|
Post by celawson on Oct 11, 2018 11:25:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 11, 2018 12:05:06 GMT -5
I see it as a bug to which there is no realistic alternative. It's like complaining that humans often make decisions based on emotion that they should make based on logic and reason. Yes, we do. If you figure out a solution to that, take your seat on Mount Olympus. Until then, we deal with reality, which is government with all its flaws, and work with it to enhance the positives and ameliorate the negatives. I think you're basically complaining that human nature is unperfected, while I'm saying that human nature is imperfectible. You choose to "enhance your own agency" by working outside the government and trying to avoid it as much as possible. That's a valid choice for you, but it's not scaleable. There most certainly is a realistic alternative. Reduce the scope and number of societal institutions that are allowed to coerce or initiate force. I recently gave the example of eliminating the FDA by recognizing reciprocal licensing, say in the EU, Canada, or a list of other countries with known effective drug screening systems. Here's another: Simply take away the FDA's coercive power. Mark all FDA-approved drugs in big letters, let competing commercial testing agencies mark products similarly, and let the consumers decide who to trust. Do the same for the USDA and other such agencies. Change government restrictions on products to government recommendations and let people make their own adult decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 12:29:36 GMT -5
There most certainly is a realistic alternative. Reduce the scope and number of societal institutions that are allowed to coerce or initiate force. I recently gave the example of eliminating the FDA by recognizing reciprocal licensing, say in the EU, Canada, or a list of other countries with known effective drug screening systems. Here's another: Simply take away the FDA's coercive power. Mark all FDA-approved drugs in big letters, let competing commercial testing agencies mark products similarly, and let the consumers decide who to trust. Do the same for the USDA and other such agencies. Change government restrictions on products to government recommendations and let people make their own adult decisions. Those may or may not be good ideas, but you're still just talking about reforming federal policy for certain agencies, not doing away with federal power. As long as the government exists, it's going to be doing things you don't like. And the only way you're going to nudge it towards doing more things you like and fewer things you don't like is... participating in the political process.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 11, 2018 13:27:21 GMT -5
There most certainly is a realistic alternative. Reduce the scope and number of societal institutions that are allowed to coerce or initiate force. I recently gave the example of eliminating the FDA by recognizing reciprocal licensing, say in the EU, Canada, or a list of other countries with known effective drug screening systems. Here's another: Simply take away the FDA's coercive power. Mark all FDA-approved drugs in big letters, let competing commercial testing agencies mark products similarly, and let the consumers decide who to trust. Do the same for the USDA and other such agencies. Change government restrictions on products to government recommendations and let people make their own adult decisions. Those may or may not be good ideas, but you're still just talking about reforming federal policy for certain agencies, not doing away with federal power. As long as the government exists, it's going to be doing things you don't like. And the only way you're going to nudge it towards doing more things you like and fewer things you don't like is... participating in the political process. If you remove the FDA's coercive power, you would most certainly be doing away with federal power. If the FDA could no longer prohibit, but recommend against, you would certainly be reducing federal power. If the USDA could no longer run small farms out of business for "copyright" reasons when the wind blows pollen, you would certainly be doing away with federal power. Legalizing cannabis will strip power from the power-mad at all levels, which is why it hasn't already happened. Oh. and I'm glad to know it was my voting against war and for women's rights, civil rights, gender rights, freed markets and reform of cannabis laws that have changed things, and not my donations, marching, getting my head busted in, dodging a few raids, ratting out some politicians and working to develop local barter and trade markets. Thanks for cluing me in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 13:34:17 GMT -5
Can we at least all agree that my cousin's approach -- i.e., sitting about smoking pot and griping, but doing nothing else -- is not the way to change the world?
I am happy to agree that both activism and voting can help change things. (Though I will still want to tell the young people who participate in marches and sign online petitions but don't vote to FREAKING VOTE.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2018 15:04:06 GMT -5
If you remove the FDA's coercive power, you would most certainly be doing away with federal power. If the FDA could no longer prohibit, but recommend against, you would certainly be reducing federal power. If the USDA could no longer run small farms out of business for "copyright" reasons when the wind blows pollen, you would certainly be doing away with federal power. Those are two examples. You want to remove all federal power (or all federal power you don't approve of). That's not going to happen. All those actions helped move public sentiment. It was their votes that actually resulted in laws changing. People don't vote in an abstract world of policy debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 15:20:39 GMT -5
I interrupt this argument to bring you another blue-wave party flipper:
There's not enough popcorn in the world for 2018.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Oct 11, 2018 16:26:57 GMT -5
Michael Cohen. Yeah, there's a win for the Democrats....
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 11, 2018 16:35:10 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be funny if Trump switched back to being a Democrat, as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 16:37:17 GMT -5
Yeah. I don't think the Dems actually want Cohen, but there it is.
ETA:
It would be freaking HILARIOUS if Trump switched back to being a Democrat. And hey, it IS 2018...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 17:00:13 GMT -5
LOL! I actually completely forgot that only a few months ago Cohen was the GOP deputy finance chair!
Life comes at ya fast in 2018...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 11, 2018 21:00:40 GMT -5
And I'll say--for my part--that as much as I found Dr. Ford believable, as much as I think withdrawing was the right move for Kavanaugh, I also think the non-stop outrage over this is over the top, because regardless of my opinion, we're still talking about an allegation about behavior from over 30 years ago that boils down to he said/she said (and Avenatti's bs doesn't help in this regard, at all), not unlike the Juanita Broderick allegation (which you have so firmly decided is false, right?). Well, for Clinton and Broaddrick, I think to qualify as he said/she said, Clinton would have to actually say something about it. But to be fair, I think we can all agree when powerful people are accused of rape, it should only be the alleged victim who ever has any explaining to do.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 12, 2018 8:52:00 GMT -5
But then, I have a cousin who is pushing 60 who has never cast a vote. He's extremely pro-marijuana and anti-war, among other things. I told him he could vote for candidates who feel the same way about those issues, and that this was the only way to get the laws changed. He said "It shouldn't need a law change. That's just how things should be." You can imagine how crazy it makes me. I've been having that same argument with him for literally years. Anyway. I just don't know how you stir someone out of that kind of apathy. Hopefully Swift helps Make Voting Cool Again (MVCA...hmmmm.) Please let your cousin know that he was wise not to waste his time. I'm 66, and for decades I spent the effort to find and support pro-cannabis and anti-war candidates. He's right, it was a complete waste of my time, as opposed to civil disobedience acts I engaged in that did actually move the dial on several issues. Voting is NOT The only way to get laws changed. AAMOF, I see little evidence that voting ever changes specific laws to align with voters views. There are far too many issues represented by the choice of "Column A or Column B" for voting to be an effective way to produce specific policy outcomes. The War on Cannabis is NOT ending because people voted against those candidates who support it, it's ending because of widespread civil disobedience, jury nullification, and socially-liberal states embracing the previously-racist term "states rights" and passing laws in defiance of FedGov. The anti-war battle was lost long, long ago, because the logic of Universal Soldier has no power against the emotional cry to "Support Our Troops" and the conditioning that will likely get one shunned or worse if one points out the truth of our massively aggressive foreign policy, and the complicity of individuals who willingly support that aggressive behavior. No other country behaves as we do internationally, but people are conditioned to believe the most aggressive, intrusive and warlike government on the planet are "peacekeepers" and our children are heroes for dying in support of that international aggression. On a strongly-related note, we are the most heavily-imprisoned population on the planet, and among the most regulated, yet people still claim we are the "land of the free." Voting will not change a mandatory education system that indoctrinates people to believe and support the logical fallacies that keep them obeying "leaders" who rob them, imprison them for innocuous acts that have been "forbidden" and send them off to die in foreign acts of aggression. Your cousin is absolutely right. Cassandra's cousin is absolutely right---and absolutely White and therein lies why what's right for him is wrong for anyone who looks like me. The anarchist, Emma Goldman once said, “ If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.” and we know Don, despite your contempt for the eeeeevil federal gubberment, you are no fan of socialists and anarchists. Strangely, you and Ms. Goldman have much in common. Goldman was a cynic. So are you. Goldman was an elitist in her sneering dismissal of the common people. So are you. Goldman was White. So are you. Voting means nothing to you. Why should it? It's not like it's any sort of moral imperative to you and more likely you see it as not a civic duty, but as buying into and being complicit in supporting a rigged system. I don't entirely disagree with that sentiment. The 2016 election was proof positive of being stuck between an awful choice and a worse one. The majority of the voters chose Awful over Terrible, but thanks to the bullshit of the Electoral College we've been cursed with another Republican who lost the popular vote and still became president. Voting is the only way to effect change in this country. Which is why corporations and billionaires and think tanks spend so much time and effort trying to suppress the vote. Which is why corporations and billionaires and think tanks expend so much time, effort and money influencing and manipulating the electorate to vote the way they want them to. You and Emma don't think voting makes any difference. The power behind the power in America know differently. The corporations and the oligarchy know you and Emma are simultaneously charming in your guileless and baffling in your naivete. They laugh at you. Cynicism, elitism and naivete about the power of the vote is an indulgent luxury Black people cannot afford. Maybe voting is a sad, sick joke. Maybe all it is a feeding a fat beast who allows the rabble to digest the leftovers and crumbs. Maybe looking at voting as the only non-violent way to shake up the system is a myth. But maybe not. James Baldwin observed, "American history is longer, larger, more various, more beautiful, and more terrible than anything anyone has ever said about it" and the curse of being a history buff is an intimate familiarity with the beauty and the terror of America. Nobody should have to die to have the right to vote and when we see it now it's usually in some Third World, Middle Eastern or European shithole country where suppression and repression are baked in and backed by soldiers with loaded weapons. That doesn't happen here, but only a complete fool would claim suppression and repression of the Black vote isn't still going on in 2018. Only a complete fool would think there isn't a race-based reason why Republicans have made it an imperative to make it as hard as possible for the Black voter to vote. Only a complete fool could ignore the ample evidence that disenfranchisement is back and aimed at Blacks. It's either gonna be the ballot or the bullet. If change isn't going to be allowed to be achieved by peaceful means, the change will be forced by violent means. The socialism you and celawson so fear and loathe will come to pass if capitalism and democracy don't deliver on their lofty promises of equal opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If White millennials are losing faith with capitalism and infatuated with socialism, how many of them will eventually emulate people of color such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fall in love with it? You'd better hope the next generation decides not to throw the tools of the last generation to clean up the mess we're leaving them. Giving up on democracy will lead to other alternatives and anarchism may be on the short list. It's foolish talk to discourage the American people to abandon all their faith in hallowed institutions and particularly so when some of those American people had to fight, bleed, and die before winning the right you take for granted, Don. I can be foolish and I can be fooled, but that does not make me a complete fool. Black Votes Matter.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 12, 2018 9:20:29 GMT -5
That is a pretty compelling point, Don - if voting doesn't matter, if it's all a farce to TPTB, why is so much money spent on manipulating it, and why so much effort to suppress voter turnout? Don's argument actually reminds me of all the arguments about why Clinton lost. Was it misogyny? Was is that she ran a bad campaign? Was it that she was a terrible candidate who turned off a lot of people? Was it that Trump unleashed the hitherto buried racist id of a lot of white people? But the people proposing these answers are always looking for one, single reason, when the reality is that many factors came into play, and the result would have been different if just one or two of them had been nudged by a few percentage points. So, yes, as an absolute statement, the odds of your single, solitary vote changing the outcome of any election are less than the odds of your winning the lottery. You can not vote for the rest of your life, and not a single electoral outcome will change. Hell, everyone on this board can not vote for the rest of our lives, and history will not be altered. But at some point, there is a cumulative effect. You not voting, plus you telling everyone why voting is a waste of time (and thus having some impact, however minuscule, on their voting decisions), and those people possibly having an impact on other people's voting decisions... at some point, you have enough people involved in the ripple effect to maybe shift an electoral vote. Multiply this by the entire electorate, and you see the net effect in the statistics on how many people voted, how many people didn't, and what difference it might have made. It can be very hard to place importance on your own vote at this abstract level, because yes, as a hard and cold fact, your vote all by itself doesn't matter. It takes thousands of people to represent even a noticeable blip on a graph. But the cumulative effect of voting does matter. No, you're not going to just vote out all the bad people and castrate the federal government - at least not with one election. But history isn't made up of just a few decisive moments that changed everything - it's also made up of the millions of smaller events and decisions that led to those decisive moments. I am never going to be on board with haranguing and shaming people who choose not to vote, for whatever reason. Hell, I'd rather that ignorant and stupid people (and people who vote against my preferences) not vote. But if you insist on insisting that "voting doesn't matter," that it's all a scam, that nothing ever changes as the result of an election.... I'm gonna consider you one of the ignorant and stupid people. Corporations don't spend billions of dollars on things that don't matter. Yes, Don, corporations also "buy" politicians as a more direct return on their investment - "crony capitalism" yadda yadda yadda. And yet... they still invest in elections because, even with all their money and influence, corporations and politicians actually cannot control outcomes with 100% certainty, as long as democracies are still capable of spiking the wheel now and then. One could argue that 2016 was one such spiking of the wheel.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 18, 2018 9:31:46 GMT -5
So, I don't think the Dems have much hope in getting control of the Senate. What little hope they might have had likely sailed off into the sunset, along with Heitkamp's hopes for re-election in North Dakota: www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/heidi-heitkamp-apologizes-for-ad-that-mistakenly-identified-women-as/article_4c87a04f-520f-5f5b-9753-5c14c81ee877.htmlWhat a monumental fuck-up, publicly naming victims of abuse without their permission in a political ad, no less. I can't imagine how this even happened. Who does she have working for her? This is so stupid, it almost seems like it must have been intentionally done by someone working on the inside to undermine her campaign. Heitkamp is trying to apologize, but many of the women want nothing from her, now. Meanwhile, in Florida, Nelson still has a rough run ahead of him. In my view, he's slowly sinking, mostly because his political ads are really weak, as compared to Scott's. Nelson's ads are attacking Scott the businessman--pre politics days--as opposed to Scott the governor and I don't think they'r playing well; they just seem tired, as the voters saw all this when Scott ran for governor. RCP now has the Repubs actually increasing their advantage in the Senate: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/2018_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html
|
|