An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

[FreshFish]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I wouldn't be surprised if this turns into a thread that discusses politics...but actually has thoughtful discussion (unless that is ruled out). I'm already seeing some of the more posters capable of this showing up here.

I have found something really interesting lately. Rather than discuss "politics," to discuss social issues. There is a person with whom I ride the train regularly who I know has "politics" that are quite different than mine, and so I deliberately steer our conversations toward how we view the underlying social and economic relationships instead.

We both agree that 21st century technology for nuclear power has to be implemented to address our energy needs, for example, even though we get there from very different starting points.
While he would prefer a carbon tax while I would prefer carbon offset credits, we both agree that incentivizing people to act better is preferable to mandating that everyone must behave in a particular way.
We both agree that people have a responsibility in an interconnected society to offer assistance to people in time of need, and that helping people become self-sufficient is preferable to relegating people to a state of permanent dependency.

The details of how we might then go about addressing these problems may differ, but it is encouraging to see that we can agree on what the problems are and the broad conceptual outlines of what a viable solution would require.

I think the biggest mistake left-wing people make is thinking that conservatives don't care about suffering people in need: they do, and they demonstrate it through their actions.

 

[The Rube]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I know many of you disagree with me, and vice versa. My hope for this particular thread is that we don't talk down to each other, no matter how ridiculous we might think another's opinion is. I agree that the other threads are ripe for snark, sarcasm, and jokes. I'd like a "clean" thread, for sure. I've mostly stayed out of the pol threads for this exact reason. However, 2016 is a whole different beast, and I'd like my voice heard.

That being said, I am unsure why the media is now trying to focus on Trump's mental health. Seems odd that NOW they are bringing that up. A last shot? Desperation because nothing has worked? Seems strange to me. My tinfoil hat thinks they are trying to cast a shadow of dementia/etc (think: Reagan) on Trump.

Frankly, I don't think Trump really cares. As long as the spotlight is on him, he's content.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I have a question. If it doesn't fit within Kep's intended purpose of this thread, I'll delete it, but I've been curious about this.

Some posters here at USCHO have stated the opinion that HRC is not only the most qualified female candidate for POTUS that we've ever seen, but maybe one of the most qualified candidate's period. I would like to know why they think that, because personally I disagree. My disagreement is likely one of the reasons why I don't intend to vote for her. If I could be persuaded that in fact she is one of the most qualified candidates ever, I would at least be willing to reevaluate my position. I'll throw out things that I've heard others reference, and my comments on them. But perhaps I've missed some.

I'll start with her education. She has degrees, including a law degree, from excellent, prestigious institutions. This I concede. However, I don't think that necessarily sets her apart from past or current applicants for the job. First, there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in this country with similar educational achievements, including many who have run for POTUS. As we have seen in the past, a degree from Harvard or Yale does not mean you are necessarily going to be a great, or even good, President.

She served as a corporate lawyer for a "prestigious Little Rock lawfirm." Meh. I've been to Little Rock. It's smaller than Des Moines, iirc. It's not like she ran a prominent NYC, Washington D.C. or Chicago lawfirm where she was called upon to provide legal advice to the government or its agencies. There are a lot of lawyers in places like Des Moines, Madison WI, and Boise ID who would be surprised to learn that their role as a partner in a prominent lawfirm in that community is a key piece to their qualification for POTUS.

She was First Lady. So was Barbara Bush.

She served in the Senate. This is true. However, I don't know that she necessarily distinguished herself by her Senate career. Just going off memory, I can't think of a single piece of legislation that I will forever associate with her. Others, like Bobby Kennedy, have parked themselves in the Senate while waiting for a chance for the White House, but at least used that position to try to improve race or economic conditions in the country. I read a tweet by Adam Wodon that indicated that HRC authored something like 10 pieces of legislation while in the Senate. I was curious about it, so I looked it up. Eight of them were to rename federal buildings (usually post offices). There are Senators who have real legislative achievements that we can look back on. I personally believe she spent her time there raising money from foreign governments for her foundation and raising capital in this country for her campaign.

She served as Sec of State. Again, true. But how does that contribute to her being the most qualified candidate ever? Have we even had a Sec of State who moved on to the WH since the Civil War? It's not like we can say with any confidence that service as Secretary of State is a great piece of experience in making a person a good President. Furthermore, like her career in the Senate, her work as Secretary of State seemed a lot more like a place park her stuff and staff until the POTUS campaign, rather than real diplomatic work. Don't get me wrong. I don't blame government officials, including HRC, for not preventing foreign attacks, whether it's embassy bombings or the WTC. But even if we eliminate all those things that she didn't do, what exactly did she do there?

Finally, some will say, "you have to add all those components together." But even if you do, and even if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, the parts really didn't add up to much of anything.

Maybe my skepticism is based upon my own view of what qualifications I think a person needs to be a good POTUS.

I think a person needs to be smart. I will give HRC that.

I think a person needs to be an excellent public speaker, and be able to convey a charisma that will cause people to rally to your position. HRC has none of this.

I think you need to have diplomatic skills that enable you to start with a piece of legislation that you support, and marshall it through both houses of Congress through a combination of negotiation, compromise, persuasion, etc... She did not demonstrate this skill at all in any of her former positions, least of all the Senate.

Finally, I think you need an inborn sense of right and wrong. An understanding that the correct decision is not always the decision that is most convenient or politically expedient for you. I have substantial doubts about her judgment in this area, but admittedly it is colored by the fact that I cannot decouple her from Bill Clinton and his cadre.

So, there you have it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I have a question. If it doesn't fit within Kep's intended purpose of this thread, I'll delete it, but I've been curious about this.

I'm not actually King, but if you want my "one man's opinion" your post is perfect.

IMO, "most qualified candidate ever" is campaign hyperbole. For starters, I believe every President who had prior service as Veep was more qualified, so that's 14 of 44 right there.

But I do think she is well-qualified. You listed her CV. At most (all?) of those stops she didn't just occupy the slot, she was an activist and a policy wonk / driver. Now, she may have been an activist because she was resume-building towards the Presidential job interview. But that's a chicken and egg argument and at this point in her career it's kinda irrelevant: whether she is qualified because she is accomplished because she was ambitious to be qualified does not change the middle term: she is accomplished.

On a sense of right and wrong, one cannot search into another's heart. FWIW, Hillary comes across to me as a 24/7 lawyer. She lawyers every point because when you are representing your client your job is not to reach compromise, it's to put the strongest argument for your side forward in hopes of achieving a maximally beneficial result. When she herself is the client it comes across as self-serving. However, she is now auditioning to represent us, and I think there are situations in which that attribute may succeed where Obama's "search for ontological fairness" bogged down.

The final thing I would say is I believe people who have worked with her on issues, even opponents, have said she listens, she negotiates in good faith, she builds relationships, she actively participates in the hard work of research, advocacy and consensus-building, and she brings excellent skills to the table when a policy is being hammered out. This is the one personal characteristic of her that everybody who works with her appears to say is completely the opposite from the public perception. She leads and she also listens. I personally have no worries on that score.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I find it extremely frustrating that Republicans / some conservatives talk about "tax cuts" as if they were a desirable end in themselves. Targeted tax cuts are a means to an end, no more, no less.

So let's start with a proposition that I hope is acceptable to everyone across the political spectrum:

Incentives Matter.


If we accept that as a fundamental premise, then it seems to me that we also need to address this consideration at some point within any conversation about a program or piece of legislation: "How are people likely to change their behavior in response?"


Too many times, the analysis assumes that people will do the same thing afterward that they did before.






Historically, the classic example is the tax on US-built luxury yachts from the early 1990s. There was an excellent piece on PBS for which I had found a link earlier which I am not finding now. I did find this link to a NY Times article from February 1992 about it.

Basically, the tax generated about $0 dollars in revenue and nearly drove the nation's entire boat-building industry completely out of business.

Incentives really do matter.

The nation's luxury-boat builders, many clinging to their businesses after two years of plunging sales, finally got some good news last week.

President Bush, in his budget proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would be retroactive to Feb. 1.

Since the tax took effect in January 1990, hundreds of builders of large and small boats have spoken of it as a stake driven into the heart of an industry already suffering from the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the gulf war.

In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats -- recreational craft costing more than $100,000 -- cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I know many of you disagree with me, and vice versa. My hope for this particular thread is that we don't talk down to each other, no matter how ridiculous we might think another's opinion is. I agree that the other threads are ripe for snark, sarcasm, and jokes. I'd like a "clean" thread, for sure. I've mostly stayed out of the pol threads for this exact reason. However, 2016 is a whole different beast, and I'd like my voice heard.

This is where I was going with the 'thoughtful discussion' angle...but this is better said.

I have a question. If it doesn't fit within Kep's intended purpose of this thread, I'll delete it, but I've been curious about this.

Some posters here at USCHO have stated the opinion that HRC is not only the most qualified female candidate for POTUS that we've ever seen, but maybe one of the most qualified candidate's period. I would like to know why they think that, because personally I disagree. My disagreement is likely one of the reasons why I don't intend to vote for her. If I could be persuaded that in fact she is one of the most qualified candidates ever, I would at least be willing to reevaluate my position. I'll throw out things that I've heard others reference, and my comments on them. But perhaps I've missed some.

To add what Kep said, yes, I believe she is in the 80th+ percentile of qualified non incumbent candidates. The point is not just that she was a senator, first lady (and often sounding board of president), SOS, attorney, founder of advocates for children and families...its that she was all of the above. Usually presidential candidates have one or maybe two types of experience. That's fine, but to have multiple ways to triangulate solutions is just better. One could say 'wait, she doesn't have executive experience' as in hasn't been a governor. But those with only governor experience don't know what its like in Utah, Detroit, or Hispanic Miami. They also know nothing of our international challenges, opportunities nor how to get things done. They know their own state and its narrow constuancy (oh and she has been in governor mansions quite a bit in case its that important). If you put up another heavily qualified candidate...its possible to compare...but it is unlikely they would have 8 years back room visibility to a presidency.

And keep in mind experience by definition does not speak to competency nor does it speak to what one chooses to do with that experience. Those are other matters.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I have found something really interesting lately. Rather than discuss "politics," to discuss social issues. There is a person with whom I ride the train regularly who I know has "politics" that are quite different than mine, and so I deliberately steer our conversations toward how we view the underlying social and economic relationships instead.

We both agree that 21st century technology for nuclear power has to be implemented to address our energy needs, for example, even though we get there from very different starting points.
While he would prefer a carbon tax while I would prefer carbon offset credits, we both agree that incentivizing people to act better is preferable to mandating that everyone must behave in a particular way.
We both agree that people have a responsibility in an interconnected society to offer assistance to people in time of need, and that helping people become self-sufficient is preferable to relegating people to a state of permanent dependency.

The details of how we might then go about addressing these problems may differ, but it is encouraging to see that we can agree on what the problems are and the broad conceptual outlines of what a viable solution would require.

I think the biggest mistake left-wing people make is thinking that conservatives don't care about suffering people in need: they do, and they demonstrate it through their actions.

Love it. The way to effective problem solving is finding out the underlying drivers and address them. If you don't understand the problem (i.e., disagree on the drivers), you can't solve it.

I find it extremely frustrating that Republicans / some conservatives talk about "tax cuts" as if they were a desirable end in themselves. Targeted tax cuts are a means to an end, no more, no less.

So let's start with a proposition that I hope is acceptable to everyone across the political spectrum:

Incentives Matter.

Agree again. As a D, business incentives are huge. I have no problem compensating executives big time for creating tons of wealth and jobs in the process. We need to incentivize the results we want. I am of the belief taxes are close to where they should be and there's enough incentives for most to profit from the US economy. I do believe we should be incentivizing alternatives as we are. The US needs to invent and own new technologies full stop...its our competitive advantage. We do need to continue to elevate our poorer communities through education, etc with incentives (as we are doing to a certain extent).

I actually don't think your tax example is a good one. In 1990, the economy softened and remained that way well through 1992. So I don't see that as an incentive issue...but rather tax relief during an economic downturn. I'm sure the luxury boat industry would be doing quite well with or without a 10% luxury tax in the rest of the 90s when entreprenuers were raking it in.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Enjoying reading this thread immensely so far, I've given up on keeping up with the politics thread due to snark and what not, but this discussion is more in line with the podcasts I have really started to enjoy.
In semi-related discussion, I did one of those "I stand with" polls and was amazed at myself for the amount of time I invested in answering questions I used to simply check yes or no, (primary example, funding for planned parenthood). I feel like the more I explore listening to things like Radiolab, More Perfect, and Revisionist History, the more I find myself questioning my reasoning on things.

Revisionist History has been great helping me understand things better like the premier episode (The Lady Vanishes) discussing women breaking through in a man's thing. While I always laughed at the idea of white and/or male privilege and never thought it was a big deal to call a woman bossy. Malcolm Gladwell's podcast has impressed new thoughts into my otherwise resolute beliefs. For this thread, I primarily would recommend The Lady Vanishes (discussing Elizabeth Thompson, Julia Gillard, and evoking some thoughts about HRC)
And he did a trilogy on American Capitalization (people from all walks of life reaching their potential)
1) Carlos Doesn't Remember (discussing excellence in education from poor communities)
2) Food Fight (talking about higher education supporting those smart kids from poor communities)
3) My Little Hundred Million (discussing Hank Rowan's donation to a public university and other big donations from the super rich)

The Big Man Can't Shoot is also very interesting and kinda fits into this discussion of understanding why people do things even when they're wrong. It focuses alot on discussing free throws and how guys like Wilt Chamberlain and Shaq refused (or in the case of Chamberlain tried and changed back) to shoot free throws underhand even though it would have definitely made them significantly better at the free throw line.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I actually don't think your tax example is a good one. In 1990, the economy softened and remained that way well through 1992. So I don't see that as an incentive issue...but rather tax relief during an economic downturn. I'm sure the luxury boat industry would be doing quite well with or without a 10% luxury tax in the rest of the 90s when entreprenuers were raking it in.

The PBS documentary in particular (wish I could find that link again!) made it abundantly clear that the 10% luxury tax -- only on US boats -- was directly responsible for the collapse in the US boat-building industry; the luxury boat industry in other countries was not affected at all, indicating that the buyers merely purchased their yachts elsewhere. The NYTimes article in the link said that the tax on top of the recession was almost too much to bear, again indicating a very strong correlation between incremental extra hardship and the tax.

It is almost a perfect laboratory experiment: tax yachts in US but not elsewhere: yacht business in US flounders while it remains about as strong as ever elsewhere. You change only one variable and keep the others constant and have a very clear difference in results.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

The PBS documentary in particular (wish I could find that link again!) made it abundantly clear that the 10% luxury tax -- only on US boats -- was directly responsible for the collapse in the US boat-building industry; the luxury boat industry in other countries was not affected at all, indicating that the buyers merely purchased their yachts elsewhere. The NYTimes article in the link said that the tax on top of the recession was almost too much to bear, again indicating a very strong correlation between incremental extra hardship and the tax.

It is almost a perfect laboratory experiment: tax yachts in US but not elsewhere: yacht business in US flounders while it remains about as strong as ever elsewhere. You change only one variable and keep the others constant and have a very clear difference in results.

So to test your theory, we should compare it to other high end luxury markets...like autos. The reason why luxury cars makes a good test is that it also received the same 10% luxury tax (on vehicles over $30,000), but unlike yachts which lost the tax as the recession ended...luxury cars kept the 10% tax through the early 2000s. So in theory, luxury yacht sales should take off but luxury car sales should languish regardless of the economy.

In fact, the luxury car market expanded from recession levels of 1.1 million units in 89 to 1.9 million units in 03 for the US market, increasing from 8% of the total automobile market to 11% (8 to 11 is a very high relative increase). As the book Lexus in the chapter called 'they want to destroy us'...says 'as the market expanded in lock step with the economy in the mid to late 1990s, there seemed to be enough growth in the high end market for everyone'.

To me, it doesn't appear that the underlying hit to these marketplaces in the early 90s was the tax, but rather the economy. But its one guys opinion.

https://books.google.lv/books?id=LA...OAhXhKJoKHX9oCeoQ6AEIZTAN#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[FreshFish]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

So to test your theory, we should compare it to other high end luxury markets...like autos. The reason why luxury cars makes a good test is that it also received the same 10% luxury tax (on vehicles over $30,000), but unlike yachts which lost the tax as the recession ended...luxury cars kept the 10% tax through the early 2000s. So in theory, luxury yacht sales should take off but luxury car sales should languish regardless of the economy.

In fact, the luxury car market expanded from recession levels of 1.1 million units in 89 to 1.9 million units in 03 for the US market, increasing from 8% of the total automobile market to 11% (8 to 11 is a very high relative increase). As the book Lexus in the chapter called 'they want to destroy us'...says 'as the market expanded in lock step with the economy in the mid to late 1990s, there seemed to be enough growth in the high end market for everyone'.

To me, it doesn't appear that the underlying hit to these marketplaces in the early 90s was the tax, but rather the economy. But its one guys opinion.

https://books.google.lv/books?id=LA...OAhXhKJoKHX9oCeoQ6AEIZTAN#v=onepage&q&f=false

Four incremental pieces of information that we need to include as part of a controlled scientific experiment.

1) a tax on yacht value over $30,000 on yachts is not the same as a tax on auto value over $30,000, since most yachts cost far more than luxury autos ("what is the average purchase price of yacht in 1991 vs luxury car?")

2) It is relatively easy to go to another country to buy a yacht and sail it here. It is not nearly so easy to go overseas to buy a car and then ship it here. ("how much does it cost to ship a car from Europe vs sail a yacht from Europe?")

3) Most US yacht builders nearly went out of business in the early 1990s; automakers, not so much. (former was cited in NY Times article).

4) what proportion of US automaker sales were affected by tax compared to what proportion of US yachtmaker sales were affected by the tax (how much did US Automakers also sell overseas vs how much did US yachtmakers sell overseas?)

It was never presented as "all or none" but as "relative proportion." The tax impacted yachts far more heavily than cars on a relative basis because the amount of the purchase price subject to tax on the yachts was much higher than the amount of the purchase price subject to tax on the cars. (e.g, if average yacht is $100,000 and average luxury car is $50,000, then the former has a tax 3.5 times greater than the latter; not quite apples to apples when parsing out the effect of the tax relative to the effect of the recession).

 

[The Rube]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I think Hillary is MORE than qualified, probably more qualified than a majority of past official candidates of any party. That's not my issue with her.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I have a question. If it doesn't fit within Kep's intended purpose of this thread, I'll delete it, but I've been curious about this.

Some posters here at USCHO have stated the opinion that HRC is not only the most qualified female candidate for POTUS that we've ever seen, but maybe one of the most qualified candidate's period. I would like to know why they think that, because personally I disagree. My disagreement is likely one of the reasons why I don't intend to vote for her. If I could be persuaded that in fact she is one of the most qualified candidates ever, I would at least be willing to reevaluate my position. I'll throw out things that I've heard others reference, and my comments on them. But perhaps I've missed some.

I'll start with her education. She has degrees, including a law degree, from excellent, prestigious institutions. This I concede. However, I don't think that necessarily sets her apart from past or current applicants for the job. First, there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in this country with similar educational achievements, including many who have run for POTUS. As we have seen in the past, a degree from Harvard or Yale does not mean you are necessarily going to be a great, or even good, President.

She served as a corporate lawyer for a "prestigious Little Rock lawfirm." Meh. I've been to Little Rock. It's smaller than Des Moines, iirc. It's not like she ran a prominent NYC, Washington D.C. or Chicago lawfirm where she was called upon to provide legal advice to the government or its agencies. There are a lot of lawyers in places like Des Moines, Madison WI, and Boise ID who would be surprised to learn that their role as a partner in a prominent lawfirm in that community is a key piece to their qualification for POTUS.

She was First Lady. So was Barbara Bush.

She served in the Senate. This is true. However, I don't know that she necessarily distinguished herself by her Senate career. Just going off memory, I can't think of a single piece of legislation that I will forever associate with her. Others, like Bobby Kennedy, have parked themselves in the Senate while waiting for a chance for the White House, but at least used that position to try to improve race or economic conditions in the country. I read a tweet by Adam Wodon that indicated that HRC authored something like 10 pieces of legislation while in the Senate. I was curious about it, so I looked it up. Eight of them were to rename federal buildings (usually post offices). There are Senators who have real legislative achievements that we can look back on. I personally believe she spent her time there raising money from foreign governments for her foundation and raising capital in this country for her campaign.

She served as Sec of State. Again, true. But how does that contribute to her being the most qualified candidate ever? Have we even had a Sec of State who moved on to the WH since the Civil War? It's not like we can say with any confidence that service as Secretary of State is a great piece of experience in making a person a good President. Furthermore, like her career in the Senate, her work as Secretary of State seemed a lot more like a place park her stuff and staff until the POTUS campaign, rather than real diplomatic work. Don't get me wrong. I don't blame government officials, including HRC, for not preventing foreign attacks, whether it's embassy bombings or the WTC. But even if we eliminate all those things that she didn't do, what exactly did she do there?

Finally, some will say, "you have to add all those components together." But even if you do, and even if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, the parts really didn't add up to much of anything.

Maybe my skepticism is based upon my own view of what qualifications I think a person needs to be a good POTUS.

I think a person needs to be smart. I will give HRC that.

I think a person needs to be an excellent public speaker, and be able to convey a charisma that will cause people to rally to your position. HRC has none of this.

I think you need to have diplomatic skills that enable you to start with a piece of legislation that you support, and marshall it through both houses of Congress through a combination of negotiation, compromise, persuasion, etc... She did not demonstrate this skill at all in any of her former positions, least of all the Senate.

Finally, I think you need an inborn sense of right and wrong. An understanding that the correct decision is not always the decision that is most convenient or politically expedient for you. I have substantial doubts about her judgment in this area, but admittedly it is colored by the fact that I cannot decouple her from Bill Clinton and his cadre.

So, there you have it.

The phrase, "wealth of experience" immediately comes to mind. She has experienced all of this. No one has had the breadth of her experience in history.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I will generally be staying out of this thread precisely because some posts deserve no other response but snark. Pretending that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of quality responses is just as bad as the media's current run of giving both sides equal airtime when one side days "The sky is blue" and the other side responds that the "the sky is potato."

I also mostly agree with this.

It's the same strategy climate change deniers have used and John Oliver destroyed so handily. Not every opinion deserves a seat at the table.

 

[The Rube]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

I also mostly agree with this.

It's the same strategy climate change deniers have used and John Oliver destroyed so handily. Not every opinion deserves a seat at the table.

I disagree. If someone is shouted down, then they will most likely keep digging in, and keeping their stance. Let them be heard. If one doesn't feel like it's worthy of a response, don't respond. If one disagrees, state WHY one disagrees, in a respectful manner.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

This is precisely why we have "debate" about climate change. Because we give children a seat at the adults' table.

It doesn't lead to progress. It just leads to frustrated scientists and someone who has to clean up all the feces flung by the deniers.

 

[The Rube]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

This is precisely why we have "debate" about climate change. Because we give children a seat at the adults' table.

It doesn't lead to progress. It just leads to frustrated scientists and someone who has to clean up all the feces flung by the deniers.

And a lack of communication leads to many a problem, IMO.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

We don't need communication. We need progress.

 

[The Rube]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

We don't need communication. We need progress.

And this is why we don't have progress. Some shut others out and refuse to even entertain the idea of a different opinion.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

No, it's not.