping interest rates low and patching economic holes with deregulations and/or short-term protectionist policies). The BBC(1) had a nice collection of charts showing -- essentially -- that the rate of change in the well-being of the economy did not deviate when Trump took office.
2. Have increased spending and absolutely ballooned our national debt (see "short-term" policies) (2). While I do not mind spending money to solve structural economic problems (automation removing jobs, the transition from polluting industries to cleaner ones), much of the funding went to solve problems the Trump administration created themselves!
3. Have absolutely demonstrated a complete dearth of moral and ethical values. This is an absolute killer in my book. From forcibly creating orphans (3) or allowing an enemy state to promote the hunting of American soldiers, it's clear that the administration has no moral qualms regarding their actions.
When it comes to COVID, the United States has a per capita COVID death rate that is insanely disproportionate when compared with other developed countries. The US has a per capita COVID death rate that is 66x Japan, 18x Australia, and almost 6x Germany. While the rallying cry has been, "But saving the economy is more important than saving lives!", this is absolutely unsupported by data. The delta in GDP between the end of Q1 and the end of Q3 is roughly a loss of 9% in the United States (5). In Germany, that same period of time resulted only in a loss of 2.5% (6). The willful spread of lies and misinformation have caused much death not only in the United States, but in many other countries which historically have looked towards the United States as being a bastion of truth and information. Trump and his cronies have enabled many other leaders around the world by normalizing an unethical and immoral response to a crisis.
Beyond the reduction of some federal taxes (which has admittedly saved me some money) and a stronger stance against IP theft (which I think is better for the United States but perhaps worse for the world), I struggle to come up with cases in which the Trump administration has improved America, the American people, or society as a whole in any meaningful manner.
For four years, Trump and his assembled cohort causing a regression in American ethics, integrity, world standing, and education. They have done this intentionally. From the beginning, they've approached the governance of America like a popularity contest where the end goal was to satisfy sycophants and fill their own pockets. I am not calling all who support Trump racist or evil, but Trump and many of those he associates with have absolutely promoted hate, demonstrated unethical behavior, and upheld the highest levels of greed and degeneracy.
If these people were my acquaintances in my personal or business life, you would not fault me for "ejecting" them from my life. I would imagine that if you had a friend who cheered when five hundred children were not only ripped from their families, but then kept in fear and isolation away from anyone they knew, and then were told that they would never see their parents again...you would not want to be associated with them at all. The fact of the matter is that there were people who did cheer this type of degenerate behavior and there were people that actively enabled the destruction of American integrity. Those people should absolutely be excised from "polite society" as pariahs to set an example so that others do not tread on the path of wickedness. Becoming socially undesirable is not even in the same realm as enabling the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, allowing American soldiers to be killed, accepting foreign bribes to influence the American government, creating concentration camps where children are made to be orphans, fanning the flames of racial tensions, and so on.
Goodness me, it seems you love to talk politics and a decided one side view of them as well.
There is alot to unpack here most of it twisted and filled with incomplete or out right false information from a liberal bias that completely ignores a lot of recent history
lets start with the most obvious, child separation. While I oppose this, and absolutely oppose the use the fenced in cages. Lets not pretend that Trump's administration created this from thin air, these policies and these buildings / cages where in place before Trump took office, and while you should and can criticize him for not only failing to stop the policy, and by all accounts allowed immigration to ramp up the use of it before outlawing it completely due to public backlash... These policies where not started by Trump.
If you want to proclaim some kind of moral superiority, do you really want to point to Drug warriors Biden and Harris as people of moral fortitude.
The War on Drugs has cost the lives, directly and indirectly, of many many millions of people, upended families, put millions people of all races (disproportionate number of minorities) in cages, and separated them from their children, created orphans, etc..
Biden and Harris where right there not only cheering that on from the side lines but where ACTIVE participants in this process, they personally sent people to those cages.
Where is your moral outrage for those children? for those parents? for those victims?
To be clear, I am not a Trump supporter, but I am also not a Biden supporter. Though I would have preferred Trump over Biden for about 11 Trillion Reasons... My politics are libertarian, I am Anti-War, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Markets, Pro-Free Trade, Open Borders, Anti-Social Welfare and Pro-Legalize Drugs... Biden is bad on all them, Trump is bad only a few of them.
I am sure we are going to disagree on most public policy, including COVID Response which I do not believe can or should be a Federal responsibility but should continue to be a State level response, with at most Federal Resources (aka money / supplies / personnel) when needed / requested. I also believe when the final accounting is done a LARGE part of our covid death rate was down to several irresponsible governors mandating COVID positive people be sent to Elder Care Facilities, this was something unheard of in other nations (and not something Trump was responsible for, or could have prevented) and I am still grappling with the logic of that, even in the early days where information was limited
However none of that was the point of my comment, the claim was that only Republicans / Trump Supporters are "completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views"
That further devolved into claims that Trump supporters want to kill Biden supports, with a link to some wack job.
Now you have charged that is false equivalency the point that many democrats also are "completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views" to the point where they are creating lists of Trump supporter
I do not believe this to be a false equivalency at all, and the fact that you attempt to justify it either by being willfully ignorant of history, or attempting to spread incomplete or outright false information further proves my point
I see that I may have been a bit snarky to start off my response and in an effort to be clear, I'll see if I can refrain from coming across as an asshole.
>Goodness me, it seems you love to talk politics and a decided one side view of them as well.
I mean, not really. If you look at my (sparse) comment history on HN, I mostly don't even comment. I'll also point out that in my previous reply to you, I avoided making any assumptions about your belief systems or any conclusions (as I don't know you from Adam) -- I find that arguing the argument is typically a better way to come to a clear conclusion.
>There is alot to unpack here most of it twisted and filled with incomplete or out right false information from a liberal bias that completely ignores a lot of recent history
Sure, I'm happy to go through your response line by line and see what I have perhaps presented incompletely or falsely. I'd also like to remind you that I had three factual points about the Trump administration: that they did not cause economic growth beyond baseline average, that they increased our nation's debt by 36%, and that they caused or participated in immoral and inhumane treatment of humans. It was specifically on this last point which I drew my line in the sand to say that I would have problems working with people who to this very day continue to behave in an unethical manner.
>lets start with the most obvious, child separation...
First off, I'm glad that you outright state that you are against child separation and oppose fencing people in cages. I agree too!
Let's be clear. I never alleged that Trump's administration created these detention centers from thin air. According to USA Today, the cages were built during the Obama-era to temporarily house children so that they could be relocated to safe child-care within the United States. They were not built to house people for any extended length of time and they were not used as such (1). There's also an interesting discussion as to the Trump Administration's role to inflame an existing situation (a lot of migrants want to come to the US) and making it inhumane and worse (2). So there were policies in place before (which might have been not great), but Trump's administration turned the knob up to 11 here and crossed over to immorality.
But hey, I never even talked about cages or whatever, but what I did link to was specifically speaking about forced family separation and forcibly turning children into orphans (and remember, these are decidedly "non-combatants" -- as far as I'm aware, we are not at war with any of the countries to the south of the US). That is something no president has done in recent memory, but please correct me if I'm wrong here.
>If you want to proclaim some kind of moral superiority, do you really want to point to Drug warriors Biden and Harris as people of moral fortitude.
I mean, if claiming that orphaning children is bad somehow makes me more morally superior to everyone else, then...then I don't quite know where the baseline is. I feel like I'm just being rather rational in my assessment of the situation. I also don't really want to engage in strawman arguments because like ad hominem, they don't actually provide a clear argument for us to agree/disagree upon. But hey, you brought it up, so I'll respond.
I not once claimed that Biden/Harris/anyone else were morally superior or more ethical. I, in fact, never even mentioned them by name so I don't see how you can claim that I pointed to "Drug warriors Biden and Harris".
>The War on Drugs has cost the lives, directly and indirectly, of many many millions of people...for those victims?
Hey, I agree with you too! I think that Nixon's War on Drugs is likely one of the stupidest policy moves in recent American history. Several economics professors I know start Econ 101 by talking about supply and demand in the context of the War on Drugs. Essentially, attacking the supply side (DEA, invading South America, etc) has been shown to have no real effect on demand and therefore, should cease because it's a giant money sink (3). The real way to "fight" drugs is reduce the demand (through education, rehabilitation, etc). Beyond just being a dumb idea, the War on Drugs was a popular idea and unfortunately, many people tied their political success to funding/expanding a popular idea.
If you had asked, I would have absolutely criticized anyone who continued to promote the ridiculous War on Drugs -- especially after the awful ethical knock-on effects became well known. Yes, this includes Biden and Harris.
Here's the thing. Both Biden and Harris today have learned and understood that perhaps, they did make mistakes and though it was considered widely to be the right move twenty or forty years ago, today, we know better! In fact, Biden publicly apologized, and expressed remorse for his mistake (4). To connect your strawman back to Trump's administration. Trump and his crew are still doing awful, unethical things. They cannot claim to be doing the "popular" thing or "ignorance" because literally the majority of the country, journalists worldwide, leaders of countries and religions, and even his former cabinet members publicly and vociferously tell him and anyone who will listen that doing obviously unethical things is...unethical. This is how I know that Trump and people who may agree with the unethical policies he has put into place, are...unethical.
>To be clear, I am not a Trump supporter, but I am also not a Biden supporter. Though I would have preferred Trump over Biden for about 11 Trillion Reasons... My politics are libertarian, I am Anti-War, Pro-Gun, Pro-Free Markets, Pro-Free Trade, Open Borders, Anti-Social Welfare and Pro-Legalize Drugs... Biden is bad on all them, Trump is bad only a few of them.
Cool! I am an independent voter and have voted for Republicans and Democrats historically. I try to stay away from generalized "buzzwords" because I prefer to deal in specific policy. For instance, I'm for the legalization of drugs, but believe that they should be regulated very tightly because like anything addictive (gambling, alcohol, etc) the societal impact on others can be highly detrimental. I don't mind if you want to get wasted every night, but if you get wasted and drive a car into my wife, I'll be pretty pissed.
While also not on topic, I disagree with your statement that "Biden is bad on all [policies]" and "Trump is only bad on [a few policies]". I at least know that Biden has seriously considered many questions and has publically written very thoughtful policies out for people to read and think about. One such policy favors the federal decriminalization of marijuana and I also know that Trump is staunchly against decriminalization of marijuana. So, since you write that you are "pro-legalize drugs" I don't quite understand why you claimed to agree with nothing Biden presented.
>I am sure we are going to disagree on most public policy, including COVID Response...information was limited
Uh, I also didn't talk about state vs federal responsibility regarding COVID. I merely pointed out that Germany (and pretty much every other developed country) was doing significantly better than the US. Sure, states have their own rights and their own mechanisms for doing their own things, but we are Americans. As our president, as our leader, as the highest officer in the land, it is his responsibility to take care of his people and Donald Trump did not do that.
Also, do you really believe that somewhere between 238k and 324k people (6) who have died due to COVID were mostly elderly people who were forced to live with other sick elderly people? Do you have reputable analysis that shows that this claim has any merit?
>However none of that was the point of my comment, the claim was that only Republicans / Trump Supporters are "completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views"
I feel like the response to the OP was that looking to find a center was problematic fundamentally because one side (Trump and his band) are willing to constantly subvert ethical, moral, pro forma, and per se rules so you cannot treat them in a good-faith sort of way. I generally disagree with their assertion because if you don't come to the table, then you have no agreement ever. So I rather explain my logic, point out flaws, and see if we can agree on some shared ideal.
>That further devolved into claims that Trump supporters want to kill Biden supports, with a link to some wack job.
Well again, I don't think this "wack job" is inconsistent with their representation. In the past few weeks alone, you have had people arrested for planning to kill the Gov of MI, to kill Biden, and to attack voting counting centers. In fact, before these things even took off, right-wing terrorists were linked to the majority (67% of domestic terror plots and activities in the United States (7). So we should call a spade a spade, no?
>Now you have charged that is false equivalency the point...proves my point
Well yes, creating lists of people who have done morally repugnant things is very different to making a list of people to shoot! And refusing to work with people who are unethical is just good business sense and is likely personally healthier for yourself. Do you see what the difference is here? It's not a crime for me to say that someone is immoral and that I wouldn't work with them nor should any of my friends hire this person who might be a liar, cheater, and potential murderer. What is a crime is for me to plan, buy weapons, and execute a domestic terror plot. Can you see where I might be coming from in this case?
You set a person who declared murderous intent equal to someone who wanted to make sure that those who participated in potentially unethical actions were publically on record. Can you see where perhaps there is a false equivalence that you have made?
> Biden and Harris where right there not only cheering that on from the side lines but where ACTIVE participants in this process, they personally sent people to those cages.
Absolutely, and this might be an interesting point if they continued to support those policies now, or if anyone voted for them due to those policies. Instead, you see the opposite: Biden and Harris have admitted that those policies that put people in cages were mistakes and that they'd act differently now. On the other hand, Trump has doubled down on putting more people in cages.
You can't claim that Trump is superior if he's the only one actively doing it. This of course doesn't mean that he gets a free pass, but Biden will, without a doubt, be better about domestic policy and putting people in cages than Trump will be. Trumps populism depends on caging people his base sees as the outgroup.
Like can you explain this argument better, as best as I can tell it's "Hey we know our candidate is actively doing a bad thing, and refused to stop doing it despite pressure to stop, but the other candidate did a similar bad thing a long time ago, and has recognized the mistake and no longer supports that policy. These are equivalent, so ultimately the choices are the same on this issue."
> Where is your moral outrage for those children? for those parents? for those victims?
Yeah it exists. But I can't fix it now. And again, I would be stupid and uncaring to punish the people currently being put in cages because I disapprove of something a politician did before I was born.
> Biden is bad on all them, Trump is bad only a few of them
There is no universe in which Trump is better than Biden on Open Borders or Free Trade. You might be able to make that argument with Trump vs. Sanders, but not with Biden.
> I also believe when the final accounting is done a LARGE part of our covid death rate was down to several irresponsible governors mandating COVID positive people be sent to Elder Care Facilities
As far as I know, that happened in exactly one state and is responsible for, at most, a few thousand deaths. Unacceptable certainly, and NY and NYC absolutely deserves criticism for that mistake. But we're currently seeing similar numbers of deaths weekly, and we have been for the past 20 weeks, and no longer due to the actions of any single state, but due to inaction by governors of many states, in part because those governors have been afraid to go against the president. Even if you believe that policy should be set per state, you should support the president not peddling misinformation and lying about the scope of the pandemic.
> Now you have charged that is false equivalency the point that many democrats also are "completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views" to the point where they are creating lists of Trump supporter
That's okay, it's clear that you're not willing to consider any argument or information that conflicts with your views ;)
Less snarkily, there's no equivalency, false or otherwise, between refusing to work with a person, and refusing to consider a position. Suggesting that a politician who lies and claims that 1000 deaths a day aren't happening is the same as a political who says "hey the guy who lied about the 1000 deaths a day should face political consequences for lying" aren't similar, at all.
Perhaps, in 20 or 30 years, when they've proven that they've moved on from those policy positions and demonstrated that they've actually changed, perhaps then they might have redeemed themselves. But on Feb 1? Nah.
So you admit that you are completely unable and unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with your world views
If I do not agree with you, if I have a outlook on the world that is different from your then I have "shitty ideas or opinions" and thus is ethical, moral and just of cancel me economically and socially?
So you are admitting that the Democrats do no really want reconciliation or compromise, they want victory and subjection of their perceived enemies (republicans, conservatives, libertarians)
Disagree. When Obama was elected, the Republicans in congress swore to never support any of his policies, regardless of whether they agreed with them. (Eric Cantor and others admitted this in interviews.) This severely degraded the relationship between the parties beyond repair.
uh no. you're talking about pelosi refusing to go below 2.2 trillion. they stopped working weeks before just so that Trump wouldn't pass anything before election day. where have you been?
Sorry, should have said 'were' rather than 'are'. I don't agree with your framing, but thinking about it more it probably would be fairer to say that both sides can't agree in this case, rather than that one side is obstructing.
I'm sorry but it would be most correct that one side refuses to go below a certain value and thats the value they've decided is worth it. And you know which side it is.
I can't afford a 25k used vehicle. I can afford a 15k used vehicle. lock me up tempstn. I'm clearly a fascist against the community. shame on me for not meeting your budget requirements!
I’m excited and eager to have discussions with people who don’t share my political position on the issues. However, I am not at all eager to have a discussion with people who are arguing in bad faith or staking their position on lies and falsehoods.
What’s the point in having a discussion on the best ways to combat the effects of climate change when one political party has taken the position that anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist?
What’s the point in having a discussion on the best way to fix the broken US healthcare system when one political party not only refuses to acknowledge that it’s broken, but is trying to undo what minor improvements we’ve been able to make in the last 12 years?
The GOP has marked itself as an opponent to everything that Democrats suggest and has painted itself into the stupidest possible corner, where they need to fight tooth and nail against their own policies because there’s a Democrat administration.
The way you have framed conservative positions on these issues seems like you’re imputing bad faith to them and assuming no reasonable person could hold those views.
With climate change, one doesn’t have to deny the science at all to hold a position that the optimal policy choice should be to do nothing, or to wait several decades before taking action. The science predicts some real but finite amount of harm in the future from global warming. Mitigations would also be very painful, eg carbon taxes that make air travel unaffordable to all but the very wealthy.
And in terms of healthcare, everyone agrees the system is broken. In fact, one of Trump’s biggest campaign promises was to fix the US healthcare system. The difference is that conservatives see the government intervention in the healthcare industry as the main problem. (The Federal government pays 2/3 of all healthcare spending in the country, so our system is pretty “socialized” already.) Trump’s first step was an attempt to repeal Obamacare and start to return the healthcare system to more market-based solutions. However Congress was not willing to go through with it so we haven’t had any progress on healthcare since.
Conservative views are not simply a bunch of people arguing in bad faith.
There are some reasonable conservatives, and many completely insane trump supporters. I believe there are more insane trump supporters than reasonable people on the right these days, and denying the existence of this very vocal group that has a stranglehold on the zeitgeist is not helpful at all.
That basic idea is basically correct. Reality is more nuanced than that, but from a birds eye view republicans are actually bad, and democrats are actually good.
I don't believe in God. I think people should be able to take whatever drugs they want. I think there should be a basic safety net and what we have now isn't doing it.
I believe in evolution. (I don't however believe climate change models are good enough to predict what will happen and I don't think C02 will turn out to be the predicted tragedy. I do agree humans are affecting the climate).
I believe people should be entitled to the fruits of their labor and taxation of labor or capital isn't a good idea (I'm a land and resource tax proponent). I don't think society has an innate claim on the labor or talents of anyone.
I think people should be able to defend themselves and possess deadly weapons. I don't go to church but I think people should be able to worship as they wish. I think churches should be somewhat restricted in what they can claim (for the same reasons I think peddlers of nutritional supplements should be restricted in what they can claim) but this is pretty loose and outright fraud is what I have in mind.
I think racism is stupid. I think slavery and communism are both horrible ideas for society and for the victims. I believe in representative constitutional government. I abhor monarchies, dictatorships, dynasties and anything resembling those.
Am I bad in your opinion? If you think so I feel it's not me that's the problem.
Of course I understand you may not agree with all my positions and that's fine. I don't think you are bad for disagreeing. Unless you are a slavery proponent or advocate of non representative form of dictatorship and then ya, you likely are bad. Otherwise you probably just have a different opinion.
For what it's worth, I don't think you're bad based on what you wrote above; I even agree with you on much of it, with the severity of climate change being the major exception. What I can't see is how a reasonable person could vote for Trump based on positions like those. Because to me his behavior was so egregious, divisive, and even dangerous that any reasonable person should have voted against him, with both Clinton and Biden being far better alternatives even if you don't share all their views.
He was real change in wilderness of more of the same.
Particularly involving the oversea conflicts and increased outsourcing.
Neither Biden nor Clinton were credible in my view. Both were corrupt. Both were sold out and more of the same. Both were involved in "regime change".
So I forgive a little carnival barker behavior (I, and many others don't care for it either but we understand). It helped bring in a large group of people that don't usually listen to guys in suits.
Not sure if you'll still be checking this thread, but I wanted to respond since I really think it's valuable to try to understand people with very different views from one's own. That said, I do kind of feel like we're operating from very different origins, not just in priorities and beliefs (which might not be all that different), but in understanding of the state of the world. That said, in case you're interested I'll do my best to lay out how I see these things.
I can respect the position you laid out. I agree that minimizing wars is a laudable goal. The Iraq war in particular was catastrophic, and Trump indeed didn't start something like that. He did do things that I felt made the world more dangerous, like the 'little rocket man' taunts, and pulling out of the Iran deal, but I can understand the sentiment of supporting less foreign involvement. That said, it just doesn't seem like we're sharing the same baseline worldview in terms of what constitutes corruption, or what behavior is excusable in a public figure. I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton or Biden is corrupt; Trump has said it a lot, but has he produced actual evidence? On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of evidence of Trump profiting from the presidency, such as scheduling events at his properties. Not to mention more serious offenses, like encouraging foreign leaders to investigate his opponents.
Much of what you call carnival barker behavior I see as divisive and immoral, from birtherism to calling into question the whole electoral system without apparent evidence. It basically seems like he's willing to say literally anything if he thinks it will rile up support, even if it's entirely made up, deeply insulting, or incredibly divisive. To me the harms done by those actions and behaviors greatly outweigh the potential benefits, unless perhaps you believe that Clinton or Biden would have started another Iraq, which I don't. I guess we'll see over the next few years. But we've already seen the harms, both domestically and abroad; I can tell you for instance that the US's Canadian allies feel a lot less warmly toward not just Trump but the US as a whole after his attitude toward our country.
I actually wrote another couple paragraphs, but I really don't want to be argumentative; I'm just trying to similarly lay out my point of view (if you're even still checking this thread). I truly do want to understand the perspective of people who have a very different worldview than my own, especially when they seem reasonable and willing to engage. I realize my own guttural negative reaction toward Trump's behaviour probably biases me against his actions and supporters as well, so I do try to guard against that.
Didn't even get to climate change. To be honest, that's maybe the one issue where I would consider (although likely reject) supporting a Trump-like figure on the left, if they seemed likely to advance the goal, since the evidence I've seen really does suggest it's a catastrophe in the making. I'm curious whether your belief that it won't be that bad is more of a feeling based on past overreactions, or whether it's based on evidence or expert opinion that I haven't seen. I'd certainly be happy to be convinced it indeed won't be bad, but to be honest I can't see how that could be, given what I see as pretty concrete evidence of both the fact and trajectory of climate change. We're already seeing impacts on more frequent extreme weather events, and on shrinking habitat for polar and ocean wildlife, like polar bears and coral to name just a couple.
Anyway, I appreciate your reply, and conversations like this one do give me some hope for a less antagonistic future.
Hey no offense and no worries. I also appreciate the discussion. I understand people have different opinions or see the world different ways. I'd also like to try to understand that. I agree that's really important.
I think there is often a tendency to see the other side as somehow brainwashed or ill informed and maybe that can be fixed. But maybe it's less of that and more just different priorities.
From my perspective #1 was the removal of the neocon war machine. I don't care about stupid, nonprofessional or offensive comments that offend "nice" people (well I do but not very much). I think some people even go a step further and actually like that. I think it's a selling point to a certain crowd.
What the liberal prime minister of Canada thinks of the US, what nice people in Canada in offices engaged in upspeak and office talk think of the US is just not that important to me. Perhaps that is a personal failing but it's just not. I have other higher priorities.
What is important to me is anyone who voted for the Iraq War, anyone who was a prosecutor in our justice system, anyone that has neocon "democracy" building tendencies or agendas to change the social fabric of the country through various engineering schemes is not given the levers of government. I regard both of those efforts as harmful and doomed to fail. So that's first on my list.
There's a lot more I could say, and I will. Let me read through your post again and think. Again, appreciate the chance to express myself without the flame-baiting. I actually had to close my real HN account just after the 2016 election the hatred was so intense. It looks like one can almost admit in polite company now though :)
I'm not sure I understand the comment about prosecutors. Why does any involvement in the justice system disqualify one from public office? Surely some crimes are worth prosecuting?
Also, what are these agendas to change the social fabric of the country through engineering schemes? I don't know what that means.
How do you feel about Trump's attempts, with support from others like Lindsey Graham, to undermine confidence in US elections? ISTM that encouraging the public to doubt the foundations of democracy is pretty dangerous. (And I we can agree that this was his plan all along if he appeared to be losing, as it was in 2016, and that he doesn't actually have evidence of widespread fraud, or obviously he would have shown it by now.)
It looks like I'm going to get downvoted, and this probably isn't the right place for political conversations so I'm going to bail on the discussion. Apologies for not getting to all your points. If you leave any last words in the thread I'll read them.
Just in closing
1)In my view (to re-iterate) the other side isn't necessarily low information or brainwashed. They sometimes just have different life experiences and priorities. We usually don't just "straighten them out" with real talk. Sometimes at best we get them to reconsider things. Usually not even that.
2)We should keep an open mind, but we usually don't because we have motive. We should look at our motives. Sometimes we don't understand them as well as we should.
3)Beware the military industrial/intelligence complex.
4)Prediction: 24 months before boots on the ground in Syria. Could get much wider but hopefully not.
Being a prosecutor doesn't disqualify anyone from office.
However I'm not happy with one like Harris being president. It's not illegal. I just don't like it and voted accordingly. I believe that type of person has a certain mindset. Entirely subjective.
The Iraq war proponents I think speaks for itself. Not interested in boots on the ground in Syria.
Second amendment rights, progressive taxation changes, not a fan. Who knows what other types of affirmative actions or different treatments based on race are planned in an effort to achieve this or that. Hints are: maybe. Don't care for it. I don't believe that works. Subjective, but since you asked. I actually believe Biden/Harris do have a better healthcare plan then Trump who obviously has none.
As for the last part, there is pretty clear evidence at least "some" fraud occurred. Every election of this size has that.
Statistically I find the entire thing a bit suspicious. Gains in house but not Trump? Unlikely. Differences between similar ethnic groups in swing states and not swing state big cities? Possible. Suspicious. The 11'th hour timing and stop count? Suspicious. This kind of thing: https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1325593635996512257? Suspicious. None of this is proof. We will see what the courts say and what is able to be proved. Just... suspicious.
These big rust belt cities have had a lot of fraud. People have been indicted. A bunch. Philly? Detroit? I don't think I need citations on this. So I'm supposed to believe after the past 4 years of shrill hatred and weekly allegations from the left now they don't just this one time?
I hope my point is clear. It's not Trump that undermines the process. It's the way that it went down. He is supposed to just go along with what he thinks is fraudulent? Ignore possible threats to the democratic process?
I hope my point on that is clear anyway, that's how I feel about that.
Re prosecutors I didn't mean legally disqualify; I was asking why you wouldn't consider voting for anyone who'd been a prosecutor. Understood now.
Some minor irregularities occur in every election, yes. Most of those are not fraud, but honest mistakes. You see this in recounts shifting votes by a few hundred one way or the other. However, I have yet to see any evidence of widespread fraud. If I recall correctly most of the issues with the 2016 election were Russia spreading misinformation to cause people to vote differently, not them actually casting fraudulent votes. There was some concern of them having changed or having had the ability to change voter lists, but not to actually change votes. People were upset with what interference did go on, but mostly people were upset that someone they (and I) saw as dangerously unqualified and ill-suited for the job had won. Most did not disbelieve the results themselves. (Not all, of course; there are always those with extreme beliefs. But you notice Hilary or others in the Democratic leadership didn't promote these lines of thinking!)
Anyway, I don't see any of what you described as suspicious. Plenty of people agree with your views on many of the issues (and so vote R down ballot), but find Trump distasteful and/or dangerous, and so voted against him personally. I mean if anything the split results are evidence against widespread fraud; if Democrats were willing and able to fraudulently alter the election results, why wouldn't they cheat on the house and senate races too?
I'm not even sure what you mean by the 11th hour timing and stop count. Trump was ahead in a number of states. Then Biden caught up as mail ballots (which favored him for obvious reasons) were counted, at which point he easily caught up in PA, barely caught up in GA, and slightly fell short in NC. This isn't suspicious; it's just how counting works. They stopped counting when all the ballots were counted. (Or in the NC they will; they don't actually have all the mail ballots yet.) The networks called PA once Biden was ahead by a sufficient margin that, given remaining ballots were expected to continue favoring him, it wasn't realistic for Trump to mount a comeback. Some of them probably called AZ prematurely, but that was a mistake, not fraud. And regardless, as Republicans keep pointing out recently, networks don't decide election results; voters do. Occasionally networks do project wrong, but once all the votes are counted, that's the result that matters. In enough states to win the election, those final results favor Biden.
But just taking a step back, let's look at the sequence of events: back in 2016 Trump was already talking about election fraud. Why? Because polls had him way down and he expected to lose, so he wanted an excuse. At that point he didn't have access to any information beyond what the general public did, so there's really no other explanation. This time, it was exactly the same thing. He was talking about mail ballot fraud before the election even happened, and didn't produce any actual evidence of widespread fraud, just assertions. If he had real evidence, wouldn't he have provided it by now? Or better yet, if he was aware of a specific mechanism for fraud before the election, why didn't he explain it? He simply talked about people in living rooms filling buckets with ballots or whatever, but that makes no sense, because it ignores all the measures states have in place to prevent such things. Each ballot is tied to a registered voter; you can't just cast a bunch of fake ballots. The much more logical explanation, looking at his behavior for the past 4 years, is the same as it was in 2016, that he expected to lose, and so he sought to invalidate the process itself.
Of course no one wants illegal votes to count. The problem is, when Trump claims there was widespread fraud or illegal voting without real evidence, and then he and his allies point to these normal events as supposedly suspicious, it sows doubt. That doubt causes people to lose faith in the democratic process itself, which is dangerous, because some then believe they have to take steps outside that process to achieve their goals.
Anyway, I understand you're not planning to respond. I'm probably done too anyway. But I hope you'll at least entertain the possibility that the election was fair, and Biden is a decent person who is going to do the best job he can for the American people and the world.
No I don’t think you’re bad. I was giving a generalization. I believe there exist good people (whatever that means) in both aisles. I think there are many deeply destructive warrior republicans. I believe there are many delusional, stupid republicans. I believe there are some thoughtful, sensitive, and smart republicans, but I don’t believe there are very many of them. I believe the republican leadership has abandoned the pursuit of compassion and dignity, and ceded power to the delusional and the warriors.
I disagree. There are more reasonable/compassionate dems, and the party has retained truth and compassion as core values. The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party.
I would love to be pointed to the detailed climate policy plan from the GOP or a GOP politician that explains how climate change is real, of anthropogenic origins, and that we need to take action to stop it starting in a few decades.
I am not aware of any such plan, or any GOP politician espousing such views.
What I will say is that there are those are reflective of their viewpoint, will question and review their choices, and change their mind about things in light of new information...
And then there are those who are not and won't; those who act out of tradition and pride, those who believe in conspiracy theories, those who let themselves be played like marionettes with simple trigger topics, etc.
There is a difference; but it's not left or right, conservative or liberal, it's reflective or not reflective.
True. The ACA was after all, literally the republican plan straight from Mitt Romney, but Democrats were unwilling to negotiate or compromise. (Yes this is sarcasm, ACA was literally the Democrats meeting in the middle when they didn't even have to)
Everytime someone like you makes this claim I ask the same question: show some examples. "both sides are the same" is a weak excuse for supporting bad behavior. The Republicans haven't acted in good faith since about the early 90s.
Err, you meant Republicans were unwilling to compromise, right? Because the Democrats bent over backwards to introduce 160 Republican amendments to the ACA and even delayed votes to have more Republican voices heard during debate.
I think this is a bit of historical revisionism. Yes there are some amendments in the bill from Republicans because Dems wanted a "bipartisan" bill even if they only got a handful of GOP reps (they ultimately got none).
But the Democrats couldn't have gotten a bill more left-wing through the senate. They tried, but various Dem senators stripped out both lowering the Medicare age and the public option.
It goes both ways, if you don't consider that one side has a leader calling out his people to be vigilant and prepared and in fact two men father and son have been arrested yesterday in Philadelphia armed of ar-15 with hundreds of rounds, the other has leaders thanking the volunteers of all sides and talking about reuniting American people
Perhaps a better question would be: Consider two parties starting out relatively reasonable. Over time, members of both parties claim the other party is becoming unreasonable or outright crazy. This could be true in the following to scenarios:
(1) Both parties have become crazy. Both parties would be correct in their claims but of course also guilty of having gone crazy.
(2) Party A has stayed reasonable and party B has become crazy. Party A would be correct in their claim and party B's claim would be part of them being crazy.
How do you distinguish between (1) and (2) from the outside?
No, no that didn't. Just because someone denies an adverse position doesn't mean that they are fanatically denying evidence, it can easily be the case that the adverse position is false, and that they are open to seeing it proven true but haven't seen it.
This absolutely goes both ways; that is the biggest problem.