The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

[Red]

Red, you just posted an appeal to authoritarian rule. You are the one authoritarian rule is appealing to. Take a step back and look at the passage you found to be so appealing.


That passage wants to strip choice from commoners because it causes the gatekeepers (authorities) to lose control. It is advocating for the authority to have control. It is advocating for authoritarian rule. That advocacy resonates with you. You read it, agreed with it, and posted it.

The reasons given for establishing authoritarian rule don't stand up to anyone who has even the least of critical eyes. Here they are again:

What constitutes "they"? Is it 2 people? Is it a plurality? Is it a majority? Is it everyone? There are a number of people who eat fiberglass insulation. "They" eat fiberglass insulation. People eat fiberglass insulation. The passage doesn't even try to define the size of the issue because the piece isn't giving you any information. The passage lists a string of information-free anecdotes intended to appeal to those who already agree with the premise that we must strip the ability of commoners to decide things and institute authoritarian rule.

Neither myself, nor Rosenberg, is arguing for authoritarian rule. Both he, and I, are arguing for a much better educational base to allow “commoners”, as you chose to call them, to actually make truly informed opinions. And that education should include both civics and an understanding of human nature. As I outlined, and as you chose to completely ignore, in your eagerness to label me a proponent of authoritarianism. What a total dishonest clown you are, sir. You’re disgustingly dishonest. As Rosenberg put it:

“I am optimistic. I believe that there are solutions to the problem. We need to fix a broken educational system. The average American has trouble having productive discussions with people they disagree with and who are different from them. They're also not very good at reflecting on their own values and beliefs. The average American is also not very good in terms of critical thinking and understanding general principles.

We need to create an educational system that prepares adults to effectively negotiate the complexities of democratic life. We also need to broaden our understanding of what democracy is, beyond just voting. For the most part, you vote for candidates, and most people end up voting for their candidate either on the basis of a single issue, or they really have no idea at all and they're just voting for the party or their group identity.

America needs more deliberative democracy, and institutions and structures from the local level on up that will empower citizens to become more active. In the end, the American people need to be more involved in their own self-government.”

 

[Al-O-Meter]

But, personally, I’m not sure we’ll ever be rational enough overall to avoid emotive-based populism.

^^ THIS^^

The final line of your post is why the rest of everything doesn't work and why it what you posted earlier was ultimately a call to authoritarianism. It does not matter how much education there is or on what topics. Human nature makes the absence of emotive-based populism a non-reachable utopia in a system that doesn't retard it. It is exactly why democracies always fail and why a republic is more durable. The structure of a republic places limitations that ignore popularity and by extension place limits on populism. Populism is what is really dangerous and there is no limitation on populism in a democracy.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Neither myself, nor Rosenberg, is arguing for authoritarian rule. Both he, and I, are arguing for a much better educational base to allow “commoners”, as you chose to call them, to actually make truly informed opinions.

Like how North Korea supports the free speech rights of its people so long as the speech people are to make of their own free will is consistent with what the authorities view as the correct opinions. If the people choose to voice an opinion inconsistent with what the authorities have judged to be the informed opinion, then it means they need more "education".

If your idea can't withstand the uninformed or nonconformant, then what you are advocating for is authoritarianism regardless of whatever name you've decided to call it.

 

[LogGrad98]

Neither myself, nor Rosenberg, is arguing for authoritarian rule. Both he, and I, are arguing for a much better educational base to allow “commoners”, as you chose to call them, to actually make truly informed opinions. And that education should include both civics and an understanding of human nature. As I outlined, and as you chose to completely ignore, in your eagerness to label me a proponent of authoritarianism. What a total dishonest clown you are, sir. You’re disgustingly dishonest. As Rosenberg put it:

“I am optimistic. I believe that there are solutions to the problem. We need to fix a broken educational system. The average American has trouble having productive discussions with people they disagree with and who are different from them. They're also not very good at reflecting on their own values and beliefs. The average American is also not very good in terms of critical thinking and understanding general principles.

We need to create an educational system that prepares adults to effectively negotiate the complexities of democratic life. We also need to broaden our understanding of what democracy is, beyond just voting. For the most part, you vote for candidates, and most people end up voting for their candidate either on the basis of a single issue, or they really have no idea at all and they're just voting for the party or their group identity.

America needs more deliberative democracy, and institutions and structures from the local level on up that will empower citizens to become more active. In the end, the American people need to be more involved in their own self-government.”

Here is another problem with education as outlined. I believe maybe 35% of the population would even understand what you were just saying here. Maybe 40%, certainly no higher than 50%. That means that no matter how much you try to educate people half of them or more just won't get it and just want their sound-bites. These are the ones who really cannot grasp the issues, listen for the inflammatory stuff they want to hear, and vote accordingly. Even people I know who are educated pretty much as you outlined still behave irrationally based on sound-bites and facebook posts. One of the smartest people I know, who has a JD and a Phd in Philosophy, still buys into Trump-ism. Questions whether QAnon is a real thing, and supports the notion of white male victimhood and persecution. He is, of course, a white male with an extremely lucrative career, most definiitely in the 1%, yet this is how he thinks. He is fully capable of rational discussion, and we often engage in debates, and he even acknowledges things such as Trump being the antithesis of WWJD-doctrine (my friend is a mormon, most recently in the stake presidency I believe), yet still adheres to the "ends justify the means" type of argument and will not budge. I could also loosely lump my BIL in this, as I have spoken of his attitude and education level (he is a school principal right now).

I agree we need to improve our educational system in general, and in civics specifically, but I also think it will be a very limited impact overall when protecting privilege is the unspoken sought-after end to the deplorable means.

 

[Red]

Here is another problem with education as outlined. I believe maybe 35% of the population would even understand what you were just saying here. Maybe 40%, certainly no higher than 50%. That means that no matter how much you try to educate people half of them or more just won't get it and just want their sound-bites. These are the ones who really cannot grasp the issues, listen for the inflammatory stuff they want to hear, and vote accordingly. Even people I know who are educated pretty much as you outlined still behave irrationally based on sound-bites and facebook posts. One of the smartest people I know, who has a JD and a Phd in Philosophy, still buys into Trump-ism. Questions whether QAnon is a real thing, and supports the notion of white male victimhood and persecution. He is, of course, a white male with an extremely lucrative career, most definiitely in the 1%, yet this is how he thinks. He is fully capable of rational discussion, and we often engage in debates, and he even acknowledges things such as Trump being the antithesis of WWJD-doctrine (my friend is a mormon, most recently in the stake presidency I believe), yet still adheres to the "ends justify the means" type of argument and will not budge. I could also loosely lump my BIL in this, as I have spoken of his attitude and education level (he is a school principal right now).

I agree we need to improve our educational system in general, and in civics specifically, but I also think it will be a very limited impact overall when protecting privilege is the unspoken sought-after end to the deplorable means.

I certainly concur with everything you say.

Another problem, which basically takes advantage of the very existence of the problem you describe, is the way our political leaders are marketed. Because, it really is all about marketing. Actual issues may arise for actual discussion in debate mode, but overall, the pitches are overwhelmingly emotive.

The appeal is not to reason, the appeal is to emotion. Marketing understands what makes people tick, and it’s a very cynical view of human nature that marketers adhere to in their pitches, they don’t start with a high opinion of the electorate’s overall intelligence after all, and they market the candidate accordingly. The president is another product, to be sold to the electorate. Negative ads denigrate the competing product. It’s the selling of a president, or any politician.

Maybe I should be surprised at the quality of leadership we have had, at times, in our history.

 

[Bucknutz]

They moved the migrants from what was effectively a homeless shelter into dormitory housing, which is very different from "bussing them off". MV residents made sure the migrants had a safe place to live, unlike DeSantis/Abbott. Do you the migrants preferred the shelter?

It looks like Abbott and DeSantis did help the migrants.


View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571943101178212354?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg



View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571949614064082944?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg


It’s official, the boarder is not porous, it’s wide open.


View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571974448424816641?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg


Now there is over 1/2 a million gotaways.


View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571977419992563712?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg


50 people to MV or 2.1 million with a month left in the fiscal year.

I don’t hear from anyone on the left in this forum on what they would do.

$116 billion when we had half the amount of migrants. What could the US do with that money?

Report: Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $116 billion annually; Californians, Texans, Floridians pay the most

A comprehensive report by the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) breaks down the cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers: $115.9 billion annually.

www.thecentersquare.com

 

[Deleted member 365]

I certainly concur with everything you say.

Another problem, which basically takes advantage of the very existence of the problem you describe, is the way our political leaders are marketed. Because, it really is all about marketing. Actual issues may arise for actual discussion in debate mode, but overall, the pitches are overwhelmingly emotive.

The appeal is not to reason, the appeal is to emotion. Marketing understands what makes people tick, and it’s a very cynical view of human nature that marketers adhere to in their pitches, they don’t start with a high opinion of the electorate’s overall intelligence after all, and they market the candidate accordingly. The president is another product, to be sold to the electorate. Negative ads denigrate the competing product. It’s the selling of a president, or any politician.

Maybe I should be surprised at the quality of leadership we have had, at times, in our history.

It wasn’t always that way. TV and then social media has distorted the electorate’s views. Our nation’s best leaders would be unelectable today because of their looks, disabilities, or gaffes while the worst leaders our nation has had are hyper electable because of their ability to market themselves. Think about it, Lincoln (ugly), Teddy Roosevelt (gaffes), and FDR (crippled) all would have their asses handed to them by 21st century presidents who were tv stars and “men you could have a beer with.”

Large segments of our population don’t want leaders, they want entertainment. They don’t want policy, they want drama. They don’t want the steady competent state churning out health care policy, they want the Avengers who do whatever they want and own their enemies.

 

[Red]

The Gatekeepers, abandoning all reason, lol….


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M_w3_-2JfZc

 

[One Brow]

It looks like Abbott and DeSantis did help the migrants.

That was the overall effect. They also lied about what was awaiting them, and didn't notify anyone in Massachusetts about their arrival. That makes me skeptical of their motives. YMMV.

There's interesting contrast between the conservatives cartoons about the incident on the day of the event, and the ones afterwards. People were clearly thinking the MV residents would just kick the people out, instead of helping them. I don't know if DeSantis/Abbott shared that opinion.

It’s official, the boarder is not porous, it’s wide open.

Biden has not removed a single foot of the wall at the border. It was just as open under Trump, only less trafficked.

I don’t hear from anyone on the left in this forum on what they would do.

I don't hear a viable solution from you, either, unless you have a way to wall off the entire border.

$116 billion when we had half the amount of migrants. What could the US do with that money?

Compared to how much that they pay in property taxes, sales taxes, etc.? Assuming a mere $10,000/year on the average, I think we're making out on that deal overall.

 

[Bucknutz]

That was the overall effect. They also lied about what was awaiting them, and didn't notify anyone in Massachusetts about their arrival. That makes me skeptical of their motives. YMMV.

There's interesting contrast between the conservatives cartoons about the incident on the day of the event, and the ones afterwards. People were clearly thinking the MV residents would just kick the people out, instead of helping them. I don't know if DeSantis/Abbott shared that opinion.

They did kick them out. They didn’t invite them to stay at their sanctuary city. 44 hours stay and they shipped them off.

Biden has not removed a single foot of the wall at the border. It was just as open under Trump, only less trafficked.

Why did the boarder crossings double, since Trump left.

I don't hear a viable solution from you, either, unless you have a way to wall off the entire border.

I have and you’re hiding from responding.
You can’t answer it. I have multiple times and you don’t like my answer, yet you won’t give an answer.

Compared to how much that they pay in property taxes, sales taxes, etc.? Assuming a mere $1000/year on the average, I think we're making out on that deal overall.

Once again, you are just responding with out facts:
“with state and local expenditures totaling $88.9 billion and Federal expenditures totaling $45.8 billion, with only approximately $19 billion recouped in taxes.”
That was in 2017, before doubling in boarder crossings.

New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 Billion Annually | Federation for American Immigration Reform

Illegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year – an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates – according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

www.fairus.org

So if you do the math, that is about $230 Billion in costs now. We could make college free for the cost of immigration.

Texas spent $10 billion that year. You don’t think one of the wealthiest zip codes in America could take on 50 migrants.

 

[Bucknutz]

The Gatekeepers, abandoning all reason, lol….


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M_w3_-2JfZc

I loved this commercial. Larry David is amazing.

 

[Bucknutz]

If we are comparing apples to apples, in 2017 the US only took in 304,000 migrants. In August of this year we took in 66% of that total alone. There are 500,000 gotaways this year alone.
We are at 2.1 million so far, so that is 7x the amount in 2017.

We spent $116 billion in 2017 on immigration; the numbers to come out this year on the cost of immigration will be unbelievable.

During the Trump Administration, they took in less than 2 million total, over 4 years.

Yet, the posters on the left in this forum will not call it a crisis. As a country we can not keep taking in this amount of people.

What the 2017 Migration Statistics Tell Us About Border Security

The 2017 migration statistics tells us four things that matter greatly for Congress as it considers the 2018 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

www.wola.org