Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2018-06-20, 2:11 AM #9521
I think the paradox can be resolved by realizing that a population can be partitioned into groups such as left, center, and right, but that a given group like "center" may well be quite heterogeneous: I may choose to vote along the center because I strongly believe in the role of experts over the opinions of voters, or I may simply be an idiot who lacks an appreciation for the importance of liberal values, perhaps not even caring or knowing about left or right, causing my voting preferences to average out to center.

I seem to remember reading here that undecided voters were the dumbest group of the voting public (and how insane it is that we let them decide the fate of candidates in early battleground states in the primary elections).
2018-06-20, 2:33 AM #9522
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I suppose we could start by refraining from literally backing human rights abusers and instigating coups against democracies. :downs:


Originally posted by Reid:
We hold other countries to less of a standard, yeah. We probably shouldn't but we do. But the U.S. and Israel aren't responsible.


It's easy to say "the US isn't responsible" without citing anything or making an argument for the point. Whatever: is the US a force for good in the world? Not an argument I want to have.

Nonetheless, I think you're underestimating how much the US does think about human rights issues when it engages in foreign policy. For instance, concerns about Egypt's human rights abuses has been a major red flag for the US in its dealings with Egypt in recent years, and US-Egyptian relations have been drastically altered since el-Sisi came to power through a coup against democratically elected Mohamed Morsi. Obama sided against Sisi because he wanted to be on side of the Egyptian people, not their autocratic ruler. And that's despite the fact that Egyptian-US ties have been a cornerstone of US foreign policy in the region since Eisenhower.

On the other hand, Russia has had no problem picking up the slack and supporting Egypt as the US has turned away from it. It's a massive reversal: bringing Egypt out of the Soviet sphere of influence and into the Western sphere of influence in the 70s was one of the great US foreign policy achievements of the 20th century. Nonetheless, Ben Rhodes, one of Obama's senior advisors, now says that not taking an even harsher stance on el-Sisi was a mistake. Certainly seems like an instance where the US put human rights concerns above realpolitik.
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 2:35 AM #9523


Still tho
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 2:43 AM #9524
That Weird Al song is a masterpiece
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 2:53 AM #9525
Russia has decent-to-good bilateral relations with nearly every country in the Middle East: it's becoming increasingly close with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it's had strong ties with Iran for a while, it gets along with Israel, with Syria. Russian-Turkish relations are a little more complex (the Ottomans and Russia were rivals for centuries, Turkey played a key role in containment during the Cold War, etc). Nonetheless, bilateralism seems often to coincide with being unscrupulous: if you're relying on multilateralism, you'll need to establish some kind of consensus amongst a community of countries, which will require creating some kind of harmonious, alignment of interests between them. Community building of that kind will often require some kind of commitment of shared values, or at least to peaceful co-existence. But if you rely on bilateralism, you don't have to do community building among nations at all. You can have one-to-many relations with a group of countries, no matter how each of those countries are disposed to each other.
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 2:58 AM #9526
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I seem to remember reading here that undecided voters were the dumbest group of the voting public (and how insane it is that we let them decide the fate of candidates in early battleground states in the primary elections).


Ken Bone seemed like he had some things figured out (at least in terms of fashion sense).
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 3:06 AM #9527
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I think the paradox can be resolved by realizing that a population can be partitioned into groups such as left, center, and right, but that a given group like "center" may well be quite heterogeneous: I may choose to vote along the center because I strongly believe in the role of experts over the opinions of voters, or I may simply be an idiot who lacks an appreciation for the importance of liberal values, perhaps not even caring or knowing about left or right, causing my voting preferences to average out to center.


The people who self-identify as centrist probably doesn't map on well with some centrism is generally defined as (i.e., pro-establishment, pro-status quo). It's probably true that people in the US who call themselves as centrists are people who've voted for presidents from both parties, or something else like that that doesn't really reflect what their political preferences are, or where they fall on the "non-ordinal" political "spectrum".
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 3:29 AM #9528
Originally posted by Eversor:
Who are these people who are identifying with the center (i.e., the establishment) who are apparently the most anti-establishment elements within society? What does their so-called "centrism" even entail at that point?


Hint: they're conservatives too smart for Fox.
2018-06-20, 3:44 AM #9529
Originally posted by Reid:
Hint: they're conservatives too smart for Fox.


I'm inclined to think that they're people who don't care much about politics but still feel like it's their civic obligation to vote.

It's easy to forget that people like that actually exist if you spend too much time on social media.
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 5:26 AM #9530
Originally posted by Eversor:
I'm inclined to think that they're people who don't care much about politics but still feel like it's their civic obligation to vote.

It's easy to forget that people like that actually exist if you spend too much time on social media.


That's probably true. Generally apolitical people live easy lives, though, it's a sign you probably haven't experienced much hardship. Which means they're generally more conservative towards the system.
2018-06-20, 5:52 AM #9531
Originally posted by Reid:
That's probably true. Generally apolitical people live easy lives, though, it's a sign you probably haven't experienced much hardship. Which means they're generally more conservative towards the system.


In a classical sense, which is something very different from what the Republican Party is.
2018-06-20, 6:23 AM #9532
Originally posted by Reid:
That's probably true. Generally apolitical people live easy lives, though, it's a sign you probably haven't experienced much hardship. Which means they're generally more conservative towards the system.


I wouldn't assume that most people who are apolitical are apolitical because they're insulated from hardships, and that their apathy comes from them not having "skin in the game". We know, for instance, the poor, generally don't vote, even though one might assume they have the most to gain from, say, for example, medicaid expansion. So certainly suffering hardships doesn't make a person political. Its not clear that the converse should be true: that people who don't experience hardships are apolitical.

It would surprise me if many people with strong political leanings do so because they've experienced personal hardships, and think that the solution is for the government to intervene more in their lives. To take an obvious example, I wouldn't assume that many of the people who are most outraged by Trump's policy of separating the children of illegal immigrants from their parents are troubled by it because they could ever imagine themselves feasibly in such a situation. In fact, I would expect that many of them are quite well off.

Many Democrats favor medicare for all even though they have robust healthcare insurance plans from their employers and a great deal of financial security. Many white Democrats have very strong views on racial issues or gender issues that to do not pertain to them at all in any kind of personal way. In fact, quite the opposite: an implication of all this talk about "privilege" is that people who are financially stable often feel responsible for others who are not as lucky. It'd surprise me if really anyone's vote is based on some kind of dispassionate, clear-eyed calculation of what their own personal interests are.
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 6:29 AM #9533
Morals are a luxury of the rich
2018-06-20, 6:50 AM #9534
It's probably the case that a lot of people who call themselves centrists would also call themselves libertarians (or socially libertarian). I think for a lot of people, libertarianism goes with a kind of indifference towards how other people are living their lives (not necessarily a lack of care or empathy), and a view that people should be able to do whatever they want. That probably produces people who not consistently aligned with one party or the other when it comes to a lot of social decisive issues (gun control, marijuana legalization, abortion, etc etc).
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 6:59 AM #9535
I wonder if undecided voters are more likely to live in places with low levels of broadband penetration or if they're generally people who don't own smartphones or something like that.
former entrepreneur
2018-06-20, 7:13 AM #9536
Electoral pollsters have known for a really long time that individual political opinions don’t affect voting behaviours much. Most people never even think about issues, and when prompted to do so, often come up with answers far removed from the political parties for which they vote.

Functionally, someone who calls themselves a libertarian is most likely just a Republican who likes weed.

Edit: This is really a point I’ve been trying to make for a few hundred posts here. Plotting swing voters on an axis is trying to see patterns in madness. Swing/undecided voters are the populists; nobody weighs policies and says **** like “hmm, this year I think I will be FOR abortion”, or “my export dependent business has had things too good, so I’m gonna vote for this New York carpetbagger who promises to end trade”. They’re just angry people, upset about how things are in a very undirected way, and they want to take it out on the establishment. These are people who would vote “none of the above” if given the chance. It’s not a real political position and trying to plot it anywhere, anyhow, using any choices of axes, is meaningless.
2018-06-20, 5:07 PM #9537
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Electoral pollsters have known for a really long time that individual political opinions don’t affect voting behaviours much. Most people never even think about issues, and when prompted to do so, often come up with answers far removed from the political parties for which they vote.


It's rare in general for people to form their own opinions; that takes work and you have to remember your justification, or not if you don't really care.

Most people are just reflections of the people around them. Hell, not even that, most people are just reflections of reflections. And I know that sounds pretentious as hell, idc.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Functionally, someone who calls themselves a libertarian is most likely just a Republican who likes weed.


Yup.

Speaking to the above, individual political opinions don't affect voting behaviors, but they can predict them. Which says that political opinions are dependent on independent voting behavior, not the converse.

Whenever you actually talk to people about issues in a way that doesn't infer party membership, you see what appears to be a standard distribution of people around a sensible answer to the question

When there's disagreement, it often appears bimodal. Which might suggest external forces are weighing on people's opinions. In fact, this is apparently been referred to, though I can't find significant material on it:

Quote:
I think an analysis for the reasons why distributions will often be skewed or bimodal would be illuminating. I suppose it is due to the fact that political opinions are usually created by special movements or agencies of propaganda and an opinion scarcely becomes public in this sense until it is biased or has a bi-partisan split. It would be interesting to test your hypothesis upon a question the rudiments of which lie in attitudes of the masses, but which has not yet been made an issue. A situation of this sort might have been the question of prohibition about thirty or forty years ago. I am inclined to think that the distribution upon such subjects would much more nearly resemble the normal. Possibly also this would suit your idea of the gradual steps required in political reform. I seem, however, to detect a trace of the old group mind theory in the hypothesis of a normally distributed public opinion. We must remember, of course, that we are measuring not the mind of a public but the alignments of attitudes upon specific questions which may concentrate in almost any manner according to group stimulus and pressures. I believe we are dealing with two different things in public opinion, before and after an issue has been raised, though to be sure the former has something to do with the latter. `Apart from the distorting situation,' however, it is doubtful whether the opinion one is measuring would really exist. When such propaganda enters one would expect skewing and bimodalism to be the inevitable result.


A polisci PhD awaits anyone who wants to slog through that mess.

In fact, if you're bored enough to scroll through the gallup data, it appears presidential approval ratings have been getting more bimodal since the 90's. Now, I'm not one for wild speculation (joke), but we might try and take a guess why.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Edit: This is really a point I’ve been trying to make for a few hundred posts here. Plotting swing voters on an axis is trying to see patterns in madness. Swing/undecided voters are the populists; nobody weighs policies and says **** like “hmm, this year I think I will be FOR abortion”, or “my export dependent business has had things too good, so I’m gonna vote for this New York carpetbagger who promises to end trade”. They’re just angry people, upset about how things are in a very undirected way, and they want to take it out on the establishment. These are people who would vote “none of the above” if given the chance. It’s not a real political position and trying to plot it anywhere, anyhow, using any choices of axes, is meaningless.


I had a kind of revelation about the Clinton campaign. I remember seeing something like "86% of undecided voters prefer a candidate with political experience" or something. I think Clinton's campaign looked at data like this and came up with her ****ty "I'm more qualified" campaign slogan based on this kind of bull****.

This is why allowing blind data to drive your campaign is hopeless. Of ****ing course people prefer someone experienced, but do you think that's actually persuasive in a rhetorical sense? Of course it was not, it just made her sound like an ass.
2018-06-20, 5:44 PM #9538
And before anyone says "both sides!!!!11!" let me pre-emptively say "**** you the business right is responsible for polarization and do it most spectacularly through the Republicans"
2018-06-20, 6:45 PM #9539
Weird how the Koch brothers lobby for globalist policies while simultaneously funding pro-autarky conservative citizen groups, right?

~but George Soros~
2018-06-20, 6:55 PM #9540
I'll take the Kochs over the Mercers, tbh.
2018-06-20, 6:57 PM #9541
It's so depressing that we have to discuss families now like its the feudal age.
2018-06-20, 7:02 PM #9542
“now”
2018-06-20, 7:52 PM #9543
Originally posted by Reid:
I had a kind of revelation about the Clinton campaign. I remember seeing something like "86% of undecided voters prefer a candidate with political experience" or something. I think Clinton's campaign looked at data like this and came up with her ****ty "I'm more qualified" campaign slogan based on this kind of bull****.

This is why allowing blind data to drive your campaign is hopeless. Of ****ing course people prefer someone experienced, but do you think that's actually persuasive in a rhetorical sense? Of course it was not, it just made her sound like an ass.


I dunno, maybe I'm an ass myself, but I voted for her twice (the first time after my man Bernie Sanders had already cemented his loss), and it seemed true and relevent to me. What was more off-putting was simply her delivery: when she spoke it sounded super fake and scripted... and it probably was!
2018-06-20, 7:55 PM #9544
Originally posted by Jon`C:
“now”


gdi

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I dunno, maybe I'm an ass myself, but I voted for her twice (the first time after my man Bernie Sanders had already cemented his loss), and it seemed true and relevent to me. What was more off-putting was simply her delivery: when she spoke it sounded super fake and scripted... and it probably was!


You're right, it's not the fact of her experience itself so much as using it as a selling point. And the delivery was poor.
2018-06-20, 8:09 PM #9545
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/393309-kansas-officials-told-to-keep-enforcing-voter-id-law-that-was-ruled

When your party doesn't give a **** about the rule of law
2018-06-20, 8:35 PM #9546
Top `ek, a city I'd love to move to
2018-06-20, 8:43 PM #9547
This is the world we live in. The United States government has been recommending that Canadians avoid Huawei phones and basically I have no way of knowing if it’s because Huawei phones pose a public safety hazard, or if it’s because they threaten the US intellectual property monopoly. So do I buy one or not?

The problem with being a ****hole country is that people are going to treat you like one.
2018-06-20, 8:50 PM #9548
Originally posted by Reid:


Neither US political party respects the rule of law. The US has pretty consistently used selective enforcement in order to choose economic winners and losers and punish people who don’t kick back to the politicians. The US has been engaging in a kind of ‘state capitalism lite’ since its founding.

Pretty much any notion you’ve had about the United States being built on the back of hard working entrepreneurship or civic engagement is false. The United States was quite literally founded on uncomfortable insider ties between government and prominent businessmen, dating back to the earliest days of the revolution when one of the richest Americans was paying the continental army out of his own pocket.
2018-06-20, 9:00 PM #9549
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The US has been engaging in a kind of ‘state capitalism lite’ since its founding.
The greatest scam the US ever pulled was convincing us to privatize or abolish our crown corporations under the guise of liberal economics, while at the same time bolstering their own so-called “private sector” with government granted monopolies, selective enforcement of antitrust law, and taxpayer largesse that would make the old British Empire blush.

I don’t know if it was intentional, but the result was the same.
2018-06-21, 12:13 AM #9550
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I dunno, maybe I'm an ass myself, but I voted for her twice (the first time after my man Bernie Sanders had already cemented his loss), and it seemed true and relevent to me. What was more off-putting was simply her delivery: when she spoke it sounded super fake and scripted... and it probably was!


It's kind of funny how in 2016 Hillary was very subtly running against 2008 Obama. In some ways, the idea of her campaign was: come on, America. You've already voted for a guy who promised you the moon in 2008 and look how it turned out. Vote for Hillary because Hillary supporters are rooted enough in reality to see the plain truth that Obama's presidency proves the emptiness of his promises in 2008 and Bernie's in 2016, and that the all that's left is to be pragmatic.
former entrepreneur
2018-06-21, 12:23 AM #9551
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Pretty much any notion you’ve had about the United States being built on the back of hard working entrepreneurship or civic engagement is false. The United States was quite literally founded on uncomfortable insider ties between government and prominent businessmen, dating back to the earliest days of the revolution when one of the richest Americans was paying the continental army out of his own pocket.


Who was the oligarch who paid for the continental army?
former entrepreneur
2018-06-21, 5:39 AM #9552
Originally posted by Eversor:
is to be pragmatic.


Come on guys. We can't fight the tides of the neo-gilded age. Give up and accept fate.
2018-06-21, 6:26 AM #9553
Originally posted by Reid:
Come on guys. We can't fight the tides of the neo-gilded age. Give up and accept fate.


gilded without the growth tho
2018-06-21, 6:50 AM #9554
https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1009716701385101313

Ah.
2018-06-21, 7:08 AM #9555
I appreciate that Jordan Peterson admitted a mistake, but I've noticed this is a common thing among the right. They'll say things which sound like they're against e.g. the civil rights movement of the 60's, or the labor movement of the 30's, but they also recognize how popular these things are so they won't say outright they oppose them. It's always this wishy-washy, quantum superstate of what feels like B.S. to me, like they wanna dogwhistle being against civil rights but won't state it outright.
2018-06-21, 7:39 AM #9556
Originally posted by Eversor:
Who was the oligarch who paid for the continental army?
Robert Morris

Originally posted by Reid:
I appreciate that Jordan Peterson admitted a mistake, but I've noticed this is a common thing among the right. They'll say things which sound like they're against e.g. the civil rights movement of the 60's, or the labor movement of the 30's, but they also recognize how popular these things are so they won't say outright they oppose them. It's always this wishy-washy, quantum superstate of what feels like B.S. to me, like they wanna dogwhistle being against civil rights but won't state it outright.


I’m willing to take this one at face value tbh.
2018-06-21, 7:50 AM #9557
http://www.businessinsider.com/migrant-children-forcibly-drugged-abused-in-us-government-detention-2018-6?utm_source=reddit.com

Oh good. At least the migrant children get free drugs. /s
2018-06-21, 7:51 AM #9558
Originally posted by Jon`C:
I’m willing to take this one at face value tbh.


Yeah. It's possible he just kneejerked the conservative response before thinking.
2018-06-21, 7:59 AM #9559
So the same people who ****ed up Charlottesville are planning a trip to DC this year. I'll probably go to counter-protest again.

I would love to witness Richard Spencer get tackled and handcuffed a second time.
2018-06-21, 9:39 AM #9560
Originally posted by Reid:
I appreciate that Jordan Peterson admitted a mistake, but I've noticed this is a common thing among the right. They'll say things which sound like they're against e.g. the civil rights movement of the 60's, or the labor movement of the 30's, but they also recognize how popular these things are so they won't say outright they oppose them. It's always this wishy-washy, quantum superstate of what feels like B.S. to me, like they wanna dogwhistle being against civil rights but won't state it outright.


His big mistake, to my mind, was being completely uninformed about any of the conservative arguments in favor of the baker.
former entrepreneur
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!