American Politics

[Princess Ana]

I think there is a possibility for give and take though: to say that our rational excuses have nothing to do with decision making I think is incorrect, otherwise people would never learn period and would just continue making the same decisions over and over again. The idea that the judgment center is START and the rational part of our brains is END and that END never influences or has any relevance to START seems ridiculous to me. It's entirely possible I'm just missing something but this feels like something that works a lot better for decisions like "Red or Blue" than something like politics (Ha).

[Concept]

>this feels like something that works a lot better for decisions like "Red or Blue" than something like politics (Ha).

The idea is somewhat the opposite actually (as far as my limited understanding goes); things that invoke a stronger emotional response show a far more pronounced effect. Emotions serve an evolutionary purpose. The more they're triggered, the less chance the relatively new kid on the scene in our more rational judgements stands of overriding the millions of years of evolutionary history desperately trying to stop you getting eaten by a tiger.

>otherwise people would never learn period and would just continue making the same decisions over and over again

Does this not sound like politics in general to you :p? Vast majority of people vote for the same party/platform every time. Less glibly, a lack of engagement from the rational part of the brain doesn't mean an inability to learn. I mean, species lacking our relatively modern rational development still learn not to prod the electric fence after a couple of shocks, after all. The two aren't really related.

[Princess Ana]

Touche on the last point tbh

[Rangeet]

Honestly I view that psychological argument as a complete copout and it seems pretty analogous to the "no free will" argument. We also know rather little about the human brain given how complicated it is, so it's also possible that different, interconnected, parts of the brain are used for logic vs communicating logic. Just as a simple silly example, keeping in mind that I know absolutely nothing about neurobiology or psychology, I think that different parts of the brain are certainly used when understanding a word vs explaining a word.

And it still is very spurious logic to justify having completely ridiculous views, unless you go all in and say that it does mean no free will, in which case the entire world is pointless anyway. Just seems to me to be a philosophical argument if anything.

[Concept]

I mean, depending on your definition of free will there's no real suggestion we do in any meaningful way, not that that actually matters in the slightest in any pragmatic sense*.

My point is this; what you label "completely ridiculous views" only look ridiculous to you because you're incapable of understanding them, and similarly your views might look completely ridiculous to someone else they're completely incapable of understanding yours. At the end of the day people much smarter than either of us have taken every position under the sun.

No two peoples positions on the world are exactly identical. What strikes you as more likely; a) that you alone have managed to reason your way to objective truth, over the other seven billion people on this planet who've made logical errors they aren't capable of seeing or b) that we're all wrong on at least something and all mistaking our subjective truths for objective truths? If b, you're no more likely to be right on a given topic (some exception for ones you're a genuine expert on but let's be honest, none of us here are anything remotely resembling experts on any of the things we're debating) than anyone else, because the only argument in favour of you being right is that you think your reasoning is solid - but so does everyone who disagrees with you with regards to their reasoning. The fact that your reasoning looks solid to you is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be objectively true. In fact the idea of B is a cornerstone of democracy - A suggests that removing some peoples voices/votes in society on no more basis than they disagree with you would improve the system. You've made a lot of statements that rest on the assumption that A is true, things like;

Originally Posted by Rangeet

I think that when one candidate is literally a fascist the "My way or you're evil" is not childish any more.

And that's the base assumption I'm arguing against. Incidentally, Trump also argues from a strongly A standpoint (not to mention that the aggressive shitposting that got you temp banned from the thread in the first place was textbook Trump tactics of engaging in personal attacks in lieu of actual debate substance, which is what prompted my initial rhetoric comparison between the two of you).

*The free will is veering away wildly from American Politics and if you particularly want to debate it further probably merits a spin-off thread.;

[Rangeet]

But I am by no means the only person who thinks that Trump is fascist; nor am I the only person who thinks that Trump is unacceptable. Even if I was, "majority rules" is no way to consider something right or wrong; democracy does not work with facts. If it did, then climate change wouldn't exist in Southern states and 0.999... would no longer be equal to 1. The cornerstone of rational thinking is to take into account all other viewpoints and be able to change your mind - for example, when I switched from thinking Clinton was unelectable to thinking that, though pretty terrible, she would still be a viable choice for President.

But again, I don't really understand what your argument is based on. I've certainly never claimed that people with opposing opinions to mine should not vote, or that they should not express their opinions; I'm claiming that them expressing their opinions would make them wrong and/or bigoted, which is a corollary of claiming that I am right...which, obviously, I do.

Also, I engaged in personal attacks in addition to actual debate substance. If you think I haven't said anything of substance...yet again, I have a 3000-word post on why Trump is deplorable for your perusal. Since UPN mods want the Debate forum to be civil, I have refrained from engaging in personal attacks in the aftermath of my ban. Frankly, Concept, while I do to understand why you think my behaviour was unacceptable (because in context to how arguments are generally conducted on UPN, it certainly was), I also think you don't have the context to know how many Trump supporters actually conduct discourse. I have gazed into the abyss, etc etc, and I came away with the conclusion that debate was impossible against certain topics - "You can't reason yourself out of a position you didn't reason yourself into", and all that. But the important thing to note is that, even if I call them evil, it's by no means illegal to be evil. I'm not, for instance, calling for Trump and/or his supporters to be locked up.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Concept

Of course, the idea of the US federal system as almost independent nations that collaborated on specific areas kind of fell apart when their right to self determination (as represented by their right to withdraw from the union) was trampled all over in the Civil War. On balance with the alternative being slavery, this was a necessary evil.

*I may have a very simplistic view of American history, not being American myself, so take what I say with a pinch of salt.

Sort of, but not really.

Leading up to the revolution, the colonies were separate countries with a cultural kinship a bit closer than say, Australia and South Africa. That sentiment faded as time under the banner of the United States grew, and subsequent generations stopped caring about the states rights and just focused on federal issues.

The refocus on state rights during and leading up to the civil war, was of course slavery and trying to find legal loopholes to make it legal. Southerners went to "state rights" as just a way of permitting slavery, to the point talking about it now is coded language for racism.

It's basically impossible to talk about states rights without conjuring some kind of Southern, racist, or bigoted ideas in the US now. Like saying tinfoil hat.

[Princess Ana]

I mean on your final sentence it would be nice if they stopped reinforcing that image, i.e. North Carolina.

I'd probably honestly say the Constitution itself was not designed with that idea in mind, Concept. We had already tried that under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a complete disaster. There was a ton wrong with it: the inability to tax and raise revenue, no centralized currency system, a complete majority needed to make any changes etc. That idea, in my opinion, died with the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was all about creating a much more effective central government in lieu of state governments.

[Mozz]

Amazed that anyone that considers them smart can paint every Trump voter with the same brush. There are legitimate, rational reasons, and illegitimate, irrational reasons behind both Trump and HRC's policies. I don't believe either has a monopoly on "evil", by any stretch.

I understand why someone would vote for HRC. I do not understand how someone voting for HRC can not get why someone else is voting Trump. VV, as well, obviously.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The refocus on state rights during and leading up to the civil war, was of course slavery and trying to find legal loopholes to make it legal. Southerners went to "state rights" as just a way of permitting slavery, to the point talking about it now is coded language for racism.

It's basically impossible to talk about states rights without conjuring some kind of Southern, racist, or bigoted ideas in the US now. Like saying tinfoil hat.

I think that's absolutely preposterous. I know plenty of people who advocate for a return of more power to the states, less power in the federal government, who are not racist. I can also list off a laundry list of political topics which usually bring in a mention of states rights that have absolutely nothing to do with race in America:

• legalization of illicit substances, e.g. marijuana
• homosexual rights, and rights of other non-heterosexual groups
• business rights
• abortion
• sales tax
• NIMBY (not in my backyard) issues, e.g. nuclear waste dumps
• speed limits
• healthcare
• social welfare programs
• weapons rights

When non-racist people bring up states rights, of which there are many such people, they are usually invoking comparisons with Europe. The idea that the states are both geographically and population size-wise big enough to be compared with entire European nations, and that they are culturally different enough from one another (as are the European nations) to warrant a look at greater autonomy. The idea that this is what the Founding Fathers had had in mind from the outset -- a confederation of united STATES, NOT a single "macro-state" with many nation-sized counties -- and that we drifted away from this over the course of the first seventy years of this nation's history until the outcome of the Civil War cemented the supremacy of a federal vision over a confederation of states vision.

To give an easy, easy enough example -- say Indiana isn't socially ready to legalize marijuana. Say Massachusetts is more than ready. Approaching the legalization of marijuana as a federal issue places you between a rock and a hard place -- you're either going to horrify a bunch of Hoosiers or else you're going to irritate a bunch of Bay Staters. Approaching it instead as a states rights issue, leaving it up to the delegation of each individual state whether they will or will not legalize marijuana, allows for the social experiment to begin -- Massachusetts will legalize, Indiana will not -- and allows the entire nation to see "who was right and who was wrong." It's quite possible that both were right for their respective communities, in which case we've already finished and won. But in the event that, say, Indiana was wrong and the results are plain to see from Massachusetts' successful run with legal marijuana, now the entire country can say, "Okay, yeah: let's do as the Bay Staters are doing."

The principle here is that putting too much power in the federal government's hands stifles political progress. The federal government can only move as fast as its slowest member state allows it to. (Rather, as fast as its slowest of the 50% member states that pushes it from one majority into another.) Topics fester and stew for years, many times decades, before they are finally resolved. See: homosexual rights. See: abortion. When instead you let the states carve out their own rules, you allow for a veritable "free market" of political expression: you allow for every other one of the fifty states to peek in on what any given other state is up to at that time and decide if they want to copy it or not. "California went ahead and outlawed private ownership of guns and crime skyrocketed. Holy shit the 2nd amendment was right all along." Or "California went ahead and outlawed private ownership of guns and crime plummeted. Holy shit the Europeans were right all along." It's not difficult. It's not rocket science. Let the states who are willing to undergo self-experimentation do so. And let the rest of us watch and see how things unfold. We can't do that when the federal government holds possession of the only ball on the court.

The only reason the federal government exists, as conceived of in the late 18th century, is to manage projects which the individual states alone cannot. Interstate travel and commerce ... maintenance of a military to defend our sovereignty ... settling feuds between member states (e.g. Indiana blames Illinois for aiding and abetting Hoosiers who seek to bypass Indiana's ban on Sunday liquor sales, Illinois denies wrongdoing) .... Stuff like that.

Anyway ... most would say it's too late to dial back the clock, that we're stuck with our massively large American government (à la China or India) and that we can't go back to being like a European federation of sovereign states. That's fine. Whatever. But to sit there and go, "Yeah, most people advocating for states rights are only doing so as a codeword for racism" ... No. I am sure that plenty of people are racist Dixie fanatics who throw their support vocally behind states rights, precisely because they want what you allege they want. But that doesn't mean that everyone who advocates for states rights is a racist. It doesn't even mean that everyone who advocates for states rights is anything like your stereotypical Confederate flag-toting redneck. Stoners seeking cannabis reform ... women seeking an end to abortion debates one way or another ... homosexuals pre-2010s who wanted fast change and feared the federal government was moving too slowly ... I have known plenty of left-leaning, not-necessarily-racist groups over the years who have at one point or another been advocates for the federal government relinquishing control to the states.

[Mozz]

If you've ever visited Alaska or Montana, as well as, say, San Fran, DC, or NYC, it's kind of ridiculous that people want the same laws in place for both sets of people (especially regarding gun control).

[Rangeet]

Originally Posted by Mozz

Amazed that anyone that considers them smart can paint every Trump voter with the same brush. There are legitimate, rational reasons, and illegitimate, irrational reasons behind both Trump and HRC's policies. I don't believe either has a monopoly on "evil", by any stretch.

I understand why someone would vote for HRC. I do not understand how someone voting for HRC can not get why someone else is voting Trump. VV, as well, obviously.

Oh, there are legitimate, rational reasons to vote for Trump. It's just that those legitimate, rational reasons are views that I completely disagree with.

Additionally, in theory there is absolutely no reason for different laws to exist in different places. Even for gun control.

[Concept]

I had quite a lengthy response half-written but it threatened to descend into tl;dr ranting as I struggled to properly express myself and no-one wants that, so I'll quickly summarise and go for the most important points. At any rate we're probably drifting off topic into political philosophy that if you're particularly interested in continuing this we should probably do it elsewhere.

Spoiler: show

• No, democracy and subjective opinions/arguments don't extend into facts but you've repeatedly extended this idea far beyond straight up facts and into the realm of your subjective arguments (the difference between facts and arguments with some factual support is that oftentimes the counterargument also has factual support, whereas there's no such thing as contradictory facts.)
  
• I think there's a vast difference between saying "this is what I believe" and "this is what is objectively true, and therefore anyone who disagrees with it is wrong". The former is a totally reasonable viewpoint. The latter is a danger to civilised society, as very little in the way of direct action for example can be logically justified - if you ended up at the position that Clinton was objectively evil, for example, the occasional rumblings you get from particularly crazy Trump supporters threatening armed retaliation to he election are actually quite defensible.
  
• You're right you're not the only person who thinks Trump is unacceptable. You are the only person who holds all of your specific deeply held views. Either you take the rather presumptuous viewpoint that you alone out of all mankind have managed to be right about all of them, or you accept the idea that you're wrong on at least some of the things you believe strongly about and just don't realise it in the specific cases. These are the only two options. I feel like when one start arguing "these people are definitely objectively wrong and I'm definitely objectively right" on every individual specific view, they've landed on the former. The latter necessitates a more "I believe X and someone just as smart as me believes Y, and neither of us really understands why or how the other person believes what they believe so who's to know who's right" kind of thought process. That doesn't mean not advocating for things you believe in - pragmatically speaking you have to work with what you've got, and the ability to persuade other people to support your ideas is a halfway decent test of how strong your argument actually is - it just means a) being willing to change your mind and b) favouring systems of government designed to prevent any one idealogical faction/party from dominating all the others and forcing negotiation between parties/factions to get anything done.

Originally Posted by Rangeet

Additionally, in theory there is absolutely no reason for different laws to exist in different places. Even for gun control.

Obvious counter-examples as to why there are sometimes reasons for laws to vary by place; if an animal in one jurisdiction is a common pest or invasive species causing damage to the local environment, but in another it's endangered vital part of the local ecosystem, it would make sense to have different laws regarding hunting them in those jurisdictions. If one region is critically short of water then a law rationing the supply might make sense; meanwhile similar rationing law in a region with abundant clean water would be nigh indefensible.

>History lesson/I had an oversimplistic view of US history.

Interesting to read, thanks guys.

[Rangeet]

I mean admittedly such a situation for the law could be solved by stipulating the conditions and numbers of said animal for which particular laws are active, which is effectively what is being done overall but just on a "manual" scale as opposed to the law actually stating it. Similarly laws on water rationing would theoretically (but probably not practically) work if you stipulate the supply of water available. At any rate, it's difficult to justify it for the usual laws that come into question for state's rights - like gay marriage, legality of drugs, etc. It seems mildly nonsensical for the same drug to be illegal in one state and completely legal in another, at least to me.

Anyway, Concept, I think you mistake my viewpoint of "This is what I firmly believe, and I refuse to agree to disagree on this" with "This is objectively true, and therefore no dissent is allowed." For instance, even if I consider Trump to be objectively evil, I certainly don't agree with or condone violence against him or his supporters. I also certainly don't think this way about all my viewpoints. I will concede that most of my viewpoints having to do with politics fall under the umbrella of not agreeing to disagree- such as LGBT rights, abortion, the death penalty, social healthcare, to name some, but I can't help feeling so strongly about certain issues. At the same time there are political issues that I am either ambivalent about or where, even if I do hold certain issues, I will happily agree to disagree. Stuff like universal basic income, fracking, what exactly should be done to fight climate change (as long as it is recognized as a massive danger), foreign policy, legalisation of all drugs (not just marijuana), etc etc.

For instance, when I called Trump a fascist, that actually is something I'd agree to disagree on (though I'd be hard pressed to do so if someone is arguing that he has no fascist parallels whatsoever), but for example in the hypothetical example of someone calling Clinton a fascist, that is something I'd never agree to disagree on, because at that point you're trying to fit a sphere into a one-dimensional hole. When I call Trump irredeemably evil, that's something I'd agree to disagree on, but when I call Trump unfit for Presidency, that's not something I'd agree to disagree on- but at the same time, me thinking I am right complete does not mean I want to stifle other people's views altogether. It just means I think I am right and I completely disagree with anyone who thinks Trump is worth their vote- that's it.

Also, I definitely agree that the current two-party system is pretty shit, but I don't really know if a preferred-voting system would end up being that much better. Instead of you having Elizabeth Warren-type Dems all the way to basically-conservative Dems and basically-liberal Conservatives all the way to Mike Pence on a spectrum, you'd just end up with Elizabeth Warren-type Green Party people, centre-left Dems, centre-right Republicans/Libertarian/whatever, and Mike Pence-type Tea Party-ists.

[Concept]

I think we've probably reached the point where we're arguing past each other and are going to just end up repeating ourselves and not getting anywhere - or at least, I started to reply to your above post and realised my sttempts to respond basically involved me repeating things I've already said with different phrasing. S'been an interesting and refreshingly civil one though (not something either of us are particularly known for :p), so thanks.

[Mozz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtL7Mx0IoZ8

Pat is solid here, but I'm sure someone here might disagree

[Blastoise]

And in other news from our post-fact world, it is apparently not a conspiracy to squat in somebody's office and go through all their shit while armed to the teeth in the quixotic quest by morons to fuck themselves over by having federal land handed over to the states (who will inevitably sell it to rich private interests who don't have to pretend to indulge the demands of fuckwit cattle ranchers). Meanwhile other protestors are getting pepper sprayed and arrested while protesting an oil pipeline being built over their water table because they haven't hit upon the key requirements of 1)being heavily armed militia retards and 2)white.

[Stealthy]

Originally Posted by Blastoise

Meanwhile other protestors are getting pepper sprayed and arrested while protesting an oil pipeline being built over their water table because they haven't hit upon the key requirements of 1)being heavily armed militia retards and 2)white.

I mean, it's really their fault for choosing the wrong end of the spectrum. Republicans have been way more ready to go to bat for their wingnuts than the Democrats.

[Blastoise]

Originally Posted by Stealthy

I mean, it's really their fault for choosing the wrong end of the spectrum. Republicans have been way more ready to go to bat for their wingnuts than the Democrats.

My main concern is that, while you could make a case that the jury delivered a not guilty verdict due to the exact criteria of a federal conspiracy charge (and being guilty of the firearms charge is tied to being guilty of conspiracy, so not guilty on conspiracy = not guilty on possession) and the state of Oregon could theoretically bring its own charges separate from what the Feds could bring, it's basically a guarantee that the III% mouth-breathers of the world will view this verdict as a "we can Waco whenever we want!" decision with no nuance whatsoever.

EDIT: the only silver lining is that the Bundys are still facing charges in Nevada for the Bunkerville standoff, and I imagine any federal conspiracy charges will be easier to prove there since armed protestors quite literally did threaten federal employees at gunpoint for trying to remove feral cattle from protected land. On the other hand, we live in a post-Donald Trump world.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Talon87

I think that's absolutely preposterous. I know plenty of people who advocate for a return of more power to the states, less power in the federal government, who are not racist.

I granted that concession, but in California at least, "states rights" is coded language. This is pablovian conditioning on my part, and consulting urban dictionary helps reassure me that I'm not crazy in thinking this is a widely-held stereotype.

Even if your subject is legitimately about state rights, invoking the term "states rights" is like revealing you also have racist views, because of the high degree of interplay between that term and racism.

Cliven Bundy is a great example of this. Until Bundy outed himself, you knew that the shadow of racism hung in the back of all the discussions from conservative politicians and talking heads (who we know have expressed racist or borderline racist views) when Bundy talked about state rights. Only until he damned himself beyond any salvation did these supporters leave him.

Originally Posted by Talon87

When non-racist people bring up states rights, of which there are many such people, they are usually invoking comparisons with Europe. The idea that the states are both geographically and population size-wise big enough to be compared with entire European nations, and that they are culturally different enough from one another (as are the European nations) to warrant a look at greater autonomy. The idea that this is what the Founding Fathers had had in mind from the outset -- a confederation of united STATES, NOT a single "macro-state" with many nation-sized counties -- and that we drifted away from this over the course of the first seventy years of this nation's history until the outcome of the Civil War cemented the supremacy of a federal vision over a confederation of states vision.

This is a modern view, since the term and debate predated World War II and the attempt at creating a European state. That said, the motivations behind the European state (prevent another World War through a shared cultural identity + reap benefits of economic synergies) and the formation of the United States (denial of life/liberty/pursuit etc.) are fundamentally different, so I wouldn't say the Founding Fathers were looking at something that would transform into the European Union. The EU was formed for almost entirely pragmatic reasons, the US was formed for impractical reasons.

Originally Posted by Talon87

To give an easy, easy enough example -- say Indiana isn't socially ready to legalize marijuana. Say Massachusetts is more than ready. Approaching the legalization of marijuana as a federal issue places you between a rock and a hard place -- you're either going to horrify a bunch of Hoosiers or else you're going to irritate a bunch of Bay Staters. Approaching it instead as a states rights issue, leaving it up to the delegation of each individual state whether they will or will not legalize marijuana, allows for the social experiment to begin -- Massachusetts will legalize, Indiana will not -- and allows the entire nation to see "who was right and who was wrong." It's quite possible that both were right for their respective communities, in which case we've already finished and won. But in the event that, say, Indiana was wrong and the results are plain to see from Massachusetts' successful run with legal marijuana, now the entire country can say, "Okay, yeah: let's do as the Bay Staters are doing."

My experience with this is people who are for legal marijuana don't care how it's legal, so long as they can get it legally (tentatively pro-state rights), while those who want it banned want it banned everywhere and want the federal government to clean house if the state does something 'morally reprehensible' like legalize it.

In Alabama, nobody except potheads liked the idea of legal marijuana in California. In California, I don't think anyone cared too strongly that it was banned in Alabama, a distant southern state they rarely interact with even within Division I football.

Either way...the spirit of enthusiasm for state rights is non-existant here. Either group is just using whatever power available to get their way.

Sleep sorry. May address more later.

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by Mozz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtL7Mx0IoZ8

Pat is solid here, but I'm sure someone here might disagree

He has a few decent points (The majority of people on both sides are sick of the status quo) and a few fairly weak points (Trump's negative media coverage is not because he's an outsider candidate or due to the liberal media, but instead because he says and does horrible things- which is why his words and actions are so often denounced by his party).

[Rangeet]

I don't know if the majority of people are sick of the status quo. Obama has his highest approval ratings right now.

[Mozz]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

Bad news like the Obamacare hikes don't really matter since most people get subsidies, so someone else pays. Most of the news cycle is the election anyway.

[deoxys]

Do I even need to suggest how different things would have been if they weren't white?

Like... really?

[Talon87]

No one seems to have brought it up yet, so if you're going to insist on continuing to discuss that particular news item I may as well share:

I've read reports from all over that it came to light, during the courtroom proceedings, that the government had sent informants into the Bundys' militia and that, by the time the occupation took place, some 9 or so of the 15 occupiers were federal informants. So you're talking 60% federal informants vs. 40% people who are really aligned with the militia's goals.

This led the jury to wonder: "How do we know they weren't egged on to do this? At what point did this become or not become entrapment?"

And I guess the reason they acquitted, amongst other specific reasons, was in part because they felt that the militia members had been entrapped by federal authorities.