The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

http://news.yahoo.com/14-dead-17-wounded-california-081816288.html#

Two of the shooters in yesterday's San Bernardino shootings look to be Arabs (based on their names), though one is also confirmed as having been American-born.

As the GOP continues to give empty prayers rather than actual solutions to the issues of violence, I am fearful for the impact this will have on the Syrian issue.

I look forward (not really) to the conflation of Muslims with Arabs, even though the vast majority of Arabs in the United States are non-Muslim.

I can't help but feel that the shooters were not Muslim, even though one had visited Saudi Arabia, because there is no report on their religion and we all know the media likes to stir the pot when it can.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

I love the zing at the end there regarding liberals controlling most institutions. He says "well yeah. Intelligence correlates with social mobility, so it is logical intelligent people (who lean liberal) will end up in control of most organizations."

It does make me ponder though. If intelligence is correlated with economic accomplishments and political viewpoints, why are conservative politicians so much wealthier on average than liberal ones?

Could it perhaps be that the liberal politicians come from more-equal districts, or something else?

Is it also possible that many conservative politicians are merely actors playing out a role, because they know right-wing bull sells well? Demand creates supply, after all. Plus, as we've seen with the established GOP, the veteran politicians are a lot less damaging to society as a whole than the freshmen from the Tea Party. I can't help but ponder if a lot of the conservative politicians are actually elaborate damage control on the part of a truly-liberal elite.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[Nepenthe]

Wealth and social mobility correlates moreso with inclusiveness, systemic and personal inequality, and sheer luck of the draw than it actually does intelligence and hard work: White people have basically been given land and money for nearly free while systemically blocking access to these programs for minorities for around four to five centuries, which inevitably adds up over time. White people personally perceive minorities to be less qualified for access to colleges and job promotions even when the qualifications are equal on paper, meaning all you have to do is be friends with someone to get a raise you may or may not deserve. Rich people in general also have a tendency to hoard wealth even far past the point where the extra dollars would have any utility towards their quality of life versus putting that money back into the economy and programs for uplifting the poor and middle class like their ancestors did. And finally, most people who are wealthy are simply born into or near it versus those who went out and made a successful start-up, and even the people who make successful start-ups anyway tend to rely on inclusive connections to partners, companies, and cash reserves a la Zuckerberg than they do simply throwing an idea out there and letting it spread via word-of-mouth like Notch did.

In short, most wealth is the result of some fucked-up systemic maneuvers that happened across time versus purely individual achievement, and what general political group tends to be really fond of keeping existing systems and the status quo in place? Conservatives.

[Sunwalker]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

I love the zing at the end there regarding liberals controlling most institutions. He says "well yeah. Intelligence correlates with social mobility, so it is logical intelligent people (who lean liberal) will end up in control of most organizations."

It does make me ponder though. If intelligence is correlated with economic accomplishments and political viewpoints, why are conservative politicians so much wealthier on average than liberal ones?

Could it perhaps be that the liberal politicians come from more-equal districts, or something else?

Is it also possible that many conservative politicians are merely actors playing out a role, because they know right-wing bull sells well? Demand creates supply, after all. Plus, as we've seen with the established GOP, the veteran politicians are a lot less damaging to society as a whole than the freshmen from the Tea Party. I can't help but ponder if a lot of the conservative politicians are actually elaborate damage control on the part of a truly-liberal elite.

When ice cream sales increase, the rate of homicides also increases. Therefore ice cream causes murder.

Correlation is causation. Q.E.D.  

 

[Tani Coyote]

When ice cream sales increase, the rate of homicides also increases. Therefore ice cream causes murder.

Correlation is causation. Q.E.D.  

Except it's a lot easier to prove a connection between education and political views.

Education arms you with statistics. Most welfare recipients do not have a small army of children. White people do drugs more than black people. Most undocumented migrants do not try and get benefits (poorer English skills combined with a fear of deportation). Non-whites and women have drastically lower rates of callbacks than white men. Most Arabs and Asians in the United States are Christian.

Education also exposes you to a wide array of different viewpoints that break down traditional ideas of dominance that most have internalized. You're taught to celebrate the accomplishments of minorities as well as recognize that there's more to a minority group's grievances than being overly sensitive or just lazy.

If you actually pay attention going through higher education, chances are you will not be a dogmatic conservative. You may be a moderate, but you're sure as Hell not going to buy into Reaganomics. You will see bombing the shit out of other countries is precisely what creates regimes like Iran's or sends people flocking to ISIS and Al-Qaeda. You will see our gun laws are a bit lacking. You will see an expansion of government services does not equate to communism, nor do governments operate on the same financial principles as individuals.

Your critical thinking skills being sharpened, you will understand "well that's the way things should be because muh beliefs" is inferior to "this is the way things should be because of data."

But above all else, any quality higher education drastically cuts the chances you will buy into the ignorant bullcrap that, run through the centrifuge of opinion, seems to primarily settle in the right wing of politics.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[shdowhunt60]

As the GOP continues to give empty prayers rather than actual solutions to the issues of violence

Okay, what the fuck is this right here? I'm seeing it all across left-wing media, and I am BAFFLED by the hypocrisy right here. Republican leaders send their condolences, and then everybody on the left sits there and starts jeering? All the while dancing on the graves of the dead and using it to push their agenda?

With all things considered, fuck that. Republicans receive so much flack for racial and religious bigotry, and don't get me wrong is well-deserved when shit-stains like Trump open their mouths, but when they have the common fucking courtesy to express some humanity, and give their respects to people who lost their lives in a tragedy... Don't get offended when I find some rather macabre humor in it.

I'm sorry, I'm just finding this hilarious. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

I love the zing at the end there regarding liberals controlling most institutions. He says "well yeah. Intelligence correlates with social mobility, so it is logical intelligent people (who lean liberal) will end up in control of most organizations."

It does make me ponder though. If intelligence is correlated with economic accomplishments and political viewpoints, why are conservative politicians so much wealthier on average than liberal ones?

Could it perhaps be that the liberal politicians come from more-equal districts, or something else?

Is it also possible that many conservative politicians are merely actors playing out a role, because they know right-wing bull sells well? Demand creates supply, after all. Plus, as we've seen with the established GOP, the veteran politicians are a lot less damaging to society as a whole than the freshmen from the Tea Party. I can't help but ponder if a lot of the conservative politicians are actually elaborate damage control on the part of a truly-liberal elite.

And then of course, there's this right here. You know what all of this amounts to? Wank. That's really what it is. It's a bunch of elitist assholes masturbating about how brilliant they are. It's circle-jerking propaganda designed to brain-wash people by stroking their egos while being led to view people who don't agree with them as being stupid. Meanwhile, on the other wing, there's Republicans who do the same shit.

And you know what THAT amounts to being? Fucking counterproductive. All this does is encourage hostility and contempt. It encourages you to look at the other person as an idiot, and who would want to work with an idiot? Idiots are wrong, and nothing else.

I've seen it on both sides. And its fucking disgusting.  Liberals and Conservatives waxing poetics about how brilliant they are, while doing nothing more than shit talking, and getting absolutely nothing done.

You want to be progressive? Stop talking shit, and actually go out and talk with a conservative for once. That'd be some fucking progress for once.

[Tani Coyote]

Okay, what the fuck is this right here? I'm seeing it all across left-wing media, and I am BAFFLED by the hypocrisy right here. Republican leaders send their condolences, and then everybody on the left sits there and starts jeering? All the while dancing on the graves of the dead and using it to push their agenda?

The GOP does this dancing on graves too. Guys like Newt were talking about the need for widespread gun ownership as Paris was happening.

Here's the thing though. Both offered prayers. But the difference is that the research is fairly conclusive that gun control would do a lot more to prevent mass shootings than firearm ownership.

"But people steal guns!" Absolutely. But psychos will be psychos no matter what the system.

There are three kinds of humans. Humans who do the right thing regardless of the law, humans who do the wrong thing regardless of the law, and humans who do what they do based on the law.

Gun control will control the damage the last group can do. You honestly don't think that minimal background checks and sometimes the absence of background checks is going to cause some damage? Nay, a lot?

Plus, let's review. A lot of guns that are stolen or misused? Stolen from family members, who probably aren't following gun safety in their storage.

Mandatory, regular mental health examination, penalization of private sales, and compulsory, regular firearm safety training are not the beginnings of a totalitarian state. They are common sense.

Do tell me which party you feel will be the first to implement these.

Now, there does seem to be a good correlation between increased firearm ownership and decreased crime. But that's regular crime. In these mass shootings, people tend to be walking around with assault weaponry or something close to it, and your peashooter won't be as effective in such cases.

You want to be progressive? Stop talking shit, and actually go out and talk with a conservative for once. That'd be some fucking progress for once.

I have, my friend.

The vast majority of them share views that are racist (the frequency with which terms like "animals" or "civilization" enter discussions of race is fascinating), do not match up to history ("low taxes stimulate the economy!" when the American Golden Age was during a period of high taxation), or are based on hysteria (welfare queens, radical Islam, single payer equating to socialism, etc.).

Are there dumb liberals? Absolutely. Just look at Tumblr.

But I can't help but notice a trend of misinformation coalescing towards the right-wing.

This is particularly sad since quite a few conservatives are perfectly reasonable, intelligent people. Their reasoning is just flawed and, in many cases, based on a pessimistic view of humanity. Statistics, when consulted, tear most conservative viewpoints apart. This is precisely because conservative viewpoints are frequently founded on an incorrect series of variables.

"We can't have unconditional welfare because everyone will quit their jobs!" No. The statistics are pretty obvious on this. Back when there was zero incentive to get off welfare, the vast majority were off it within 5 years, and did not return to it. In fact, regarding politics and race, welfare was not a political issue until black people could apply for it. People are quick to dismiss claims of racism in the GOP, but the GOP is only relevant as a party today because racism is what broke the New Deal coalition apart. 

"Low taxes stimulate the economy!" The European countries get along just fine. People point to Greece and the like, but these were not very strong economies that could be compared with Britain, France, Germany or America's. Again, the American Golden Age was during a period of high taxation. This is to say nothing of the conservative ideal of "why should they pay more?!," which blatantly ignores that the wealthy benefit more from society (never mind, they'd be nowhere if not for their laborers) and so logically should be expected to care for its well-being.

"We can't legalize drugs, because then everyone would be addicts!" Is everyone a smoker or an alcoholic? People are not as careless as general conservative dogma proposes. Indeed, we are already seeing flouting of federal law on marijuana... and none of the states that have flouted it have collapsed.

"If there's no border security, illegal migrants will flood in!" Perhaps true, but see, this is actually the Republican Party's fault. Prior to the GOP tightening border security and curbing benefits for non-citizens, most migrants were happy to come and go, whether legally or not. Once benefits were curbed, a path to citizenship opened for illegal migrants, and the risks of crossing the border drastically increased, however, most elected to come here, stay here, naturalize, and then bring their families here. The immigration crisis is the responsibility of the GOP, who altered the socioeconomic cost/benefit analysis for those coming here illegally. Sometimes, the best policy really is to just do nothing.

"The death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment!" No, actually. Due to the legal costs of proving a person guilty for the death penalty, it is cheaper to simply house and provide for a criminal for life. Bare in mind these legal costs are due to us wanting to be absolutely sure we have the right person before dealing a penalty that cannot be undone.

That's just to name a few considerations.

As a more general argument, though: there is a positive correlation between income equality and happiness, trust, life expectancy, crime, mental illness and infant mortality, to name a few. Who could say that America's system is "the best" when it's clearly producing the most problems?

Edited December 12, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[Candescence]

I think this quote from the US politics thread on the TvTropes forums basically sums up the state and history of the GOP, how we got to this state, and how the party has basically gone increasingly far right, to the point where Trump is outright stating fascist policies.

I don't know how much this topic can stand the Wall of Text that would be required to fully document the complex history between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and it is fallacious to state that all Republicans support the party's current national agenda, but I can at least attempt to summarize.

It is important to remember, as a starting point, that U.S. politics have been defined to a vastly underappreciated extent by racism. The Constitution nearly fell through over the question of slavery — the infamous "three fifths of a person" clause in the paragraph about the census was the result of a compromise between abolitionists and slave owners, the latter of which were quite prepared then to form their own nation. The "states' rights" issue that you hear about from time to time was originally used as an intellectual defense for "we want to own slaves".

 

Republicans have traditionally been the party of Big Business, while Democrats have traditionally been the party of The Little Guy. Obviously, that gets fuzzy in places, but it's a good starting point. At the time of the Civil War, the Republicans were aligned with Northern industrial and financial interests, who saw the slave economy of the south as a barrier to progress; and with a generally upper class white intellectual elite, who opposed slavery on moral grounds. The Democrats were aligned with the Southern plantation owners and a broad swathe of the lower class white population that was broadly against rights for blacks (out of fear that their own would be diminished).

 

The latter half of the 19th century was dominated by Republican politics, which included letting Big Business run rampant over the rights of individuals, with no meaningful regulatory controls. During the Great Depression, however, populist sentiment rose up in overwhelming force against Big Business. The New Deal was the initiative of a Democratic president, representing Labor. Like the Constitution, it nearly fell through because the white voting bloc vehemently opposed any reforms that would have to include racial integration — this is why we didn't get universal single-payer healthcare, by the way.

 

Over the mid-20th century, the Republican Party continued to represent the intellectual, pragmatic business elite who wanted the biggest slice of the pie they could get, while the Democrats represented the man on the street who wanted a fair shake. The GOP had been sorely stung by the New Deal and could not get a foothold in national politics to undo any of its provisions. However, there was a conspiracy afoot to change the game.

 

A little over 40 years ago, there was a huge schism in U.S. politics. The Civil Rights era finally overturned the balance of power between the parties, as the Southern Democrats broke ranks in a mass protest against racial integration. The Republican Party gladly accepted their support, little knowing the horror that would overtake them a few decades later.

 

Ronald Reagan was the harbinger — he came into power on a platform of subtle racism: reform the system so that the black man would no longer be stealing bread from the mouths of whites (literally and figuratively). He managed an unholy synthesis of the business agenda (lower taxes, kill regulation) with the populist white agenda (stick it to the colored folk).

 

What transpired should have been obvious to anyone observing impartially. The Republican Party, previously housing a huge chunk of the nation's intellectual and financial elite, found itself forced to deal with these know-nothings: ignorant, often poor white folk whose voting interests were mainly religious (evangelical Christian) and racist (anti-integration). In order to keep them in the party, the intelligentsia had to engage in some crazy mental gymnastics — basically, lying through their teeth about the benefits of cutting taxes and slashing welfare and regulation.

 

What they accomplished was to raise a generation of Republican leaders who believed wholeheartedly in those lies. When they saw the party's old guard paying mere lip service to them, they revolted en masse, kicked them out, and started a new revolutionary right-wing agenda, completing the evolution from a party of the elite to a party of the idiot. The last few GOP primaries have been the result of that evolution.

 

---

 

Today, the GOP represents an antagonistic, reactionary movement that is not sure what it wants, but is damn sure it knows what it opposes:

• Any government support for or extension of voting rights/civil protections to blacks.
• The presence in the country of Latin American immigrants.
• Recently, the presence in the country of Muslims.
• Any government program that takes money from anyone to help anyone else (except big business).
• Any hint that tax or regulatory policy might interfere with business, especially that based on the idea of climate change.
• The teaching of any secular scientific theory that might contradict Biblical Creationism.
• Any form of legal protection for women's sexual or reproductive rights.
• Any form of legal protection for LGBT rights.
• Any attempt to restrict gun ownership (for whites).
• Any attempt to enforce Federal jurisdiction over any civil action undertaken by states or individuals.
• Anything that Barack Obama does, period.

 

Because so many Republican voters do not participate in their party's primary process, it is remarkably easy for the nominations to be dominated by a vocal, strident minority that reflects the worst of the party's voter base. Thus, you can no longer be a national Republican candidate who does not support the above agenda.

Frankly, let's not beat around the bush here - much of the GOP's politics over the last few decades has had a racist undercurrent, but the establishment politicians won't openly admit it. The GOP has completely lost the plot. 

[Nepenthe]

I'm an entrenched liberal because one half of our functionally two-party system has decided to go batshit insane over the last seven years by increasingly catering to apathetic bigots and rich people. The positions are not the statements of fringe nutsos. They are the party platforms:

We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.

fuck gay people

Our national experience over the last several decades has shown that citizen vigilance, tough but fair prosecutors, meaningful sentences, protection of victims’ rights, and limits on judicial discretion can preserve public safety by keeping criminals off the streets.

fuck non-violent drug users

We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs, or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations.

Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter, and fair.

Because of the vital role of religious organizations, charities, and fraternal benevolent societies in fostering benevolence and patriotism, they should not be subject to taxation, and donations to them should continue to be tax deductible.

fuck the financially-vulnerable because flat taxes and the loose laws on religious organizations and masquerading charities have been disastrous on them.

For the same reason, we applaud legislation to require photo identification for voting and to prevent election fraud, particularly with regard to registration and absentee ballots. 

fuck young and poor voters by playing up voter fraud as a significant institutional issue and thus advocating for what is essentially an indirect poll tax.

I seriously cannot vote for a Republican in good conscience.

If conservatives as a whole don't actually agree with their party's major platforms, they should vote in local and national elections accordingly versus bitching that liberals do not take seriously the socially-regressive ideas that their party has been peddling front and center since the goddamn Southern Strategy. You don't get to let your party devolve to the point that Trump is a viable candidate (and he's a viable candidate because he's saying shit a large chunk of Republicans and conservatives have always believed in) and then whine that liberals are shitting on you. Get your shit together.

[shdowhunt60]

The GOP does this dancing on graves too. Guys like Newt were talking about the need for widespread gun ownership as Paris was happening.

Here's the thing though. Both offered prayers. But the difference is that the research is fairly conclusive that gun control would do a lot more to prevent mass shootings than firearm ownership.

"But people steal guns!" Absolutely. But psychos will be psychos no matter what the system.

There are three kinds of humans. Humans who do the right thing regardless of the law, humans who do the wrong thing regardless of the law, and humans who do what they do based on the law.

Gun control will control the damage the last group can do. You honestly don't think that minimal background checks and sometimes the absence of background checks is going to cause some damage? Nay, a lot?

Plus, let's review. A lot of guns that are stolen or misused? Stolen from family members, who probably aren't following gun safety in their storage.

Mandatory, regular mental health examination, penalization of private sales, and compulsory, regular firearm safety training are not the beginnings of a totalitarian state. They are common sense.

Do tell me which party you feel will be the first to implement these.

Now, there does seem to be a good correlation between increased firearm ownership and decreased crime. But that's regular crime. In these mass shootings, people tend to be walking around with assault weaponry or something close to it, and your peashooter won't be as effective in such cases.

 

Right, so let's assess this then. So, the people who do what they do based on the law... What exactly kind of damage are we afraid of from them? I mean, pretty much what we're talking about is Joe Blow, right? The kind of guy who does the 9-5 grind and just tries to make it through life. More or less, the average American.

... Why are we scared of the average person? I mean, unless I'm severely misunderstanding something here, then if I am please correct me, the average person out of the 300 odd million Americans doesn't really DO anything damaging, never-mind anything involving a firearm.

And yeah, okay, that's a good point: a lot of guns misused ARE from family members, and a lot of these people AREN'T safely stowing their weapons. But here's the thing, a lot of them ARE. I had a Uncle who was in the police force, and he kept his duty weapon in a safe and... Well...

Here's the thing about things like safes: even good ones can be broken into with enough persistence.

And another thing too: think about this one... Do you seriously think that a person that got their gun through stealing from a family member is just going to stop in their tracks just because, somehow, they couldn't steal one from a family member? I mean, that's kind of a point of no return there: a person willing to do something like that is going to do what they want to accomplish.

I mean, really, what amount of gun control would've stopped San Bernadino from happening? I honestly wager absolutely none. That couple would've just found another way to accomplish the same thing. THAT'S why Paris was brought up. I mean, it's Paris. In France. In the middle of Europe. You cannot possibly find a more tightly regulated part of the world for firearms possession without going to China. And yet they had not one, but two major terrorist attacks where guys were able to march up and down the streets with fully-automatic AK's virtually unopposed.

And lastly? Don't ever use "common sense" as an argument with me. Ever. If your debate teacher has ever allowed you to use that as a basis for an argument, shame on him. It's a disgusting attempt to use language to control a debate. If it was common sense, it wouldn't be a hotly debated topic like it is right now, everybody would just be conforming to what is "common sense", which that alone would be asinine. Remember, not too long ago, it was "common sense" that the earth was completely flat, and the sun spun around it.

 

Christ I hate the word editor. Responses edited in bold, I am not going to try and clean that mess up further. 

Edit 2: Oh for fuck's sake, and I just now noticed that editing that deleted a large chunk of the post.

Edited December 12, 2015 by shdowhunt60

[Tani Coyote]

Christ I hate the word editor. Responses edited in bold, I am not going to try and clean that mess up further.

Sure, most gun owners are responsible. You will note I'm in favor of near-mandatory (exceptions for mental illness, personal objection, or young age) gun ownership on this basis.

But it's the ones who aren't who screw it up for everyone else. This is actually the basis of government as a whole; we COULD live peacefully without police and soldiers, but a few bad apples are the reason we need armed forces.

Then there's the idea of regulations being Hell or not. A regulatory Hell are the hoops that welfare recipients have to go through to prove they're not the Octo-Mom. On the other hand, a simple requirement for an annual mental health evaluation, some training, and safety course is nowhere near unreasonable. Police and soldiers have to undergo training to be able to wield a weapon, why not a civilian? You are being entrusted with a weapon far deadlier than most. Anyone who wants a firearm but is not willing to submit to a few hours every year to prove they're capable of wielding it responsibility concerns me. Consider this: American mental illness rates approach close to 1/4 of the population by some counts. Do we want a country where a person who isn't completely mentally well can wield a firearm? I am well aware not all mental illness leads to violence, but it's still a risk factor that should be an immediate red flag for any opponent of gun control.

It won't stop mass shootings (the mass shooter is a breed of his own different from standard criminals), but this certainly would go a long way towards curbing general gun violence. As I mentioned before (and as you were arguing to me anyway), a person who really wants to go psycho still will. They're not the ones I'm concerned about with gun control. The media just likes to use them as convenient rallying posts for the gun control debate, though they are their own breed, as mentioned.

However, do consider this: why is it the United States has so many more mass shootings than these other nations? The GOP leadership savored Paris as "evidence" gun control doesn't work, when all they've proven is that gun violence can still happen in a tightly-controlled nation. Duh? The fact still is that these other developed nations do not have this issue. We have a mass shooting everyday, by comparison. We like to explore the ones done with assault weapons, but I wouldn't be surprised if some are small arms that could be more tightly controlled.

However, for conservatives, gun ownership is seen as a cure for a social disease. It would be better to not deal with the disease in the first place. Translation: take care of our poor. Take care of our mentally ill. Grossly reduce the chances any American would feel the need to use their weapon against another person, and you will grossly reduce the need for Americans to own them.

Let us reference John Locke, that man that a great deal of libertarian and conservative ideals come from. People love his ideas of property, revolution, etc. but there's one bit they tend to omit. He says explicitly (in the oft-neglected First Treatise) that a needy man has a right to his brother's surplus. Likewise, the brother has an obligation to share his surplus with his needy brother; to not do so is a moral failure. The choice is simple: the brother can give it or have it taken. "That's not a choice!" In my view it shouldn't be. I'm okay with your not having a super yacht if it means no children are starving. If you are well-off and choose to not feed the starving... you are evil. I'm not even going to sugarcoat it.

But this is not the sort of idea the GOP embraces. That is why I have said, and will continue to say, the GOP is easily argued to be one of the most sociopathic institutions to grace this Earth. It poses itself as the savior of man for saving the unborn, only so it can force them into a Hell on Earth where the poor and minorities are systematically exploited and devoured. True saints they are.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[Nepenthe]

Gun control has become a weird situation where perfect has become the enemy of the good and thus reduction cannot be a goal. If we can't stop all the gun violence then we should just not do a thing about it. It makes you wonder why people who stick to this line of thinking even give a shit about law. Can't completely halt rape, murder, assault, fraud and all those other crimes. Anarchy 2016™.

[Komodin]

Yeah, at this point, the whole matter involving Gun Control is a prime example of the Perfect Solution Fallacy in action. Opponents of the thing uses instances where gun violence occur in areas where gun control is fully established and utilized as a mean to argue that it's a failure to be abandoned immediately since it didn't do its job during those times. The thing is, they usually tend to omit mentioning the instances where it did work effectively, so their arguments don't hold up as well, if at all. Yes, there are those who will commit these gun crimes no matter what... but the existence of those horrible people don't mean that nothing should be done to reduce the gun violence. Striving for perfection or not bothering with an action is just a poor action in itself.

[Tornado]

"Fuck non-violent drug users" isn't a GOP-specific talking point. It's a "Middle Class People Who Don't Want to Deal With Socially Undesirable People" talking point. "If he didn't want to go to jail, maybe he shouldn't have been doing/selling drugs," and that's the extent that anyone seems to think about the issue in suburbia. You even see it when "one of their own" gets caught. If you live near a semi-major city, pay attention to the local news whenever a drug bust comes up. There's the parade of the usual suspects that you expect to get caught in a drug bust (meaning poor people typically), but then you see the white kid with a trust fund or the kid with Asian doctor parents or whatever other upwardly mobile stereotype applies to your area and the tune always changes from the usual bipartisan blustering about needing to do something about prison reform and overcrowding and getting help to those who need it to kick drug habits to something like "I knew that kid since he was little, and I can't believe he was one of them." Even moreso than systematic racism against minorities (though there is overlap to be sure), America suffers hard from deliberate apathy towards groups deemed socially undesirable, even amongst those that would usually be lumped together with those groups. And drug use, or at least being arrested for drug use, is one of the bigger ones.

It's the same reason that even the staunchest WASP blue blood Republicans express unease about the idea that a white police officer might have shot a black kid because he was black, but as soon as it is made known that the kid had a criminal history of any consequence the sentiment changes to "good riddance".

 

 

Similarly, the extreme distrust of people from the Muslim world is something the GOP actively caters to while paying lip-service to damning it, but it's a humongous stretch to say that Muslim immigration is a thing you can file so neatly in the "GOP is against" column. A good portion of the various European governments who spend so much time acting like most of America has a third arm coming out of its ass in regards to domestic social issues have also done a very good job over the past 10-15 years making it abundantly clear that "Muslim immigrant" was an even better outlet for fear mongering than the US could achieve immediately following 9/11.

[Tani Coyote]

"Fuck non-violent drug users" isn't a GOP-specific talking point. It's a "Middle Class People Who Don't Want to Deal With Socially Undesirable People" talking point.

Fair enough. However, given the GOP has folks like Christie who are actively saying they will imprison those enjoying marijuana, however, and the fact the War on Crime and Drugs has its strongest support in the GOP (no surprise, given these are Nixon-era policies), it certainly is more of a conservative viewpoint than a liberal one.

Due to their concern for minorities, liberals generally want to roll back the police state. Conservatives generally want to expand it due to an interest in "law and order" that I hope is genuine and not a cover for less-savory agendas like racism.

If there's one area the Pauls are commendable, it's that they recognize the damage current laws do to minorities and the poor, and want to end them.

America suffers hard from deliberate apathy towards groups deemed socially undesirable, even amongst those that would usually be lumped together with those groups. And drug use, or at least being arrested for drug use, is one of the bigger ones.

Oh, it's even worse than that.

Douglass Massey, a renowned sociologist, made note in his works (Categorically Unequal is a good read) of the fact various groups fall into the "despised outgroup" category, such as drug dealers, the homeless, and illegal migrants. The problem with this is from a psychological perspective, the despised outgroup isn't seen as fully human.

This will in the long run translate into draconian policies towards these groups. We're already seeing it, what with cities investing in building concrete blocks to keep the homeless from residing in areas, rather than spending money to revamp homeless shelters and actually make them desirable places to stay.

Similarly, the extreme distrust of people from the Muslim world is something the GOP actively caters to while paying lip-service to damning it, but it's a humongous stretch to say that Muslim immigration is a thing you can file so neatly in the "GOP is against" column. A good portion of the various European governments who spend so much time acting like most of America has a third arm coming out of its ass in regards to domestic social issues have also done a very good job over the past 10-15 years making it abundantly clear that "Muslim immigrant" was an even better outlet for fear mongering than the US could achieve immediately following 9/11.

At the end of the day, both Americans and Europeans indulge in ideals of cultural supremacy despite different views on economic structure. This will translate into xenophobia even in a progressive country, as people who are culturally alien and come in large numbers will be seen as undermining the "right" culture.

We can see this with something as simple as English in America; were there many cries for an official language before large numbers of Spanish-speaking migrants showed up in droves?

In the context of the United States, though, the GOP looks to be where the disdain for Muslims skews in the United States.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[Candescence]

rather than spending money to revamp homeless shelters and actually make them desirable places to stay.

Or, you know, actually giving the homeless actual permanent residences. Some states/cities are trying this and actually finding that this strategy actually not only has a much higher success rate in terms of actually keeping the homeless alive and off the streets, but is also a lot cheaper in the long run.

[Tani Coyote]

Or, you know, actually giving the homeless actual permanent residences. Some states/cities are trying this and actually finding that this strategy actually not only has a much higher success rate in terms of actually keeping the homeless alive and off the streets, but is also a lot cheaper in the long run.

That would seem to be a viable strategy. I know there were charity groups that helped (or rather, forced, as the requirement of the free house as they helped build it) the homeless build their own small, compact homes. The strategy was largely effective.

It looks like it really isn't that expensive, never mind the boon to privacy.

Alas, that raging hatred of "socialism" poisons everything here.

[shdowhunt60]

Or, you know, actually giving the homeless actual permanent residences. Some states/cities are trying this and actually finding that this strategy actually not only has a much higher success rate in terms of actually keeping the homeless alive and off the streets, but is also a lot cheaper in the long run.

Any sources or citations for this? 

[Patticus]

Any sources or citations for this? 

A couple of studies have been done, and there are programs ongoing in certain places.

A county in New Jersey is aiming to put roofs over heads in order to fight homelessness -- and save some of its taxpayers' money in the process.

Officials in Camden announced on Monday that the county will be providing homesto some residents with no stable shelter, the South Jersey Times reported. A partnership between the state, the county's freeholder board, the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers and other community groups, the program will house 50 peoplethroughout the next two years using federal funds.

The initiative -- which may expand after its initial run -- will benefit from Camden County's Homelessness Trust Fund, which is contributing $100,000. Participants for the program will be selected by the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, which will rely on doctors and nurses to identify homeless individuals they see routinely in their care.

The state will cover rental costs to house participants in apartments throughout the region, according to Charles Richman, deputy commissioner at New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. But those who do have a job will contribute a portion of their income to be part of the program.

"Many [homeless] people have experienced physical or sexual abuse in their lives, and then you put them in a room in a shelter with 100 other people -- that's going to be a terrifying experience for them -- and then you expect them to stay sober or battle their addictions in that environment," Dr. Jeffrey Brenner, chief executive officer of the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, told the South Jersey Times. "Only about 15 percent of them make it through. It just doesn't work."

While just a small fraction may make it through using more standard methods, Brenner said the Housing First approach -- which Camden County is executing -- has about a 90 percent success rate.

Housing First -- endorsed by the Obama administration-- prioritizes an immediate need for housing over other services, such as mental health or addiction treatment, as the National Alliance to End Homelessness points out. The approach follows the idea that housing someone first and foremost will help prevent further periods of homelessness and significantly reduce the time that person is left unsheltered.

What's more, the approach may save New Jersey residents money.

Housing First has a financially sound track record in communities that have implemented its approach. In Utah -- which implemented the strategy statewide -- the approach has reduced the state's chronic homelessness by 72 percent since it was first executed about a decade ago, as NationSwell reported last month. A homeless person in Utah who relies on shelters and soup kitchens to survive costs taxpayers about $19,2000, while providing such individuals with permanent housing and case management costs a mere $7,800.

Last year, researchers studying chronically homeless people in Florida had similar findings. Taxpayers saved about $21,000 per homeless person every year by providing stable housing to those without none, as well as a case manager to supervise their circumstances. Expenses like emergency room visits and jail stays -- which come out of the public's wallet -- far outweighed the cost to provide a home and basic social services.

Brenner is confident those same fiscal benefits will come to Camden County, which counted 654 homeless individuals within its borders in a January 2014 survey.

"It saves money in the long run, because [homeless people are] not in hospitals and emergency rooms, and they're not in jail -- all of which takes up a lot of resources," he told the South Jersey Times. "A lot of these people are re-admitted to [Cooper University Hospital] over and over again, in the emergency room, for things that you wouldn't need to be in the hospital for, if you had a place to live."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/camden-county-homelessnes_n_6752538.html

I know it seems counter-intuitive to say that housing the homeless, giving them case workers to find jobs and achieve a measure of stability etc is cheaper than leaving them on the street and not spending money on them at all. However, the studies that have been run so far all show that we really do save money by helping them over neglecting them.

It's not only the morally right thing to do, it's the financially responsible thing to do as well.

[shdowhunt60]

 

A couple of studies have been done, and there are programs ongoing in certain places.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/camden-county-homelessnes_n_6752538.html

I know it seems counter-intuitive to say that housing the homeless, giving them case workers to find jobs and achieve a measure of stability etc is cheaper than leaving them on the street and not spending money on them at all. However, the studies that have been run so far all show that we really do save money by helping them over neglecting them.

It's not only the morally right thing to do, it's the financially responsible thing to do as well.

See, when you explain it like that, it makes a lot more sense. It's not "Well, giving homeless people a place to live is cheaper in the long run" as it is "Helping the homeless become productive members of society benefits us a whole". The latter makes much more sense, and I'd be much less likely to object to it. I mean, I would much rather that be something handled by churches and charity organizations rather than the government, but at the same time I can see why something like that would help in the grand scheme of things.

[Patticus]

See, when you explain it like that, it makes a lot more sense. It's not "Well, giving homeless people a place to live is cheaper in the long run" as it is "Helping the homeless become productive members of society benefits us a whole". The latter makes much more sense, and I'd be much less likely to object to it. I mean, I would much rather that be something handled by churches and charity organizations rather than the government, but at the same time I can see why something like that would help in the grand scheme of things.

Churches already have a big role in helping the homeless, running soup kitchens and shelters across the country and such, for which I am cautiously thankful. However, I wouldn't be comfortable with their role extending to what I see as the state level - the level of the case workers. That would be crossing over the (frankly far too porous) church-state separation line.

 

Something interesting happened on the Democratic side of the election:

Bernie Sanders Campaign Is Disciplined for Breaching Hillary Clinton Data

The Democratic National Committee has told the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont that it was suspending its access to its voter database after a software error enabled at least one of his staff members to review Hillary Clinton’s private campaign data.

The decision by the party committee is a major blow to Mr. Sanders’s campaign. The database includes information from voters across the nation and is used by campaigns to set strategy, especially in the early voting states.

The breach occurred after a software problem at the technology company NGP VAN, which gives campaigns access to the voter data. The problem inadvertently made proprietary voter data of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign visible to others, according to party committee officials.

The Sanders campaign said that it had fired a staff member who breached Mrs. Clinton’s data. But according to three people with direct knowledge of the breach, there were four user accounts associated with the Sanders campaign that ran searches while the security of Mrs. Clinton’s data was compromised.

The Washington Post first reported the issue.

The suspension comes as Mr. Sanders prepares to face Mrs. Clinton at the Democratic debate on Saturday, and as he received the endorsement of a major union, the Communications Workers of America, and a liberal group on Thursday.

The Democratic committee blamed NGP VAN for the software glitch.

“This was an isolated incident, and we’re conducting a full audit to ensure the integrity of the system and reporting the findings to the D.N.C.,” Stu Trevelyan, NGP VAN’s chief executive, said.

“The D.N.C. was notified on Wednesday by its data systems vendor NGP VAN that as a result of a software patch, all users on the system across Democratic campaigns were inadvertently able to access some data belonging to other campaigns for a brief window,” said the committee’s communications director, Luis Miranda.

“The D.N.C. immediately directed NGP VAN,” he said, “to conduct a thorough analysis to identify any users who accessed the data, what actions they took in the system, and to report on the findings to the party and any affected campaign.”

He added: “We have also instructed NGP VAN to conduct a full audit of the system to ensure the integrity of the data and the security of the system for the campaigns that use it, and to begin a review process with every campaign and user to ensure they understand and abide by the rules governing the use of the system.

“The D.N.C. places a high priority on maintaining the security of our system and protecting the data on it,” he continued. “We are working with our campaigns and the vendor to have full clarity on the extent of the breach, ensure that this isolated incident does not happen again, and to enable our campaigns to continue engaging voters on the issues that matter most to them and their families.”

In a statement, Mr. Sanders’s campaign spokesman, Michael Briggs, blamed the vendor for continuing to “make serious errors.”

“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns,” he said. “Our campaign months ago alerted the D.N.C. to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns. At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”

“Unfortunately, yesterday, the vendor once again dropped the firewall between the campaigns for some data,” Mr. Briggs said. “After discussion with the D.N.C., it became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign. That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”

He added that the errors had also “made our records vulnerable.” Despite repeated requests, the Sanders campaign did not provide information about the other user accounts that were involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/18/sanders-campaign-disciplined-for-breaching-clinton-data/

The DNC has long been looking for something to use to kill off Sanders' campaign and crown Hillary as their de facto nominee. This was probably it.

I'm going to sound like a Sanders spokesperson here, but I don't want her status quo-maintaining policies, I don't want another Wall Street owned and operated president. I want someone who actually gives a shit about what's really going on in America; someone with the drive to end Citizens United, end the war on the Middle Class, end healthcare inequality and drag this country into the late 20th, never mind the 21st century.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/GOPResults.pdf

Standard poll was held among hundreds of GOP voters. Questions about terrorism, Obama, whether or not Muslims could be trusted, etc...

Question 38... 40% of respondents agreed to bombing Agrabah. 13% said no, with 47% unsure.

Trump has the support of 45% among those in support of bombing Agrabah.

Either way... I do believe this is quite illuminating about the kind of base the GOP has.

[Johnny Boy]

People are in favor of bombing a country that doesn't even exist? Lmao. 

[SenEDDtor Missile]

People are in favor of bombing a country that doesn't even exist? Lmao. 

Hey if it sounds Arabic it clearly must be bombworthy to them. AMURRICA after all.

Edited December 19, 2015 by SenEDtor Missile

[Komodin]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/GOPResults.pdf

Standard poll was held among hundreds of GOP voters. Questions about terrorism, Obama, whether or not Muslims could be trusted, etc...

Question 38... 40% of respondents agreed to bombing Agrabah. 13% said no, with 47% unsure.

Trump has the support of 45% among those in support of bombing Agrabah.

Either way... I do believe this is quite illuminating about the kind of base the GOP has.

... Okay, what the Earth is that? People are that willing to bomb a country, even if it's fictional, just because its name sounds Arabic enough to be perceived as some threat?