Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

    I never liked that book because it smacked of whiny defeatist liberalism. Sorta like "we have better ideas if people in Kansas would just open their eyes". Look, candidates matter. That's why Sen Roberts is fighting for his political life right now. Its why we have Dem Senators in ND and MT, and Goopers in ME and IL.

    The whole premise of people voting against their self interest IMHO has its beginnings in Reagan's appeal to working class people in the early 80's. However, while he may have been working against their self interest financially (depending on your opinion) these same voters could have felt he was working on their behalf in foreign policy.

    So yes, some people stupidly voted for Romney thinking that tax cuts for himself, Sheldon Alderson and Paris Hilton was going to stimulate the economy because they didn't consider these people would just park that money overseas. However people repeatedly voting against their self interest is IMHO a much more minor occurance nowadays. In fact, this is essentually what saved Obama's butt in the 2012 elections. Very little of Romney's platform appealed to the majority of people. In fact his only rational for his candidacy was if you had a deep dislike of Obama. As he found out the hard way, not enough people did. Obama's policy stances aligning with the majority of people's preferences caused them to overlook near 8% unemployment and an at the time slow recovery, which would normally be fatal against a generic well funded opponent like Mittens.
    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

    Comment


    • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

      Originally posted by Rover View Post
      I never liked that book because it smacked of whiny defeatist liberalism. Sorta like "we have better ideas if people in Kansas would just open their eyes".
      I can't believe you actually read more than the title of the book if you think that was what it was about. In fact, the first quarter of the book is all about how it ISN'T about "if they'd just open their eyes."

      I actually dislike the book for other reasons, but you're perpetuating a misreading of the central premise; stop it.

      (And don't get me started on The End of History or The Bell Curve.)
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
        Strawman. It would work if people were deliberately going to the polls thinking "I am voting for delayed gratification" or "I am sacrificing my benefit for a greater social benefit," but the Whats the Matter with Kansas voters aren't doing either of those things -- simply put, they've been duped into voting for selfish economic reasons policies which in reality result in their short and long term economic harm.

        You have a point when it comes to voters who deliberately say "I am intentionally voting for my values instead of my pocketbook," but VERY few voters actually think that's what they're doing. There are a few -- my best friend at work is one -- but you are setting up the implication that lower middle class and poor people who vote for policies that benefit the rich at their expense (again, both short and long term) are doing so because they have an overriding altruism. This is almost never true.

        And it all misses the point, anyway. The vast majority of people's politics works just like their religion -- they fervently believe whatever their parents believed and drummed into them. The only "thinking" involved is rationalizing after the fact why the way they worship or vote is actually "true."
        I disagree. I think there is very little politics being discussed at home between parents and children. My wife and I haven't had any discussions around our kids that I recall. The only discussion of politics or voting that I had with my parents was when I was about 12 and I asked my mom if she was going down to vote (it was election day) her response was, "Of course. I have to go down and cancel out your dad's vote." That was it. One "discussion."

        People vote for one candidate or another, I believe, because they hear one thing about a candidate that strikes a chord with them. Maybe it's from a family member or friend. Maybe it's a tv ad. Maybe it's at work, or at a union meeting.

        As for the backwoods, uneducated poor who supposedly vote exclusively Republican, how do you know why they vote the way they do? Some special insight to them? Because of the Pelosi interviews?

        Maybe they understand they are being promised more access to healthcare, more welfare benefits, etc..., by the Democrats, but maybe they don't like what the Democrats stand for, so they don't vote for them? Maybe they prefer to keep their guns, even though to us it may seem a silly tradeoff.

        Can't the same argument be made about rich Democrats? Why would they ever vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, create more government programs, etc... It just costs them money.

        Why is it the Democrats who do this are altruistic, but the poor Republicans are just ignorant rubes? Just curious?
        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

        Comment


        • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
          I disagree. I think there is very little politics being discussed at home between parents and children. My wife and I haven't had any discussions around our kids that I recall. The only discussion of politics or voting that I had with my parents was when I was about 12 and I asked my mom if she was going down to vote (it was election day) her response was, "Of course. I have to go down and cancel out your dad's vote." That was it. One "discussion."

          People vote for one candidate or another, I believe, because they hear one thing about a candidate that strikes a chord with them. Maybe it's from a family member or friend. Maybe it's a tv ad. Maybe it's at work, or at a union meeting.

          As for the backwoods, uneducated poor who supposedly vote exclusively Republican, how do you know why they vote the way they do? Some special insight to them? Because of the Pelosi interviews?

          Maybe they understand they are being promised more access to healthcare, more welfare benefits, etc..., by the Democrats, but maybe they don't like what the Democrats stand for, so they don't vote for them? Maybe they prefer to keep their guns, even though to us it may seem a silly tradeoff.

          Can't the same argument be made about rich Democrats? Why would they ever vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, create more government programs, etc... It just costs them money.

          Why is it the Democrats who do this are altruistic, but the poor Republicans are just ignorant rubes? Just curious?
          I've talked to both my kids about political issues. Comes up all the time. Could be just me, but somehow I doubt it.

          Perhaps you could explain what the Republican Party actually stands for? Cause from my education over the years I think I've figured it out and even though the party I have ended up supporting is flawed beyond belief, the Republican Party in my calculation has completely lost their minds and their way.

          And, yes, I have supported Republicans in the past. If they don't change the way they are now, however, I will NEVER vote for another Republican again.
          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

          Comment


          • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
            I can't believe you actually read more than the title of the book if you think that was what it was about. In fact, the first quarter of the book is all about how it ISN'T about "if they'd just open their eyes."

            I actually dislike the book for other reasons, but you're perpetuating a misreading of the central premise; stop it.

            (And don't get me started on The End of History or The Bell Curve.)
            Kep I read it cover to cover.

            To further my case against the notion that voters are locked into their preferences, put aside once-in-a-generation Presidents like Reagan and Clinton and just take the last 4 elections from Bush-Obama. Over that time, the following states voted for each party at least once: NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, IA, CO, NM, NV, and one Congressional district in Nebraska since electoral votes are awarded that way there and in Maine. That's 10 states and part of a 11th over 4 elections, a cross section of geographies, economic strength, etc. Candidates and their message matters. Put in two other near misses of WI and MO over that time as well. If you include Senators and Governors, the list would be even larger over the last few elections.
            Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

            Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

            "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

            Comment


            • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

              Political topics were routinely and openly talked about when I was a kid, and the same occurs now that I am a parent.

              Comment


              • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                I disagree. I think there is very little politics being discussed at home between parents and children. My wife and I haven't had any discussions around our kids that I recall. The only discussion of politics or voting that I had with my parents was when I was about 12 and I asked my mom if she was going down to vote (it was election day) her response was, "Of course. I have to go down and cancel out your dad's vote." That was it. One "discussion."

                People vote for one candidate or another, I believe, because they hear one thing about a candidate that strikes a chord with them. Maybe it's from a family member or friend. Maybe it's a tv ad. Maybe it's at work, or at a union meeting.

                As for the backwoods, uneducated poor who supposedly vote exclusively Republican, how do you know why they vote the way they do? Some special insight to them? Because of the Pelosi interviews?

                Maybe they understand they are being promised more access to healthcare, more welfare benefits, etc..., by the Democrats, but maybe they don't like what the Democrats stand for, so they don't vote for them? Maybe they prefer to keep their guns, even though to us it may seem a silly tradeoff.

                Can't the same argument be made about rich Democrats? Why would they ever vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, create more government programs, etc... It just costs them money.

                Why is it the Democrats who do this are altruistic, but the poor Republicans are just ignorant rubes? Just curious?
                Democrats are no more altruistic than Republicans. Both (D) and (R) vote for what we think is "right." What seems "right" to us is primarily a matter of what the people who had a formative influence on us thought was right. This may not be explicit communication (for example, I talk politics almost never with my daughter) however the messages get delivered -- voting patterns strongly replicate in offspring.

                Nor are the Republican poor and lower middle class who vote (accidentally) against their economic interest any more or less "rubes" than the Democratic poor and lower middle class who vote (accidentally) for their economic interest. Everybody decides who to vote for based on filtering that is mostly determined for them rather than by them -- some ideas seem "right" or "sensible" or "dangerous" or "naive." Some personas seem "trustworthy" or "strong" or "reactive" or "unsteady." And at the end of the day there is "what they stand for," a vague catch-all that can paint over any dissonance and reinforce what was the pre-set choice. The art of campaigning is to activate as many of the positive emotional connections of as many of your voters as you can -- so you hold the dog and smile with the kids and put a big flag on a sunny day in the background and use a deeper voice and look steadily into the camera with kindness but firmness and do everything you can to remind the voter of their dear old dad.

                And at the end of the day it probably doesn't even matter since by the third election the voter's voting patterns (both who and whether) are set.
                Last edited by Kepler; 09-30-2014, 02:56 PM.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                  Originally posted by Rover View Post
                  Kep I read it cover to cover.
                  Then I dunno what to say. Either you or Thomas Frank is right.
                  Cornell University
                  National Champion 1967, 1970
                  ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                  Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                    I've talked to both my kids about political issues. Comes up all the time. Could be just me, but somehow I doubt it.

                    Perhaps you could explain what the Republican Party actually stands for? Cause from my education over the years I think I've figured it out and even though the party I have ended up supporting is flawed beyond belief, the Republican Party in my calculation has completely lost their minds and their way.

                    And, yes, I have supported Republicans in the past. If they don't change the way they are now, however, I will NEVER vote for another Republican again.
                    I have no idea what the Republican party stands for, and candidly, I'm not sure the Republican party knows either. I've never been to a Republican party meeting or caucus. But I haven't been to a Democratic party one either, and I have no interest in reading the "platforms" of either party.

                    I try to read or listen to what the individual candidate supports and decide based upon that. It's probably a bad approach, based upon the fact that it seems like politicians are either forced or ultimately choose to fall in line with whatever party leaders may tell them to do. But it's the approach I've used, and I'm a little old to change now.

                    It's interesting that some here have had actual discussions with their kids about politics. Different experience than mine. But I guess that's good it's being discussed in at least some households.
                    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                      I have no idea what the Republican party stands for, and candidly, I'm not sure the Republican party knows either. I've never been to a Republican party meeting or caucus. But I haven't been to a Democratic party one either
                      I've been to both and believe me, you're not missing anything. You know how sometimes before the game they roll out a crappy threadbare carpet at center ice and the dipsht local pol gives a 2 minute speech (which is 1:45 padding) and then hands the middle aged haus frau charity co-chair a blown up check for $27,458.62 the team raised for early onset hyperthyroidism from a car wash?

                      A party meeting is that, for three hours.

                      A party caucus is that, except people are jabbering at each other about whether to give the money instead to traumatic fecal syndrome.

                      A party convention is that, except most people are borderline drunk, and there are inexplicably great -- and I mean great as in 1954 Ritz Carleton escort -- looking women hanging off the arms of dried up prune-human hybrids who look like Mort Sahl after a 12-day coke binge.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                        Then I dunno what to say. Either you or Thomas Frank is right.

                        Duh, I'm right obviously. Frank is probably one of those pundits who's constantly ripping off my analysis out here.
                        Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                        Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                        "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                          (2) People typically vote culture, not pocketbook. This is suggested when wealthy and upper middle class people vote (D) and painfully obvious when lower middle class and poor people vote (R). If voting was typically pocketbook each would be rare.

                          There is an alternate explanation for your # 2 in which people actually ARE voting for their wallets and purses. There is so much crony capitalism these days that there are a LOT of 'wealthy' people who derive their living from government, either directly or indirectly:
                          -- university professors (who is the largest payor of college tuition in the US? why, the federal government! and who supports more aid to college students? why, the Democrat party!)
                          -- government employees (lots of them make over $100,000 annually)
                          -- people in the financial services industry (who is the largest issuer of government bonds in the world? who brings them to market and trades them? and who benefits from lots of liquidity sloshing around in the financial system?)
                          -- entertainers
                          -- tax attorneys and CPAs (who get very well paid for interpreting complicated tax laws, a specialty of the Democrats in particular).
                          -- trial attorneys (who make lots of money from D-supported 'causes' and not only to most of them vote D, quite a few of them are actual D candidates! 'Tort reform' is NOT a big D priority, eh?)

                          So there are plenty of reasons for the wealthy to vote D, since so many of them benefit from the D administration (hint: which class has seen their income and net worth grow the most over the past six years?)


                          Regarding lower middle class and poor people voting R, that's also obviously because they are indeed voting with their wallets and purses: do you think they want to stay that way forever? if they want upward mobility, which party is more likely to offer it to them? (hint: it's NOT the D!)

                          So your glib facile thesis isn't quite so "obvious" after all.
                          Last edited by FreshFish; 09-30-2014, 04:49 PM.
                          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                            FF,

                            If you honestly think either party is involved in the upward mobility of the average constituent then I want to know what drugs you're on cause I could use some.

                            Scooby
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                              FF,

                              If you honestly think either party is involved in the upward mobility of the average constituent then I want to know what drugs you're on cause I could use some.

                              Scooby
                              Well, I'm pretty sure it is NOT the party that says, "be quiet, collect your check, don't ask for anything more, and remember to vote for us: that's our quid pro quo, we give you subsistence living, you keep us in office."

                              I merely said which party offers a greater opportunity of advancement: the one that cut taxes for the poor and middle class (if you care about factual accuracy, most of the "Bush tax cuts" actually went to lower- and middle income americans), one that says "there is too much government interference in your life holding you back", the one that says "economic growth is the highest priority"? Whether they actually care about it or not is one thing, whether that kind of platform would have an appeal to an ambitious poor person is another thing.


                              Some people (ahem) seem to think that there is a direct link between intelligence and income level. There are different kinds of intelligence: lots of "smart" people do really dumb things, and quite a few "average" people are pretty shrewd. Most people I know realize when they are being talked down to, and don't like it, even if they are "poor".
                              Last edited by FreshFish; 09-30-2014, 04:58 PM.
                              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                                Well, I'm pretty sure it is NOT the party that says, "be quiet, collect your check, don't ask for anything more, and remember to vote for us: that's our quid pro quo, we give you subsistence living, you keep us in office."

                                I merely said which party offers a greater opportunity of advancement: the one that cut taxes for the poor and middle class (if you care about factual accuracy, most of the "Bush tax cuts" actually went to lower- and middle income americans), one that says "there is too much government interference in your life holding you back", the one that says "economic growth is the highest priority"? Whether they actually care about it or not is one thing, whether that kind of platform would have an appeal to an ambitious poor person is another thing.


                                Some people (ahem) seem to think that there is a direct link between intelligence and income level. There are different kinds of intelligence: lots of "smart" people do really dumb things, and quite a few "average" people are pretty shrewd. Most people I know realize when they are being talked down to, and don't like it, even if they are "poor".
                                So, they're improving their upward mobility by limiting the ability for unions to collectively bargain better wages, keeping their job opportunities limited to low wage, dead end jobs, slashing education budgets to deny them education, and depriving them of healthcare benefits and retirement benefits? Yup, really helping that upward mobility.
                                U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
                                Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
                                I spell Failure with UAF

                                Originally posted by UAFIceAngel
                                But let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAA
                                Originally posted by Doyle Woody
                                Best sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X