Fundraising for 2019/2020: 12 Months Renewed - We are good until October 2020. Paypal Donation Link Here

Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Who do you like best now?

Joe Biden
2
5%
Corey Booker
0
No votes
Pete Buttigeig
7
18%
Julian Castro
0
No votes
Kirsten Gillibrand
0
No votes
Kamala Harris
12
31%
Beto O'Rourke
0
No votes
Bernie Sanders
2
5%
Elizabeth Warren
15
38%
Andrew Yang
1
3%
 
Total votes: 39

User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by ImLawBoy » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:25 pm

malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:00 pm
ImLawBoy wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:26 pm
They may be the worst investment, but given the low margins of victory in key states, it's still a group that would be helpful to win over or keep in the flock.
I think you're focusing on the wrong game here.
I can see how it might look that way since I'm engaging in the discussion here, but I'm really not focusing too much on this. I just thought these guys' reactions to her "moment" were interesting (especially contrasted with how I felt about it), and then I reacted to their reactions being hand waved away (how I perceived it, anyway).
That's my purse! I don't know you!

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39132
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by hepcat » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:50 pm

em2nought wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:57 pm
Harris would get beat down with her family "owning slaves"
Warren would get beat down with her fake Indian heritage and her "I'd like to speak to the manager" hair cut. Never mind her fake beer drinking. LOL
Biden would get burned by that torch everyone wants him to pass which he apparently used prior at cross burnings. This despite him invoking "Obama" and his ties to him in every third sentence. :wink:
Trump would get beat down by a 2nd grade history test.

The GOP is the party of ignorance. Enjoy the moment in the sun. Most of them are too stupid to step inside once they get sunburned, so they'll eventually die off from stupidity. It's just a waiting game at this point. :mrgreen:
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19282
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Pyperkub » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:18 pm

hepcat wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:50 pm
em2nought wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:57 pm
Harris would get beat down with her family "owning slaves"
Warren would get beat down with her fake Indian heritage and her "I'd like to speak to the manager" hair cut. Never mind her fake beer drinking. LOL
Biden would get burned by that torch everyone wants him to pass which he apparently used prior at cross burnings. This despite him invoking "Obama" and his ties to him in every third sentence. :wink:
Trump would get beat down by a 2nd grade history test.

The GOP is the party of ignorance. Enjoy the moment in the sun. Most of them are too stupid to step inside once they get sunburned, so they'll eventually die off from stupidity. It's just a waiting game at this point. :mrgreen:
And even more to the point, a Citizenship Test.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19282
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Pyperkub » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:19 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:06 am
malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:40 am
Apollo wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:20 am
Fireball wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 am

...You are completely unmoored from reality. Biden deserved what he got. His comments were wrong, his defense of them was wrong, and he’s a lazy, shitty candidate. I prefer Warren to Harris, but nothing about that exchange should cause any reasonable person to have doubts about Harris.
The attitude you display here, and the attitude of many "progressives" over the last couple of years has made me seriously consider leaving the Democratic party and simply not voting (at least in national elections). The Left has suddenly become just as extreme in its attitudes as the Right, and I no longer feel comfortable considering myself a "Liberal".
This is demonstrably untrue. The Democratic party aligns well with European "liberal" parties. The Republican party is to the right of the extreme right-wing parties in Europe. The GOP has just pulled the frame so far out of whack which is sort of the point. They have built mechanisms to better sell their message as less extreme than it actually is. That has distorted our political view of what "normal" is.

The tldr; version is that just because some people in the Democratic party are advocating strongly for relatively normal things like universal healthcare is not a sign of extremism. It is just an attempt to get in line with the rest of the advanced world.
It's clear from people as varied as Michelle Goldberg to candidates like Harris, that the party no longer wants anything to do with old white men, so I guess I'll try to not let the door hit me on the way out.
I think you'd find that the relationship is the other way around mostly.
It's the sustained drumbeat of extremism from the Left.

You know how we assume, or at least hope, that the right wing extremism will drive rational individuals out of the GOP? Well, it goes both ways.

I know people, friends even, who talk about total prison abolition. They use the terms like "leveraged white privilege" like every 40 seconds. I want none of what they're drinking. Figuratively, of course. I'll drink with them any time.
About "leftist extremism"":
It’s interesting that the GOP can have the Tea Party, Christian right & neocons, but if a few Democratic candidates move out of the center, where the party stayed throughout the Obama administration, the sky is falling.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13874
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Zarathud » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:51 pm

Fireball wrote:
Zarathud wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:59 pm
The Democrats are disorganized to an extreme. Theses debates show it, if the Obama Presidency wasn’t enough.
The Democratic coalition is very heterogeneous. The base Republican coalition are all the same race, all the same religion, have all the same views on most salient issues. The Democratic coalition is none of these things, and never has been.
This is why the fear of Democratic extremism is overblown. They’ll never march in lockstep.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34628
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Kraken » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:42 pm

Zarathud wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:51 pm
Fireball wrote:
Zarathud wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:59 pm
The Democrats are disorganized to an extreme. Theses debates show it, if the Obama Presidency wasn’t enough.
The Democratic coalition is very heterogeneous. The base Republican coalition are all the same race, all the same religion, have all the same views on most salient issues. The Democratic coalition is none of these things, and never has been.
This is why the fear of Democratic extremism is overblown. They’ll never march in lockstep.
Even when misguided and/or fanatical, leftist extremism is GENERALLY rooted in ideals of equality, inclusion, and human rights -- the very things right-wing extremism is against (it's like they're opposites! Yes, of course you can find examples to the contrary on both sides; extremists gonna extreme, and they're all irritating.) If people are going to go off the deep end, I would rather they fall left than right.

User avatar
Lagom Lite
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Lagom Lite » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:29 am

Be careful about characterizing views you do not agree with as "extremist". There's such a thing as "extremism of the center" as well.
But you've seen who's in heaven
Is there anyone in hell?


"Lagom you are a smooth tongued devil, and an opportunistic monster" - OOWW Game Club

Fellowship of the Ring I
Fellowship of the Ring II

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39132
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by hepcat » Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:11 am

Also, be careful about agreeing to disagree with agreeing with someone’s disagreement. There is such a thing as extremism of the top, bottom, side and inverse as well.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: Under the bed...your bed...

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by $iljanus » Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:58 am

hepcat wrote:Also, be careful about agreeing to disagree with agreeing with someone’s disagreement. There is such a thing as extremism of the top, bottom, side and inverse as well.
A fine example of 5th dimensional hyperspacial thinking!
tl;dr

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46818
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies
LawBeefaroni OO’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:02 am

Pyperkub wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:19 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:06 am
malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:40 am
Apollo wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:20 am
Fireball wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 am

...You are completely unmoored from reality. Biden deserved what he got. His comments were wrong, his defense of them was wrong, and he’s a lazy, shitty candidate. I prefer Warren to Harris, but nothing about that exchange should cause any reasonable person to have doubts about Harris.
The attitude you display here, and the attitude of many "progressives" over the last couple of years has made me seriously consider leaving the Democratic party and simply not voting (at least in national elections). The Left has suddenly become just as extreme in its attitudes as the Right, and I no longer feel comfortable considering myself a "Liberal".
This is demonstrably untrue. The Democratic party aligns well with European "liberal" parties. The Republican party is to the right of the extreme right-wing parties in Europe. The GOP has just pulled the frame so far out of whack which is sort of the point. They have built mechanisms to better sell their message as less extreme than it actually is. That has distorted our political view of what "normal" is.

The tldr; version is that just because some people in the Democratic party are advocating strongly for relatively normal things like universal healthcare is not a sign of extremism. It is just an attempt to get in line with the rest of the advanced world.
It's clear from people as varied as Michelle Goldberg to candidates like Harris, that the party no longer wants anything to do with old white men, so I guess I'll try to not let the door hit me on the way out.
I think you'd find that the relationship is the other way around mostly.
It's the sustained drumbeat of extremism from the Left.

You know how we assume, or at least hope, that the right wing extremism will drive rational individuals out of the GOP? Well, it goes both ways.

I know people, friends even, who talk about total prison abolition. They use the terms like "leveraged white privilege" like every 40 seconds. I want none of what they're drinking. Figuratively, of course. I'll drink with them any time.
About "leftist extremism"":
It’s interesting that the GOP can have the Tea Party, Christian right & neocons, but if a few Democratic candidates move out of the center, where the party stayed throughout the Obama administration, the sky is falling.
The Tea Party started outside the GOP and GOP politicians gravitated towards the votes (and AFP money). It's not a matter of a few candidates being left of center. It's a matter of extreme elements gaining mass and attracting candidates because politicians sell their grandmothers for votes.



Kraken wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:42 pm
Zarathud wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:51 pm
Fireball wrote:
Zarathud wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:59 pm
The Democrats are disorganized to an extreme. Theses debates show it, if the Obama Presidency wasn’t enough.
The Democratic coalition is very heterogeneous. The base Republican coalition are all the same race, all the same religion, have all the same views on most salient issues. The Democratic coalition is none of these things, and never has been.
This is why the fear of Democratic extremism is overblown. They’ll never march in lockstep.
Even when misguided and/or fanatical, leftist extremism is GENERALLY rooted in ideals of equality, inclusion, and human rights -- the very things right-wing extremism is against (it's like they're opposites! Yes, of course you can find examples to the contrary on both sides; extremists gonna extreme, and they're all irritating.) If people are going to go off the deep end, I would rather they fall left than right.
Our extremism is better then their extremism. Sounds like the conscience-soothing justifications out of the right. Go sportsball team! The problem, for me anyway, is that both forms are a threat to the Constitution.


The "win at all costs" mantra is similar to what was coming out of he right in 2016.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39132
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by hepcat » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:53 am

$iljanus wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:58 am
hepcat wrote:Also, be careful about agreeing to disagree with agreeing with someone’s disagreement. There is such a thing as extremism of the top, bottom, side and inverse as well.
A fine example of 5th dimensional hyperspacial thinking!
Quit being a reaction....wait for it....

....ary!
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: Under the bed...your bed...

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by $iljanus » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:01 am


hepcat wrote:
$iljanus wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:58 am
hepcat wrote:Also, be careful about agreeing to disagree with agreeing with someone’s disagreement. There is such a thing as extremism of the top, bottom, side and inverse as well.
A fine example of 5th dimensional hyperspacial thinking!
Quit being a reaction....wait for it....

....ary!
You need to insert the CSI picture with David Caruso between the it and the ary!
tl;dr

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?

malchior
Posts: 9191
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by malchior » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:12 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:02 am
Our extremism is better then their extremism. Sounds like the conscience-soothing justifications out of the right. Go sportsball team! The problem, for me anyway, is that both forms are a threat to the Constitution.


The "win at all costs" mantra is similar to what was coming out of he right in 2016.
This is pretty off the rails IMO. The 'extremes' on the left are hardly talking about seizing the means of production. They are talking about healthcare access. The free college stuff isn't even really out there - just more an unrealistic idea. This is bothsidesism. Pointing at the Republican model and thinking it applies to the Democrats or even that extremeism of that type is on the horizon is just completely unrealistic. The most Progressive ideas above are barely even in the national party platform. Look at the practical nomination field, Bernie still has pretty much no chance at the nod and he is probably furthest to the left. The frontrunners are a boomer centrist and a law and order centrist. In the end, there is no critical mass building for extremist action...yet...though that may change *incrementally* if the centrists continue to resist meaningful action against Trump.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19282
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Pyperkub » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:17 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:02 am
Pyperkub wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:19 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:06 am
malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:40 am
Apollo wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:20 am
Fireball wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 am

...You are completely unmoored from reality. Biden deserved what he got. His comments were wrong, his defense of them was wrong, and he’s a lazy, shitty candidate. I prefer Warren to Harris, but nothing about that exchange should cause any reasonable person to have doubts about Harris.
The attitude you display here, and the attitude of many "progressives" over the last couple of years has made me seriously consider leaving the Democratic party and simply not voting (at least in national elections). The Left has suddenly become just as extreme in its attitudes as the Right, and I no longer feel comfortable considering myself a "Liberal".
This is demonstrably untrue. The Democratic party aligns well with European "liberal" parties. The Republican party is to the right of the extreme right-wing parties in Europe. The GOP has just pulled the frame so far out of whack which is sort of the point. They have built mechanisms to better sell their message as less extreme than it actually is. That has distorted our political view of what "normal" is.

The tldr; version is that just because some people in the Democratic party are advocating strongly for relatively normal things like universal healthcare is not a sign of extremism. It is just an attempt to get in line with the rest of the advanced world.
It's clear from people as varied as Michelle Goldberg to candidates like Harris, that the party no longer wants anything to do with old white men, so I guess I'll try to not let the door hit me on the way out.
I think you'd find that the relationship is the other way around mostly.
It's the sustained drumbeat of extremism from the Left.

You know how we assume, or at least hope, that the right wing extremism will drive rational individuals out of the GOP? Well, it goes both ways.

I know people, friends even, who talk about total prison abolition. They use the terms like "leveraged white privilege" like every 40 seconds. I want none of what they're drinking. Figuratively, of course. I'll drink with them any time.
About "leftist extremism"":
It’s interesting that the GOP can have the Tea Party, Christian right & neocons, but if a few Democratic candidates move out of the center, where the party stayed throughout the Obama administration, the sky is falling.
The Tea Party started outside the GOP and GOP politicians gravitated towards the votes (and AFP money). It's not a matter of a few candidates being left of center. It's a matter of extreme elements gaining mass and attracting candidates because politicians sell their grandmothers for votes.



Kraken wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:42 pm
Zarathud wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:51 pm
Fireball wrote:
Zarathud wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:59 pm
The Democrats are disorganized to an extreme. Theses debates show it, if the Obama Presidency wasn’t enough.
The Democratic coalition is very heterogeneous. The base Republican coalition are all the same race, all the same religion, have all the same views on most salient issues. The Democratic coalition is none of these things, and never has been.
This is why the fear of Democratic extremism is overblown. They’ll never march in lockstep.
Even when misguided and/or fanatical, leftist extremism is GENERALLY rooted in ideals of equality, inclusion, and human rights -- the very things right-wing extremism is against (it's like they're opposites! Yes, of course you can find examples to the contrary on both sides; extremists gonna extreme, and they're all irritating.) If people are going to go off the deep end, I would rather they fall left than right.
Our extremism is better then their extremism. Sounds like the conscience-soothing justifications out of the right. Go sportsball team! The problem, for me anyway, is that both forms are a threat to the Constitution.


The "win at all costs" mantra is similar to what was coming out of he right in 2016.
So, do you see *any* extreme left politicians calling for the abolition of prisons? Which politicians do you believe are spouting such extremist left policies, and what policies that are being pushed do you consider "extreme left"?

Please note that I don't consider medicare for all and free public college as "extreme" positions. Both have been around for over 50 years, and have been very successful (CA's economy was built on free college - at least until the 70's, and still is probably the best public higher education system in the world), while medicare has been around for a looong time. If you want to argue that those are "extreme" left positions, ok, but bring your "A" game.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13874
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Zarathud » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:50 pm

It shows how FOX News and the Republican Party have reframed the discussion so far to the right.

The young millennial progressives are angry about black people’s lives, income inequality and the cost of college being too damn high and jobs. GenX was in the streets protesting the Iraq war, AIDS and women’s rights. You don’t need to to explain the Boomers were even more radical.

:shocked:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46818
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies
LawBeefaroni OO’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:18 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:17 pm

So, do you see *any* extreme left politicians calling for the abolition of prisons? Which politicians do you believe are spouting such extremist left policies, and what policies that are being pushed do you consider "extreme left"?
I don't see any mainstream politicians calling for it (not nationally). I see people, including posters here, saying that any left extremism.is favorable to any right extremism. I'm saying is that this is an Us v. Them mentality that leads the wrong way. Whatever is specifically percolating down that road doesn't really matter. Just that once you've already justified the means by the end, anything is possible.

Pyperkub wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:17 pm

Please note that I don't consider medicare for all and free public college as "extreme" positions. Both have been around for over 50 years, and have been very successful (CA's economy was built on free college - at least until the 70's, and still is probably the best public higher education system in the world), while medicare has been around for a looong time. If you want to argue that those are "extreme" left positions, ok, but bring your "A" game.
I don't consider them extreme goals either. But the ways to get there can be. Bernie wants to wipe out all existing debt. That is extreme, with extreme consequences.


Look at it this way. "Secure borders" isn't an extreme goal. Banning citizens on flights by ethnicity and locking children in filthy concrete cells? That's extreme. When you say "secure borders at all costs, that is our mandate and our cause is more just than theirs...", bad things can happen.
malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:12 pm
This is bothsidesism. Pointing at the Republican model and thinking it applies to the Democrats or even that extremeism of that type is on the horizon is just completely unrealistic.
No, it's not bothsiderism. You see two sides. I see one coin.

Yes, the GOP is the bad guy here. Without question. This is the most inept President ever, with probably the most damaging and corrupt administration ever. But if you look at it as a detached observer who is aware that human nature is what it is, you can see the same trends and rhetoric brewing. Wait, you say, the Democrats have an unassailable moral foundation that cannot be compromised? That's great, please forgive my pessimism and carry on with the fight. I want you to be right, really. I just can't, in good conscience, follow blindly.
malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:12 pm
In the end, there is no critical mass building for extremist action...yet...though that may change *incrementally* if the centrists continue to resist meaningful action against Trump.
See, that sounds like a threat that I'm hearing a lot. Not from you specifically and not directed at me specifically, but a general threat from the party to anyone not willing to get in line.

You'll let Trump win again. That will make us angry. You won't like us when we're angry.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23295
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by noxiousdog » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:54 pm

I consider calling for the break-up of Amazon, Google, and Facebook pretty extreme.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

malchior
Posts: 9191
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by malchior » Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:19 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:18 pm
I don't consider them extreme goals either. But the ways to get there can be. Bernie wants to wipe out all existing debt. That is extreme, with extreme consequences.
He is one person without a real chance of getting the nomination whose policies aren't being picked up by the party platform. I still don't get how this is similar to the right where the most extreme viewpoints are not only part of the party platform but actually being implemented with horrifying consequences *right now*. There is almost no chance that Bernie's view will make the platform. There is no chance that Progressives will have the pull to implement any of them even if they were added. This is worrying about a risk that isn't even close to being a reality.

Look at it this way. "Secure borders" isn't an extreme goal. Banning citizens on flights by ethnicity and locking children in filthy concrete cells? That's extreme. When you say "secure borders at all costs, that is our mandate and our cause is more just than theirs...", bad things can happen.
Sure but there also has to be a path to them coming true and there isn't one. The reason why we've tipped so far to the right is because of Constitutional imbalances and a policy implementation pipeline gap that have a sub 1% chance of tipping the other way.
malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:12 pm
This is bothsidesism. Pointing at the Republican model and thinking it applies to the Democrats or even that extremeism of that type is on the horizon is just completely unrealistic.
No, it's not bothsiderism. You see two sides. I see one coin.
Frankly that doesn't make it sound less like bothsideism. This entire line of thought feels pretty much like you are saying both sides are doing it, look what happened on the right, we should be worried about the left and therefore should be wary of it, right? :)
Yes, the GOP is the bad guy here. Without question. This is the most inept President ever, with probably the most damaging and corrupt administration ever. But if you look at it as a detached observer who is aware that human nature is what it is, you can see the same trends and rhetoric brewing. Wait, you say, the Democrats have an unassailable moral foundation that cannot be compromised? That's great, please forgive my pessimism and carry on with the fight. I want you to be right, really. I just can't, in good conscience, follow blindly.
Funny - I feel like my viewpoint is the pessimistic one. My viewpoint is no matter how 'extreme' these Progressives get...they have no path to implementation. In yours, there has to be one or else the worry is pretty pointless. Forget that what the Progressives want is pretty much 'normal' across the rest of the advanced economies. Are there truly extreme positions such as cancelling debt? Sure they'd be extreme but if you are seeing 'cancelling debt' as a realistic possibility, I don't know what to say. It isn't really possible. Unless Bernie as President nationalizes the banks by fiat and gets everyone to go along with it. But that is a doomsday scenario. That this will snowball over time like the tea party has little evidence in practice. What happened to Occupy Wall Street? 10 years later and Bernie is talking around the edges of the message there and it is still as impossible as it was then.
malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:12 pm
In the end, there is no critical mass building for extremist action...yet...though that may change *incrementally* if the centrists continue to resist meaningful action against Trump.
See, that sounds like a threat that I'm hearing a lot. Not from you specifically and not directed at me specifically, but a general threat from the party to anyone not willing to get in line.

You'll let Trump win again. That will make us angry. You won't like us when we're angry.
I think this another case of getting the mechanism wrong. The anger is a natural consequence of the system not working. 'We' elected a Dem house to hold Trump accountable amongst several goals. They can't get any policy objectives through and as so far have not been able to even get simple document production in many cases from the Trump administration. This lack of any progress has been historically fuel for extremist action because the center can't act. In effect, it is the center's inaction that is driving the extremes and not the other way around.

As an aside a practical effect you can see out there is that people of all stripes are extremely frustrated with our political system. You have the folks who elected this House hoping to see them put up a fight and are not seeing it. 7 months in and they've yelled at empty chairs and voted on toothless contempt citations. On the right, they are dutifully packing the courts with Federalist Society folks which the center and left are powerless to stop. And all of us have seen decades of institutional failure with no end in sight. This is not a system in any sort of balance but one thing that objectively can be said is that leftist extremism is barely a concern barring significant degradation.
noxiousdog wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:54 pm
I consider calling for the break-up of Amazon, Google, and Facebook pretty extreme.
Not really. The latter two are effectively becoming monopolies. So there are realistic antitrust concerns there. Plus, this is a bipartisan issue at the moment with factions on both sides calling for this review. I'd agree on Amazon as there is competition there across almost all their lines of business.

However, let's see that make the Democratic party platform. I doubt it will at the moment. It certainly isn't coming out of Biden or Harris' lips...at least yet. FWIW Trump's administration is however actively looking into it...so perhaps it is extreme. ;)

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23295
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by noxiousdog » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:07 pm

malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:19 pm
Not really. The latter two are effectively becoming monopolies. So there are realistic antitrust concerns there. Plus, this is a bipartisan issue at the moment with factions on both sides calling for this review. I'd agree on Amazon as there is competition there across almost all their lines of business.

However, let's see that make the Democratic party platform. I doubt it will at the moment. It certainly isn't coming out of Biden or Harris' lips...at least yet. FWIW Trump's administration is however actively looking into it...so perhaps it is extreme. ;)

On the path to becoming a monopoly is not a reason for breakup. Being a monopoly can be if it doesn't serve the public good.

I do understand and somewhat endorse her concept of platform utilities. The second half of preventing mergers is untenable and extreme. Declaring Google a monopoly because they bought Waze and Nest is loony.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

malchior
Posts: 9191
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by malchior » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:48 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:07 pm
The second half of preventing mergers is untenable and extreme.
Huh? Merger reviews by DOJ have been a thing for 100+ years. It is quite routine. Her disagreement was with the outcome of that review. Hardly the makings of the Soviet uprising.
Declaring Google a monopoly because they bought Waze and Nest is loony.
They aren't necessarily loony. I don't have the data in front of me but let's hypothetically say that if Maps and Waze controlled 99% of GPS-enabled navigation apps then they would have a monopoly in that sector. I actually am not certain on what the anti-trust bright lines are if there are any. Anyway, if this is your definition of extreme then you better take issue with Senator Sherman and President Hayes back in 1890.

In the end, she is talking about innovation policy and that frankly is the probably one of the biggest knocks against Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They tend to buy up competitors to keep them out of the market. Is that a problem yet? I don't know but it sure sounds like it is a political question to me. :)

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 9148
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Jaymann » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:34 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:54 pm
I consider calling for the break-up of Amazon, Google, and Facebook pretty extreme.
In Soviet Amerika you don't break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook, they break you.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19282
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Pyperkub » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:13 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:07 pm
malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:19 pm
Not really. The latter two are effectively becoming monopolies. So there are realistic antitrust concerns there. Plus, this is a bipartisan issue at the moment with factions on both sides calling for this review. I'd agree on Amazon as there is competition there across almost all their lines of business.

However, let's see that make the Democratic party platform. I doubt it will at the moment. It certainly isn't coming out of Biden or Harris' lips...at least yet. FWIW Trump's administration is however actively looking into it...so perhaps it is extreme. ;)

On the path to becoming a monopoly is not a reason for breakup. Being a monopoly can be if it doesn't serve the public good.

I do understand and somewhat endorse her concept of platform utilities. The second half of preventing mergers is untenable and extreme. Declaring Google a monopoly because they bought Waze and Nest is loony.
Microsoft also had to fight this 20 years ago or so, and that was actually ordered.

While I think breaking them up is wrong, I do think that the focus illustrates the difficulty the Government and our society are having with Internet time.

I can also see the argument that the private sector data collection policies completely subvert the 4th Amendment, and/or are allowing the Government to do so (Snowden also pointed this out), which I don't completely buy as a rationale for breaking them up, but I can make the argument that it's not extreme, and that looking the other way is worse, and allows even worse extremes.

Edit: being an Unregulated Monopoly does not serve the Public Good (any Microeconomics course will show you that w/o regulation, monopolies restrict supply to increase profit).
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18016
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Defiant » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:49 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:13 pm

I can also see the argument that the private sector data collection policies completely subvert the 4th Amendment, and/or are allowing the Government to do so (Snowden also pointed this out), which I don't completely buy as a rationale for breaking them up, but I can make the argument that it's not extreme, and that looking the other way is worse, and allows even worse extremes.

Breaking them up won't resolve their data collection policies in the least. The right approach is through regulation, the way Europe is doing it.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19282
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Pyperkub » Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:02 pm

Defiant wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:49 pm
Pyperkub wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:13 pm

I can also see the argument that the private sector data collection policies completely subvert the 4th Amendment, and/or are allowing the Government to do so (Snowden also pointed this out), which I don't completely buy as a rationale for breaking them up, but I can make the argument that it's not extreme, and that looking the other way is worse, and allows even worse extremes.

Breaking them up won't resolve their data collection policies in the least. The right approach is through regulation, the way Europe is doing it.
In other words, newsflash! Politicians suck at Technology...
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 62474
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:41 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:13 pm
Edit: being an Unregulated Monopoly does not serve the Public Good (any Microeconomics course will show you that w/o regulation, monopolies restrict supply to increase profit).
*cough* DeBeers *cough*

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23295
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Flash poll: Debates edition, aftermath

Post by noxiousdog » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:48 am

Pyperkub wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:13 pm
Microsoft also had to fight this 20 years ago or so, and that was actually ordered.
Microsoft didn't get broken up.
While I think breaking them up is wrong, I do think that the focus illustrates the difficulty the Government and our society are having with Internet time.

I can also see the argument that the private sector data collection policies completely subvert the 4th Amendment, and/or are allowing the Government to do so (Snowden also pointed this out), which I don't completely buy as a rationale for breaking them up, but I can make the argument that it's not extreme, and that looking the other way is worse, and allows even worse extremes.

Edit: being an Unregulated Monopoly does not serve the Public Good (any Microeconomics course will show you that w/o regulation, monopolies restrict supply to increase profit).
Again, she's going straight to the breakup endgame. I think the regulation part of her plan is reasonable.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

Post Reply