Bill O'Reilly sums it up.

[Jhhnn]

No, the Left should be working in a "rising tide lifts all boats" manner, not lifting specific boats that it identifies while ignoring others.

That's been the Repub mantra since Reagan & America pretty well went along with it. If it were a real thing we wouldn't be where we are today.

It's not like the financial elite need to be lifted up any more than they already are, either.

Remember this?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/

 

[desura]

That's been the Repub mantra since Reagan & America pretty well went along with it. If it were a real thing we wouldn't be where we are today.

It's not like the financial elite need to be lifted up any more than they already are, either.

Remember this?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/

I don't agree with trickle down at all. I think that what is needed is more redistribution. Look, if say for example the EITC were expanded 100%, middle class taxes were cut and upper class taxes on people making more than 150k/yr were raised, if wealth were taxed, etc, that is what I mean by rising tide. You create an economic system that helps out the bottom more, and taxes the wealthy more.

What you don't do is what Hillary Clinton did and focus on narrow specific identity issues. It was like every speech she would go down the list.

 

[nakedfrog]

The Left pretty much has as its central worldview, slavery. They act like Hispanics were slaves, or gays were slaves, transgender were slaves, etc. It is ridiculous how they try to transplant black slavery into every single issue under the sun. I've watched my share of Jon Stewart and he never fails to tie in slavery with the Constitution.

Stop treating the extreme left as the entirety of the left, and maybe you can join a legitimate discussion.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This is one more useless thread,there they are the F******Liberals/libertarians in full speed pandering ,you loons never give up,losers

frankie steps up and nails another one. GJ frankie!

 

[Jaskalas]

I think MLK was easily the greatest figure of the 20th Century in America. Had he been able to finish what he started, I don't think we would be nearly in the mess we are in now.

Maybe some day we'll deserve a man of that caliber.

 

[sandorski]

Just in time for XMas

 

[shortylickens]

The Left pretty much has as its central worldview, slavery. They act like Hispanics were slaves, or gays were slaves, transgender were slaves, etc. It is ridiculous how they try to transplant black slavery into every single issue under the sun. I've watched my share of Jon Stewart and he never fails to tie in slavery with the Constitution. The Right has the Founding Fathers of America. This is about what Bill O'Reilly said, which is in reaction to the leftist worldview that all American success is morally tainted by slavery.

You are so wrong I think its probably better if you just die and we start over again with a new human.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't agree with trickle down at all. I think that what is needed is more redistribution. Look, if say for example the EITC were expanded 100%, middle class taxes were cut and upper class taxes on people making more than 150k/yr were raised, if wealth were taxed, etc, that is what I mean by rising tide. You create an economic system that helps out the bottom more, and taxes the wealthy more.

Your original "rising tide" remark doesn't mean that to anybody but you.

What you don't do is what Hillary Clinton did and focus on narrow specific identity issues. It was like every speech she would go down the list.

And the inevitable trolling about Clinton. Here's an excerpt from what she said in Cincinnati-

Now, here's the other thing, we're not only going to make all these investments, we're going to pay for every single one of them.

And here's how: Wall Street, corporations, and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes.

This is not because we resent success, because when more than 90 percent of the gains have gone to the top 1 percent, that's where the money is, and we are going to follow the money.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/48781...speech-to-the-democratic-convention-annotated

Hillary hate isn't rational. It can only be rationalized.

 

[agent00f]

The Case for Reparations focused on housing discrimination, which sure, was real and it hindered success by black americans. It portrayed a sympathetic portrait of an older black man recounting how he had been wronged. But reparations is a term which encompasses all of the institution of slavery and that isn't addressed or grappled with, despite the title. So what you had with that article was something very manipulative. It got white liberals especially fired up about reparations because they liked this older black man who had been historically wronged. But reparations is not just about housing discrimination, though I agree that there should be some sort of redress for this specific recent failure. There have been claims that if you took all of the hours worked by slaves, gave them minimum wage, then tabulated interest, you reach $100 trillion. So people who are all gung-ho about that article don't realize this. There are a whole host of issues with reparations which aren't addressed at all in the article, and which make it unworkable.

The Left pretty much has as its central worldview, slavery. They act like Hispanics were slaves, or gays were slaves, transgender were slaves, etc. It is ridiculous how they try to transplant black slavery into every single issue under the sun. I've watched my share of Jon Stewart and he never fails to tie in slavery with the Constitution. The Right has the Founding Fathers of America. This is about what Bill O'Reilly said, which is in reaction to the leftist worldview that all American success is morally tainted by slavery.

The hispanics or gays weren't slaves, but largely treated like slave descendants by your sort with respect to their social pecking order.

Also funny you remember slavery but don't recall segregation happened within living memory. If you and white-country friends had their way, any solution would look towards the third reich. Just look at this one overjoyed at inner city violence: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...0-injured-so-far.2495112/page-9#post-38643228

 

[pcgeek11]

The total and complete moral indefensibility of his argument notwithstanding....technically he's not wrong. The EC was built to protect (southern) white power and abolishing it would effectively reduce modern white power.

That is quite a load of BS right there.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

 

[agent00f]

That is quite a load of BS right there.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Plagiarizing someone who can actually write coherent sentences doesn't make you appear any smarter. Especially when it's trivially wrong. For example, this is what Madison actually thought about the EC, in his own words: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...field(DOCID+@lit(fr00218))#0020061&linkText=1

 

[zinfamous]

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Right. So you then acknowledge that it has already failed twice in this very short century so far.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[K1052]

That is quite a load of BS right there.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

I take it you're not really up on what went down at the constitutional convention. Without the 3/5ths compromise and a mechanism to wield that power (the EC) in electing the executive the southern states would have walked. How Madison and Hamilton wallpapered over the deal with acceptable political justifications is pretty much irrelevant.

Even if I accepted your argument at face value and that the sole intent of the EC was to protect the country from an unqualified executive I feel extremely confident that if Madison or Hamilton were alive today and saw the EC elect Trump that they would have deemed the plan an utter failure and thus useless.

 

[Jaskalas]

Best laid plans, put to ruin by human error.

 

[agent00f]

I take it you're not really up on what went down at the constitutional convention. Without the 3/5ths compromise a mechanism to wield that power (the EC) in electing the executive the southern states would have walked. How Madison and Hamilton wallpapered over the deal with acceptable political justifications is pretty much irrelevant.

Even if I accepted your argument at face value and that the sole intent of the EC was to protect the country from an unqualified executive I feel extremely confident that if Madison or Hamilton were alive today and saw the EC elect Trump that they would have deemed the plan an utter failure and thus useless.

What makes you believe he wrote that? Or even understands it?

 

[K1052]

What makes you believe he wrote that? Or even understands it?

He copied and pasted from a website without attribution of course.

 

[xthetenth]

Stop treating the extreme left as the entirety of the left, and maybe you can join a legitimate discussion.

It's worse, he's treating some bizarre right wing caricature of the left as the left, I'm guessing so he doesn't have to engage with its actual views. It's a shame because I think there's a chance that someone who understands a rising tide floating all boats in this way:

I don't agree with trickle down at all. I think that what is needed is more redistribution. Look, if say for example the EITC were expanded 100%, middle class taxes were cut and upper class taxes on people making more than 150k/yr were raised, if wealth were taxed, etc, that is what I mean by rising tide. You create an economic system that helps out the bottom more, and taxes the wealthy more.

What you don't do is what Hillary Clinton did and focus on narrow specific identity issues. It was like every speech she would go down the list.

Is probably a lot closer to the left than they realize. But it seems to me like that realization isn't coming. Dismissing things like The Case for Reparations as revolving around slavery when it's also about all the things that have happened since and the cumulative impact of those things, let alone understanding discussions of other injustices in that light seems like an intentional unwillingness to let the words and arguments stand for themselves.

 

[desura]

It's worse, he's treating some bizarre right wing caricature of the left as the left, I'm guessing so he doesn't have to engage with its actual views. It's a shame because I think there's a chance that someone who understands a rising tide floating all boats in this way:



Is probably a lot closer to the left than they realize. But it seems to me like that realization isn't coming. Dismissing things like The Case for Reparations as revolving around slavery when it's also about all the things that have happened since and the cumulative impact of those things, let alone understanding discussions of other injustices in that light seems like an intentional unwillingness to let the words and arguments stand for themselves.

Uh, that is because I am to the Left. I voted Obama twice, Kerry once, Hillary once, Gore once, etc. This is because I view GOP tax cut plans as irresponsible.

I read the article. I simply point out that what he is describing does not encompass all of what reparations means, and so is misleading. The broader point is that there is a segment of the Left which views the entire world through the singular lens of slavery. Like, I've seen how the gay movement hijacked the black experience to argue for gay marriage, and that offended many black religious people who are against gay marriage. After the election loss, there have been a number of arguments that Clinton lost because she leaned too much on identity politics. I agree with those arguments.

 

[HomerJS]

Wow O'Reilly had a moment of clarity and blurted it out. I'm ferklempt.

He should have completed it by blurting out in the end, "yeah powerful guys here abuse women stop being so PC"

 

[xthetenth]

Uh, that is because I am to the Left. I voted Obama twice, Kerry once, Hillary once, Gore once, etc. This is because I view GOP tax cut plans as irresponsible.

I read the article. I simply point out that what he is describing does not encompass all of what reparations means, and so is misleading. The broader point is that there is a segment of the Left which views the entire world through the singular lens of slavery. Like, I've seen how the gay movement hijacked the black experience to argue for gay marriage, and that offended many black religious people who are against gay marriage. After the election loss, there have been a number of arguments that Clinton lost because she leaned too much on identity politics. I agree with those arguments.

Okay, fair enough. I was getting a warped idea of what you considered the left to be and the argument you were making. I don't necessarily agree with all of the identity politics criticism but I think there's plenty of room for that argument as you've clarified it (personally I think identity politics are a necessary reaction to the world as it exists and that until the many bigotries in our society are addressed they will remain and prevent proper addressing of class issues, but that's not on its own a sufficient winning coalition and broader issues should be addressed as well so I think we're broadly in agreement there).

I will say that I think the left is really bad at having coherent overall messaging, and that offers a lot of room for its constituents to become disillusioned by (to the point of you talking about the left as if it was something you were opposed to) and for its opponents to rally and oppose small issues or issues with one particular phrasing of a message while ignoring the greater message as a whole.

 

[pcgeek11]

Right. So you then acknowledge that it has already failed twice in this very short century so far.

Thanks for your honesty.

I was responding to this bull shit by K1052 who said: The total and complete moral indefensibility of his argument notwithstanding....technically he's not wrong. The EC was built to protect (southern) white power and abolishing it would effectively reduce modern white power.

Which is total bull shit.

 

[pcgeek11]

I take it you're not really up on what went down at the constitutional convention. Without the 3/5ths compromise and a mechanism to wield that power (the EC) in electing the executive the southern states would have walked. How Madison and Hamilton wallpapered over the deal with acceptable political justifications is pretty much irrelevant.

Even if I accepted your argument at face value and that the sole intent of the EC was to protect the country from an unqualified executive I feel extremely confident that if Madison or Hamilton were alive today and saw the EC elect Trump that they would have deemed the plan an utter failure and thus useless.

Yeah, OK.

 

[Victorian Gray]

That is quite a load of BS right there.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

It's appropriate to acknowledge where you are copying the words of someone else from.

 

[pcgeek11]

It's appropriate to acknowledge where you are copying the words of someone else from.

Oh well I forgot.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

 

[desura]

Okay, fair enough. I was getting a warped idea of what you considered the left to be and the argument you were making. I don't necessarily agree with all of the identity politics criticism but I think there's plenty of room for that argument as you've clarified it (personally I think identity politics are a necessary reaction to the world as it exists and that until the many bigotries in our society are addressed they will remain and prevent proper addressing of class issues, but that's not on its own a sufficient winning coalition and broader issues should be addressed as well so I think we're broadly in agreement there).

I will say that I think the left is really bad at having coherent overall messaging, and that offers a lot of room for its constituents to become disillusioned by (to the point of you talking about the left as if it was something you were opposed to) and for its opponents to rally and oppose small issues or issues with one particular phrasing of a message while ignoring the greater message as a whole.

It isn't messaging. It is faulty logic and dogmatism, and a healthy amount of arrogance from the Obama years.

This isn't that surprising I mean every movement has its dogmatic idiots. Most people are just average, and the yellers on the Left kind of fall into a corporate pattern too. Most people don't really think things through and rely on simplistic formulations.

In my opinion, identity politics is why Hillary lost, and I can see why she fell into that trap and how easy it is for the democrats to fall into similar group think. If they don't fix themselves soon, they'll be the party of Marie Antoinette cultural liberalism which I think is a losing proposition.