Right, Left and coddling

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Also...who actually voted based on vaccination fears (which Dolt 45 peddled, and Clinton rejected) or on nuclear energy (which is basically a non-starter these days regardless)? I mean, possibly Nevadans angry about that storage facility in their state, but that seems to be bipartisan anger even there.

THis is, after all, a thread about presidential support first, and Jordan Peterson's ridiculous self second...

Right. GMO "fears" pale in comparison to the fears of deportation, roll back of abortion rights, LGBT rights, chipping away at Obamacare, etc. This pining by many on the Right for a 1950's America has many people on the left rightfully concerned.

"A new national survey from PRRI finds 72 percent of likely Trump likely voters say American culture and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while roughly 70 percent of likely Hillary Clinton voters say life and culture in the U.S. has changed for the better since that time."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...110293997.html

That one survey right there is terrifying. The 1950's were great, for a certain large segment of Trump supporters.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

A majority of people plus states decided he's fit.

What does "people plus states" mean in this context?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

I cited an example: an unfit president. Another, obviously, is climate change.

I didn't dispute the existence of rational fears. I disputed the non-existence of irrational fears.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I didn't dispute the existence of rational fears. I disputed the non-existence of irrational fears.

You're disputing something that was never claimed by anyone here, so far as I can tell.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

You're disputing something that was never claimed by anyone here, so far as I can tell.

Again, that is the meaning of the words you posted. Perhaps you didn't mean it, perhaps you were just writing badly, that's not a big deal.

But if you didn't mean it, then that post was kind of pointless. Just as there are irrational fears on both sides, there are rational fears on both sides as well.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Again, that is the meaning of the words you posted. Perhaps you didn't mean it, perhaps you were just writing badly, that's not a big deal.

But if you didn't mean it, then that post was kind of pointless. Just as there are irrational fears on both sides, there are rational fears on both sides as well.

Of course it's not the meaning, and if you quote the whole sentence, instead of truncating it, like you did, you'll understand why:

Quote:

There are frightened people on the Left, of course, but their fears are rationally grounded and shared by many on the Right: Trump is unfit for office, and for the President to be unfit for the office is rightfully a scary thing.

Trump being unfit for office entails many anxieties (fears), which are felt by both the right and left: Trump's racism, dishonesty, stupidity, scapegoating, and attacks on institutions of law and order are called out by both Left and Right. The fear of deportation of Dreamers is also shared by some on the Right.

Again, if you can't debate honestly, don't bother.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Or perhaps it's because I used to work in a factory that made the stuff.

I guess the company I worked for (not Monsanto) fell for the same conspiracy theories and was wasting its money on the safety protocols, medical checkups, and yearly blood testing for its workers.

A company that manufactures chemicals created and followed safety protocols, had medical checkups and blood testing? Wow that is really something. And again, glyphosate has nothing to do with GMOs. And opposing GMOs has nothing to do with preventing herbicide resistant crops.

[Slings and Arrows]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

A new national survey from PRRI finds 72 percent of likely Trump likely voters say American culture and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while roughly 70 percent of likely Hillary Clinton voters say life and culture in the U.S. has changed for the better since that time.

"One man's heaven is another man's hell." -- Thomas Goodwin

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows

"One man's heaven is another man's hell." -- Thomas Goodwin

The 1950's were great if you were a white male. So were the 1850's. And 1750's. It's only fairly recently that the balance of power has shifted.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Right. GMO "fears" pale in comparison to the fears of deportation, roll back of abortion rights, LGBT rights, chipping away at Obamacare, etc. This pining by many on the Right for a 1950's America has many people on the left rightfully concerned.

Different people vote based on different issues. I know many anti-GMO people who either vote for a different candidate or will not vote at all if the candidate from the party they generally would support does not oppose GMOs. I know a number of people who voted for Stein, despite all those fears, in large part because of issues like GMOs.

On the other hand, I know a lot of rural farmers both in the US and in Canada who have changed their voting preference based on the lies that anti-GMO activists and left-wing candidates have spread. I have relatives in Canada who shifted from voting for the party that is farthest left for many decades (NDP) to the party that is farthest right (Conservatives) because they know that the claims candidates have made about GMOs are pure lies, and that infuriates them. And if they know that environmental groups and left-wing parties spread lies about GMOs, then why should they believe a word those same groups and parties say on other topics? Like Climate Change? Its about trust. It spreads far beyond the initial issue.

I wondered if early in the Presidential candidates campaign, US farmers might think about shifting Democrat based on Trump's anti-GMO remarks, along with Clinton being one of the most pro-GMO politicians, but when I talked to farmers this was going no where with them. Party-wise the Dems were still the party of GMO lies, and they were not going to overcome that damage, especially when Sanders (who had spread plenty of lies about GMOs) was still in the running for the Dems, and while Trump was perhaps not even the Republican favorite at that time. By the time they each became their Party's official candidates Trump had shut up about the GMO conspiracy theories he had commented on and Clinton had shut up about her GMO support.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Of course it's not the meaning, and if you quote the whole sentence, instead of truncating it, like you did, you'll understand why:



Trump being unfit for office entails many anxieties (fears), which are felt by both the right and left: Trump's racism, dishonesty, stupidity, scapegoating, and attacks on institutions of law and order are called out by both Left and Right. The fear of deportation of Dreamers is also shared by some on the Right.

Again, if you can't debate honestly, don't bother.

I've been honest from the start. If your meaning wasn't clear to me, that's not dishonesty. That's basically bad writing. You compared random fears from the public comment section of a website to one specific fear. If that one specific fear wasn't representative for the left (ie, all the left's fears were similarly rational), then what possible relevance does that comparison have? Well, none. It's just cherry picking. And so I assumed that instead of making an irrelevant comparison, you were trying to make a relevant one. Was I wrong about your intentions? Sure, I can accept that. Was that dishonest? No, it was not. I was clear from the start about what I thought you meant. And my interpretation was reasonable, even if incorrect. Instead of the comparison being wrong, it was simply pointless.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

The 1950's were great if you were a white male. So were the 1850's. And 1750's. It's only fairly recently that the balance of power has shifted.

But the white male sees this rebalance of power approaching parity as threatening. He manufactures in his fear-addled brain a swinging of this power to beyond parity favoring the 'other'.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

The 1950's were great if you were a white male.

It was also a simpler time ...if you were a child at the time. ...or watched too much Happy Days in the 70s.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Lurch

But the white male sees this rebalance of power approaching parity as threatening. He manufactures in his fear-addled brain a swinging of this power to beyond parity favoring the 'other'.

Remember, the majority of Trump supporters believe what white christians are the most discriminated against group in the US.

They actually were polling this way at the same time that they were supporting a ban on the immigration of any muslims into the US.

But it's the white Christians who are most discriminated against.

It's an alternate reality. It really is.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What does "people plus states" mean in this context?

The way the Constitution designed to elect a president in a deeply federal country: popular vote and regional representativeness, meaning 30 states are more than 20 states plus 2% of the votes.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Honestly, I've never heard of people worrying about it. It sounded radioactive. I honestly think y'all are stretching to find a leftwing equivalent to, say, the rightwing fear that all the guns are going to be confiscated to usher in martial law and tyranny, but okay. At least I know what sort of thing you were thinking of now.

The conspiracy theories about depleted uranium were bizarre, deeply and crazily held by a small number of people who in my experience were almost entirely on the far left. They were some of the most dishonest people I have ever met, but I haven't seen anything on the DU conspiracy front for at least a decade, but maybe I have been lucky.

However, I agree, it is nothing like the right-wing gun conspiracies or climate change conspiracies.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The way the Constitution designed to elect a president in a deeply federal country: popular vote and regional representativeness, meaning 30 states are more than 20 states plus 2% of the votes.

plus 2% of what votes?

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

The 1950's were great if you were a white male. So were the 1850's. And 1750's. It's only fairly recently that the balance of power has shifted.

The 50s were great if you are now a +80 yo white person.

But I reckon that Trump's sloganized guiding fiction really meant "make America White centred again"

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

plus 2% of what votes?

The 2.8 millions of surplus votes Clinton got. The Constitution is designed in a way 10 more states trumps those votes. That's deliberate, not a mistake.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I've been honest from the start. If your meaning wasn't clear to me, that's not dishonesty. That's basically bad writing. You compared random fears from the public comment section of a website to one specific fear. If that one specific fear wasn't representative for the left (ie, all the left's fears were similarly rational), then what possible relevance does that comparison have? Well, none. It's just cherry picking. And so I assumed that instead of making an irrelevant comparison, you were trying to make a relevant one. Was I wrong about your intentions? Sure, I can accept that. Was that dishonest? No, it was not. I was clear from the start about what I thought you meant. And my interpretation was reasonable, even if incorrect. Instead of the comparison being wrong, it was simply pointless.

Truncating a quote in the middle of a sentence, and implying meaning from the fragment quoted is dishonest.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The 2.8 millions of surplus votes Clinton got.

I am super confused. How does Clinton's surplus of popular votes indicate that "A majority of people plus states decided that Trump is fit"?

Wouldn't a majority of people not voting for Trump indicate that they decided he's not fit? (Or, at least, that he shouldn't be President?)

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I am super confused. How does Clinton's surplus of popular votes indicate that "A majority of people plus states decided that Trump is fit"?

Wouldn't a majority of people not voting for Trump indicate that they decided he's not fit? (Or, at least, that he shouldn't be President?)

The system is a mixture by design. You want to segregate it for the parts to say what you'd want to read in them.

The fact is that a constitutional majority said Trump is fit. Domage!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Truncating a quote in the middle of a sentence, and implying meaning from the fragment quoted is dishonest.

It was truncated for brevity. Even with the full quote, my interpretation would have been the same. And you're only objecting to this now, well into the discussion of the topic, which suggests to me this isn't really the issue.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

"Survey results released by YouGov Friday show that 51 percent of Republicans said they think former President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, compared to just 14 percent of Democrats. Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election were especially convinced of Obama's African origins: Fully 57 percent said it was "definitely true" or "probably true" that the 44th president came from Kenya."
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-birthe...s-kenya-744195

"Just 35 percent of Republicans believed global warming was caused by humans, compared with 40 percent at about this time in 2017 when Trump had barely taken office. A full 89 percent of Democrats, meanwhile, believed humans caused global warming.

Just 42 percent said most scientists believe global warming is occurring, down from 53 percent last year."
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-ameri...l-shows-864550

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/108226/r...eationism.aspx

About half of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 election so the country can address claims of voter fraud, according to a new poll by the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...elections-poll

It is obvious Republicans are divorced from reality, and the problem is getting worse.

What about only 41% of Democrats knowing each state has two senators, as opposed to 58% of Republicans? What about only 31% of Democrats knowing the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice, as opposed to 50% of Republicans? (Taken from Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - 2016 National Civics Survey Results)

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The system is a mixture by design. You want to segregate it for the parts to say what you'd want to read in them.

The fact is that a constitutional majority said Trump is fit. Domage!

I absolutely agree that Trump won the Electoral vote. That is not at all in contention. However, there is no way you make the claim that a majority of people decided that Trump is fit. That is the definitively false.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

What about only 41% of Democrats knowing each state has two senators, as opposed to 58% of Republicans? What about only 31% of Democrats knowing the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice, as opposed to 50% of Republicans? (Taken from Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - 2016 National Civics Survey Results)

As to the Supreme Court justice, if I recall correctly the last justice appointed was not confirmed by the Senate as all others have been previously. It seems things change.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I absolutely agree that Trump won the Electoral vote. That is not at all in contention. However, there is no way you make the claim that a majority of people decided that Trump is fit. That is the definitively false.

I said a majority of "people and states". That's what the Constitution prescribes. And that is true. The same if Clinton won TX, FL, PA and lost NH, VM, DE, RI, CN ... (make it 10 small states): A majority of "people and states" would have decided Clinton was the president (a fit one, by definition).

Besides these Byzantine exchanges, what I meant is that is not for anybody -but the Congress via impeachment- to determine a president is "unfit". Once you leave your personal opinions to substitute reality you can't be taken seriously.

Because the Constitution is not only designed to protect the people from the whims of the officials in the government, but also to protect those officials from the whims of the people.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The 2.8 millions of surplus votes Clinton got. The Constitution is designed in a way 10 more states trumps those votes. That's deliberate, not a mistake.

It isn't designed. The early elections had significantly closer distribution of electors to population than current elections. Locking the size of the house fundamentally breaks any intent of the distribution of electoral votes.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

What about only 41% of Democrats knowing each state has two senators, as opposed to 58% of Republicans? What about only 31% of Democrats knowing the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice, as opposed to 50% of Republicans? (Taken from Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - 2016 National Civics Survey Results)

Ignorance of civics is an American past-time, and there's plenty to go around on both sides.

"The APPC survey, conducted Aug. 9-13 among 1,013 adults in the United States, finds that 53 percent think that people who are here illegally do not have any rights under the Constitution. That incorrect belief is especially strong among self-identified political conservatives – 67 percent think it is accurate, compared with 48 percent of moderates and 46 percent of liberals."

This is more alarming than not knowing the Senate confirms justices. believing that a class of people is not protected by the constitution can lead to all sorts of problems.

There is a difference between being ignorant about how government works, and believing in stuff that is blatantly wrong: Climate denialism, birtherism, creationism, massive voter fraud...

People not knowing about senators confirming justices doesn't concern me much. The current President claiming climate change is a Chinese hoax, Obama was born in Kenya, and millions of illegals cost him the popular vote concern me greatly.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

... Why doesn't the average Trump voter expand their hand to understand the other side?

Because the price of owning up to historical and contemporary fact is way, way, waaaay too high, and impacts too severely on self-image, especially for those whose main claim to fame is to be from where they were born. Same goes for most any other people or nation. So: myth.

This dire need to protect self, along with the sad fact that commitment to democracy has ever been wallet-deep, guarantees the rise of Trumps when reality contradicts the promises of national/tribal myth, or it seems threatened (Obama). Which is why you have to keep such myth in check, meaning why you need to keep today's GOP in check, while merely fretting about nonsense on today's left. Both sides, however, share the same addiction to Rosy Mirror, just with differing predilections about what they want to see, each meanwhile listening to their own preferred peanut galleries.

Luckily, in the world there are skeptics, who have all learned to reason from first principle. I mean, none of us fall prey to such transparently artificial contrivances as nationalism and patriotism, right? Surely.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

As to the Supreme Court justice, if I recall correctly the last justice appointed was not confirmed by the Senate as all others have been previously. It seems things change.

"On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court with a 54–45 vote, with three Democrats joining all the Republicans in attendance." from Wikipedia - Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

So, it really seams there are fears that may be googled away in a couple of minutes, but don't...

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

"On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court with a 54–45 vote, with three Democrats joining all the Republicans in attendance." from Wikipedia - Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

So, it really seams there are fears that may be googled away in a couple of minutes, but don't...

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It was truncated for brevity. Even with the full quote, my interpretation would have been the same. And you're only objecting to this now, well into the discussion of the topic, which suggests to me this isn't really the issue.

Please. We're not talking about taking a sentence out of a long paragraph. You dishonestly cut off my quote in mid-sentence. And when called out on it, you try to say it was for "brevity". Don't bother expecting replies from me anymore.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

What makes the rule special from any other senate rule? All senate rules are special.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

Who set the special rule and what does it say?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Please. We're not talking about taking a sentence out of a long paragraph. You dishonestly cut off my quote in mid-sentence. And when called out on it, you try to say it was for "brevity". Don't bother expecting replies from me anymore.

You replied multiple times before, and never objected to that truncation. It's only after I kept pointing out that the left also has irrational fears that you got upset about this point. I cannot compel further replies, I wouldn't even if I could, and any further replies from you are likely to be light on meaningful content anyways, but I can't take your umbrage seriously.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I said a majority of "people and states". That's what the Constitution prescribes. And that is true.

...er, no. It really isn't.

The Constitution prescribes the Electoral College and how electors may vote, but leaves the selection of the electors up to the states. The indirect popular vote is tradition, but not Constitutionally prescribed. Not even how the electors are distributed based on the popular vote is defined by the Constitution, which is why some states are winner-take-all and some are not.

It isn't even necessary to win a majority of states, because not all states are equal.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Besides these Byzantine exchanges, what I meant is that is not for anybody -but the Congress via impeachment- to determine a president is "unfit". Once you leave your personal opinions to substitute reality you can't be taken seriously.

That's true, but it's also moving the goal posts.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What makes the rule special from any other senate rule? All senate rules are special.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Who set the special rule and what does it say?

Here you go. Apparently the 2013 use of the special rule did not solve the problem of empty judge benches in the states as something like a third are still not filled.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Here you go. Apparently the 2013 use of the special rule did not solve the problem of empty judge benches in the states as something like a third are still not filled.

What makes it special compared to the rule before?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

Gorsuch was approved with a narrower margin than most justices, but not by the narrowest margin. Clarence Thomas was approved 52-48. And Stanley Mathews was approved 24-23. Simple majority suffices. That has always been the case.

The difference was not the percentage of senators voting in favor or against Gorsuch. The difference was the attempt by the minority to filibuster his nomination, and the decision to circumvent that filibuster through a rules change. But the filibuster rule is itself a purely senatorial invention.