Lollygag Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, mormont said: Can we stick to US politics and not UK or Israeli politics, please? I related it back to US politics in my first post with the NYT article which laid out that the extreme party alignments which are leading to a centrist split in other countries is starting to happen here. The articles make it sound like the splits in the UK and Israel (and the other countries implied in the NYT article) were just as unlikely as they seem here, yet they happened, thus it should be considered that they can happen here, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Lollygag said: The new binary is quickly moving to Idealist vs Pragmatist. I guess kind of like how fiscal conservatism is going to be the hottest new thing with the "Pepsi Generation" and if you aren't on board with it, you're probably just some old fogey that can't let go of your VHS collection of Matlock. I'll just note that often what gets sold as "reasonable centrist pragmatism" here in the United States is often very empirically and theoretically suspect, so that it is anything but "pragmatic". It's often just mindless "middle splitting" and it's nonsense. Take for instance the whole issue of national debt versus the threat of global climate change. "Reasonable pragmatist" like Sgt. Schultz say the national debt is the US's biggest issue. But, who in their fuckin' right mind thinks that the national debt is a bigger problem than the issue of global climate change? Seriously? Even if the US were to experience a sovereign debt default in its future, the consequences of that are less severe than permanent global climate change, for most people. Maybe the Schultz's, the Bloombergs, and the Kochs, figure people in their class can escape the consequences of climate change as they can just retreat into their gated communities and can afford to buy 20 dollar bottles of water. But, for most people it's a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 56 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: While I'm no defender of the electoral college, I think there are perhaps two bigger issues. One is the winner take all system. And second big issue is the US Supreme Court, I think, needs to ditch its framework about money and free speech. Right now, it seems to believe that the mere act of giving money is tantamount to free speech. What it seems not to consider is that perhaps the guy with the biggest bull horn wins the argument, and not necessarily the guy with the better argument. One of the principle traditional liberal justifications for free speech is that it is supposed to help us find the truth and hence improve democratic outcomes. The Supreme Court, at this time, seems to be pretty oblivious to the the idea that too much money may in fact harm the search for truth or democratic outcomes. Yeah? Twice you refer to the present creating the impression it could change in the future and suggest they don't know exactly what the system allows for. Tell us more. After this gets fixed what then? Maybe we'll heal the sick and turn water into blowjobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollygag Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: I guess kind of like how fiscal conservatism is going to be the hottest new thing with the "Pepsi Generation" and if you aren't on board with it, you're probably just some old fogey that can't let go of your VHS collection of Matlock. I'll just note that often what gets sold as "reasonable centrist pragmatism" here in the United States is often very empirically and theoretically suspect, so that it is anything but "pragmatic". It's often just mindless "middle splitting" and it's nonsense. Take for instance the whole issue of national debt versus the threat of global climate change. "Reasonable pragmatist" like Sgt. Schultz say the national debt is the US's biggest issue. But, who in their fuckin' right mind thinks that the national debt is a bigger problem than the issue of global climate change? Seriously? Even if the US were to experience a sovereign debt default in its future, the consequences of that are less severe than permanent global climate change, for most people. Maybe the Schultz's, the Bloombergs, and the Kochs, figure people in their class can escape the consequences of climate change as they can just retreat into their gated communities and can afford to buy 20 dollar bottles of water. But, for most people it's a disaster. Please don't put words in my mouth, mischaracterize me, or strawman my posts. Your tone is out of line. My point wasn't right/wronging any policy or view as I didn't mention any. It's pointing out a possible cause/effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Poor BIRD!, always the bridesmaid, never the thread bride. Also, this thread got drunk and weird last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just a quick note on Harris and the weed comment. Why is this joke vanilla? If someone had said" of course I drink, half my family is Irish" wouldn't we have a different reaction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Yeah? Twice you refer to the present creating the impression it could change in the future and suggest they don't know exactly what the system allows for. Tell us more. After this gets fixed what then? Maybe we'll heal the sick and turn water into blowjobs? I'm not sure what you want from me here. Do you think money in our politics isn't a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Lollygag said: Your tone is out of line. I really don't give a damn to be honest. At least not if it gets in the way of making the point that a lot of what gets sold as "centrist pragmatism" of the Shultz and Bloomberg variety often isn't pragmatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: I'm not sure what you want from me here. Do you think money in our politics isn't a problem? Do you actually think it'll change? Not very pragmatic, wild self delusions. But that's what your post implied. The possibility of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 21 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Do you actually think it'll change? Not very pragmatic, wild self delusions. But that's what your post implied. The possibility of change. I don't know if it will change or not to be honest with you. I don't have a crystal ball. I'd like it to, but have no idea whether it will. It is certainly something worth advocating for. But, if sitting around saying were all fucked and we should all just give up and call it quits is one's cup of tea, then okay. It's not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollygag Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, OldGimletEye said: I really don't give a damn to be honest. At least not if it gets in the way of making the point that a lot of what gets sold as "centrist pragmatism" of the Shultz and Bloomberg variety often isn't pragmatic. I already noticed that you don't give a damn. But I'll call you out on it anyways. If you don't want to like Schultz or Bloomberg, then don't (not a fan of either myself for a number of reasons). But don't conflate just 2 dudes with the full range of everyone in the country who falls outside the hard left and the hard right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, Lollygag said: I already noticed that you don't give a damn. But I'll call you out on it anyways. If you don't want to like Schultz or Bloomberg, then don't (not a fan of either myself for a number of reasons). Okay, how about I quibble with Friedman and some of the stuff he wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollygag Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, OldGimletEye said: Okay, how about I quibble with Friedman and some of the stuff he wrote. What? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 24 minutes ago, Gertrude said: Just a quick note on Harris and the weed comment. Why is this joke vanilla? If someone had said" of course I drink, half my family is Irish" wouldn't we have a different reaction? No? I always joke about being able to hold my liquor because I’m an Irish Russian German Jew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 7 minutes ago, Lollygag said: What? Why? Isn't he the author of one the articles you cited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollygag Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, OldGimletEye said: Isn't he the author of one the articles you cited? The NYT one, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: I don't know if it will change or not to be honest with you. I don't have a crystal ball. I'd like it too, but have no idea whether it will. It is certainly something worth advocating for. But, if sitting around saying were all fucked and we should all just give up and call it quits is one's cup of tea, then okay. It's not mine. Your optimism is inspiring. Though I bet you do have an idea regarding whether it will change. I hate to put words in your post, but let's be real. You're a smart fella. Observe the routes through which change could possibly occur, and then realize that neither the courts nor legislators will EVER feel the need to handicap their pals from paying them. This is basic, and I know you know it. There exists no balancing force against all the money thrown at and around our elected or appointed agents. Even implying that some day the tooth fairy will push through legislation or a legal case to limit the deference to $$$ is wishful thinking at its worst. Seriously. This is like musing on getting rid of the EC or introducing a 3rd viable party. It's inane gibberish. It will never happen. Not because I say it will never happen, because applying basic problem solving skills reveals no viable solutions. Our country is sick, our government irreparably broken. Accepting that will save Ran a lot of data storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbigski Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Darth Richard II said: You can’t have four parties in America, cause of that electoral college bullshit. The Electoral College has almost nothing to do with a two party system. Since elections in the US are highest plurality winners take all, the obvious long term strategy is to try and build a 50.0001% coalition ahead of time. If there were proportional representation, there would be a slew of minor parties. If there were some sort of approval voting, there'd be a lot more viable minor party candidates. But having a national popular vote for President where highest plurality wins all will do almost nothing for a 3rd or 4th party candidate. OK, it'd be slightly easier administratively to run one national instead of 50 mini-campaigns for a small organization, but really nowadays if you want to run as a 3rd party in the US, you have to co-opt one of the majors. (And that can be as much of a feature as it is a bug, as long as your platform can actually appeal to at least 1/3 or so of the overall voting public, you have a shot. If it doesn't then either convince people or go off in the corner and crank pot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Darth Richard II said: You can’t have four parties in America, cause of that electoral college bullshit. The perpetual two party system doesn't really have much to do with the electoral college, it is due to the electoral system of "first past the post," or winner take all. 32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Also, this thread got drunk and weird last night. You say this like it's a bad thing. 17 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: But, if sitting around saying were all fucked and we should all just give up and call it quits is one's cup of tea, then okay. It's not mine. Why in the hell is OGE getting attacked for saying really basic and non-controversial things. It's like he woke up today and was like "gonna post in the US politics thread like most other days," but today was like "oh yeah? Hold my beer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Eh he hasn't been around much for a while. I'm just welcoming him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.