Where is the Common Ground?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

It would be highly desirable if it were possible.

Everyone thinks it would be highly desirable if everyone else agreed with them.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Everyone thinks it would be highly desirable if everyone else agreed with them.

I don't and never have. I don't want the whole world making my mistskes or me making theirs. If what you are saying was true, very little would be learned. The art of the dialectic would be lost. Can't you see that?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It isn't merely that you can't find common ground, it's that you mustn't find common ground.

Originally Posted by kellyb

I get absolutely no joy out of my diagnosis of selfish and sadistic rot in the heart of the party's policy elites.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...finding common ground isn't even desirable. So I think my analysis is spot on.

Originally Posted by kellyb

It would be highly desirable if it were possible.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Everyone thinks it would be highly desirable if everyone else agreed with them.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't and never have. I don't want the whole world making my mistskes or me making theirs. If what you are saying was true, very little would be learned. The art of the dialectic would be lost. Can't you see that?

When it comes to so much suffering and death in the US, and the policies advocated by the left vs the right, yes, I wish the rightwingers would agree with us that tens of thousands of people in America dying from lack of healthcare yearly (for example) is not okay and agree to go along with literally ANY of the policies which would alleviate it.

Or agree that having the highest level of child poverty in the developed world is not acceptable, and agree with any of the policies which would help alleviate it.

But instead, all we can get is that "Oh, that sucks, but there's no point in dwelling upon it because empathy is overrated and it's too bad there's nothing which can be done, because such is the nature of freedom" crap.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by kellyb

When it comes to so much suffering and death in the US, and the policies advocated by the left vs the right, yes, I wish the rightwingers would agree with us that tens of thousands of people in America dying from lack of healthcare yearly (for example) is not okay and agree to go along with literally ANY of the policies which would alleviate it.

Or agree that having the highest level of child poverty in the developed world is not acceptable, and agree with any of the policies which would help alleviate it.

But instead, all we can get is that "Oh, that sucks, but there's no point in dwelling upon it because empathy is overrated and it's too bad there's nothing which can be done, because such is the nature of freedom" crap.

Sure, there are many opinions I have where I could hope that I could get agreement. But that isn't what Zig said. He made a blanket statement. I argue with people not necessarily looking to win, but also to learn. It helps me come to and refine my positions. My father use to tell me all the time that what you don't know fills libraries and it does. I learn a lot by talking it out.

I like it when people oppose my positions honestly. Someone who doesn't spin the facts. I despise the dishonest arguer. Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of the latter these days.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Trump is none of those things.

Definitely not going to find any common ground here.

Quote:

The problem is that the Democrats just declare Trump is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, bigot, etc. like they do the rest of us, based on nothing, and like they have been doing long before Trump was even a candidate.

Or...maybe you're just extremely poor at recognizing obvious biases and prejudices. Frankly, I'm reminded of those polls during the Jim Crow era where many (most)white people swore that black people had equal opportunities, and quite a few thought that black people had distinct government-based advantages over white people.

Or of Drapetomania (Google it).

Quote:

The unfortunate truth is the Democrats' single issue for the mid-terms amounts to "You're a racist if you don't vote for us."

I could have sworn dems have been discussing education, health care access, small businesses, better policing, and the like, in addition to Cheeto Benito's obvious bigotry, corruption, and manifest inability to fulfill the most basic duties of the office. What I'm hearing from out-of-state republicans (I'm in Maryland, most of the in-state GOP isn't worth listening to) is mostly "Oh no, it's Nancy Pelosi!" and retreads of Dolt 45's xenophobic rants.

That is, unless they're discussing having sex with students and/or Bigfoot...

Maybe they're discussing local issues, in areas where I don't live and rarely if ever visit. In fact, I'd be sure of it in at least a few cases. But I won't vote for any of those people, so naturally, I wouldn't hear of anything but the most ridiculous cases.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Sure, there are many opinions I have where I could hope that I could get agreement. But that isn't what Zig said. He made a blanket statement. I argue with people not necessarily looking to win, but also to learn. It helps me come to and refine my positions. My father use to tell me all the time that what you don't know fills libraries and it does. I learn a lot by talking it out.

I like it when people oppose my positions honestly. Someone who doesn't spin the facts. I despise the dishonest arguer. Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of the latter these days.

I enjoy honest fact-based dialogue and debate enormously, too. It's how I came to hold all of my current positions, after all (I was once a Republican who believed all those things I now see as right wing myths and lies.)

When it comes to certain policy debates, it's not really a legitimate debate any longer, any more than YEC vs natural selection is a legitimate debate.

Except, it's even worse, because smart rightwingers know exactly what the real deal is, and they're simply playing stupid to make what the rest of us see as the problems worse, so they can justify implementation of further overtly social darwinist policies.

They cry crocodile tears over the deficit, but they know this was real in the 80's:

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/19/o...e-deficit.html

Quote:

But, Dr. von Hayek continued, ''You see, one of Reagan's advisers told me why the President has permitted that to happen, which makes the matter partly excusable: Reagan thinks it is impossible to persuade Congress that expenditures must be reduced unless one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money can be spent.''

Thus, the economist said, Mr. Reagan ''hopes to persuade Congress of the necessity of spending reductions by means of an immense deficit.

They approve of blowing up the deficit to justify cutting social security and health care further.

It's intentional, and vile.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I could have sworn dems have been discussing education, health care access, small businesses, better policing, and the like, ...

A lot of us do. Obsessively, even.

Part of the problem is that little of the MSM from Fox to Maddow covers that sort of stuff, though.

[dann]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Quote:

Reagan thinks it is impossible to persuade Congress that expenditures must be reduced unless one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money can be spent

Of course, it's impossible to even imagine deficits so large that absolutely every Republican becomes convinced that more tax cuts for rich people can't be done.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by dann

Of course, it's impossible to even imagine deficits so large that absolutely every Republican becomes convinced that more tax cuts for rich people can't be done.

The Laffer curve is wonderful, isn't it.

Of course the fact that it is pointing out a trivially true thing (100% tax and 0% tax both won't raise much revenue) doesn't absolve it if we're nowhere near the situation where increased taxes reduce revenue.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by dann

Of course, it's impossible to even imagine deficits so large that absolutely every Republican becomes convinced that more tax cuts for rich people can't be done.

Tax cuts for the rich (combined with increased military spending) is what caused the deficit increase in Reagan's day as well as today.
Part of their long term deficit scamming (and it is undeniably overt con artistry) is promoting the myth that tax cuts always pay or themselves and INCREASE government revenue.

They also never, ever believe deficits are so large that significant military cuts must be made.

[Upchurch]

(Apologies for the re-cross post.)

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Strange how indifferent some people are to Obama's lies. Is it that you knew all along that he was lying and just didn't care, because it served the cause? Or is it that you're not one of the people getting screwed right now because of it?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You should mostly ignore what he says, yes. What he does is a different matter, but you don't need to read his tweets to follow that.

It’s funny how much Zig used to really, really care about what presidents said and was far more concerned about empathy. Wonder what changed?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by jimbob

The Laffer curve is wonderful, isn't it.

Of course the fact that it is pointing out a trivially true thing (100% tax and 0% tax both won't raise much revenue) doesn't absolve it if we're nowhere near the situation where increased taxes reduce revenue.

I unironically love the Laffer curve. Because it's a curve, not a slope. It has a peak. And that peak is around a 70% tax rate. Any less and their own numbers show that all the "job creator" talk is counterproductive. It's like that recent Koch study that showed universal healthcare would be a few trillion $ cheaper over time than our current system.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I unironically love the Laffer curve. Because it's a curve, not a slope. It has a peak. And that peak is around a 70% tax rate. Any less and their own numbers show that all the "job creator" talk is counterproductive. It's like that recent Koch study that showed universal healthcare would be a few trillion $ cheaper over time than our current system.

It probably should be a derail to the Economics subforum, but do you have any information about how the figure of 70% was arrived at?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Your confusion is my point. You don’t even comprehend the difference.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't and never have. I don't want the whole world making my mistskes or me making theirs. If what you are saying was true, very little would be learned. The art of the dialectic would be lost. Can't you see that?

It’s already been lost. Honestly, are you new here?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by jimbob

It probably should be a derail to the Economics subforum, but do you have any information about how the figure of 70% was arrived at?

There's no consensus on it being 70%, or adjusted for different income brackets, or anything like that.

It's (in its basic form) just based on the intuitive sense (assumption) that no revenue will be generated if the rate is zero (obviously) or if it's 100% (that part's debatable.)

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your confusion is my point. You don’t even comprehend the difference.

I don't understand the difference between desperately wishing to be able to find a common ground on policy with conservatives, and "needing" to not be able to?

Y'all are actually totally reasonable on policy, but we leftwingers have some bizarre psychological need to think you're unwilling to expand or just stop cutting Medicaid, for example?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It’s already been lost. Honestly, are you new here?

Funny how "fringy" Sanders-style leftwingers like me are able to dialogue with Clintonista centrists fairly well, as well as with "never Trump" Republicans.

What do you think is going on there?

[jimbob]

Ziggurat, I understand that you are quite a bit to the right of me. But you don't come across as religious, so why is the Trump presidency good for you?

Are you in favour of reducing access to contraception and abortion? That is something that is likely from the Supreme Court, which I seem to understand is one of your considerations.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Funny how "fringy" Sanders-style leftwingers like me are able to dialogue with Clintonista centrists fairly well, as well as with "never Trump" Republicans.

What do you think is going on there?

You have a mutual enemy that you think is more important than your mutual dislike of each other?

My personal view is that society's division into separate camps is more important than any of the issues we're all arguing about.

[dmaker]

Originally Posted by Oystein

This was writte 2 days ago, so excuse my being late, but here we have fundamental DISagreement!

NO, not "nobody" is taking Trump's tweet seriously, nor are they MEANT to not be taken seriously. They are meant to be taken seriously by very large numbers of Americans, and tens of millions do take them seriously - agreed?

However, your post implies that Trump's tweets are, as a rule, not true, not fair, not good, or lack any other quality that frustrates their being taken seriously. I agree with you on that!

So why does the POTUS take valuable time out of his tight daily schedule to tweet stuff that sane, rational people oughtn't take seriously?
-> Because he consciously, with focus, seeks to activate the insane, irrational among Americans into his employ.

That cannot be a good thing, nor should it be ignored or downplayed. This is the very core, the stand-out characteristic of the Trump presidency: that it goes out if its way to seek, find and use the very WORST of America.

It's really simple: any acceptable President would not tweet day in day out things - hateful, petty, small, nasty things - that nobody ought to take seriously.

Well put, and I agree. For Trump it's a win-win. He gets to rile up and solidify his base while simultaneously trolling his opponents. I imagine he gets quite a bit of satisfaction from his tweets.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

TWO Supreme Court justices. And counting.

Now my thought is that the best way to reach common ground is to come out and let the other side know that you think they are not intelligent.

Solid.

Any conservative president could have done that. That Congress and Senate cooperated was the deciding factor. Obama nominated a judge and his nomination was blocked because hew wasn't conservative.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Bingo. Stop paying attention to Twitter, and politics starts seeming a lot more normal.

Doesn't make any sense. Twitter is Trump's most popular means of communicating with the masses.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I don't understand the difference between desperately wishing to be able to find a common ground on policy with conservatives, and "needing" to not be able to?

But you don't desperately wish to find common ground. That's the whole point. You desperately wish that they would change their minds to agree with you. But that isn't what finding common ground means. Your confusion on this distinction is precisely the problem.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But you don't desperately wish to find common ground. That's the whole point. You desperately wish that they would change their minds to agree with you. But that isn't what finding common ground means. Your confusion on this distinction is precisely the problem.

I'm willing to compromise.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Ziggurat, I understand that you are quite a bit to the right of me. But you don't come across as religious, so why is the Trump presidency good for you?

Are you in favour of reducing access to contraception and abortion? That is something that is likely from the Supreme Court, which I seem to understand is one of your considerations.

In regards to the Supreme court, yes, I think Trump is appointing much better judges than Clinton (or Sanders) would have. First off, while I'm not in favor out making abortion illegal, I also don't think abortion is the number one issue of concern regarding the supreme court. I think other issues are far more important. Second, access to contraception isn't under actual threat. In fact, it will probably to expand, with over-the-counter access to birth control pills likely in the future.

Trump's presidency is a mixed bag for me. The reduction in regulations is good for the economy, threats of trade war are not (but we'll see how that ultimately shakes out). I'm endlessly amused by the hypocrisy of people who complain about the rich getting tax cuts because of a general rate reduction while also bitching about the SALT deduction being reduced. His petty squabbles with certain European leaders is annoying, but I'm glad he's putting the screws on Iran. And so on.

Trump wouldn't be my first choice of president. But he won the election. And the attempt to change that by any means other than the next election are unhealthy.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

First off, while I'm not in favor out making abortion illegal, I also don't think abortion is the number one issue of concern regarding the supreme court. I think other issues are far more important.

Such as?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by kellyb

A lot of us do. Obsessively, even.

Part of the problem is that little of the MSM from Fox to Maddow covers that sort of stuff, though.

I'm fine with this. If I want to know what Ben Jealous or Larry Hogan are discussing, I can read local papers, their web sites, their twitter accounts, and so forth. And I have no issue if Maddow wants to concentrate on one issue as a journalist - just as long as there are other journalists who look to other issues. That strikes me as good journalism in action.

And as much as many complain about the democrats, I still have no idea what any republican politician wants to do at the national level that's helpful to anyone who isn't rich.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I'm fine with this. If I want to know what Ben Jealous or Larry Hogan are discussing, I can read local papers, their web sites, their twitter accounts, and so forth. And I have no issue if Maddow wants to concentrate on one issue as a journalist - just as long as there are other journalists who look to other issues. That strikes me as good journalism in action.

And as much as many complain about the democrats, I still have no idea what any republican politician wants to do at the national level that's helpful to anyone who isn't rich.

The MSM doesn't report on policy and other important matters hardly at all. There are literally hundreds of articles/clips about Stormy Daniels for every story about the US-backed war/genocide in Yemen.

The important stuff is bad for ratings.

[Fudbucker]

Re: empathy

We're past the point of lack of empathy by Trump and his minions and supporters. They view certain groups of people as sub-human. The child separation policy has been the worst example of this so far, and it certainly won't be the last.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by kellyb

The MSM doesn't report on policy and other important matters hardly at all. There are literally hundreds of articles/clips about Stormy Daniels for every story about the US-backed war/genocide in Yemen.

The important stuff is bad for ratings.

As much as i would like to, I don't blame the MSM as much as i do the public in general. They are only giving the public what it demands. They are reponding to ratings.

We're junkies, seeking out the news. Most people are oblivious.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In regards to the Supreme court, yes, I think Trump is appointing much better judges than Clinton (or Sanders) would have. First off, while I'm not in favor out making abortion illegal, I also don't think abortion is the number one issue of concern regarding the supreme court. I think other issues are far more important. Second, access to contraception isn't under actual threat. In fact, it will probably to expand, with over-the-counter access to birth control pills likely in the future.

Trump's presidency is a mixed bag for me. The reduction in regulations is good for the economy, threats of trade war are not (but we'll see how that ultimately shakes out). I'm endlessly amused by the hypocrisy of people who complain about the rich getting tax cuts because of a general rate reduction while also bitching about the SALT deduction being reduced. His petty squabbles with certain European leaders is annoying, but I'm glad he's putting the screws on Iran. And so on.

Trump wouldn't be my first choice of president. But he won the election. And the attempt to change that by any means other than the next election are unhealthy.

I don't know the specific details, but I'd argue that reducing the funding to Planned Parenthood and allowing employers to excuse birth control from health insurance, would suggest the opposite.

Aren't you concerned with Putin's obvious glee at Trump? And the response to Russian expansionism?

Or Trump's seeming disdain for the constitution whenever it constrains the power of the President?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

As much as i would like to, I don't blame the MSM as much as i do the public in general. They are only giving the public what it demands. They are reponding to ratings.

We're junkies, seeking out the news. Most people are oblivious.

See, I think if CNN reported on stuff like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-bombing-obama

https://www.axios.com/report-bomb-th...546abf90a.html

People would watch.

It's the the corporate sponsors who would disapprove.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jimbob

I don't know the specific details, but I'd argue that reducing the funding to Planned Parenthood and allowing employers to excuse birth control from health insurance, would suggest the opposite.

Birth control isn't hard to get even without Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood isn't about to go away even if government funding gets cut. And I suspect you might be talking about the Hobby Lobby case, but
1) Hobby Lobby provides birth control coverage. It's only a few forms of birth control that they don't want to cover. Employees can get these forms themselves easily enough.
2) The ruling doesn't apply to most employers.

Quote:

Aren't you concerned with Putin's obvious glee at Trump? And the response to Russian expansionism?

I'm concerned about Russia, though I think Putin's glee is mostly intended to egg on Democrats. That's why I'm glad to see an expansion of US petroleum production, something Obama tried to hamstring. I'm also glad to see we're selling weapons to Ukraine, something Obama also refused to do. And I'm happy to see Poland buying a bunch of Patriot missiles from us, another deal which is upsetting the Russians.

Trump isn't acting like a friend of Russia, even if he sounds like it.

Quote:

Or Trump's seeming disdain for the constitution whenever it constrains the power of the President?

I keep hearing this accusation, but it hasn't really panned out that way in practice. I see no more overreach from Trump than there was from Obama.

[jimbob]

Probably because your eyes are closed.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Probably because your eyes are closed.

You can do better than that, can't you?

Or maybe not.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I didn't say it was useless, I said it was overrated. These are very different claims. And all you can offer in response is that straw man plus an appeal to emotion.



After your little rant about how I don't have any empathy and want to live in a poo-slinging society, this claim that it's just Republicans who can't accept a middle ground is more than a touch ironic.

Oh, and it's RINO, not RHINO.

Oh, I don't know. RHINO these days seems a little apropos. Republican Hitlerite in Name Only has a certain applicability given the racist and Fascistic leanings of the GOP.

[BrooklynBaby]

Originally Posted by kellyb

When it comes to so much suffering and death in the US, and the policies advocated by the left vs the right, yes, I wish the rightwingers would agree with us that tens of thousands of people in America dying from lack of healthcare yearly (for example) is not okay and agree to go along with literally ANY of the policies which would alleviate it.

Or agree that having the highest level of child poverty in the developed world is not acceptable, and agree with any of the policies which would help alleviate it.

But instead, all we can get is that "Oh, that sucks, but there's no point in dwelling upon it because empathy is overrated and it's too bad there's nothing which can be done, because such is the nature of freedom" crap.

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

That simple correlation really doesn't imply what you think it implies. The social sciences are extremely complex and trying to tease out causative influences is going to take more than "both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country".

To take that fact and conclude that the left is the problem is very poor reasoning. There may be other reasons that led you to that conclusion, but if so you ought to share them with the rest of us.