Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[taxi]

5 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

Utter nonsense.  What you describe as "society's attitudes moving to the left" is basic social progress which both sides used to work towards.  That's what the "Progressive" part of the old Progressive Conservative parties used to mean and it is quite fitting that the current iteration of the federal party has dropped the word from it's name.

 

The legality of homosexuality was NOT debated 30 years ago--30 years ago, it was 1988.  When homosexuality was decriminalized in the 1960's, Pierre Trudeau wasn't even Prime Minister; he was the Justice Minister when he uttered that famous line about "the state having no place in the bedrooms of its citizens".  At the same point in time in the US, the South were still trying to preserve racial segregation of blacks.  That was over 50 years ago.

 

It is social conservatives that are the ones who destroyed moderate conservatism.  It used to be that it was a given that moderates on both sides agreed with secularism and the pursuit of equality for all.  Now secularism is considered is viewed as 'anti-Christian', equality is viewed as 'political correctness' and both are considered positions of the "left".

 

Is social conservatism a new thing? It's always fallen under the umbrella of conservatism with fiscal conservatism. What is considered socially conservative changes over time.

 

Homosexuality was legalized in Canada on  June 27, 1969 (so technically in the 1960s). However, debate about it's legality continued, and protection under the charter didn't occur until June 20, 1996. That was just an example.

 

My point is that views aren't becoming more conservative. Compared to what exactly? The 1950s? Are you going to argue that modern conservative movements are less conservative than the ones in the 1950s? The point is that we are in a phase where there are fewer people gravitating towards the middle, and politicians now need to pander towards the extremes to get elected. The typical argument about some phantom enemy on the other side is what is motivating many towards these polarized attitudes, and that argument is nothing new.

[Undrafted]

13 minutes ago, taxi said:

Is social conservatism a new thing? It's always fallen under the umbrella of conservatism with fiscal conservatism. What is considered socially conservative changes over time.

 

Homosexuality was legalized in Canada on  June 27, 1969 (so technically in the 1960s). However, debate about it's legality continued, and protection under the charter didn't occur until June 20, 1996. That was just an example.

 

My point is that views aren't becoming more conservative. Compared to what exactly? The 1950s? Are you going to argue that modern conservative movements are less conservative than the ones in the 1950s? The point is that we are in a phase where there are fewer people gravitating towards the middle, and politicians now need to pander towards the extremes to get elected. The typical argument about some phantom enemy on the other side is what is motivating many towards these polarized attitudes, and that argument is nothing new.

Social conservatism in itself is not a new thing.  What IS new is that it's the focal point of current "mainstream" conservative identity and following that, agenda and policy; whereas before, social conservatism was barely acknowledged on conservative planks.  Perhaps in social conservative circles, the debate about the legality of homosexuality might have been discussed past the 70s, but it was never a thing in mainstream political discourse until conservatives began pandering to the religious right.

 

The Progressive Conservative party I used to support self-identified themselves as the "party for small business and free enterprise".  Their central focus was fiscal conservatism: their philosophy could be defined as soft social libertarianism--they were social progressives who believed we could achieve those aims without spending piles of money on questionable government-run programs (unlike the Liberals, who seem to love making a government program for everything).  The conservatives from that era were unquestionably less socially conservative than the ones from 1950s and today's conservatives with the current backswing.

 

I disagree that politicians need to pander towards the extremes to get elected.  In the case of conservatives, they've been counting on party loyalty from moderates to carry them at election time.  But with the increasing hostility towards moderates/centrists from the conservative ranks, I don't think they can count on that anymore.  Moderates tend to be more conscious of actual issues and policy than the hardline base.  And myself personally, I'm one of those moderates who WILL put country/society before party EVERY time.

[Kragar]

On 7/31/2018 at 12:05 PM, Lockout Casualty said:

It also always bears repeating that the more educated one is, the more liberal one is likely to be. 

(been too buy to post for a while)

 

Confirmation bias.  You need to look a little deeper.

 

When that is what the schools teach, odds are, that is what students will take away from the experience.  Just because that is what they are taught doesn't make it the ideal.  It's just what the educators want them to learn.  Since the majority of educators lean (arguably strongly) to the left, it's no surprise that most students coming out of most schools learn to lean that way as well.

 

It only appears to bear repeating because it toots your own horn.

[Lockout Casualty]

20 minutes ago, Kragar said:

(been too buy to post for a while)

 

Confirmation bias.  You need to look a little deeper.

 

When that is what the schools teach, odds are, that is what students will take away from the experience.  Just because that is what they are taught doesn't make it the ideal.  It's just what the educators want them to learn.  Since the majority of educators lean (arguably strongly) to the left, it's no surprise that most students coming out of most schools learn to lean that way as well.

 

It only appears to bear repeating because it toots your own horn.

Are you implying that teachers push their political biases onto students? That is quite the charge to lay. 

 

Could it be that the reason educators lean left is because they possess critical thinking skills to process information in a logical and rational way, and arrive at conclusions that land them on the left? Surely they are more capable than the average, uneducated Joe.

 

Alternatively, one could look at the manner right wing and left wing politicians and governments operate to recognize the right wing is the one that consistently limits discourse, attacks experts, appeals to basic emotions, and otherwise shrugs intellectual approach for sound bite opinions as their modus operandi.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Lockout Casualty

[Kragar]

3 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Are you implying that teachers push their political biases onto students? That is quite the charge to lay. 

 

Could it be that the reason educators lean left is because they possess critical thinking skills to process information in a logical and rational way, and arrive at conclusions that land them on the left? Surely they are more capable than the average, uneducated Joe.

 

Alternatively, one could look at the manner right wing and left wing politicians and governments operate to recognize the right wing is the one that consistently limits discourse, attacks experts, appeals to basic emotions, and otherwise shrugs intellectual approach for sound bite opinions as their modus operandi.

Plenty of stories of teachers (verbally) attacking students for supporting Trump.  I'm sure you can find stories going the other way too.  And, how many conservatives teach a Social Justice class (and, how the hell does that even get on the curriculum?). 

 

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

It is far more often that those on the left limit discourse.  This is evident in our schools and political rallies today, and has been for years (i.e. before Trump).  The anti-gun lobby (btw, not claiming all the pro-gun position is based solely on logic), illegal immigration, and universal healthcare  are consistently trying to appeal on an emotional level instead of a logical one (or, logic that stands up, at least).  California wants universal health care... with our fine Dem government knowing we cannot afford it.  But still, it is the emotionally right thing to do, even if it doesn't make economic sense.  WTF?

Edited August 2, 2018 by Kragar
spelling

[lmm]

On 7/30/2018 at 4:54 PM, The Sedge said:

Another casualty of Social Media I'm afraid.  Instant, often false, information at all hours of the day from your cell phone/computer.  Algorithms that cater your viewing to things that appeal to you or align with your beliefs.  

 

The other way to look at it, is that sometimes these problems aren't as bad as they seem.  Unfortunately the comments sections of most news sources are just breeding grounds for misinformation.  When you have paid posters and bots posting the same garbage all the time, under different aliases, it starts to seem like there is a disproportionately large part of the population with more and more extreme and ignorant views.  

 

I'd like to believe that the majority of the population are still reasonable people with at least a shred of common sense.  

social media use is a symtom not a cause. leaflets, TV, radio, loudspeakers, newspapers, churches, even town cries and speaker's corners  have all had (or continue to have) their influence.

Trump tweets while Churchill used radio 

[Hamhuis Hip Check]

8 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Are you implying that teachers push their political biases onto students? That is quite the charge to lay. 

 

Could it be that the reason educators lean left is because they possess critical thinking skills to process information in a logical and rational way, and arrive at conclusions that land them on the left? Surely they are more capable than the average, uneducated Joe.

 

Alternatively, one could look at the manner right wing and left wing politicians and governments operate to recognize the right wing is the one that consistently limits discourse, attacks experts, appeals to basic emotions, and otherwise shrugs intellectual approach for sound bite opinions as their modus operandi.

I had several teachers in my time who took pleasure in putting out their own personal views on kids as young as 13, when there was going to be a strike in our district almost every teacher i had spent around 20 minutes a day crapping on conservatives and why the left was better. 

[Lockout Casualty]

8 hours ago, Kragar said:

Plenty of stories of teachers (verbally) attacking students for supporting Trump.  I'm sure you can find stories going the other way too.  And, how many conservatives teach a Social Justice class (and, how the hell does that even get on the curriculum?). 

 

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

It is far more often that those on the left limit discourse.  This is evident in our schools and political rallies today, and has been for years (i.e. before Trump).  The anti-gun lobby (btw, not claiming all the pro-gun position is based solely on logic), illegal immigration, and universal healthcare  are consistently trying to appeal on an emotional level instead of a logical one (or, logic that stands up, at least).  California wants universal health care... with our fine Dem government knowing we cannot afford it.  But still, it is the emotionally right thing to do, even if it doesn't make economic sense.  WTF?

Can't say I've heard of too many stories of such teachers, but I'll take your word for it. That said, how many stories are there compared to the over number of teachers? In 2016, there were over 1.3 million in the US. So again, how many stories are we talking about here? 100? 1000? The ratio being well below a percent. Certainly there are those who may push a bias, but in the grand scheme of post secondary education, the effect is negligible at best. 

 

And what does Social Justice have to do with the subject? Regardless, I would wager the professors teaching that subject are intelligent people, more skilled than the average Joe at critical thinking. You may not understand the value in such a subject, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently useless one. What it may not be, is economically valuable, but that would imply that something needs to directly make money to be valuable to society. Preposterous.

I was speaking about the governments' methods, but sure, we can talk about this too. What is it that the rallies and schools prove? That right wingers are willing to kill those protesting against their right to white supremacy? Left wingers not allowing anti-LGBTQ speech on campus? If we're talking about private colleges, they have every right to ban any speech deemed offensive. And counter-protesting a rally doesn't prevent the rally from happening. They have just as much right to counter-protest as the rally does to spread their hateful message. Again, the issue is how government effects these freedoms, not other private citizens. Somehow the right wing seems to confuse their right to free speech with a perceived right to freedom from consequences of said speech. 

 

What about anti-gun lobby? So far as I can tell the left's plan isn't to ban guns outright, just to keep them out of the hands of crazy and violent people. Maybe you're thinking of the caricature the right has created of the left, where any gun regulation is tantamount to wanting to ban guns (just look at, hell any regulation regarding guns). That's not the left though, that's just what the right claims the left is. By the way, the gun lobby (the NRA, an actual national organization dedicated to the cause, what's the left wing's counterpart called?) actually forced the Dickey Amendment, effectively stopping CDC research into gun violence. And not like there aren't studies upon studies showing that with strong gun regulation and training, it is possible to decrease violence. So who's really being emotional? The "They wanna take my guns! Do nothing to fix gun violence! Knives kill people too! We need guns to fight the government oppression!!!" crowd, or the, "Let's have strict background checks! Let's stop people with history of domestic violence from having guns! Let's not sell guns that can take down 20 people before reloading! Let's have rules on storage! (Seriously, how stupid must one be to sleep with a gun under one's pillow?) And so on? 

 

Illegal immigration? What, like the fact that half the illegal immigrants in the US are overstaying their visas? Not secret Taliban, but background checked visitors. Or that illegals are a net benefit to the economy? One side is screaming about losing their jobs to Mexicans "taking there jerbs!!!", at a time during low unemployment, and crops rotting in the fields, the other is saying, "Hey, maybe not all Mexicans are criminals and rapists (contrary to the President's beliefs)". So again, who's emotional here? The xenophobic racists in the red states who don't grasp the fact that illegal immigrants commit less crimes per capita than Americans? (For the dimwits on CDC that keep posting stories of illegals committing one crime or another as proof that there is a crisis, that means the more illegals you have, the less likely you are to be victim of a crime.) Or the folk who realize all people are the same, and if some come here illegally, doesn't mean they present a threat, or somehow won't contribute, or don't belong at all.

 

Health care? Can we agree from the get-go that everyone should have access to necessary healthcare? If not, just quit reading here and never bother again. Assuming you agree, said healthcare has to be paid for. In fact, it is already paid for. Now! Except it's more expensive. One way or another, we pay for healthcare when we need to. With economies of scale, we could be paying less for healthcare than we are now. It's a fundamental fact, the bigger your risk pool, the easier it is to take care of those at risk. For everyone. (Also, maybe cap hospitals charging hundreds for Tylenols). US spends more on healthcare with poorer outcomes than any other developed nation in the world. WTF makes them so unique that universal healthcare is so unaffordable? This is probably the least emotional argument the left makes. Ever. Universal healthcare is cheaper, would save more lives, and would prevent hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies. Who's being emotional on this subject? 

 

The right has historically been, and continues to be, on the wrong side of every major issue affecting our society. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Lockout Casualty

[Ryan Strome]

Lol so Abraham Lincoln was on the wrong side of history eh?

 

How about the ccf(now ndp) staunchly opposing ww2 were they on the right side of history? 

 

Wow.

[Dekey Pete]

13 hours ago, lmm said:

social media use is a symtom not a cause. leaflets, TV, radio, loudspeakers, newspapers, churches, even town cries and speaker's corners  have all had (or continue to have) their influence.

Trump tweets while Churchill used radio 

I'm not saying those past political leaders didn't have their own methods of communication, but it was at a much smaller scale.  These days, someone can post something on Twitter, Facebook, etc., and within minutes it's been shared millions of times across the entire world.  By the time someone figures out that it's false information it's too late and people have already made up their minds.  It's interesting, because social media allows anyone to have a voice and not be censored, so in that sense it's a great tool.  But at the same time it's up to the people receiving information to vet it and determine what a reliable source looks like.  Unfortunately, people are not doing the vetting, as we've seen over the past few years, and that's why we're seeing so many people taking advantage of social media to spew hate speech and divide the political spectrum further and further apart.

 

For what it's worth, Churchill used radio to bring Britain together when they were on the verge of being defeated by the Germans.  Trump has done nothing but try and divide the right against the left.  Can't even compare the two.

[Lockout Casualty]

3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Lol so Abraham Lincoln was on the wrong side of history eh?

 

How about the ccf(now ndp) staunchly opposing ww2 were they on the right side of history? 

 

Wow.

For someone who constantly derides Canadians for following American politics and thinks Obama is a far lefty, I guess your ignorance of American politics can be excused to some extent. Back in those days, the parties were not what they are today. California and New York were Republican and the South was staunchly Democratic. It wasn't until the early-mid 20th century that the transition to modern party alignment took place. 

 

As for CCF opposing WW2, I guess a single CCF MP opposing qualifies as "the left" in your books. Doesn't matter that the rest of the CCF supported entering the war. "CCF staunchly opposing ww2" is yet another misleading statement in a long list of right wing talking points. 

 

Wow is right. Just not for the reasons you suggest.

 

@ForsbergTheGreat Sorry for the confusion, pal. I promise if I could dumb it down for you I would, alas I don't have that much time. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Lockout Casualty

[Ryan Strome]

That single mp was the leader. And yes the democrats were big in the South, they had the support of the kkk.

 

Btw champ it was you who said The right has historically been, and continues to be, on the wrong side of every major issue affecting our society.  

 

I have no problem with you guys following American politics, the obsession some have is strange to me.

[Kragar]

11 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Spoiler

Can't say I've heard of too many stories of such teachers, but I'll take your word for it. That said, how many stories are there compared to the over number of teachers? In 2016, there were over 1.3 million in the US. So again, how many stories are we talking about here? 100? 1000? The ratio being well below a percent. Certainly there are those who may push a bias, but in the grand scheme of post secondary education, the effect is negligible at best. 

 

And what does Social Justice have to do with the subject? Regardless, I would wager the professors teaching that subject are intelligent people, more skilled than the average Joe at critical thinking. You may not understand the value in such a subject, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently useless one. What it may not be, is economically valuable, but that would imply that something needs to directly make money to be valuable to society. Preposterous.

I was speaking about the governments' methods, but sure, we can talk about this too. What is it that the rallies and schools prove? That right wingers are willing to kill those protesting against their right to white supremacy? Left wingers not allowing anti-LGBTQ speech on campus? If we're talking about private colleges, they have every right to ban any speech deemed offensive. And counter-protesting a rally doesn't prevent the rally from happening. They have just as much right to counter-protest as the rally does to spread their hateful message. Again, the issue is how government effects these freedoms, not other private citizens. Somehow the right wing seems to confuse their right to free speech with a perceived right to freedom from consequences of said speech. 

 

What about anti-gun lobby? So far as I can tell the left's plan isn't to ban guns outright, just to keep them out of the hands of crazy and violent people. Maybe you're thinking of the caricature the right has created of the left, where any gun regulation is tantamount to wanting to ban guns (just look at, hell any regulation regarding guns). That's not the left though, that's just what the right claims the left is. By the way, the gun lobby (the NRA, an actual national organization dedicated to the cause, what's the left wing's counterpart called?) actually forced the Dickey Amendment, effectively stopping CDC research into gun violence. And not like there aren't studies upon studies showing that with strong gun regulation and training, it is possible to decrease violence. So who's really being emotional? The "They wanna take my guns! Do nothing to fix gun violence! Knives kill people too! We need guns to fight the government oppression!!!" crowd, or the, "Let's have strict background checks! Let's stop people with history of domestic violence from having guns! Let's not sell guns that can take down 20 people before reloading! Let's have rules on storage! (Seriously, how stupid must one be to sleep with a gun under one's pillow?) And so on? 

 

Illegal immigration? What, like the fact that half the illegal immigrants in the US are overstaying their visas? Not secret Taliban, but background checked visitors. Or that illegals are a net benefit to the economy? One side is screaming about losing their jobs to Mexicans "taking there jerbs!!!", at a time during low unemployment, and crops rotting in the fields, the other is saying, "Hey, maybe not all Mexicans are criminals and rapists (contrary to the President's beliefs)". So again, who's emotional here? The xenophobic racists in the red states who don't grasp the fact that illegal immigrants commit less crimes per capita than Americans? (For the dimwits on CDC that keep posting stories of illegals committing one crime or another as proof that there is a crisis, that means the more illegals you have, the less likely you are to be victim of a crime.) Or the folk who realize all people are the same, and if some come here illegally, doesn't mean they present a threat, or somehow won't contribute, or don't belong at all.

 

Health care? Can we agree from the get-go that everyone should have access to necessary healthcare? If not, just quit reading here and never bother again. Assuming you agree, said healthcare has to be paid for. In fact, it is already paid for. Now! Except it's more expensive. One way or another, we pay for healthcare when we need to. With economies of scale, we could be paying less for healthcare than we are now. It's a fundamental fact, the bigger your risk pool, the easier it is to take care of those at risk. For everyone. (Also, maybe cap hospitals charging hundreds for Tylenols). US spends more on healthcare with poorer outcomes than any other developed nation in the world. WTF makes them so unique that universal healthcare is so unaffordable? This is probably the least emotional argument the left makes. Ever. Universal healthcare is cheaper, would save more lives, and would prevent hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies. Who's being emotional on this subject? 

 

The right has historically been, and continues to be, on the wrong side of every major issue affecting our society. 

 

Thanks for helping to prove my point.  You don't want a discussion, as evidenced by statements like "just quit reading here and never bother again."  You pile hyperbole and disdain on your perception of "the right's" position, and persist on name-calling, thinking this puts you on higher ground.  Kinda like what happens in too many classrooms.  After looking at all the links in the following spoiler, maybe teachers and classrooms should be equipped with cameras like cops and their cars (btw, while I restricted links to those that are mostly anti-Trump, there are instances of anti-Obama ones out there too.  As you point out that the majority of those with higher education are liberal, that supports that most teachers lean that way, too, right?)

 

Spoiler

https://brightthemag.com/should-teachers-talk-trump-in-class-education-36a851784959

https://www.wmar2news.com/news/in-focus/san-francisco-teachers-union-offers-anti-trump-lesson-plan

https://www.miamiherald.com/article207803739.html

https://kutv.com/news/local/park-city-jr-high-teacher-on-leave-for-telling-class-to-read-hateful-anti-trump-song

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2016/05/27/should-a-third-grade-teacher-share-his-disdain-for-donald-trump-with-his-class/#46d52f6461a2

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/05/28/liberal-columnist-slated-to-teach-antitrump-course-at-ivy-league-college-n2485088

https://www.krqe.com/news/parents-concerned-over-recording-of-teachers-political-rant/900127113

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-teacher-lesson-plan-donald-trump-racist-sexist/

https://myfox8.com/2017/09/04/school-district-apologizes-after-teacher-kicks-students-out-of-class-for-wearing-make-american-great-again-shirt/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cherokee-county/school-apologizes-after-teacher-says-students-cant-wear-make-america-great-again-shirts/602622162

http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local-news/2018/04/25/fort-wayne-community-schools-teacher-accused-of-bullying-student-over-use-of-fox-news-as-source-on-current-events-report/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/northeastern-professor-wishes-death-on-trump

http://www.aei.org/publication/stop-teaching-anti-trump-bias/

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/01/26/teacher-fires-toy-gun-at-president-tump-image-yells-die/

http://tobecomeateacher.org/how-to-teach-under-trump/

https://freebeacon.com/culture/new-book-sheds-light-anti-trump-agenda-public-schools-politicization-classroom/

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/education/ph-cc-westminster-hs-politics-20170217-story.html

https://uproxx.com/news/teacher-resign-john-oliver-donald-trump/

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/02/15/occ-student-suspended-after-filming-teacher-saying-trumps-election-was-an-act-of-terrorism/

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article170719737.html

https://aminerdetail.com/washington-county-public-schools-issues-statement-in-response-to-smithsburg-teachers-anti-trump-comments/

 

Since Social Justice classes came well after I was attending school, I'd be curious to know how much they talk about the fact that more white people fought against slavery than for it in the US Civil War, or how the majority of African slaves were captured and enslaved by fellow Africans.  Do they even talk about slavery that goes on today?  I doubt it, since there are no white male faces they can identify as the bad-guy.  Even you were misguided earlier in this thread regarding the "3/5 of a person" designation, which was not to punish black people but to punish the South for slavery.  Had that not been implemented, Southern states would have had higher representation in Congress (when black people couldn't vote to influence their representation), and who knows how much longer slavery would have continued in the US.  Since others also take offense at "3/5", I suspect it is not being properly taught in enough places.

 

There is a difference between peaceful counter-protesting and preventing the speaker from begin heard.  The number of right-leaning speakers who have been outright prevented from holding a previously scheduled event.  How many stages have been rushed by right-wing protesters, stealing the mike from a more liberal speaker?  How many people were assaulted or denied service for wearing an Obama hat (or any other political identifier), and then compare that to those with a MAGA hat.

 

A quick search showed me people who have stated they want to ban guns outright include Biden and Feinstein.  See this list for their statements, and similar comments from other Dem politicians: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns

 

Fine, what about the other half of illegals?  Illegal immigrants that do not enter legally drive down wages, since they are often pressured to take less pay than legal residents.  What about those who have since received amnesty.  They still overly represent lower-skilled workers, and therefore impact that portion of the workforce.  Did you have any idea that the large presence of low and unskilled immigration hurts black people the most, driving down wages and job opportunities.  I'm not worried about my job at all.  But, I'd sure be happier seeing more black people have better opportunities to improve their situations by having more jobs available to them, so that their unemployment rate aligns with the rest of us.  You do know that there is a link between unemployment and incarceration?  Does it help the economy when immigrants are sending their money back to where they came from?  You know, money that is likely not taxed (either due to illegals not filing or income too the income too low to be taxed), and not put back into the economy.  

https://cis.org/Testimony/Immigration-and-Black-Americans-Assessing-Impact

https://cis.org/Testimony/Illegal-Immigration-Impact-Wages-and-Employment-Black-Workers

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/02/news/economy/mexico-remittances/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/06/15/world/immigrants-around-world-sent-445-billion-back-their-home-countries

 

You mention everyone should have access to necessary healthcare.  What is "necessary", btw?  Are healthcare services "necessary" (and necessary to be provided at no cost) to combat repeated, conscious self-abuse through tobacco, alcohol, drugs, sex, and poor diet choices (and I fall into at least one of those categories, no holier-than-thou going on here).  Regardless, you point out it has to be paid for, and who better than the government, right?  Could you not say the same thing about housing, food, water, electricity and other basic utilities/services?  You cannot live without food and water, after all.  Is it fair that people with higher incomes can afford more and better quality food and access to cleaner water (through purchasing filter systems).  Where on the agenda is leveling out that playing field?  Oh crap, I hope I didn't give anyone ideas there.

 

(Side note, IMO the Swiss have a far better system, and the vast majority there are paying for their own insurance, and the right to choose their coverage.  Their concept is universal, but quite different than what Dems are suggesting, or what Canada, UK, Scandinavian countries experience)

 

You are free to continue to state opinions as fact all you like.  Fortunately, I don't have to believe them, and the same goes for anyone else whose critical thinking skills allow them to see past talking points.  Keep up with words like jerbs, dimwit, and xenophobic... they'll take you far.  

[Undrafted]

16 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

The right has historically been, and continues to be, on the wrong side of every major issue affecting our society. 

Free trade, which led to NAFTA and all the other global major trade agreements, was originally invented by the right (Mulroney/Reagan) and initially opposed by the left.  (And yes, the irony that Trump and the Republicans are now anti-free trade is not lost on me.)

 

Conversely, look at the failed attempts by the left to nationalize industry, whether it was the original Petro-Canada here, the Labour party's attempt to nationalize mining and everything else in the UK during the 70s, or more recently, Venezuela's botched attempt to nationalize their oil industry.

 

Most of the other stuff you cited about "the right" in that post are hardline conservative positions of the Conservative/Republican base; they do not reflect the centre/moderate right position at all.  Believe it or not, there once was a time when "conservative intellectual" wasn't an oxymoron.

[Ilunga]

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://brightthemag.com/should-teachers-talk-trump-in-class-education-36a851784959

https://www.wmar2news.com/news/in-focus/san-francisco-teachers-union-offers-anti-trump-lesson-plan

https://www.miamiherald.com/article207803739.html

https://kutv.com/news/local/park-city-jr-high-teacher-on-leave-for-telling-class-to-read-hateful-anti-trump-song

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2016/05/27/should-a-third-grade-teacher-share-his-disdain-for-donald-trump-with-his-class/#46d52f6461a2

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/05/28/liberal-columnist-slated-to-teach-antitrump-course-at-ivy-league-college-n2485088

https://www.krqe.com/news/parents-concerned-over-recording-of-teachers-political-rant/900127113

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-teacher-lesson-plan-donald-trump-racist-sexist/

https://myfox8.com/2017/09/04/school-district-apologizes-after-teacher-kicks-students-out-of-class-for-wearing-make-american-great-again-shirt/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cherokee-county/school-apologizes-after-teacher-says-students-cant-wear-make-america-great-again-shirts/602622162

http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local-news/2018/04/25/fort-wayne-community-schools-teacher-accused-of-bullying-student-over-use-of-fox-news-as-source-on-current-events-report/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/northeastern-professor-wishes-death-on-trump

http://www.aei.org/publication/stop-teaching-anti-trump-bias/

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/01/26/teacher-fires-toy-gun-at-president-tump-image-yells-die/

http://tobecomeateacher.org/how-to-teach-under-trump/

https://freebeacon.com/culture/new-book-sheds-light-anti-trump-agenda-public-schools-politicization-classroom/

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/education/ph-cc-westminster-hs-politics-20170217-story.html

https://uproxx.com/news/teacher-resign-john-oliver-donald-trump/

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/02/15/occ-student-suspended-after-filming-teacher-saying-trumps-election-was-an-act-of-terrorism/

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article170719737.html

https://aminerdetail.com/washington-county-public-schools-issues-statement-in-response-to-smithsburg-teachers-anti-trump-comments/

Keep up with words like jerbs, dimwit, and xenophobic... they'll take you far.  

I was having a political/ historical discussion a few days ago with members of a lodge I was staying in.The person I was having the discussion with was calm and reasonable, we had different ideas about defence spending and immigration,but I could feel the fury building in a guy standing on the other side of the room. He eventually exploded, shouting his opinion)abuse.I stayed calm and reasonable but he kept on getting more angry, eventually I went and offered him my hand and said we are all brothers and have to live together but he abused me and stormed off.   After I left the room the guy who I had the discussion with stated to my friend that he really respected the fact that I did not raise my voice and that I did not react in a negative manner to being abused.                                      When I got home I was discussing this with my girl who has is a linguist,she has a masters degree in languages and teaching. She made the point that the most effective, rational, reasonable arguments contain not many adjectives especially "colouful" adjectives.   It has gotten virtually impossible to have a reasonable, logical, rational conversation without getting abused either by words or memes. This I believe is the real sign of the breaking down of the societies we live in. It's not that far of a leap from hurling insults to actually physically hurting others,especially now where the ideological divides seem so deep.

[Undrafted]

9 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

I was having a political/ historical discussion a few days ago with members of a lodge I was staying in.The person I was having the discussion with was calm and reasonable, we had different ideas about defence spending and immigration,but I could feel the fury building in a guy standing on the other side of the room. He eventually exploded, shouting his opinion)abuse.I stayed calm and reasonable but he kept on getting more angry, eventually I went and offered him my hand and said we are all brothers and have to live together but he abused me and stormed off.   After I left the room the guy who I had the discussion with stated to my friend that he really respected the fact that I did not raise my voice and that I did not react in a negative manner to being abused.                                      When I got home I was discussing this with my girl who has is a linguist,she has a masters degree in languages and teaching. She made the point that the most effective, rational, reasonable arguments contain not many adjectives especially "colouful" adjectives.   It has gotten virtually impossible to have a reasonable, logical, rational conversation without getting abused either by words or memes. This I believe is the real sign of the breaking down of the societies we live in. It's not that far of a leap from hurling insults to actually physically hurting others,especially now where the ideological divides seem so deep.

That's because too many people on both sides of the divide are more concerned about WHO is right, instead of WHAT is right.

 

Discussing WHAT is right allows for the concession that the other side might be right.  Standing for WHO is right does not.

[Ilunga]

42 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

That's because too many people on both sides of the divide are more concerned about WHO is right, instead of WHAT is right.

 

Discussing WHAT is right allows for the concession that the other side might be right.  Standing for WHO is right does not.

Great point.  For nearly 3 decades I have questioned what is right and what is wrong. I hesitate to use the word subjective,but out of 171,476 words currently in use of the English language it seems to be the best word to describe what right and wrong are.   I was reading an article by June Marshall about this, to quote from this, "there are no universal laws of right or wrong.Each different society reaches an agreement about what is right.Murder,for example, is one of the most world wide agreed upon wrongs.Yet in most societies murder,in wartime conditions, is approved or promoted. Right and wrong are subjective in how they relate to suffering.It feels bad to suffer.If we have empathy,we do not want to impose suffering on others,including animals.We don't want to have the memory of making someone suffer.It feels wrong,therefore is wrong.It feels bad to do wrong things and these feelings,how strong they are depend on the individual.Pyschopaths do not have these feeling of right or wrong.They do not feel empathy for the beings they harm.They also have no feeling of love or compassion for themselves,in that sense,too,right and wrong are entirely subjective.Feeling bad when we do wrong things is what keeps people in line,even more than being punished by the society that makes the rules".                                    I used to believe that it was a mix of nature and nurture that made each person what they essentially are, my views about the mix of this were really shaken when I learnt about the sort of people my biological relatives were.    After watching a doco about this guy who used an MRI machine to study the brains of 250 pyschopaths,then 250 kind altruistic people my views on this were shattered.Even a person like myself could see the brains were "wired" differently. The area of the brain that is responsible for compassion and empathy, the supramarginal gyrus is not as "connected" to the parietal,temporal and frontal lobes as the people who are considered altruistic.  I have always struggled with how our societies define right and wrong. As that article pointed out in one situation society defines murder as wrong but in another situation it is considered right and is promoted.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Ilunga

[Undrafted]

16 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Great point.  For nearly 3 decades I have questioned what is right and what is wrong. I hesitate to use the word subjective,but out of 171,476 words currently in use of the English language it seems to be the best word to describe what right and wrong are.   I was reading an article by June Marshall about this, to quote from this, "there are no universal laws of right or wrong.Each different society reaches an agreement about what is right.Murder,for example, is one of the most world wide agreed upon wrongs.Yet in most societies murder,in wartime conditions, is approved or promoted. Right and wrong are subjective in how they relate to suffering.It feels bad to suffer.If we have empathy,we do not want to impose suffering on others,including animals.We don't want to have the memory of making someone suffer.It feels wrong,therefore is wrong.It feels bad to do wrong things and these feelings,how strong they are depend on the individual.Pyschopaths do not have these feeling of right or wrong.They do not feel empathy for the beings they harm.They also have no feeling of love or compassion for themselves,in that sense,too,right and wrong are entirely subjective.Feeling bad when we do wrong things is what keeps people in line,even more than being punished by the society that makes the rules".                                    I used to believe that it was a mix of nature and nurture that made each person what they essentially are, my views about the mix of this were really shaken when I learnt about the sort of people my biological relatives were.    After watching a doco about this guy who used an MRI machine to study the brains of 250 pyschopaths,then 250 kind altruistic people my views on this were shattered.Even a person like myself could see the brains were "wired" differently. The area of the brain that is responsible for compassion and empathy, the supramarginal gyrus is not as "connected" to the parietal,temporal and frontal lobes as the people who are considered altruistic.  I have always struggled with how our societies define right and wrong. As that article pointed out in one situation society defines murder as wrong but in another situation it is considered right and is promoted.

TBH, I wasn't really talking about 'right/wrong' in the grander moralistic/philosophical context; I meant it more in the political context (and the context of the thread) regarding the discussion of policy and issues, and how dogmatic both those on the hard left and right are, and how they refuse to either compromise or recognize that an idea from the "other" side has merit.

 

There's currently there's this notion, especially among conservatives, that if you stray from the hard party line, you are disloyal to the party or 'cause'; that to be a "true" conservative (or liberal), you MUST agree to EVERYTHING the hard left/right subscribe to and that everything the other side says is "wrong" simply because it's the other side.  That is part of the alienation of centrists/moderates on both sides of the spectrum; centrists and moderates view the world in varying tones of grey instead of the simplistic black/white fundamentalism that hardliners take.

[Ilunga]

23 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

TBH, I wasn't really talking about 'right/wrong' in the grander moralistic/philosophical context; I meant it more in the political context (and the context of the thread) regarding the discussion of policy and issues, and how dogmatic both those on the hard left and right are, and how they refuse to either compromise or recognize that an idea from the "other" side has merit.

 

There's currently there's this notion, especially among conservatives, that if you stray from the hard party line, you are disloyal to the party or 'cause'; that to be a "true" conservative (or liberal), you MUST agree to EVERYTHING the hard left/right subscribe to and that everything the other side says is "wrong" simply because it's the other side.  That is part of the alienation of centrists/moderates on both sides of the spectrum; centrists and moderates view the world in varying tones of grey instead of the simplistic black/white fundamentalism that hardliners take.

Left ? Right ? Those are 2 labels that seem to be thrown around by people who have no idea about human nature. How do you define a left leaning person as opposed to a right leaning person ? Not their political views but rather how they treat others first in their own communities and then their attitude to others in the greater community and the planet itself.

[Lancaster]

One thing I always found amusing is the argument that there are too many old white people who are supposedly racist, bigoted and generally uncaring for others.  

Yet those old white people are the same hippies during the 60's preaching love and stuff, lol.