The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

[SepticeyePoe]

do any of yall own guns?

I had a nerf gun, does that count?

 

[flynismo]

do any of yall own guns?

Own nine myself. A couple aren't technically legal, so yeah...
My favorite of the pistols that I own is a FN FAL FNP-45.

 

[Willbacker]

I want to throw out some questions and see if we can get a good debate going about some stuff.

1) We've made so much advances in technology, some may argue too much but yet in politics we still have the same old tired 2 party system. Do you guys feel the 2 party system is out of date and should have been advanced in a way by now that we should have had legit 3rd party candidates to vote for?

2) Speaking of our 2 party system, most would say this is the most divided our country has been in years(many blame the last 8 years of Obama on the fact we are so divided at this point) so shouldn't we also just get past candidates being for Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Liberal, and trying to unify this country as those labels also divide the country down the middle.

Right now you can almost look at Trump as a 3rd party candidate since at the beginning he had Dems also on his staff(Flynn,Kushner,Ivanka......funny how the 1st 2 are the ones being linked to Russia and added Garry Cohn later) but I would love to see a 3rd party candidate have a legitimate chance but they need some to just start winning lower level seats and then stepping up into governership,house or senate.

Just to note France's runoff neither of the top 2 parties was in it.

The perfect party for me would be CONSTITUTION 1st, taxpayer friendly, limit illegal immigration and the left side of me wants to expand green energy and legalize weed.

@K Dog. My main problem with Gary Johnson was open borders. Other than that I'd be all in.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

1) but not if it is student lead and voluntary participated.

2) which there are more than a few of those out

3) possibly symantics. It is able to be strengthened when its duties are more defined.

I have a feeling we're just going to go in circles, so really no point in furthering this discussion.

 

[The Raven]

For sake of conversation I will say yes, but I choose to not state publicly what I may or my not have.
[doublepost=1495999822,1495999309][/doublepost]


I can answer both questions in this.
The past three or four presidential elections I voted for Gary Johnson.
Sometimes because I just wanted third party visability. Sometimes I believed he really was the best man for the job ( it wasn't a stretch this past election)

The loyalty to party over the people is disgusting. They are in it for themselves not us.

This is another thing, in my experience covering politics, that I have found to be false. There are those who are this for themselves, but for the most part, politicians do actually have a good intent. The problem is that people are too committed to their political philosophy and ideology than practical solutions. For example, Republicans (at the local level) opposing tax breaks to corporations like Amazon, even though it'll bring thousands of jobs. But people vote them in based on those philosophies. So, how do politicians vote? For campaign promises and the philosophy people voted for, or for the solutions, that may conflict? I have really strong opinions on philosophy vs practicality.

Can I ask what makes you think this way? Because of the dozens of politicians I've met, I can only think of two that were clear cut in it for themselves.

 

[K-Dog]

Can I ask what makes you think this way? Because of the dozens of politicians I've met, I can only think of two that were clear cut in it for themselves.

They push public education but send their kids to private schools.

 

[Willbacker]

This is another thing, in my experience covering politics, that I have found to be false. There are those who are this for themselves, but for the most part, politicians do actually have a good intent. The problem is that people are too committed to their political philosophy and ideology than practical solutions. For example, Republicans (at the local level) opposing tax breaks to corporations like Amazon, even though it'll bring thousands of jobs. But people vote them in based on those philosophies. So, how do politicians vote? For campaign promises and the philosophy people voted for, or for the solutions, that may conflict? I have really strong opinions on philosophy vs practicality.

Can I ask what makes you think this way? Because of the dozens of politicians I've met, I can only think of two that were clear cut in it for themselves.

Don't even go there.

They push public education but send their kids to private schools.

Don't forget their own physicians

 

[The Raven]

They push public education but send their kids to private schools.

Might be some but I highly doubt it's most. And if they do, that's their (stupid) choice. Numerous studies have shown there's little benefit to private schools. Only real, possible benefit is networking but even then it's kinda moot at the high school level. Private school is overrated as hell.

Regardless, that's kind of irrelevant. What one does with their own money is their business. What does that have to do with putting party over people?
[doublepost=1496017364,1496017298][/doublepost]

Don't even go there.



Don't forget their own physicians

I went there. Republicans love to say "the best social program is a job" until it comes to actually paying money to create jobs. Piggy backing off of that, they love telling people to get a better job while not being willing to make higher education AND job training accessible to the lower class.

 

[Willbacker]

Might be some but I highly doubt it's most. And if they do, that's their (stupid) choice. Numerous studies have shown there's little benefit to private schools. Only real, possible benefit is networking but even then it's kinda moot at the high school level. Private school is overrated as hell.

Regardless, that's kind of irrelevant. What one does with their own money is their business. What does that have to do with putting party over people?
[doublepost=1496017364,1496017298][/doublepost]

I went there. Republicans love to say "the best social program is a job" until it comes to actually paying money to create jobs. Piggy backing off of that, they love telling people to get a better job while not being willing to make higher education AND job training accessible to the lower class.

I was referring to the Repubs not wanting to give tax breaks to corporations when Trump wants to take it from 35 to 15% and then hearing Dems yell "They're giving tax breaks to the wealthy" and as far as education and job training which I wasn't even talking about first they need to improve the school system for the lower class (especially in inner cities that are run by guess who) and they need to apply themselves (parenting helps here) and there's also plenty of vocational schools. Electricians,HVAC,truck driver they all make a solid living. If you're talking about free college I as a taxpayer am not interested.

 

[The Raven]

I was referring to the Repubs not wanting to give tax breaks to corporations when Trump wants to take it from 35 to 15% and then hearing Dems yell "They're giving tax breaks to the wealthy" and as far as education and job training which I wasn't even talking about first they need to improve the school system for the lower class (especially in inner cities that are run by guess who) and they need to apply themselves (parenting helps here) and there's also plenty of vocational schools. Electricians,HVAC,truck driver they all make a solid living. If you're talking about free college I as a taxpayer am not interested.

You're not interested in paying for a smarter country with a more qualified workforce and more innovation in the private sector? Huh. Okay. Newsflash: half the reason the economy sucks is because half the workforce is underqualified and the other half is burdened by student debt. More skilled workers + more disposable income = economic boom. Simple as 1 + 1 = 2.

I do think we need to encourage more folks to enter the trades. I know guys that make more than a solid living working in HVAC and trucking.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

The issue I have for the rich and wealthy business owners is that the goal of every single corporation and business is to maximize profits.

If they can make money without hiring anyone new, why would they hire someone new? If they can make even more money with the same amount of people due to tax breaks, why would they hire more people?

The only way they'll hire more people is because they think that'll lead to larger profits.

These business aren't going to go out of their ways to hire people because they can or just hand out raises and bonuses because they have more money to.

 

[K-Dog]

Might be some but I highly doubt it's most. And if they do, that's their (stupid) choice. Numerous studies have shown there's little benefit to private schools. Only real, possible benefit is networking but even then it's kinda moot at the high school level. Private school is overrated as hell.

Regardless, that's kind of irrelevant. What one does with their own money is their business. What does that have to do with putting party over people?
.

You can learn a lot about someone in one post. I just did.
I didnt save the article I will try to find it over the next day or so. The numbers are staggering like more than 80 %.

If you expect me to believe even for a second there is not a SIGNIFICANT difference between inner city schools and high end charter schools than you must think I am an idiot.
I don't know what studies you are referring to, but I would LOVE to see them.

It is completely relevant. It is the "haves vs. the have nots" in its classic form. John Q. Public can not afford to send their kids to a $2,500.00 per month school. but the vast majority of congressmen who are millionaires certainly can. Tax the shit out of the common man, make it so they can afford a thing and we will in turn provide for them, but we wont provide for them anything that comes remotely close to the quality of what the taxpayers are providing for us.

Maryland had a perfect example of "party over people" When Ehrlich (a republican) was governor he tried to get the legalisation of slots he couldn't get it done because the state was a democrat controlled state. Owe Malley ( a democrat ) gets in and slots fly through without a hitch. Hmmmm. Both sides do it. State level and federal.
[doublepost=1496023242,1496023067][/doublepost]

I went there. Republicans love to say "the best social program is a job" until it comes to actually paying money to create jobs. Piggy backing off of that, they love telling people to get a better job while not being willing to make higher education AND job training accessible to the lower class.

Government can not create job they only create additional cost. Government can not give a single thing to anyone without first taking it away from someone else.
The BEST jobs are private sector. If you lower the cost of doing business it creates more opportunities for businesses to grow.

 

[The Raven]

You can learn a lot about someone in one post. I just did.
I didnt save the article I will try to find it over the next day or so. The numbers are staggering like more than 80 %.

If you expect me to believe even for a second there is not a SIGNIFICANT difference between inner city schools and high end charter schools than you must think I am an idiot.
I don't know what studies you are referring to, but I would LOVE to see them.

It is completely relevant. It is the "haves vs. the have nots" in its classic form. John Q. Public can not afford to send their kids to a $2,500.00 per month school. but the vast majority of congressmen who are millionaires certainly can. Tax the shit out of the common man, make it so they can afford a thing and we will in turn provide for them, but we wont provide for them anything that comes remotely close to the quality of what the taxpayers are providing for us.

Maryland had a perfect example of "party over people" When Ehrlich (a republican) was governor he tried to get the legalisation of slots he couldn't get it done because the state was a democrat controlled state. Owe Malley ( a democrat ) gets in and slots fly through without a hitch. Hmmmm. Both sides do it. State level and federal.
[doublepost=1496023242,1496023067][/doublepost]

Government can not create job they only create additional cost. Government can not give a single thing to anyone without first taking it away from someone else.
The BEST jobs are private sector. If you lower the cost of doing business it creates more opportunities for businesses to grow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/...etsy-devos.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

From the story:
"The examination of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally funded voucher program in the country, by the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, found that students who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers. Among students who attended poor-performing public schools — the targets of this and other voucher programs — there was no significant effect on achievement."

What did you learn about me?

 

[K-Dog]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/...etsy-devos.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

From the story:
"The examination of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally funded voucher program in the country, by the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, found that students who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers. Among students who attended poor-performing public schools — the targets of this and other voucher programs — there was no significant effect on achievement."

Ohhhhh an anti voucher article from the NY Times. Go figure... :roleyes:

It seems to me that this article is talking more about students.
Again do you really think the schools in the inner city is giving a comparable education to a high end private school?

 

[The Raven]

Ohhhhh an anti voucher article from the NY Times. Go figure... :roleyes:

It seems to me that this article is talking more about students.
Again do you really think the schools in the inner city is giving a comparable education to a high end private school?

The story cited a study from the U.S. Dept. of Education. Did you catch that, or did you just see NY Times and say "fake news"? Instead of rolling your eyes, put your brain to use and actually come up with something to refute it. Maybe you'll learn something, and maybe I will too.

Idk. The study seems to indicate that the outcomes are comparable. The issue with the inner city schools is the inner city more so than the schools. The study is talking about achievement. You know, like grades on standardized tests. Say what you will about those but at least they create some sort of metric to quantify and compare achievement.

By the way: government can create jobs. It's a magical thing called a tax break. Check out Hogan's new manufacturing tax credit. Pretty interesting program with unanimous support from both parties.

 

[K-Dog]

The story cited a study from the U.S. Dept. of Education. Did you catch that, or did you just see NY Times and say "fake news"? Instead of rolling your eyes, put your brain to use and actually come up with something to refute it. Maybe you'll learn something, and maybe I will too.

Idk. The study seems to indicate that the outcomes are comparable. The issue with the inner city schools is the inner city more so than the schools. The study is talking about achievement. You know, like grades on standardized tests. Say what you will about those but at least they create some sort of metric to quantify and compare achievement.

By the way: government can create jobs. It's a magical thing called a tax break. Check out Hogan's new manufacturing tax credit. Pretty interesting program with unanimous support from both parties.

Caught the insult in there. Thanks.

 

[The Raven]

Caught the insult in there. Thanks.

What insult? I'm just encouraging actual debate, not the dismissal of reporting from one of the country's top newspapers. Not calling you dumb at all -- I know you aren't -- just encouraging you to expand and learn more. Isn't that the whole point of a forum?
[doublepost=1496026130,1496025190][/doublepost]Seriously, generally speaking, what's the point in a discussion not based in facts or conclusions supported by research and science? I mean, it's probably a lost cause to even ask that question given who the president is, but seriously. We're at the point where the NY Times and WaPo are being called fake news because people don't want to believe that they're reporting (not talking about you K-Dog).

What the hell do we have left if facts and research and science don't mean anything? What even is reality anymore? Is it all fake? Where is the line?

 

[flynismo]

What insult? I'm just encouraging actual debate, not the dismissal of reporting from one of the country's top newspapers. Not calling you dumb at all -- I know you aren't -- just encouraging you to expand and learn more. Isn't that the whole point of a forum?
[doublepost=1496026130,1496025190][/doublepost]Seriously, generally speaking, what's the point in a discussion not based in facts or conclusions supported by research and science? I mean, it's probably a lost cause to even ask that question given who the president is, but seriously. We're at the point where the NY Times and WaPo are being called fake news because people don't want to believe that they're reporting (not talking about you K-Dog).

What the hell do we have left if facts and research and science don't mean anything? What even is reality anymore? Is it all fake? Where is the line?

I think we all know that studies and research can be extremely misleading, intentional or not. When the source is some ridiculously biased organization like NYT or Breitbart, it automatically puts people on the defensive, and it should. It is intellectually lazy to just listen to anything the party line puts out there.
Global warming is a perfect example of that. Scientists who dedicate their careers to it and who knows far more about it than anyone of us here could ever pretend to know can't even agree on much of it. So it too gets politicized, and people fall for it.

 

[The Raven]

I think we all know that studies and research can be extremely misleading, intentional or not. When the source is some ridiculously biased organization like NYT or Breitbart, it automatically puts people on the defensive, and it should. It is intellectually lazy to just listen to anything the party line puts out there.
Global warming is a perfect example of that. Scientists who dedicate their careers to it and who knows far more about it than anyone of us here could ever pretend to know can't even agree on much of it. So it too gets politicized, and people fall for it.

It can be, but aren't they our best shot at canonizing knowledge, for lack of a better phrase? I'd rather put my money behind the economists who have done research that found trickle down is bullcrap than the seemingly common sense belief that it works. While their research may be slightly misleading sometimes, their conclusions are the closest thing we have to the honest truth. I like listening to people that know more than me. Shrug.

Also, I believe the number is something like 95 percent of peer reviewed scientists are in agreement over climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The disagreement is primarily over the extent and the solutions.

 

[flynismo]

It can be, but aren't they our best shot at canonizing knowledge, for lack of a better phrase? I'd rather put my money behind the economists who have done research that found trickle down is bullcrap than the seemingly common sense belief that it works. While their research may be slightly misleading sometimes, their conclusions are the closest thing we have to the honest truth. I like listening to people that know more than me. Shrug.

Also, I believe the number is something like 95 percent of peer reviewed scientists are in agreement over climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The disagreement is primarily over the extent and the solutions.

Of course, and I would never suggest otherwise. I am simply saying that as a reminder that it is up to us to question everything, even if our preconceived notions align with what we find along the way. After all, that is what science is after all. It is never giving definite answers, it is just giving best answers given available information irrespective of ideology. My point is, there are many studies that also back up K-Dog. That isn't to say he is right, it is just saying that two minutes on Google lends credibility to his stance as well, because as usual, things are not so black and white. Personally, I know nothing about that topic, and maybe I can learn something new following your conversation with each other.

And yes, last I looked at it, 97% agreed on the cause of accelerated warming the past 50+ years. But there is more to it than just that, but that's more a conversation for the science thread.