Speedy's Cafe - General Chat about anything you like!

[Carol the Dabbler]

That's sometimes true. But I always wonder whether the people who talk are always telling the truth, or whether they're trying to get even. And even if it's the truth, it's the truth as they see it -- not as I might have seen it, if I'd been in their position. In which case, which of us is right?

[Arcadia]

 

Possibly because the climate-change deniers etc. tend to be "conservatives"? :P

 

Remember how the "liberals" have tried to rebrand themselves as "progressives"?

You're straining my brain, but yeah, I remember that far back. More lately, seems they're wanting to call themselves " moderates" or "centrists" -- apparently because they're to the right of the lunatic fringe that you mentioned, ignoring the fact that they're still well to the left of half the country.

 

Hey, you take that back! My crowd would never stoop to calling themselves "moderates"! :D I've heard that too, but I think that's more a pundit's description than something actual liberals -- excuse me, "progressives" -- use.

 

Do you really think the country is half-half? I tend to think most people are genuinely in the middle (or largely apolitical) with a tendency to vote one way or the other. I'm thinking of a couple three of my very Republican friends who are also very pro gay rights. More militantly than I, I'm afraid. So where do they fall on the left/right spectrum?

 

 

By the way, on the news last night they interviewed a girl who said she voted for "Brexit" as a protest, never expecting it would win, and now that it had, she regretted her vote.

 

I wonder if some of the Trump voters aren't experiencing the same sensation...

If this is true - people just voting on shit for a lark or to show "the establishment" the finger - then I have little hope left for democracy and I am really scared for the future. If the only people left who care enough to take voting seriously are extremists and fanatics of some kind, what's to become of the rest of us? We risk handing power over from the rational many to the passionate few, which I think is neither safe nor wise.

 

You are not the only one to express that concern, and in fact I think that's why they showed that bit on the news. But I don't know what can be done about it ... if the "sensible people" can't be bothered to vote, then the extremists will have their way. How do you rally an apathetic middle? Or is Carol right, and there is no middle anymore?

 

These people believe on vague promises that rings true to their own world view (confirmation bias?) while disregarding the use of critical thinking that if utilized, will show them that the world is not so black and white after all.

Fairly or not, this is something I genuinely believe ... too many people who do not employ critical thinking. (We're all the exception, of course. ;) ) The holes I could punch in some of their arguments ... Agghhh! Not that it would do me any good.

 

Trouble is, very few of us have access to the original information. All we have available is the media's spin on what the government is willing to release.

Yeah, that.

[Shadow Dweller]

That's sometimes true. But I always wonder whether the people who talk are always telling the truth, or whether they're trying to get even. And even if it's the truth, it's the truth as they see it -- not as I might have seen it, if I'd been in their position. In which case, which of us is right?

Data & information always would be polluted by perspective of those who gathered it on the first place. Even if we get it by directly observing something ourselves it still wouldn't be 'clean'. Since 'the truth ' itself is somewhat an oxymoron considering that something always have many different sides, the best we can hope for is the approximate truth in varying degrees. Example in the current event is David Cameron's resignation just a few hours after the referendum's result become public knowledge. Is he a coward who run away from his promise that Article 50 would be triggered immediately at Brexit's victory? Or is he buying some time for UK to consolidate herself? Is he made the PM position poisonous for his political rivals both in Tory and the rest and thus indirectly give UK chance to escape from having morally-corrupt, self-serving bast*ards as PM for long? Is it a tactic to give the EU time to rethink their initial knee jerk reactions? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and likely encompassed several of those reasons.

 

We pierced 'facts and clues' together but there is no guarantee that we would draw the correct conclusion in the literal sense. But it still better than voting based by a need for giving middle finger to those we perceived as the undeserving lot, at least we try to follow our head instead of a passing fancy like honeyed promises of 'making our country great again (how? give me the details to verify its validity)'.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hey, you take that back! My crowd would never stoop to calling themselves "moderates"! :D I've heard that too, but I think that's more a pundit's description than something actual liberals -- excuse me, "progressives" -- use.

All I can say is, I've heard some people (that I would call liberals) referring to themselves as "moderates."  To me, a true moderate, or better, a centrist, is someone like Joe Lieberman or John McCain -- the ones that their own parties might consider to be "in name only."

 

Do you really think the country is half-half? I tend to think most people are genuinely in the middle (or largely apolitical) with a tendency to vote one way or the other. I'm thinking of a couple three of my very Republican friends who are also very pro gay rights. More militantly than I, I'm afraid. So where do they fall on the left/right spectrum?

I think you're quite right, that people aren't necessarily die-hard whatevers just because they vote that way.  After all, we have only two major choices in this country (which I think is a shame).  Your pro-gay-rights Republican friends may actually be closet libertarians -- i.e., not on the left/right spectrum at all.  (See the Nolan Chart.)

 

... is Carol right, and there is no middle anymore?

I never said that!  Or if I did, I didn't mean it that way -- merely that the national vote tends to be split roughly 50/50 these days.  As you and I noted above, that indicates more of a tendency than a conviction.

 

[Arcadia]

You do realize that referring to climate-change skeptics as "deniers" comes real close to name-calling?

So I thought about this awhile, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. But just to be real clear, when I wrote "deniers", I meant "deniers" -- I wasn't using it to mean people who might have rational, fact-based objections. So, no name calling intended, k? (See, this is why I think an artist's intention is important! :D )

 

On another, but related, matter -- I spent the day with one of my best friends who also happens to be on the opposite end of the right/left spectrum from me. The degree of  hostility she exhibits towards our government I find, frankly, discouraging. In her defense, she is going through a rough personal patch, and she is quite negative right now about ... well, everything. But it distresses me to hear how corrupt, ignorant, incompetent and malevolent she claims the entire US government is ... national, state and local, and including people she voted for (one of which happens to be her neighbor. )

 

I would put it down to just her personal situation, but I hear the same sentiment expressed in too many other places to completely ignore it. I worked in government for many years, and have a lot of associations with people who still do ... and I've never seen a trace of that. Well, a bit of incompetence, but no more than you would find in any other institution; a hospital or a gas station or an advertising agency. Some people simply aren't good at their jobs, unfortunately. But it's not due to some evil design, it's just life.

 

Are there egos and rivalries and mistakes? Of course ... these are human beings we're dealing with. But the politicians and "bureaucrats" I've known and worked with have been largely well-meaning, idealistic individuals who truly believe in the power of government to make lives better for citizens. Of course things don't work out sometimes ... society is complicated, and sometimes there are competing interests ... but the idea that the US government is deliberating trying to make things worse for people and business ... I find that insulting and unfair. And I also find that people who hold that opinion tend to be deeply ignorant themselves of how our government actually works. (Mandatory civics lessons for all!!!! :D )

 

Okay, done now. Since I let my friend vent on me all day (and she's a really, really good friend, or I wouldn't put up with it), I thought I'd come here and do the same to you all. There, it's off my chest. Thanks! Pay it forward! :P

[Arcadia]

All I can say is, I've heard some people (that I would call liberals) referring to themselves as "moderates."  To me, a true moderate, or better, a centrist, is someone like Joe Lieberman or John McCain -- the ones that their own parties might consider to be "in name only."

Fair enough, except that I think the middle is quite a bit broader than your examples would imply. I think. It's hard to tell, these days, the voices on the fringe are so loud. :(

 

Your pro-gay-rights Republican friends may actually be closet libertarians -- i.e., not on the left/right spectrum at all.  (See the Nolan Chart.)

Oh, the Nolan chart. As I take strong exception to his definitions of the various political views, I'll have to pass on that one. In any case, I think at least one of my friends does in fact identify as Libertarian; but she always votes for the GOP. Perhaps this explains why I tend to think of "Libertarian" as just another word for "Republican." (But intellectually, I do understand the dif. Honest!)

 

 

... is Carol right, and there is no middle anymore?

I never said that!  Or if I did, I didn't mean it that way -- merely that the national vote tends to be split roughly 50/50 these days.  As you and I noted above, that indicates more of a tendency than a conviction.

 

Your intention is duly noted, and accepted as the one true interpretation. ;)

[Van Buren Supernova]

My head hurts, politic is as interesting as.. hey, butterfly..!

 

Kidding, kidding.

 

I don't know how, but please don't let Trump be your president. But again, people may not support him but his party? Argh..

 

I'm still half way through that link and if, they are to be believed, it's crazy. For most of the things I know about him, the ones that I don't know are worse.

 

I would have high blood pressure if I have to read about all the dumb things he would do and say when he really has the power, and he is so easily manipulated! Good god! Sigh..

[Shadow Dweller]

Even within his party there are voices wanting the retraction of his nomination... :lol:

[Arcadia]

One thing ... the US president doesn't actually have the power to do many of the things that Trump says he will do. For example, there's this pesky little institution called Congress that tends to want things its way.
 
What many fear, of course, is that the Republicans will win both the White House and Congress. But even then, I find it difficult to believe that Congress would just rubber stamp everything Trump wanted to do ... even his own party has disavowed some of his positions. Contrary to popular opinion, there are some people with common sense in Washington. Although I suppose the question is, are there enough of them anymore?
 
We have been cursed with interesting times ....
 
Sorry, I find politics and governance absolutely fascinating. And I grew up in a household that encouraged debate on the subject; I sometimes forget it's not as popular everywhere else as it is in my house! Anyway, I've got a busy day to get ready for so I'll shut up now. (Yes, yes, I can hear the cheers. :P )

[Shadow Dweller]

Cheers, what cheers? Your audience is ready with steel net to prevent you making an escape! :D

 

So, what make politics and governance interesting for you at this moment?

 

Look... Germany already softened their tone on the matter of possible Brexit for real. The clock is ticking and with emotions begins to cool down on certain circles the real picture begins to become more clear. This is partially because of the work of the EU staffs. No doubt that they who actually dealing with the daily nitty-gritty details already briefed those who usually concerned themselves with sabre-rattling on international scale.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I don't like either major party presumptive US presidential candidate.  And I agree with George Washington who stated a 2-party system would not be good for the US.  Also the way we do the debates is utterly ridiculous.  Only some of the candidates in each party were allowed in to their respective debates and only the 2 major party candidates are allowed in the debates that happen after the respective national conventions.  We need to allow all candidates into the debates for their respective parties and then 1 candidate per party for the debates after the national conventions (which means more than 2 candidates in a debate).  I daresay it would mix things up better.  Also I would have a strict no talking over another candidate policy.  How can I know what person A is saying when person B is talking at the same time? And I don't have auditory processing issues.  Being rude like that should not be tolerated.  I feel for the people trying to do the closed captioning; it must be a nightmare.  Maybe remove the rude candidate after 1 warning and not allow them in the next debate.  (Now if only Sherlock & Mycroft actually existed & they could monitor the debates.  The removed candidates were learn their lesson rather quickly from those 2.)

[Shadow Dweller]

*grins* Won't the Holmes boys bickers among themselves instead of actually doing a monitoring?

 

Anyway, just realized that this week is 'end of month blues'. No wonder many people had suddenly disappeared.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

That means I need to get ready for business taxes (not hard yet as my business hasn't generated anything yet :( ) & need to finish prep on my novel (CampNaNoWriMo starts Friday.)

[Arcadia]

So, what make politics and governance interesting for you at this moment?

Oh, wow, everything. Trying to understand why people vote the way they do, what will make government better for the people it serves, analyzing competing ideas, being part of a movement ... all that kind of stuff interests me. Not just at this moment, but all the time.

 

I don't like either major party presumptive US presidential candidate.

I don't know anyone who does, including myself. Although I must say, I went to a Clinton rally, and she does come across far better in person than she does on television. Maybe Trump does too, for all I know. But for me, it comes down to choosing between their goals, not their personalities, so I'll hold my nose and vote anyway.

 

And I agree with George Washington who stated a 2-party system would not be good for the US.  Also the way we do the debates is utterly ridiculous.

Agree on the debates. They're not debates! And the moderators don't moderate! It's TV spectacle, entertainment masked as public affairs. Very disappointing.

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

Sorry, I find politics and governance absolutely fascinating. And I grew up in a household that encouraged debate on the subject; I sometimes forget it's not as popular everywhere else as it is in my house! Anyway, I've got a busy day to get ready for so I'll shut up now. (Yes, yes, I can hear the cheers. :P )

  

Eh, why the cheers? I enjoy reading or talking about almost anything as long as it's sensible and everyone is open-minded and well-informed. I am not well-informed enough to participate but I'd read as long as it's interesting, otherwise I would just filter you out. :p

 

 

 

*grins* Won't the Holmes boys bickers among themselves instead of actually doing a monitoring?

Anyway, just realized that this week is 'end of month blues'. No wonder many people had suddenly disappeared.

  

What is end of month blues? The only thing that looks bluish is my bank account.

 

Where is everyone? (Throw smoke bomb to chase everyone out of their boltholes).

Shame..shame..shame...Criminal classes are everywhere! Put on your deerstalkers and do something.. like.. uh..stalk a deer! Out, out, out! *kick kick kick*

 

I don't know anyone who does, including myself. Although I must say, I went to a Clinton rally, and she does come across far better in person than she does on television. Maybe Trump does too, for all I know. But for me, it comes down to choosing between their goals, not their personalities, so I'll hold my nose and vote anyway.

 

I am afraid to ask....which one smells better?

[Arcadia]

Wow, it must be Monday, the forum's suddenly alive again. Guess it needed a nap. Hey, Carol, maybe that's why it was down for a bit, it got tired!

 

 

I don't know anyone who does, including myself. Although I must say, I went to a Clinton rally, and she does come across far better in person than she does on television. Maybe Trump does too, for all I know. But for me, it comes down to choosing between their goals, not their personalities, so I'll hold my nose and vote anyway.

I am afraid to ask....which one smells better?

 

I'm afraid to find out!

[Shadow Dweller]

What is end of month blues? The only thing that looks bluish is my bank account.

 

Where is everyone? (Throw smoke bomb to chase everyone out of their boltholes).

Shame..shame..shame...Criminal classes are everywhere! Put on your deerstalkers and do something.. like.. uh..stalk a deer! Out, out, out! *kick kick kick*

 

 

I volunteer to herd the dog squad, let the others chase the baddies to their heart's content.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorry to be so long replying!  I've been mostly limited to my cell phone the past few days, and it doesn't do multiquote very well.  (Or more accurately, I haven't yet learned how to do multiquote very well on it.    )
 

By the way, on the news last night they interviewed a girl who said she voted for "Brexit" as a protest, never expecting it would win, and now that it had, she regretted her vote.

 
People do that, yeah.  I voted for McGovern as a protest against Nixon.  I would have been horrified if he'd actually won.
 

You do realize that referring to climate-change skeptics as "deniers" comes real close to name-calling?

So I thought about this awhile, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. But just to be real clear, when I wrote "deniers", I meant "deniers" -- I wasn't using it to mean people who might have rational, fact-based objections.

 
Something like my reference to the "true believers" in the climate-change camp, huh?   ;)  (Though *ahem* I do think I made it clear that I was putting only some of that camp into that category.  :P )  That's OK.  Unfortunately, I already had my back up a little, due to some anthropogenic-climate-changers apparently putting any and all skeptics into the "denier" category.
 

Your pro-gay-rights Republican friends may actually be closet libertarians -- i.e., not on the left/right spectrum at all.  (See the Nolan Chart.)

Oh, the Nolan chart. As I take strong exception to his definitions of the various political views, I'll have to pass on that one. In any case, I think at least one of my friends does in fact identify as Libertarian; but she always votes for the GOP. Perhaps this explains why I tend to think of "Libertarian" as just another word for "Republican." (But intellectually, I do understand the dif. Honest!)

Your confusion is somewhat understandable, since a consistent, principled free-market Republican would be half a libertarian (with Bernie Sanders being roughly the other half).

 

As for the chart, I seem to recall it being simpler at one time, with the quiz being a whole lot less like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  In the process of trying to make things Perfectly Clear, they seem to have bewildered a lot of people (including a lot of libertarians).  But at least the chart suggests that there's more to political philosophy than the traditional left-right spectrum.

 

I think a lot of libertarians have been voting mostly Republican lately simply because a number of the recent candidates (unlike the party hierarchy) have certain libertarian leanings (and the Libertarian Party sometimes seems determined to shoot itself in the collective foot).  But this year the LP has a credible candidate, and I suspect there may be a good many Republican voters returning the favor!

 

[Arcadia]

What candidate is that? This is news to me! Srsly, this is the first I've heard of a LP candidate.

 

At any rate, if I'm to believe the Nolan chart, then Dem candidates have certain libertarian leanings too ... just sayin'. :P But really, I just find the chart's definitions too simplistic. And rather too obviously structured to make the libertarians come out looking like Nolan wanted them to look.

[Carol the Dabbler]

What candidate is that? This is news to me! Srsly, this is the first I've heard of a LP candidate.

 

At any rate, if I'm to believe the Nolan chart, then Dem candidates have certain libertarian leanings too ... just sayin'. :P But really, I just find the chart's definitions too simplistic. And rather too obviously structured to make the libertarians come out looking like Nolan wanted them to look.

 

Hey, if you were devising a chart, it'd probably turn out the way you wanted it to look!  ;)

 

The Democrats should have certain libertarian leanings, yes -- good catch!  But from most of what I've observed (mind you, I hate politics, and avoid it whenever possible), they aren't nearly as pro-civil-liberties as one might hope.  As an example, I don't recall any Democrat supporting legalization of marijuana since Bill Clinton let Joycelyn Elders test the waters (and take the fall).  That's why I mentioned Bernie Sanders as the appropriate opposite number to cetain Republicans.

 

The Libertarian presidential candidate is Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico.

[Arcadia]

Depends on what you think civil liberties are, I guess. Gay marriage? Abortion? Equal pay? Religious freedom? Gun ownership? Privacy? Free speech? Tax relief? Drug use? Clean environment? And when your civil liberties and mine come into conflict, how do we as a nation resolve it?

I'm thinking of a story someone told me once, about landowners out west who were objecting to land use regulations. "You can't tell me what I can do with my land!" was their basic premise. Sounds reasonable. But the problem was, their activities (I forget the details) were causing pollution which was harmful to their neighbors downstream.

So whose civil liberties should have prevailed, here? The landowners who thought they deserved the right to do what they liked with their property? Or the residents downstream, who thought they deserved the right to a clean environment? The Democratic government at the time (Clinton's or Carter's, I'm not sure how old this story was) legislated in favor of the latter, and it's been used ever since as an example of (Democratic) government overreach. But is it?

[Arcadia]

Oh ... "Governor Veto" is your "credible" candidate? Ahem. :P  Sorry, sorry. But, um, er .... well, let's just say that's not a term I've heard associated with him before. It will take some getting used to. But in this election cycle, anything is possible, I guess.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Your story of the landowners upstream versus the landowners downstream is a good example of what's called "the tragedy of the commons," with the basic problem being that nobody owns the river.  Supposedly "the government" owns it, but that's a rather ill-defined aggregate of unrelated entities.  If the river had an owner in the usual sense, they would surely object to the upstream crowd dumping their pollution into it, same as you'd object if your neighbor dumped their garbage over the fence.  So (based on your account) I'll side with the Democrats in that case.

 

You disagree with some of Johnson's principles, fine.  That's your right.  But there's no need to snicker at someone just because you disagree.  I disagree with some of Bernie Sanders' principles, but admire that he's a principled man.  As I understand it, Johnson basically believes that everyone has the right to live their life and use their property as they see fit -- as long as their garbage doesn't cross the fence.  (And by the way, he apparently agrees with nearly all of the civil liberties on your list.)

 

[Arcadia]

So do the Dems and Republicans.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Which is basically the point I was trying to make.  You seemed to consider Johnson not worthy of serious consideration, but he supports pretty much the same civil liberties that the major-party candidates do.