U.S. Politics 2017: Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Bipartisan legislation is still achievable, but probably not on anything major. And while both sides are to blame for this, Republicans are clearly more responsible.

Also, the root cause of this is gerrymandering and the preponderance of safe districts. If we want to go back to a time where bipartisan action was the norm, we need to completely reform how we elect our officials.

I completely agree with this.  That and *gulp* getting rid of earmarks.  That is, to make a deal, you need something to trade.

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

You have just been told that at least one of those links refutes your own point. 

It doesn't refute the point, as the headline should make clear.  But, whatever.  

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, but that was the point of contention I made.  So, glad we kind of agree.

Not even sure if it's true, but when did this become a resource argument?

When you said you can make caucuses more fair if you schedule them and put resources into them. 

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Oye man....From the, like, the third fucking post I made on the subject:

And then, less than an hour ago:

So please don't tell me I've made no arguments.  You just haven't responded to them.

You've made no arguments; you've stated that there are other points of view. That isn't an argument, any more than me saying 'flat earthers believe the earth is flat' is an argument. Yes, I understand that there are other points of view for caucuses being good things. My argument is that all of them - more grassroots involvement (allegedly), more engaged participants get more of a voice - are not nearly as valuable as making them as fair and open as possible. I believe this is the case because for liberals, one of the most important traits overall is the perception of (and hopefully the reality of) a fair, open, inclusive choosing - which caucuses are directly opposed to in virtually every single way. 

If you want to make an argument that having more engaged participants choosing the people to run is more important, feel free to - because so far you haven't made that argument, you've just stated that as a position which exists.

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It doesn't refute the point, as the headline should make clear.  But, whatever.  

Clearly you didn't read the articles you linked to and just copy/pasted every headline that you thought supported your case after googling "blue state income inequality".

[TrueMetis]

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It doesn't refute the point, as the headline should make clear.  But, whatever.  

The headline of an article is attention grabbing bullshit. Trying reading what's actually in the article.

 

46 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

We will  have to agree to disagree.  If there is huge income inequality, e.g. that means a few rich people, lots of poor and fewer middle class, taxes are high, and the middle class is losing it's share, then to me that supports my statement.

No it doesn't, it mean the difference in amount of money between those with the most money and those with the the least is large. You could very easily show a huge income inequality without a single poor, or even middle class, person if you wanted to. The income inequality between Bill Gates and a guy making $400,000 a year is huge, that doesn't make the guy making $400,000 poor.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Clearly you didn't read the articles you linked to and just copy/pasted every headline that you thought supported your case after googling "blue state income inequality".

And this is why this thread is an echo chamber.  Have it at.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Speaking of voting means and methods: this is an unpopular stance but it has seemed to me that early, mail-in voting is a bad idea.  For instance the Cyrus Vance, Jr. revelations happened after the primary, but only about or even less than three weeks before the election.  He was running unopposed (which is another election problem in itself). Early voters who would very likely be appalled by the revelations had already voted for him, instead of writing in someone else.

At least in Washington you can recast your ballot after you've done it. You can print out a new one and send it in, or you can do it at one of the stations around the area. 

Or if you're really concerned about this as a voter, you can simply choose to wait until the last day to turn in your ballot, as about 30% of  the voters do. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

And this is why this thread is an echo chamber.  Have it at.

Dude, you're the one that didn't actually read the links you provided, and when called on it doubled down with no discussion. That is literally the opposite of an echo chamber. 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

And this is why this thread is an echo chamber.  Have it at.

It would seem you made a very strong empirical claim, to wit: higher tax rates have led to poverty/income inequality in blue states.

By your own sources, your case is hardly compelling, to put it charitably. People pointed that out. That's not an echo chamber.

[Kalbear]

Also, on the gerrymandering thing: if you ever needed a case study in what gerrymandering is and why it's harmful, Virginia is a great example. The Governor race was won by Democrats by 9 points. The state houses are in a dead heat - 50/50. This is precisely the D+10 number that is often talked about when gerrymandering is discussed and the 2010 districts were designed - to withstand a wave election and keep control despite a 55-45 split in the electorate in favor of Democrats. 

Now the good news is that this is a potential sign that this is happening. The bad news is that it still isn't enough to take the House.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I completely agree with this.  That and *gulp* getting rid of earmarks.  That is, to make a deal, you need something to trade.

I 100% agree. I understand wanting to get rid of wasteful and corrupt spending, but eliminating pork barrel projects all together was a giant mistake.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I 100% agree. I understand wanting to get rid of wasteful and corrupt spending, but eliminating pork barrel projects all together was a giant mistake.

It's another reason to go to MMR and non FPTP voting - because when you have multiparty systems, you must have ways to negotiate deals and give others things you need for the government to actually function, so by necessity you have pork barrel projects and legal moving of moneys around and a lot more winners. 

[Guy Kilmore]

38 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

And this is why this thread is an echo chamber.  Have it at.

You were asked to clarify how your sources supported your claim, so you could be engaged.  You chose not to do that.  That is on you and that is the opposite of an echo chamber.

[Cas Stark]

31 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It would seem you made a very strong empirical claim, to wit: higher tax rates have led to poverty/income inequality in blue states.

By your own sources, your case is hardly compelling, to put it charitably. People pointed that out. That's not an echo chamber.

No, I made an off hand remark that many blue areas have a few rich people and a lot of poor people,  "facts" were then demanded, so I took the time to post numerous links, silly me, having thought it was already common knowledge that income inequality is worse in blue areas than red, I was surprised anyone demanded 'facts'.  And then, as night follows day, I was criticized for just posting links, because that was lazy, and then for the links not supporting my original statement....and since it's not worth the trouble to me to take it to next level of semantics and cherry picking that will ensue to go through each of those articles line by line, I leave it at that.  

[Ormond]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Speaking of voting means and methods: this is an unpopular stance but it has seemed to me that early, mail-in voting is a bad idea.  For instance the Cyrus Vance, Jr. revelations happened after the primary, but only about or even less than three weeks before the election.  He was running unopposed (which is another election problem in itself). Early voters who would very likely be appalled by the revelations had already voted for him, instead of writing in someone else.

 

I'm not sure this is by itself a good reason to be against early voting. This doesn't happen very often, and it would seem to me that a revelation that appalls voters would be just as likely to happen right after a regular one-day election as it would be to happen in the time period between a primary and a general election. There will always be cases where you learn something later that would have changed your vote, but you have to have elections at some particular time. 

[Guy Kilmore]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, on the gerrymandering thing: if you ever needed a case study in what gerrymandering is and why it's harmful, Virginia is a great example. The Governor race was won by Democrats by 9 points. The state houses are in a dead heat - 50/50. This is precisely the D+10 number that is often talked about when gerrymandering is discussed and the 2010 districts were designed - to withstand a wave election and keep control despite a 55-45 split in the electorate in favor of Democrats. 

Now the good news is that this is a potential sign that this is happening. The bad news is that it still isn't enough to take the House.

Which makes the current Supreme Court case all the more important.  I don't see anything changing unless there is external pressure.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

No, I made an off hand remark that many blue areas have a few rich people and a lot of poor people,  "facts" were then demanded, so I took the time to post numerous links, silly me, having thought it was already common knowledge that income inequality is worse in blue areas than red

It might be common knowledge, but it turns out that it's pretty well wrong. At best you can say it's a lot more complicated than that, and in general there is simply no actual correlation between political viewpoint and income inequality. 

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Guy Kilmore said:

Which makes the current Supreme Court case all the more important.  I don't see anything changing unless there is external pressure.

No joke, that is probably the case which is going to make or break me staying in the US. 

[Sivin]

7 hours ago, Rorshach said:

@WinterFox

From the last thread:

»An American citizen has been detained over patently tyrannical anti-free speech laws in a state run by a thug. This is well worth sanctions and even armed intervention. «

This part I do not understand. Sorry. Let me be clear that I do not support Mugabe (I’ve wished him dead for more or less as long as you have lived - though in a «please die of a heart attack»-way rather than someone actively killing him), nor think his laws are just. However, he is in control of Zimbabwe, and does make their laws. So then:

Firstly, and very importantly, this American citizen has chosen to be a part of the media in a well-known tyrannical one-party state. Good for her, in a way, but living there, she is subject to their laws. So to judge this from American laws makes you an imperialist.

Secondly, I can’t be bothered to check, but I think he’s on your sanctions list already. No-one really likes the dude, and the US have hated him for years.

Thirdly, armed intervention? Think through. This makes you George W. Bush! You comfortable with that? If not, start reasoning before posting. 

You do dislike Republicans, I know, so how you suddenly advocate for their positions here is utterly baffling. Can’t really square that with your general positions.

I'm an opportunist. This is an opportunity to hammer Donnie's tough guy persona and maybe tempt him into a political trap. 

 

[Guy Kilmore]

6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

No, I made an off hand remark that many blue areas have a few rich people and a lot of poor people,  "facts" were then demanded, so I took the time to post numerous links, silly me, having thought it was already common knowledge that income inequality is worse in blue areas than red, I was surprised anyone demanded 'facts'.  And then, as night follows day, I was criticized for just posting links, because that was lazy, and then for the links not supporting my original statement....and since it's not worth the trouble to me to take it to next level of semantics and cherry picking that will ensue to go through each of those articles line by line, I leave it at that.  

Just posting "links" isn't support.  I have never heard your statement and when I read one, later another, neither supported what you were saying.

I engaged you to ask for clarity and direction to the evidence you read.  You decided to keep pointing to the title of the article that contradicts what you are saying.  Being asked for citations is not Cherry Picking.