A rational discussion of the mid-terms

Great Debates
1

You know, rather than clutter the “fuck the American voters with a rusty barb-wire dildo” thread with rational questions towards the “other side” I figured I would open my own thread to do so.

To begin, a couple of things in that thread really caught my attention. First:

Help me understand this position. From what I have experienced in this world it seems to me that all of the things that I consider to be advancements (greater gender equality, greater racial equality, greater equality towards those with differing sexual orientations, environmental regulations that slow down the despoilment of the earth, so on) had to be taken by force. I cannot think of a time when the folks that opposed this stuff heard the arguments in favor and said “huh, those guys sure have a point”.

So at this point of the game I see this more in terms of self-defense. Over and over again we are shown that the “loyal opposition” has no desire to do anything but win. Why would I want to be tolerant of some dude beating the crap out of me? Isn’t the sane response to fight back.

See I can honestly say that I do see some parts of Conservative though that has value. The problem is that for the life of me I cannot think of any conservative that has said the same about Liberal thought. Is there anything at all that you guys (the general “you” conservatives) are willing to compromise on?

Also this:

I 100% get this. Here is the part that I am not understanding. The financial meltdown and the bailouts started on the Republican’s watch. I understand that folks are completely sick of this, but arguably they just overwhelmingly voted back into power the people most responsible for the mess that we are now in. Why?

As far as the health care thing goes, we have given the Private Sector its shot at doing the job. They failed. We have a stupidly over-complicated system and millions going without health care. Is it so crazy to state that there are some services and resources that need to be in the hands of an entity with no profit motive?

A few thoughts. I am sure that there will be others.

2

“Greater equality” does not make sense.

3

Progressing towards the state of true equality. I’ll use it in a sentence:

Since suffrage, women have moved towards greater equality in our society, but they are not yet fully equal to men.

4

Yes it does – it means less inequality, and in the socioeconomic sphere there are degrees of inequality.

5

There are degrees of inequality, but no degrees of equality.

Equals are equal. Unequals are unequal.

Regards,
Shodan

6

Whoa holy crapstick shitshingle, let’s be slightly more pedantic.

7

So, the founders of the U.S. were wrong when they sought a “more perfect union”?

8

Eh, if Madison can use “more perfect”, the OP can use “greater equality.”

9

:smack:

Jesus fuck, could you pedantic retards ruin a potentially good thread any more efficiently? Here’s an idea: if, upon reading a five paragraph OP attempting to further a direct discussion of ideas between philosophically opposed groups after a major electoral upset, your first and only impulse is to post “hurrrr, you didn’t use that word exactly right”, slam your goddamn head in a car door until everything goes quiet. Christ.

10

Back in September, I went to a Billy Bragg show. I had to be persuaded to go, because despite growing up with Mr. Bragg’s music, and having it be the soundtrack of my early political life, I was so angry at him for having sold out and supported the Lib Dems at the last election. Anyway, he very early admitted that was a mistake, which he never would have done had he thought there was a chance of them allying with the Tories.

It was a fine show, with almost as much talking to the crowd as music. If there is a better venue to see a performer like Billy than the 9:30 Club I have yet to find it. Much of his talk was indeed political, and he talked a lot about the Tea Baggers. He contrasted the situation with his home town of Barking. In 2006, the odious BNP (a now attempting to be respectable racist party with Neo-Nazi roots) won 12 seats on Barking & Dagenham council. It’s a very blue collar, poverty striken area. In 2010, they predicted they would double their representation, taking control of the counsel. In fact, through concerted grass roots efforts, they lost all 12 seats.

His comments were not about the BNP activists in particular, but about how they managed to tap into a groundswell of anger and despair, and turn it to their own advantage. A similar phenomenon is visible in the US with the teabaggers. The majority of their appeal is to anger, to people who feel the system has deserted them. These people see their standard of living eroded, while the banks and major corporations get bailed out. Like the BNP voters, they aren’t supporting the message as such - it’s a vote of anger. Some even know the vote is self-destructive - they are voting for people who will harm them and their friends and neighbors, and transfer wealth and advantage further into the hands of people who need it least. But when you are this angry, and this betrayed, self-destructive behavior isn’t unthinkable.

But the message wasn’t a negative one. It was a message of engagement and grass roots activism. It’s a message I’ve long been preaching. We need to be out on the streets showing people how the Republicans and in particular the tea baggers hurt them. We need to be showing them how we can help them - how our interests and their interests are the same. We cannot write these people off. Sure - the most active 2 or 3% of teabaggers, who were Republican through and through before, and who were astroturfed in by Fox News, aren’t reachable, but 97-98% are, and should be. Instead, we sit back and whine about Citizens United (a decision I don’t like but was, IMHO, constitutionally required), and how the system is loaded against us. It’s only loaded against us if we view TV as the only way to reach people. It’s harder work, but we need to be knocking on doors, helping people with their day to day problems, even (or most particularly) in districts that should be Democrat but which voted GOP. We can talk about the extra money the GOP has all we want, but that’s the situation - those who defend established interests will always have more money to through around. If we are serious about representing the poor, the sick, the defenseless, then we have to realize we will ahve less money. But there are more of us than there are of them. Let’s use the advantages we have rather than crying about the ones we don’t.

It can be done. But it needs effort. Our policies are right for the majority of the country. It’s time to show them they are not forgotten, they won’t be betrayed, that someone is willing to fight for their interests. In 2008, we won without doing that because Bush was such a complete clown the GOP appeal was so low. We can’t rely on them doing that for ever (though this place proves to me some conservatives really are stupid enough to show their true colors).

11

Yes, you’re right. The thing is, I didn’t see anything in the OP to disagree with: I’m waiting for someone to have a substantial beef about it, rather than a bit of pedantry.

12

Here’s where I’m going with this…in my mind, you’re equal or you’re not. What “greater equality” was achieved by homosexuals? Marriage (in some places)? True, that’s equality. Federal hate crime laws? That goes above and beyond equality to the point of preferential treatment. Similar to Affirmitive Action. Is “greater equality” better than just plain ol’ equality?

13

I missed that bit of hilarity from Chessic Sense. It makes zero sense, but it dovetails perfectly with everything the right has done since 9/11. Pissing away a trillion in Iraq is A-fucking-OK but rescuing American industries is criminal. It is to laugh, or cry.

The mid-terms had nothing to do with love for republicans. It was the predictable reaction by an impatient electorate to the lousy economy. It had nothing to do with health care, it isn’t a mandate and it won’t last. IMO, this is a dangerous time for the republican party: voters are aware they’ve done almost zero to help matters since Obama was elected. If they start wasting time and money with bullshit investigations, or if they try to destroy health care by “starving the beast” the blow back will be worse than what the dems just experienced.

14

Well, did women get political equality when they got the vote? On paper, perhaps they did, but in practice no, because elected office-holders continue to be predominantly male. The closer you get to 50-50, the closer you get to equality for women.

And why do hate crime laws go above and beyond equality? They can apply to all social groups. In practice, they apply to groups that are being discriminated against, but doesn’t that mean that those groups have not achieved equality?

15

Properly speaking, I doubt one can be both pedantic, and retarded, at the same moment.

Nor was the election “a major upset” - most people expected the GOP to take the House, which they did, but only narrow their margin in the Senate, which they did.

If you are going to capitalize “Christ”, one would expect that you also capitalize the “God”.

Try to be more precise next time.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - :slight_smile:

16

Since we’re being pedantic:

And here we see a common fundamental failure to comprehend how hate crime laws work.

They do not go “above and beyond equality”. They do not involve preferential treatment. Yes, they distinguish protected classes from other classes, but everyone is a member of those classes.

Are you straight? Hate crime laws protect you if you are attacked for being straight. Are you white? Hate crime laws protect you if you are victimized for being white. Are you a mainstream Christian? Hate crime laws protect you there, too.

17

I’m sure if anyone can manage it, you can.

18

It’s a ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’ kind of thing.

19

I’d say some autistic people are very concerned with information being presented to them just so. I could even say that people with developmental disorders are the height of pedantry.

Christ is the name of a person and a proper noun. The “god” in “goddamn” could refer more to the idea of godly damnation, rather than the specific, named figure.

20

Plus, c/Christ was the first word in its sentence. :wink: