US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[GDB]

Tomorrow night.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by GDB

Tomorrow night.

Opposite Monday Night Football. Still it's a game that features the woeful Atlanta Falcons against the somewhat less woeful New Orleans Saints. People who choose to watch football have probably already made up their minds who to vote for, especially since undecideds are less than ten percent of the electorate.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by frivolity

The way I see it, the link between progressivism and big government is that the only way to implement the progressive changes in an expedient way is for government to use force in order to compel the people to obey. Conservatism, as I see it, isn't necessarily about rejecting change, but about letting the changes come naturally instead of through government action. This is why conservatives are very strict about the constitution and sticking to the processes embalmed in it.

Name a change government has forced on the public that didn't arrive naturally.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Solace

Name a change government has forced on the public that didn't arrive naturally.

Patriot Act?

Is it a trick question? Thought it was a bit easy

[Ithekro]

That's not what I'd call a progressive change.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Patriot Act?

Is it a trick question? Thought it was a bit easy

Yes, it's a trick question. The US government isn't a dictatorship. Change can stem from action or inaction. Many people, private and public citizen alike, believed the Patriot Act to be a needed thing after 9/11.

When people start treating Government as something foreign, as opposed to a tool they are empowered with, they get exactly the Government they deserve: one run by people who will use it as a tool to get what they want.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by Solace

When people start treating Government as something foreign, as opposed to a tool they are empowered with, they get exactly the Government they deserve: one run by people who will use it as a tool to get what they want.

But isn't the US Government always like that? Different names and different people yes but same mindset following the same politics formed in one of two dominant party systems run by same class of people and funded by same rich class of people?

I think this is one of the big reasons why people are more inclining to Trump on these elections. Hilary's policy is basically 'we will keep everything the same like it was past 100 years' while Trump is 'I will bring some changes to our society'. Bernie was also for changing some things, and because he is in party that wants to keep everything the same he was declined candidacy for president and that was a real shame.

But yeah, the debate between Trump and Hilary is going to be a blast. Not because of serious issues and clash between the two but because all of the LOL's it will produce.

[ganbaru]

Scandals: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Solace

Yes, it's a trick question. The US government isn't a dictatorship. Change can stem from action or inaction. Many people, private and public citizen alike, believed the Patriot Act to be a needed thing after 9/11.

When people start treating Government as something foreign, as opposed to a tool they are empowered with, they get exactly the Government they deserve: one run by people who will use it as a tool to get what they want.

Agree that US government is not a dictatorship. It's an oligarchy. Slightly different

Also agree that change can stem from action or inaction. But some built into the system to adjust peacefully. Other need a greater degree of revolution and bloodshed. Those in power normally prefer the former, but lots of the time ended up with the later

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Solace

Name a change government has forced on the public that didn't arrive naturally.

The example I had in mind was the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v CCRC, in which the Christian owners of a cake shop refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the court in Colorado held that they violated anti-discrimination laws because their act of refusing to bake a cake did not constitute free speech that is protected by the Constitution.

In doing this, the Court forced the owners of the shop to bake a cake for a customer that they did not want to serve, i.e: government action (the judiciary as one of the three arms of government) was used in order to compel people to act in a progressive manner, instead of allowing society as a whole to evolve its views naturally.

Originally Posted by Solace

Yes, it's a trick question. The US government isn't a dictatorship. Change can stem from action or inaction. Many people, private and public citizen alike, believed the Patriot Act to be a needed thing after 9/11.

When people start treating Government as something foreign, as opposed to a tool they are empowered with, they get exactly the Government they deserve: one run by people who will use it as a tool to get what they want.

Not sure where this talk about dictatorship came from, because I never once said anything about the US being a dictatorship.

The point I was making is that every government measure must eventually be compelled by force. If you don't do what the government tells you to do, then a group of people will come to your house with guns and take away some of your rights. That is what government does, and it is the whole point of having government - so that everyone obeys the same rules and society avoids descending into a state of anarchy.

Going back to the issue that I was replying to, which is about the link between progressivism and big government, the fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is in their differing beliefs about the limits of government power. Conservatives believe in small government; that government should perform only the basic functions needed for society to function, such as defining a basic framework of contracts and property rights and maintaining a military for national defence, and no more. This ties closely with the concepts set out in the US Constitution.

Progressives generally believe in a bigger government, because that automatically follows from the implementation of progressive ideals. For example, if you consider income inequality to be a problem, then you need a bigger government to implement a bigger social welfare program. If you believe that institutional racism is an existing problem in society, then you need bigger government to set up public institutions that devise and enforce diversity programs.

This difference is also seen in the contrasting views about the role of the judiciary. Conservatives lean more towards legalism - that judges should decide based on the letter of the law without considering its merits, and without incorporating their own subjective beliefs on public policy. Progressives tend to favour judicial activism - that judges should make decisions that take into account their public policy considerations.

This is not to say that conservatism is right and progressivism is wrong. At the very least, that was not the point of my earlier post. My argument is that the main difference between conservatives and progressives is not so much in the question of, "What is right?" The main difference is in the answer to the question of, "How do we get there?"

Because unlike what the media is wont to say, most conservatives aren't racist, sexist, homophic, islamophobic, bigots who don't care about the poor. The difference lies in the belief as to how to resolve the same issues that both sides are concerned about, particularly whether the role of government is to step in and attempt to force a resolution to those issues, or whether government should instead focus primarily on the process instead of the outcome, and let people take individual responsibility for their own actions.

Almost every other difference in opinion stems from this very difference.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Hilary's policy is basically 'we will keep everything the same like it was past 100 years' while Trump is 'I will bring some changes to our society'.

Funny I don't recall our having paid family and medical leave programs for these past hundred years like the other advanced industrial countries do. I guess I must have missed them.

One reason I support Clinton is because she has focused on issues like those for all her career while Trump was putting his name on steaks, ties, and buildings.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by frivolity

The example I had in mind was the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v CCRC, in which the Christian owners of a cake shop refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the court in Colorado held that they violated anti-discrimination laws because their act of refusing to bake a cake did not constitute free speech that is protected by the Constitution.

In doing this, the Court forced the owners of the shop to bake a cake for a customer that they did not want to serve, i.e: government action (the judiciary as one of the three arms of government) was used in order to compel people to act in a progressive manner, instead of allowing society as a whole to evolve its views naturally.

Society did evolve its views, codified them into law, and attempted to move on. The people running that shop knew that by denying the couple a wedding cake based on their sexual orientation that they were violating sexual discrimination laws. Why? Because they specifically said that they were only restricting the wedding cake to straight couples and that they were willing to serve any cake that wasn't a wedding cake to the gay couple. In short, they chose to serve one customer over another not as a statement of free speech, but as an act of discrimination. Free speech is not a get out of jail card anyway. You have the right to face the consequences of your actions, and in this case they were taken to court, they couldn't argue their case successfully, and paid a consequence for their actions. I'm sure they lost business from the bad publicity as well.

Not sure where this talk about dictatorship came from, because I never once said anything about the US being a dictatorship.

I was speaking of how people speak and act as if "government" is this anonymous blob that rules over you as opposed to it simply being an institution made up of fellow citizens.

The point I was making is that every government measure must eventually be compelled by force. If you don't do what the government tells you to do, then a group of people will come to your house with guns and take away some of your rights. That is what government does, and it is the whole point of having government - so that everyone obeys the same rules and society avoids descending into a state of anarchy.

Here you describe it as a bad.....or good thing? Which is it, government takes your rights away by gunpoint, or government ensures the stability of society?

Going back to the issue that I was replying to, which is about the link between progressivism and big government, the fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is in their differing beliefs about the limits of government power. Conservatives believe in small government; that government should perform only the basic functions needed for society to function, such as defining a basic framework of contracts and property rights and maintaining a military for national defence, and no more. This ties closely with the concepts set out in the US Constitution.

Progressives generally believe in a bigger government, because that automatically follows from the implementation of progressive ideals. For example, if you consider income inequality to be a problem, then you need a bigger government to implement a bigger social welfare program. If you believe that institutional racism is an existing problem in society, then you need bigger government to set up public institutions that devise and enforce diversity programs.

The Constitution is a living document. It has been amended and clarified a boatload, as intended by the Founding Fathers. They were Framers, they knew what they were setting up was not meant to be enshrined except in ideal. They did the best they could with what they had. It was never intended to be a perfect or permanent thing.

Small government, big government, it's a silly argument. Government should serve the needs of the people, and if the people need it to ensure a welfare program exists, then so be it. If a better solution exists, then that should be something acknowledged so Government can step aside as needed.

Bear in mind that like the Constitution, the role of government can and should evolve as needed. For example, we're rapidly approaching a time when mass unemployment due to automation will have devastating effects on the economy. Government could be instrumental in what direction our society goes when that happens....or it could be useless. But without Government, where do we debate our options and act? Facebook? Some problems are simply too big for private enterprise or "rugged" individualism to handle.

This difference is also seen in the contrasting views about the role of the judiciary. Conservatives lean more towards legalism - that judges should decide based on the letter of the law without considering its merits, and without incorporating their own subjective beliefs on public policy. Progressives tend to favour judicial activism - that judges should make decisions that take into account their public policy considerations.

This swings both ways, unfortunately. The recent trend from both sides is toward activism, but mainly because legislative government is currently dysfunctional.

This is not to say that conservatism is right and progressivism is wrong. At the very least, that was not the point of my earlier post. My argument is that the main difference between conservatives and progressives is not so much in the question of, "What is right?" The main difference is in the answer to the question of, "How do we get there?"

Because unlike what the media is wont to say, most conservatives aren't racist, sexist, homophic, islamophobic, bigots who don't care about the poor. The difference lies in the belief as to how to resolve the same issues that both sides are concerned about, particularly whether the role of government is to step in and attempt to force a resolution to those issues, or whether government should instead focus primarily on the process instead of the outcome, and let people take individual responsibility for their own actions.

Almost every other difference in opinion stems from this very difference.

#notallconservatives

That would be much easier to believe if I hadn't been watching conservative politics for the last 30 years, culminating in this year's pick of a guy who seems to be the poster child of all of those things and more.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Funny I don't recall our having paid family and medical leave programs for these past hundred years like the other advanced industrial countries do. I guess I must have missed them.

I am not saying tha tthere were no advancments at all, there have been some indeed. What I am referring is how nation itself didn't change much in mentality and social structure since then. Many are arguing for changes for the better while others are arguing for things staying the same.

We live in interchanging world, with many people pledging for one change or another. To have a campaign that will 'just keep thing as they are without changing anything'' is not the best thing to have in these moments.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Going back to the issue that I was replying to, which is about the link between progressivism and big government, the fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is in their differing beliefs about the limits of government power. Conservatives believe in small government; that government should perform only the basic functions needed for society to function, such as defining a basic framework of contracts and property rights and maintaining a military for national defence, and no more. This ties closely with the concepts set out in the US Constitution.

Considering how conservatives treat abortion clinics, to name just one example, I'm going to call bullshit on that one.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Considering how conservatives treat abortion clinics, to name just one example, I'm going to call bullshit on that one.

That would be religious based conservatives, not conservatives in general. I wouldn't put it past there being Christian progressives that are still against abortion due to their religion.

[frivolity]

Let me note once again that my earlier post was not about whether conservatism or progressivism is better. Rather, I was elucidating the differences in views between conservatives and progressives, and why each side holds their beliefs on various topics. It wasn't about the question of "Who is right?", but "Why do they disagree?"

Originally Posted by Solace

Society did evolve its views, codified them into law, and attempted to move on. The people running that shop knew that by denying the couple a wedding cake based on their sexual orientation that they were violating sexual discrimination laws. Why? Because they specifically said that they were only restricting the wedding cake to straight couples and that they were willing to serve any cake that wasn't a wedding cake to the gay couple. In short, they chose to serve one customer over another not as a statement of free speech, but as an act of discrimination. Free speech is not a get out of jail card anyway. You have the right to face the consequences of your actions, and in this case they were taken to court, they couldn't argue their case successfully, and paid a consequence for their actions. I'm sure they lost business from the bad publicity as well.

Society's views have not evolved this far to the point that an overwhelming majority believes that you should be forced to bake a cake for someone even if you don't want to, or that you should be jailed if you refuse to provide a floral arrangement for a cultural event that you don't believe in.

The bolded part is precisely what I was referring to when I talked about changes coming about "naturally". If society overwhelmingly believed in a particular issue, then anyone who went against it would lose so much business that they would be forced to change their policies or get shut down. This is force that occurs without government action.

I was speaking of how people speak and act as if "government" is this anonymous blob that rules over you as opposed to it simply being an institution made up of fellow citizens.

Here you describe it as a bad.....or good thing? Which is it, government takes your rights away by gunpoint, or government ensures the stability of society?

Again, my post was not about whether conservatism is good or progressivism is bad. It's about how the differing belief on both sides regarding what the purpose of government should be is the key issue that leads to disagreements on most other issues, regardless of who is right.

So the answer to the questions are two-fold. First, government is both good and bad, and government takes away your rights by gunpoint if you don't obey them, while ensuring the stability of society. Second, how far government government should go in performing its function... depends on your beliefs (surprise, surprise!).

The reason why I talked about government taking your rights away by gunpoint [1] while preventing society from falling into a state of anarchy was precisely to demonstrate that there is a trade-off in having larger or smaller government. Having a larger government presence means that the people have less freedom to choose what they want to do, and having smaller government means that society risks descending into anarchy. Where government should be on that spectrum is the very issue that conservatives and progressives disagree about. Conservatives believe in a smaller government in favour of personal responsibility, while progressives believe in a larger government that can implement the changes.

[1]: When I refer to government as taking rights away at gunpoint, I'm specifically drawing a distinction between government and corporations. Government has the authority to send the police to arrest you if you don't obey them, while corporations don't. In the case of corporations, if you don't want to do what you're told to do, then you can quit and join another one.

The Constitution is a living document. It has been amended and clarified a boatload, as intended by the Founding Fathers. They were Framers, they knew what they were setting up was not meant to be enshrined except in ideal. They did the best they could with what they had. It was never intended to be a perfect or permanent thing.

Small government, big government, it's a silly argument. Government should serve the needs of the people, and if the people need it to ensure a welfare program exists, then so be it. If a better solution exists, then that should be something acknowledged so Government can step aside as needed.

Bear in mind that like the Constitution, the role of government can and should evolve as needed. For example, we're rapidly approaching a time when mass unemployment due to automation will have devastating effects on the economy. Government could be instrumental in what direction our society goes when that happens....or it could be useless. But without Government, where do we debate our options and act? Facebook? Some problems are simply too big for private enterprise or "rugged" individualism to handle.

The Constitution is a statutory document that specifically includes provisions concerning how it is to be amended, and it has indeed been amended in the past. If society's views have indeed changed, then the people can hold a referendum to get it changed. This is very different from letting judges change the interpretation of the Constitution based on their own personal views.

Simply saying that "Government should serve the needs of the people" completely misses the point of the big government-small government debate. Both conservatives and preogressives believe that government should serve the needs of the people. The point of disagreement is with the question of "what size of government would best serve the needs of the people".

For example, with regard to the welfare program issue that you cited, conservatives and progressives disagree about the size of the welfare program that would be optimal for society, and it forms part of the big government-small government debate. The question of "what do people need" is exactly one of the points of disagreement.

The treatment of automation is also an issue that both sides disagree on, and I won't go further on that since it's not the point of my last few posts, except to say that once again, there are differing views on whether governments can handle large issues better than the private sector.

This swings both ways, unfortunately. The recent trend from both sides is toward activism, but mainly because legislative government is currently dysfunctional.

#notallconservatives

That would be much easier to believe if I hadn't been watching conservative politics for the last 30 years, culminating in this year's pick of a guy who seems to be the poster child of all of those things and more.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Considering how conservatives treat abortion clinics, to name just one example, I'm going to call bullshit on that one.

-------- Rushing for work. Will post my response to these when I get home after work ----------

[Netscape]

Less than two hours away. I'm leaning towards Johnson, but am open to a Trump presidency. Really looking forward to this.

[GDB]

Clinton: Let's stop for a second and remember where we were 8 years ago. We had the great recession, the worst since the 30s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, and created a perfect storm. Donald was someone who rooted for the housing crisis, he said in 2006 he hoped it collapsed so he could make money.

Donald Trump: "That's called business."

Just... wow...

[MCAL]

This debate is amazing...

So far my favorite is Trump saying Hillary has been fighting Isis all her adult life. So apparently Clinton is still in her 20s.

Second goes to Trump denying he said that Global warming was a Chinese fabrication despite a tweet saying just that.

[GDB]

I like him basically admitting he pays no taxes and that it's "smart", all while saying that lowering taxes will bring jobs back to the country while outsourcing a large amount of jobs.

Or when he said he abused the law to not pay people.