Current Events > Tbh the more I learned about politics the more liberal I became.

(+) Yeah! (+)

s0nicfan posted...

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So now I'm being told that my motivations were bulls*** and either untrue or not sufficient enough to make an informed decision. THIS is the kind of bulls*** that pisses me off.

Look at that, when 1 political party claims inherent superiority, it fires up the opposition which increases turn out. Who knew?

In all seriousness, this smug "my party is better because we are educated/moral/rich/diverse/whatever BS" is the reason why the system is so broken. Congratulations on the political party affiliation circle jerk everyone, you've ruined both the Republican and Democratic parties in the process.

I think the problem for both sides is that Debate is a lost art. I think most people aren't prepared or even really capable to defend their perspectives on things and take a lot of axiomatic truths for granted without understanding why they are. People have opinions with no depth. The result is all you can do is say "I'm right because you're X" in an argument. There's no information gathering, no probing questions to understand the motivations for someone's perspective, and no desire or ability to compromise. Everything is either morally right or literal evil/stupidity, and nobody is willing to budge an inch. I STILL have deep respect for both Jon Stewart AND Bill O'Reilly for going on each others' shows semi-regularly and actually talking. Engagement is so important for outreach and also for mutual understanding, but doing so means being challenged and being ready to defend your beliefs with evidence, and I think we just don't do that anymore.

I agree about debate. We need to have actual discussions about policy in this country.

For all the massive media coverage of the 2016 election, very little of it was about actual policy discussions, what ideas would be good for the country and which ideas would not be. Tons and tons of identity politics and people spamming about whatever Trump just tweeted, tons of outrage over BS like his pussy comments, but very little talk about policy. Very little debate about what would actually improve the US healthcare system. Very little discussion about what investments in infrastructure would look like.

And not surprisingly, now that Trump is in, he focuses very little on policy and continues to distract the media with all of his antics.
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

Polycosm posted...

Sadly, democratic socialism has attached itself to the progressive movement. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is just... wow.

Dem soc is good though.

Superficially, perhaps, but it stagnates a country when it comes to industry. The only western countries still innovating aren't socialist, and the ones that are socialist are either simply "staying afloat" or in crippling debt that's just waiting to swallow the country whole.

lol, Norway has over $1t in assets just as a pension fund for their citizens, I don't think 'socialist' countries are all broke

Not all of them, but I'd argue the ones that aren't are the exception not the norm. The nordic countries are extremely successful, but also very small and absurdly homogeneous. That model works well when you're that small but starts to struggle when you scale up. Also, when you really dig into the issue, most of those nordic countries are also not really pure socialism anyway because there's still a free market and the state doesn't own or run much if any of the means of production.

EDIT:
Balrog0 posted...

actually a ton of democratic socialist countries are less leveraged than the US is

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-countries-are-saddled-with-the-most-debt-per-person-in-one-chart-2016-11-23

Beyond the point I made above about size a homogeneity, I also want to point out that while you're correct here and in some of these countries people are happier and/or healthier, my issue was specifically focused on industry and innovation. Dem Soc. is great if your country is in a good place and you want to keep it there. It's a stabilizer that sort of "freezes" a country in its current state, but if you want to grow and expand it's really not great.
---

The Nordic Model should not be labeled as socialism given that it relies on high levels of private ownership and free markets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
---

@Genocet_10-325

name 5 things you learned that you didn't know before that changed your position

sorry but when people say general ambiguous statements like "I learned more about politics and it made me X"

it sounds extremely disingenuous, almost like a paid spokesman

if you can actually materialize what you mean into logical sentences, it would be more beneficial and imapctful
---

s0nicfan posted...

I think the problem for both sides is that Debate is a lost art. I think most people aren't prepared or even really capable to defend their perspectives on things and take a lot of axiomatic truths for granted without understanding why they are. People have opinions with no depth. The result is all you can do is say "I'm right because you're X" in an argument. There's no information gathering, no probing questions to understand the motivations for someone's perspective, and no desire or ability to compromise. Everything is either morally right or literal evil/stupidity, and nobody is willing to budge an inch. I STILL have deep respect for both Jon Stewart AND Bill O'Reilly for going on each others' shows semi-regularly and actually talking. Engagement is so important for outreach and also for mutual understanding, but doing so means being challenged and being ready to defend your beliefs with evidence, and I think we just don't do that anymore.

very true

just by asking questions people get angry and throw a label on me

because they fear somehow by answering it will make their side look bad rather than considering that a question is just that, a question
---

s0nicfan posted...

I think the problem for both sides is that Debate is a lost art. I think most people aren't prepared or even really capable to defend their perspectives on things and take a lot of axiomatic truths for granted without understanding why they are. People have opinions with no depth. The result is all you can do is say "I'm right because you're X" in an argument. There's no information gathering, no probing questions to understand the motivations for someone's perspective, and no desire or ability to compromise. Everything is either morally right or literal evil/stupidity, and nobody is willing to budge an inch. I STILL have deep respect for both Jon Stewart AND Bill O'Reilly for going on each others' shows semi-regularly and actually talking. Engagement is so important for outreach and also for mutual understanding, but doing so means being challenged and being ready to defend your beliefs with evidence, and I think we just don't do that anymore.

100% agreed. I've always found it utterly infuriating how both sides can hold such deep and unflinching views on a specific subject without a real understanding on the subject in question. Worse yet, they'll use the exact same arguments to defend those positions but suddenly those arguments become invalid when the opposition uses them for a different topic.

The people who are the most against LGBT issues happen to be the least educated on the topic. They may not even know anyone who happens to identify with that label.

The people most in favor of gun control happen to be the least educated on the topic. They may not even how to handle a firearm or know anyone who owns a firearm.

The people who are most against the legalization of marijuana happen to be the least educated on the plant. They may not have even smoked or know anyone who has smoked...

Ugh, the list is never ending for both sides. Of course the LGBT crowd is going to roll their eyes at a Republican demonizing their very existence just the same as rural America is going to roll their eyes at some Democrat demonizing firearms.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

@Genocet_10-325

name 5 things you learned that you didn't know before that changed your position

sorry but when people say general ambiguous statements like "I learned more about politics and it made me X"

it sounds extremely disingenuous, almost like a paid spokesman

if you can actually materialize what you mean into logical sentences, it would be more beneficial and imapctful

Go back through the topic and read all of my posts instead of just the first one. I explained in great detail my reasons for shifting views.
---

Genocet_10-325 posted...

But if you ban the legal sale of guns and arrest anyone seen with one in public, gun related deaths would drop drastically ( especially accidental deaths).

Based on what? None of the areas synonymous with gun control have seen any real success. The current poster city for gun violence already has among the most restrictive gun control laws in place. Gun control was so absurd in Chicago that was actually effectively illegal to own a handgun from the 80s up to 2010 - see McDonald vs City of Chicago:

https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Yet during that time, the homicide rate was still high.

Even when we look at explicit bans, we have plenty of history showing that doesn't work. The gun control gold standard, the Assault Weapons Ban, was active from 1994 to 2004 yet it did nothing to stop the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997. California had a ban on high capcity magazines active since 2014 but that didn't stop the terrorists from using them during the 2015 San Bernardino attack.

For these laws to be considered reasonable, there has to be some proven track record of success. Last time I checked, California, Illinois, and New York still have a gun violence problem despite having among the most strict gun control laws in the country. The violence isn't evenly spread throughout those states either, it is always the same low income areas of the inner cities but yet for some reason the issue always boils down to "gun violence".

This has never been a "gun violence" issue, it is a "violence" issue. Framing the issue as "gun violence" implies that the guns are somehow the source. If that were true, rural America would be horrible blood bath and these gun control rich cities would have extremely low homicide rates.

Yeah people will still sell them on the black market, but that's a great deal more difficult and risky than buying and registering a gun legally like now.

Prohibition proved that driving items that high in demand to the black market never ends well.

And the fact it reduced violent crime in Canada, Aus, the UK, and many other countries when guns were banned.

And those countries were never that violent to begin with, at least not compared to the U.S. Those countries don't have demographics that are nearly as diverse nor do they deal with inner cities violence on the scale of Chicago, Saint Louis, or L.A. There are far too many variables at work to narrow it down to something as simple as "guns".
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

This has never been a "gun violence" issue, it is a "violence" issue. Framing the issue as "gun violence" implies that the guns are somehow the source. If that were true, rural America would be horrible blood bath and these gun control rich cities would have extremely low homicide rates.

except those rural areas still supply guns to said cities

oh, and rural areas are hotbeds of suicide specifically with guns

https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/08/17/high-suicide-rates-guns-rural-communities/
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

And those countries were never that violent to begin with, at least not compared to the U.S. Those countries don't have demographics that are nearly as diverse nor do they deal with inner cities violence on the scale of Chicago, Saint Louis, or L.A. There are far too many variables at work to narrow it down to something as simple as "guns".

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/background-checks/

The best evidence comes from Missouri, which in 2007 repealed a decades-old law requiring background checks for all gun purchases. A 2013 study from researchers at Johns Hopkins found that the repeal led to a 23 percent increase in gun homicide, the equivalent of 55 to 63 additional gun deaths per year. (Non-gun homicides, which shouldnt have been as affected by the law, didnt increase.)
---

I'm pretty much libertarian. The fact that it isn't a major third party that rakes in 20-30% of the vote consistently is kind of mind boggling honestly.

As far as either being Democratic or Republican, I can't commit to either one. I guess I'd lean Democratic if only for social issues...which is kind of annoying, especially since I think most of the high-up Democrats aren't even that socially liberal when it really comes down to it (in other words, it's all for appearances).
---

masticatingman posted...

I think most of the high-up Democrats aren't even that socially liberal when it really comes down to it (in other words, it's all for appearances).

Change always happens via reluctant people at the top. LBJ's personal views aren't as important as the civil rights legislation he signed into law.
---

Balrog0 posted...

except those rural areas still supply guns to said cities

oh, and rural areas are hotbeds of suicide specifically with guns

https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/08/17/high-suicide-rates-guns-rural-communities/

Then the focus should be on suicides, not on the gun. If someone is already troubled to the point where they are contemplating suicide, removing 1 tool out of an infinite number of potential instant deaths isn't going to solve the problem.

The best evidence comes from Missouri, which in 2007 repealed a decades-old law requiring background checks for all gun purchases. A 2013 study from researchers at Johns Hopkins found that the repeal led to a 23 percent increase in gun homicide, the equivalent of 55 to 63 additional gun deaths per year. (Non-gun homicides, which shouldnt have been as affected by the law, didnt increase.)

Which is why background checks, when applied properly, are a real solution that doesn't get anywhere near the backlash that a ban would. In fact the only time background checks become problematic is when a gun registry comes into question.
---

I grew up in a deeply red county in South GA and saw how nasty most ideologues of Conservatism were at a fairly young age which turned me off the American brand of Right Wingism a long while ago.
---

DrunkenPilot72 posted...

Then the focus should be on suicides, not on the gun. If someone is already troubled to the point where they are contemplating suicide, removing 1 tool out of an infinite number of potential instant deaths isn't going to solve the problem.

the research shows removing access to guns lowers gun-related suicide rates without changing the suicide rate for other methods

there are other studies, not specific to guns, that show access to easier ways of killing yourself makes suicide rates higher -- british gas ovens or something?
---

Balrog0 posted...

the research shows removing access to guns lowers gun-related suicide rates without changing the suicide rate for other methods

You mean the link you posted earlier? It was a good article but there was a few sections that I found slanted:

"Studies show that areas with more firearms have higher suicide rates, especially among children. "

I tried to open the specific study they were referencing and found that I needed to pay to see the raw numbers.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303865

How many of those recorded suicides were actually negligent discharges?

Also this was concerning:

"policymakers who are grappling with rising suicide rates, which rose to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2015, the highest rate in 30 years.

"The reason that rural suicide rates are higher is because people in these areas are killing themselves with guns," Nestadt says."

So there is a spike in suicides, the highest in 30 years, and suddenly now firearm ownership in rural areas is the problem? Did all of rural America suddenly figure out that firearms are an effective suicide tool?

there are other studies, not specific to guns, that show access to easier ways of killing yourself makes suicide rates higher -- british gas ovens or something?

Japan has an astronomically high suicide rate despite limited gun ownership. Focus on the what troubles the individual to even contemplate suicide in the first place, not on whatever tool they used to get the job done.
---

Hey posted...

Ah yes, it is surely true that all republicans are just simple, ignorant people who arent yet enlightened.

Actually it's true that liberals are more educated on average iirc

It's especially true in scientific fields, the stereotype of the anti-science conservative is amazingly accurate. Fucking six percent of scientists are republican
---

Well its next to impossible to be a conservative if you care about people.
---

IWBYD posted...

Well its next to impossible to be a conservative if you care about people.

Well it's next to impossible to be a liberal if you care about babies.

Blanket generalizations are fun!
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

IWBYD posted...

Well its next to impossible to be a conservative if you care about people.

Well it's next to impossible to be a liberal if you care about babies.

Blanket generalizations are fun!

Prolifers dont give af about babies yo.

No one does. Only fetus'
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

IWBYD posted...

Well its next to impossible to be a conservative if you care about people.

Well it's next to impossible to be a liberal if you care about babies.

Blanket generalizations are fun!

Yeah, all those liberals and not trying to do things like try to get better healthcare for children, wanting to improve education, or for their parents to have a better life which would directly change a child's life....

But hey, republicans really, really care about a fetus before it's born, so they totes care more!
---

Heineken14 posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

IWBYD posted...

Well its next to impossible to be a conservative if you care about people.

Well it's next to impossible to be a liberal if you care about babies.

Blanket generalizations are fun!

Yeah, all those liberals and not trying to do things like try to get better healthcare for children, wanting to improve education, or for their parents to have a better life which would directly change a child's life....

But hey, republicans really, really care about a fetus before it's born, so they totes care more!

Is this what people actually think Republicans are about?
---

Callixtus posted...

I was much more strongly liberal before I went to college and saw all of this SJW nonsense and the transgender madness. It sent me running to the center.

Is this similar to Refer Madness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYHDzrdXHEA
---

emblem boy posted...

Heineken14 posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

IWBYD posted...

Well its next to impossible to be a conservative if you care about people.

Well it's next to impossible to be a liberal if you care about babies.

Blanket generalizations are fun!

Yeah, all those liberals and not trying to do things like try to get better healthcare for children, wanting to improve education, or for their parents to have a better life which would directly change a child's life....

But hey, republicans really, really care about a fetus before it's born, so they totes care more!

Is this what people actually think Republicans are about?

Theyre not doing a bang up job proving otherwise. Prolife is a misnomer. Prolifers dont care about children.
---

Why's that?
---

emblem boy posted...

Why's that?

Why's what? The fact they are actively trying to destroy people's health insurance, don't give a fuck about education or living wages, seem to almost have a disdain for trying to keep a clean environment for future generations?

I'm... not sure why they do that.
---

emblem boy posted...

Why's that?

Because they do everything they can to strip healthcare, welfare, and education ensuring that fetus gets the best possible chance at life. Sure lets demonize single mothers and make it incredibly difficult to raise their child while clutching our pearls at crime. Maybe if dreamers were fetus' republicans would be outraged.

Republicans dont think long term. Democrats dont think short term. Thats the disconnect.
---

"Clearly people who don't think like me just aren't as enlightened"

Ya, you definitely sound like a liberal
---

Regarding the healthcare, isn't it just that they disagree with what the best method is? I think it's wrong to say they don't care about peoples health. They just don't think the way to fix it is by having a universal system or agree with the system we have now.

It's not that they don't care about people, they just believe their way will be better for people. Whether or not they're wrong or right, who knows. But if you truly think they don't care about people, I think you're wrong.
---

emblem boy posted...

Regarding the healthcare, isn't it just that they disagree with what the best method is? I think it's wrong to say they don't care about peoples health. They just don't think the way to fix it is by having a universal system or agree with the system we have now.

It's not that they don't care about people, they just believe their way will be better for people. Whether or not they're wrong or right, who knows. But if you truly think they don't care about people, I think you're wrong.

I mean, sure, you can boil it down to that at it's base. It's just that "difference of opinion" happens to be the left thinks people should be able to afford healthcare and to not get sick and die in a ditch penniless, while the right does not.
---

Heineken14 posted...

It's just that "difference of opinion" happens to be the left thinks people should be able to afford healthcare and to not get sick and die in a ditch penniless, while the right does not.

I don't know that there's a difference of opinion so much as a difference in priority. Conservatives believe liberal proposals like single-payer will make healthcare far more costly for most people, which would lead to things like shortages, selective treatment (i.e., 'death panels') or long wait times -- thus harming peoples ability to get medically necessary care

those happen to be valid concerns, btw
---

Heineken14 posted...

emblem boy posted...

Regarding the healthcare, isn't it just that they disagree with what the best method is? I think it's wrong to say they don't care about peoples health. They just don't think the way to fix it is by having a universal system or agree with the system we have now.

It's not that they don't care about people, they just believe their way will be better for people. Whether or not they're wrong or right, who knows. But if you truly think they don't care about people, I think you're wrong.

I mean, sure, you can boil it down to that at it's base. It's just that "difference of opinion" happens to be the left thinks people should be able to afford healthcare and to not get sick and die in a ditch penniless, while the right does not.

That's not true. Do you believe there are no legitimate concerns with the healthcare system the Democrats want?
---

emblem boy posted...

Regarding the healthcare, isn't it just that they disagree with what the best method is? I think it's wrong to say they don't care about peoples health. They just don't think the way to fix it is by having a universal system or agree with the system we have now.

It's not that they don't care about people, they just believe their way will be better for people. Whether or not they're wrong or right, who knows. But if you truly think they don't care about people, I think you're wrong.

Im not talking about healthcare for all in this instance. Im referring to the prolife position of not caring about babies after theyre born. You cant with a straight face say the prolife movement has any plans or ideas to raise these "fetuses"
---

IWBYD posted...

You cant with a straight face say the prolife movement has any plans or ideas to raise these "fetuses"

I mean, there are some that do -- marco rubio and mike lee are pushing to make the childcare tax credit more progressive and refundable right now as we speak
---

IWBYD posted...

emblem boy posted...

Regarding the healthcare, isn't it just that they disagree with what the best method is? I think it's wrong to say they don't care about peoples health. They just don't think the way to fix it is by having a universal system or agree with the system we have now.

It's not that they don't care about people, they just believe their way will be better for people. Whether or not they're wrong or right, who knows. But if you truly think they don't care about people, I think you're wrong.

Im not talking about healthcare for all in this instance. Im referring to the prolife position of not caring about babies after theyre born. You cant with a straight face say the prolife movement has any plans or ideas to raise these "fetuses"

What do you mean plans on raising these fetuses? Do you mean welfare? Why do you have it in quotes also?
---

emblem boy posted...

Heineken14 posted...

emblem boy posted...

Regarding the healthcare, isn't it just that they disagree with what the best method is? I think it's wrong to say they don't care about peoples health. They just don't think the way to fix it is by having a universal system or agree with the system we have now.

It's not that they don't care about people, they just believe their way will be better for people. Whether or not they're wrong or right, who knows. But if you truly think they don't care about people, I think you're wrong.

I mean, sure, you can boil it down to that at it's base. It's just that "difference of opinion" happens to be the left thinks people should be able to afford healthcare and to not get sick and die in a ditch penniless, while the right does not.

That's not true. Do you believe there are no legitimate concerns with the healthcare system the Democrats want?

Oh, there definitely are legitimate concerns... but when their plan is "get rid of it all and fuck poor people who can't afford health care" then I don't really care. The GOP has had 7+ years to come up with an alternative, and the furthest they've come is "Obamacare BAAAAAAD!" while trying to get rid of insurance for millions of people. Don't even get me started on Donnie's stupid ass "everyone will be covered, it'll be great, just don't ask me how" nonsense.
---

If you completely side with the left or right on every issue you don't know much about politics and you aren't using your brain.
---

same, tc. as far as the op goes I'm like 99% similar
I would've called myself a centrist, or moderate or independent until I started following politics. now I'm firmly on the left, and while I dislike both democrats and republicans, both sides are NOT equally bad. I pretty much disagree with republicans on everything and democrats on a bunch of things
---

Forlorn_Ass posted...

Complete opposite for me.

YourDrunkFather posted...

"Clearly people who don't think like me just aren't as enlightened"

Ya, you definitely sound like a liberal

Something to be said for this
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
---

smug fuckin lefties
---