Asymmetry in political thinking

[nehalem256]

Or take another issue to compromise on. Same-sex marriage.

Lets say 5 years ago liberals and conservatives had decided to compromise on that issue. What do you think would have been a good compromise. Perhaps civil unions, but not marriage for gay couples?

Do you think that after such a compromise liberals would not then immediately gone back to demanding full marriage for couples? And complained that conservatives were unwilling to compromise

 

[SMOGZINN]

You said:

"You see the ideology is that immigrants are bad,"

I never said that.

Yes, you did. You are just so invested in your ideology you can't see it.
You are choosing to call the immigrants you don't like invaders. But if we look at a dictionary we see that the definition is:

Immigration is the movement of people into another country or region to which they are not native in order to settle there.

Therefor people who do that, no matter what the laws say about it, are immigrants.

Now, that we are using definitions and not political spin, we can talk about if we SHOULD have laws against that or not.

" which you espouse with out even knowing it is a ideology that is not shared."

I didn't espouse it, nor did I propose that everyone agrees with it (although there are many I'm sure that do).

You, and most illegal immigration ideologues, start with the basic assumption that immigration should be tightly controlled, and that any immigration outside of those controls should be illegal. You seem to hold this ideology so tightly that you can't even get past it enough to question the base assumption that immigration is bad and needs to be tightly controlled. You just assume that everyone accepts that.

Well newsflash for you, illegals have taken jobs from Americans (both taken the job, and taken a job an American could have done but was filled by an illegal), are in these jobs, and will be in the future.

This is only true if you start to label people as other. If you just accepted them as new Americans and taxed them accordingly, then no one has taken anyone's job. We just have Americans working. That in my book is a win.

Worse, their kids, who never would have been here in the numbers they're here in now will be competing with what are now modern day Native Americans (that is, Americans born here to at least one parent who is an American). So your last line is the most incorrect of all.

What is so bad about their kids? Why is it is worse that those people, who live here, spend there money here, and if we allowed them, payed their taxes here, are competing with all the other kids here to get jobs?

We don't need to have so many we're teaching their language in all our schools and causing gov and business to have to offer everything bilingually. We have decades crossed the point of allowing the - in reality - unchecked invasion.

Why? Why is more not better? This is the arguments I'm talking about. Every wave of immigration has faced these same arguments, and every time history has shown that with the added people and cultures the economy has only grown stronger, America has only become better for it. Why is this time different?

Also, are these invaders claiming that south Texas and California are now part of Mexico? Are they saying that those regions must now accept Mexican rule? This is what invaders do.

But of course they are not doing that. They are claiming that they are now American and follow American rule, and will pay American Taxes, and generally do American things. This is not what invaders do, this is what immigrants do.

Really, none of what I type is extreme or some kind of xenophobic ideology.

Yes, it is a little extreme, and definitely xenophobic. You are literally redefining immigrants coming to join our country into invaders coming to take it over simply because you don't like them.

It's how every other modernized country on Earth handles their immigration policy.

And we are not every other modernized country on Earth. We are The United States of America, where we once said:

'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

We built this nation this ideal, that all men have equal opportunity here, but you want to say 'but only if you born here'. That is not what America is about. America is a burning crucible that takes in everything and through it's fires makes of it something new, not a carefully tended campfire that is just warms those few sitting around it.

 

[fskimospy]

Guess I meant "politically weak" upon a little research. I didn't have much Political Science I'll tell ya that much . Thats probably why I got a B. Bet I got that question wrong, hah, thats scary.

Haha, such is life. I get what you meant though. Just because you win an election in the US doesn't mean you can implement the agenda you ran on, which is markedly different than most parliamentary systems.

The bolded part is an interesting take on the subject. But it goes both ways correct? The Democrats must not be willing to come around to the Repubs side either.

That's sort of the point though, the Democrats ARE much more willing to come around to the Republican side. Sure they might not compromise on everything, but you don't see Democrats saying things like Republicans said they wouldn't raise taxes even if they could get spending cuts at a 10-1 ratio.

I did dig up this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/o...re-lousy-forecasters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm sooooo bad

Political scientists are well known for having been full of shit for years. Things have gotten better in the field as it has changed to more data driven methodology, but for years it was just old people babbling pet theories based on anecdotes.

 

[nehalem256]

That's sort of the point though, the Democrats ARE much more willing to come around to the Republican side. Sure they might not compromise on everything, but you don't see Democrats saying things like Republicans said they wouldn't raise taxes even if they could get spending cuts at a 10-1 ratio.

Is that why Democrats pass laws forcing small business owners to support same-sex marriage or lose their livelihood? :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

It's a simple question, no need to beat yourself up about it. You either see the issue of the man raping my wife and daughter as a larger issue to be solved before we get into the debate if someone has the right or not to wear a condom when having sex with someone as the proper sequence of issues to be solved or not. It's very simple: Do you wish to solve the raping issue first, or, the right of condom wearing first?

So far what I'm seeing is 'Lets tackle the condom issue first and oh btw is it really rape or is it more like the guy simply has needs and you need to recognize them.' Facepalm indeed...

I picked that example purely because it is cut and dried. There is no debate needed on it. No rational minded people would expect a man to have a debate on whether or not the guy raping his wife and daughter should have the right to decide to wear a condom or not. No rational minded people would focus on a secondary issue that pales in importance to the primary issue which is the rape, they would in fact first address the primary far more impacting issue, and then get to the secondary issue(s). According to this study, these rational minded people are in some circumstances called ideologues.

I like the attempt at narrative change btw... :thumbsup:

You're just reinforcing the point.

You don't need to rationalize and justify your position to me, I don't really care why conservatives are this ideologically radical outside of finding a way to bring them back to a less extreme place.

Now that we agree that Republicans broadly refuse compromise, we come back to the question I put forth in my OP: when you can't even agree on the principles of compromise, how do you deal with that in a divided government?

 

[BUnit1701]

...

Now, that we are using definitions and not political spin, we can talk about if we SHOULD have laws against that or not.

Well, except for the fact that we already do, and have had them for at least 100 years...

You, and most illegal immigration ideologues, start with the basic assumption that immigration should be tightly controlled, and that any immigration outside of those controls should be illegal. You seem to hold this ideology so tightly that you can't even get past it enough to question the base assumption that immigration is bad and needs to be tightly controlled. You just assume that everyone accepts that.

The assumption is NOT that immigration in general is bad. The assumption is that a country looking to swell its numbers via immigration does not want to import criminals or layabouts. We want hard working, law abiding people. Just allowing anyone to wander in is not smart policy.

Why? Why is more not better? This is the arguments I'm talking about. Every wave of immigration has faced these same arguments, and every time history has shown that with the added people and cultures the economy has only grown stronger, America has only become better for it. Why is this time different?

Also, are these invaders claiming that south Texas and California are now part of Mexico? Are they saying that those regions must now accept Mexican rule? This is what invaders do.

But of course they are not doing that. They are claiming that they are now American and follow American rule, and will pay American Taxes, and generally do American things. This is not what invaders do, this is what immigrants do.

And just where in our Constitution is the right of non-citizens to simply declare themselves Americans? And if they were interested in following American rule and doing American things, they would be learning to speak English instead of forcing us to provide them everything in Spanish.

 

[SMOGZINN]

He must be confused about what a passport does. I forget was he a democrat?

Aghhhh I'm so bad. hehe.

No. I'm not a Democrat. I don't actually like either of the parties.

So which countries in the world where you can move there and automatically be granted citizenship?

Does it matter? Not all countries have the some concept of citizenship as the US, so it is not directly comparable.

 

[cubby1223]

It's all self-interest.

Every person needs government to do certain things, make certain changes in the world.

It's a basic truth that has been proven right countless times throughout history - power corrupts. None of us want an all-powerful government. We do not want communism, we do not want fascism, we do not want a dictatorship, we do not want a monarchy.

We all want government to have the power over the things we personally need them to have power over to better our lives, and limit the powers over the things we have the resources and opportunities to take care of without government - because - power corrupts.

The main difference is what do we have and what do we need, and the struggle between those who need and those who want to limit the power that will corrupt.

We're all basically the same, we just all have been given unique situations in life, but we are all the same.

 

[BoberFett]

The left on the other hand put more emphasis on getting what they can over winning ideological battles. Look at gun control. Many on the left want stronger and more far-reaching gun control, some want to ban guns entirely. Instead of blindly opposing all guns, the left instead tries to get as much as they want and ban assault rifles or other scary looking guns. They limit magazine sizes and other such stuff. Banning scary guns. As conservative will tell you time and time again, banning scary guns and limiting magazines does nothing for real gun control, but the left fight for such bills because that's what they think they can get. See Obamacare where the left actually want Universal health care but instead tried to compromise down to the Republican health care plan. The left puts forward mobility on an issue above ideology.

Good example. This tells me that Democrats are happy to pass any law, even bad law, as long as something is being done.

That's no better than the rigid ideology of the Republicans. It means Democrats are rigid in their ideology to do something, even if it's wrong.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, except for the fact that we already do, and have had them for at least 100 years...

I know that, but I am saying that maybe those laws, like many of our other laws of that time, were based not on reasonable arguments, but on fear and prejudice. Perhaps we should be looking at these laws and asking ourselves if is actually good for our country.

The assumption is NOT that immigration in general is bad. The assumption is that a country looking to swell its numbers via immigration does not want to import criminals or layabouts. We want hard working, law abiding people. Just allowing anyone to wander in is not smart policy.

It seemed to work out okay for Australia and the USA, which if you remember was started by a bunch of outlaws.

And just where in our Constitution is the right of non-citizens to simply declare themselves Americans?

No where in the Constitution does it say what constitutes an American Citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1795 set the bar as any 'Free, White Male' who has lived in the United States for at least 5 years is a citizen. Showing clearly that our founding fathers thought that living here was enough.

And if they were interested in following American rule and doing American things, they would be learning to speak English instead of forcing us to provide them everything in Spanish.

They do not force us to use Spanish. We choose to do so. Also, they most do learn English, it just takes time to learn a new language.

 

[chucky2]

Yes, you did. You are just so invested in your ideology you can't see it.

I have an understanding of the concept of borders and laws, and how they should be respected and enforced, and that is an ideology? I think maybe you need to rethink that.

You are choosing to call the immigrants you don't like invaders. But if we look at a dictionary we see that the definition is:

I'm choosing to call the tens of millions here that should not be here, but rather, be controlled - and thus drastically limited in number - by our already on the books immigration laws, invaders, and that's because taken as a sum to our country, we have long past the critical mass point to have been invaded. Granted, the political Leadership of the Left and Right, plus the far base of each side, is doing everything they can to keep that gravy train rolling.

Therefor people who do that, no matter what the laws say about it, are immigrants.

Now, that we are using definitions and not political spin, we can talk about if we SHOULD have laws against that or not.

Yes, they're immigrants. Each and every one here illegally is an illegal immigrant. Individually, they're illegal immigrants. If in a country of 300M people you had 10k illegal immigrants, you'd have some illegal immigrants in your country. If in a country you have tens of millions of illegal immigrants, and then on top of that all the offspring they've produced and will continue to produce (which conveniently doesn't get counted in the illegal numbers, because they are US citizens), you don't have 'some illegal immigrants in your country', you have been invaded. Or to make it more simple: If one USSR soldier during the cold war swims across the ocean and ends up in Alaska, you have someone here improperly. When Millions of USSR soldiers make their way into Alaska, you have an invasion. I'm hoping you can understand the difference here.

You, and most illegal immigration ideologues, start with the basic assumption that immigration should be tightly controlled, and that any immigration outside of those controls should be illegal. You seem to hold this ideology so tightly that you can't even get past it enough to question the base assumption that immigration is bad and needs to be tightly controlled. You just assume that everyone accepts that.

I haven't even got to that point. Those numbers are debatable. There are like...zero rational minded people...even my pretty far Left friends, who believe in Open Borders. If you are talking about Open Borders, then good luck with that, because the number of Americans who wish to have Open Borders as an official policy is going to be very small. Again, granted, our elected Leadership basically has done this already. One must just try enough times to get in, then, you're golden. Just because our treasonous political Leadership has done this, doesn't mean the American people at large wish it.

Back to my point: The starting point in the illegal invasion debate is, Do we have borders and immigration policy already on the books that we expect foreigners to follow when entering this country? I'm quite sure the answer to that is Yes. We have a border for a reason. We have immigration quotas for a reason. So, after seeing exactly how the border was respected after Amnesty 1.0, why would we deviate from first actually establishing a real border that forces people to actually follow our current - and future - immigration policy? Why would we have any other debate on anchor babies, welfare services for illegals and their kids, quotas, etc. etc. etc. until we actually have a secured border where we can expect our current, and the future policy we all agree needs to be worked out, will be respected? Wouldn't simply securing our border, as it is our right to do, with the most expensive military on Earth, be prudent?

Well newsflash for you, illegals have taken jobs from Americans (both taken the job, and taken a job an American could have done but was filled by an illegal), are in these jobs, and will be in the future.

This is only true if you start to label people as other. If you just accepted them as new Americans and taxed them accordingly, then no one has taken anyone's job. We just have Americans working. That in my book is a win.

I label them as illegal if they are here illegally. Either they have a valid green card (that is actually theirs), in which case everything is OK, compete away, or they don't. If they don't, not only should they not be hired but they should be deported, because..drumroll...they are here illegally. When they're here illegally, and thus have to work for depressed wages as they're exploited, what they do is depress wages of actual Americans. Since I'm an American, I'm concerned about Americans first, others second. In your example it sounds like we have Open Borders and we take the tens of millions of workers who either aren't cut out for white collar work or are unlucky enough to not get a job like that, and have them compete with 2nd/3rd worlders for blue collar jobs. How is that 'winning' for your fellow Americans? (and I mean Americans who didn't Open Border across from Mexico, that were actually born here to another American)

What is so bad about their kids? Why is it is worse that those people, who live here, spend there money here, and if we allowed them, payed their taxes here, are competing with all the other kids here to get jobs?

Why? Why is more not better? This is the arguments I'm talking about. Every wave of immigration has faced these same arguments, and every time history has shown that with the added people and cultures the economy has only grown stronger, America has only become better for it. Why is this time different?

Because we don't need more people here. The world doesn't need more people. People that advocate for increasing populations are doing it because they are selfish. They don't want the easy gravy train to end, both service side and financial side. They know if they can keep cramming immigrants into the country, those immigrants will 'do the jobs Americans won't do' (which is a slick way of saying, We won't make Americans who need to work actually work, minus what our quotas won't cover), so they can get their $4 burger instead of $4.75 burger, and also because those immigrants have children in greater numbers on average than our current Native Americans (that is, Us), and those greater numbers bolster future tax paying...the Gov can never have enough money, especially when it should be controlling population and figuring out how to support older population with less people. That's hard. That requires work. What doesn't require work is letting people stream in. See how that works? And again, this is not about "immigrants". It's about illegal immigrants. Why you keep referring to illegal immigrants as "immigrants" is perplexing.

Also, are these invaders claiming that south Texas and California are now part of Mexico? Are they saying that those regions must now accept Mexican rule? This is what invaders do.

But of course they are not doing that. They are claiming that they are now American and follow American rule, and will pay American Taxes, and generally do American things. This is not what invaders do, this is what immigrants do.

Actually, what you're talking about is already happening. We already see the affects of allowing tens of millions of people who shouldn't be here. We see the affects on our schools, languages, etc. I was a juror the other day and there was a guy in court who had lived here 20 years and needed an interpreter because he couldn't speak English. Invaders put a tax on the country they're invading. There are numerous examples of that...Google is your friend. As far as the 'net neutral/positive' "studies": Now multiply the numbers here in the study by 2-3. How does the "study" look now?

Yes, it is a little extreme, and definitely xenophobic. You are literally redefining immigrants coming to join our country into invaders coming to take it over simply because you don't like them.

No, I don't like being illegally invaded. That's not xenophobic, that's called expecting the borders and laws of my country to be respected and enforced. Coming to join my country isn't working here and sending money back home. Coming to join my country isn't living 10 to a house. Coming to join my country isn't F'ing up the classroom because 1/5 of the kids there can't speak English, which then because we refuse to do what we should be doing, results in US paying more of our tax money to put the kids in ESL classes. I don't like or appreciate any of that. Why do you?

And we are not every other modernized country on Earth. We are The United States of America, where we once said: snip

Those days are over. We have 21st century problems and letting every bleeding heart case that can make their way here and have 4 kids doesn't help us in the least.

So far you've just reinforced why no one on the Right is interested in even discussing what can be done illegals already here, because you're proving that you will never end the influx. You welcome the influx. You have your ideology, we have ours...

 

[chucky2]

You're just reinforcing the point.

You don't need to rationalize and justify your position to me, I don't really care why conservatives are this ideologically radical outside of finding a way to bring them back to a less extreme place.

Now that we agree that Republicans broadly refuse compromise, we come back to the question I put forth in my OP: when you can't even agree on the principles of compromise, how do you deal with that in a divided government?

Nick Nick Nick...you're Nick'ing again. I asked why you are supporting the guy raping my wife and daughter. Why can't you answer that?

 

[OverVolt]

I would take immigrants and all their negatives over an aging population like in Japan any day. If the birth rate is low you will need immigration, end of story.

 

[OverVolt]

Nick Nick Nick...you're Nick'ing again. I asked why you are supporting the guy raping my wife and daughter. Why can't you answer that?

You're stretching it to make that argument though. Putting words in their mouth.

 

[chucky2]

You're stretching it to make that argument though. Putting words in their mouth.

I'm forcing them to either admit they want to continue to allow my wife and daughter to be raped so they can discuss his rights to wear or not wear a condom, or address what I view as the primary issue of the guy raping my wife and daughter.

Nick can't even answer the question, it's too painful for him it sounds like. SMOGZINN is making the argument that I'm too ideologically grounded in being adverse to someone raping my wife and daughter, and that I should be more accepting of someone making the decision for me (and my wife and my daughter) that it's cool to f*ck them against their will.

Where's Moonie when you need the conservative brain defect 'science' that liberals are more analytical haha...

 

[chucky2]

I would take immigrants and all their negatives over an aging population like in Japan any day. If the birth rate is low you will need immigration, end of story.

Sure, we need immigration. We need controlled immigration though, not what we have now. And, giving Amnesty 2.0 or any of the other things before you really secure the border is folly. Reagan's Amnesty 1.0 is a perfect shining example of that.

As for Japan, as Spenders are apt to point out, they're not the US. We can handle an aging population if we get our other sh1t straight. That requires hard work though, and Politician doesn't like hard work. They like soundbite work, so they can score those political points and get re-elected. We need political giants to handle our giant problems, not the class of Politician we have now.

 

[dank69]

I have an understanding of the concept of borders and laws, and how they should be respected and enforced, and that is an ideology? I think maybe you need to rethink that.

...

If that isn't the textbook definition of ideology then what the fuck do you think ideology means? You are such a stupid shit. Always have been and always will be. You are not capable of rational discussion even on the simple subject of what ideology is. Open your stupid mind and learn something you fucking hick. No, nevermind, just continue believing every single thing you think you know is right is actually right and there are no other possibilities. You are infallible. You have every single thing figured out, and most of it has to do with how superior you are to retarded liberals.

 

[ivwshane]

To answer your question eskimospy; we should not be voting for any republicans, we should be voting in dems and then demand they act like republicans. Dems make a much better republican anyway (see Obama for example).

I'd say 70% of voting Americans already, subconsciously, know this and understand this. The other 30% are your hardcore righties.



(Yes I made that last part up)

 

[michal1980]

I found this paper to be interesting:
http://conference.mpsanet.org/papers/archive.aspx/2011/129807 (it's a downloadable PDF)

Basically the point of the paper is that not only do liberals and conservatives disagree on issues, they don't even think about them in the same way. According to the results of this paper liberals look at what government should do in terms of group benefits. ie: does law X make society better by accomplishing goal Y. Conservatives on the other hand look at things ideologically. ie: more government is intrinsically bad regardless of what it is doing.

The fact that one side values outcomes more and the other values ideological purity more kind of explains why Democrats are more willing to compromise on issues and it also explains why symbolic gestures are so powerful on the right.

It raises an interesting question too of how you work in a divided government when the two sides aren't even talking the same language.

biased paper is biased. I'm partly surprised you posted it, but at the same time I'm not because you tend towards hackish.

 

[chucky2]

If that isn't the textbook definition of ideology then what the fuck do you think ideology means? You are such a stupid shit. Always have been and always will be. You are not capable of rational discussion even on the simple subject of what ideology is. Open your stupid mind and learn something you fucking hick. No, nevermind, just continue believing every single thing you think you know is right is actually right and there are no other possibilities. You are infallible. You have every single thing figured out, and most of it has to do with how superior you are to retarded liberals.

Ideology? The entire developed world then has this "ideology" that borders and immigration law should be respected and enforced? What is the point of the study then dumbshit? To tell us that the world has an ideology that water is wet, that the sky is blue?

When we're talking 'ideology' we're talking about 'political ideology', that is what I understood the point of this study to be. You are a retard, liberal or not, if you honestly are going to run around screaming that those crazy Righties are 'ideological' about what a border is and what it means. Holy F, congrats on setting the record so far in 2014 for retardation level!

 

[fskimospy]

Nick Nick Nick...you're Nick'ing again. I asked why you are supporting the guy raping my wife and daughter. Why can't you answer that?

Because it's a transparently stupid question.

 

[michal1980]

Exhibit B right here.

How are you supposed to govern a country in a system that requires compromise when the other side behaves like this?

What compromise do you want?

for example

Conservatives believe in the 2nd amendment. That we have a right to own guns.

What do conservatives gets by compromising on that belief with liberals? If we give you magazine limits, what do we get for it? The joy in knowing that guns currently aren't banned?

Next year they come back and say we want to ban guns again. But if the conservatives are willing to compromise we will only ban rifles this year.


Wow talk about a win-win compromise.

Thats the thing with liberals, they make far out demands, then think that by scaling them back they are somehow compromising.

 

[dank69]

Ideology? The entire developed world then has this "ideology" that borders and immigration law should be respected and enforced? What is the point of the study then dumbshit? To tell us that the world has an ideology that water is wet, that the sky is blue?

When we're talking 'ideology' we're talking about 'political ideology', that is what I understood the point of this study to be. You are a retard, liberal or not, if you honestly are going to run around screaming that those crazy Righties are 'ideological' about what a border is and what it means. Holy F, congrats on setting the record so far in 2014 for retardation level!

You are a lost fucking cause. If everyone in the world agrees how borders should be "respected and enforced" then why is there such a disagreement about what should be done with illegal immigrants? Hmmm? No, like every other fucking conservative you think the way you view it is the ONLY right way to view it. It's just common sense, right? Anyone who disagrees must be stupid, right?

 

[chucky2]

Because it's a transparently stupid question.

Ahh the diminishment tactic, was waiting for it Nick. What you really mean, but of course cannot admit, is that by picking the option to choose to solve the primary most important concern, you've become an obstructionist ideologue. By choosing to deal with the secondary concern, you're an enlightened liberal choosing to continue a rape to debate a rapers possible right to not wear a condom - a completely untenable position to take.

I can see why you went with duhversion...

 

[BoberFett]

Are civil rights up for debate? Is there a compromise to be had? Or should they be the rights of all, regardless of race, religion, and orientation?

Does that make Democrats ideologues, uninterested in compromise?