2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[dasva]

the desired balance between capitalism and socialism aside (as all modern economies are hybrids and no rational actor desires otherwise) this incessant villification of the other side wears thin. how can a democracy function when half its citizenry earnestly believes the other half is so immoral as to not care whatsoever about the poor and starving?

the answer, as it turns out, is poorly. quite poorly.

I wouldn't say all modern... just all ones that aren't horribly in the dumps. Though it is funny seeing some say one is pure capitalist or socialist when overall they are fairly comparative on that spectrum.

The whole demonization also leads to insane generalizations. I have friends who are often in the middle of things who often call both sides retarded because well both sides often are. And of course this whole if you aren't with us you are against us means both liberals and conservatives will accuse them of being the opposite party as them. And since of course your side is always good and the other side anyone opposed to any part of it is of course evil even if you lean more heavily to that side (though the whole just right/left spectrum is a dumb oversimplication to begin with)

[Marootsoobutsu]

My disdain for the left has rarely been as high as it is for people who say that Republicans aren't pro-life past the womb.

I get that you think their methods are harmful-- perhaps some of them are. But it's still stemming from a genuine desire to do the most good for the most people. The portrayal of apathy of Republicans is insane-- it's not a question of whether the poor need help (Republicans and Democrats agree that they do); it's a question of where that help should come from. Painting them as monsters for not wanting a wasteful, horribly inefficient and draconianly inflexible federal government to provide that help is not the same as "Hey, I hope you die." Republicans are consistently more charitable with their time and with their money than Democrats: they want the people who need help to get the help they need, but they don't want them attached unendlingly to the teet of dependency, and they are consistently more willing to *personally* work to make sure that happens. It isn't a disagreement of the problem, or the need for help, and I'm freaking tired of Democrats and liberals acting like it is. It's a disagreement on the best way to solve those problems in both the short and long term. Labeling it as anything else is incredibly disingenuous.

[Ksandra]

My disdain for the left has rarely been as high as it is for people who say that Republicans aren't pro-life past the womb.

I get that you think their methods are harmful-- perhaps some of them are. But it's still stemming from a genuine desire to do the most good for the most people. The portrayal of apathy of Republicans is insane-- it's not a question of whether the poor need help (Republicans and Democrats agree that they do); it's a question of where that help should come from. Painting them as monsters for not wanting a wasteful, horribly inefficient and draconianly inflexible federal government to provide that help is not the same as "Hey, I hope you die." Republicans are consistently more charitable with their time and with their money than Democrats: they want the people who need help to get the help they need, but they don't want them attached unendlingly to the teet of dependency, and they are consistently more willing to *personally* work to make sure that happens. It isn't a disagreement of the problem, or the need for help, and I'm freaking tired of Democrats and liberals acting like it is. It's a disagreement on the best way to solve those problems in both the short and long term. Labeling it as anything else is incredibly disingenuous.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that pro-lifers are not all ok-with-death-to-live-people. However, when social programs are brought up about the poor, the response in the repub camp is not, "Let's work to fix our current programs." It's, "Why the fuck don't they get a job? I got a job. They can get a job, too." So I have a hart time believing some of your statements.

[Buffy]

Republicans are consistently more charitable with their time and with their money than Democrats

This is a pretty strong statement to make without any documentation. Let me assist you:

http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-gi...igious-1700059 "People in red states are more generous with their green."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html "Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates."
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2013...and-europeans/ "Republicans are more generous in their charity giving than either Democrats in the United States or Europeans at large."
Arthur C. Brooks, 2006 " Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more."

On the stupid abortion topic. My issue is with those who oppose abortion as murder but support capital punishment. That makes zero sense to me. If abortion is taking a life, then so is capital punishment.

[zoobernut]

This is a pretty strong statement to make without any documentation. Let me assist you:

http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-gi...igious-1700059 "People in red states are more generous with their green."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html "Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates."
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2013...and-europeans/ "Republicans are more generous in their charity giving than either Democrats in the United States or Europeans at large."
Arthur C. Brooks, 2006 " Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more."

On the stupid abortion topic. My issue is with those who oppose abortion as murder but support capital punishment. That makes zero sense to me. If abortion is taking a life, then so is capital punishment.

Republicans as individuals might be more generous with their time and money but the GOP as a party certainly does not show this in the policy that they pass or the rhetoric that they put out there.

[Buffy]

I don't disagree with your generalization. However I'm confused as to the point you are trying to make.

[Sho]

I don't disagree with your generalization. However I'm confused as to the point you are trying to make.

He's basically saying that the GOP as a whole doesn't exactly strike an image of being charitable at all.

[Buffy]

Ah. No, not the first image or thought I have when I think of the GOP as a whole.

[Sho]

BTW, FOX Business debate is on, and it's free streaming on it's website:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/12514...#sp=watch-live

Ah. No, not the first image or thought I have when I think of the GOP as a whole.

None think of this essentially, lol I have personally met some pretty generous Republicans however.

[Sho]

Kiddie table just wrapped up. Main stage going down in 45 mins.

[Blubbartron]

This is a pretty strong statement to make without any documentation. Let me assist you:

http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-gi...igious-1700059 "People in red states are more generous with their green."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html "Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates."
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2013...and-europeans/ "Republicans are more generous in their charity giving than either Democrats in the United States or Europeans at large."
Arthur C. Brooks, 2006 " Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more."

On the stupid abortion topic. My issue is with those who oppose abortion as murder but support capital punishment. That makes zero sense to me. If abortion is taking a life, then so is capital punishment.

I didn't have time to reread these at the moment as I need to eat dinner and catch up on the debate, but aren't Republicans only more charitable when tithing to churches is included in "charitable giving"? There's a lot of evidence to support the assertion that donating to churches is not donating to charity (due to the fact that religion is big business), and when you take that away, Democrats are suddenly way out in front. Donating to churches is a lot like paying dues to a country club. It's not helping anyone but you and your small group of associates.

[Kanriel]

My disdain for the left has rarely been as high as it is for people who say that Republicans aren't pro-life past the womb.

I get that you think their methods are harmful-- perhaps some of them are. But it's still stemming from a genuine desire to do the most good for the most people. The portrayal of apathy of Republicans is insane-- it's not a question of whether the poor need help (Republicans and Democrats agree that they do); it's a question of where that help should come from. Painting them as monsters for not wanting a wasteful, horribly inefficient and draconianly inflexible federal government to provide that help is not the same as "Hey, I hope you die." Republicans are consistently more charitable with their time and with their money than Democrats: they want the people who need help to get the help they need, but they don't want them attached unendlingly to the teet of dependency, and they are consistently more willing to *personally* work to make sure that happens. It isn't a disagreement of the problem, or the need for help, and I'm freaking tired of Democrats and liberals acting like it is. It's a disagreement on the best way to solve those problems in both the short and long term. Labeling it as anything else is incredibly disingenuous.

When the options are: "Inflexible bloated government help" or "nothing", which one is more pro-life? Because there is nothing the Republicans are trying to do in terms of health care for the poor, food for the poor. They're not even trying to get the poor jobs, they're just trying to get rid of their union jobs.

If the Republicans actually cared, and their issue was the federal government doing it, why wouldn't they say: "Hey Mississippi, you have x people, take y dollars per person you have and create the best system you can to provide them with quality health care." Boom, state government bloat instead of federal, and the state government gets the financial assistance to help its people. Would that not be a decent Republican idea, in theory? Why is that not happening? Fuck, Obamacare has pretty much exactly that written into it, doesn't it?

[Gredival]

The difference once again is one is actually regulating the act of ending of a life while the other is regulating the acquisition of something that can be used to end a life.

And again, we would be regulating something that designed to end life. Whether that's an animal life, the life of a malicious intruder, or the life of an innocent person is beside the point. Guns are meant by design to be lethal.

So again, by regulating ownership you are also directly restricting use. You are regulating to stop "people from ending life."

An abortion isn't really a method of ending a life so much as a time period to do it. Though some methods of performing are regulated

No I'm pretty sure "abortion" refers collectively to multiple medical procedures that terminate a pregnancy.

Regulating guns stops people from ending lives about as much as regulating a single tool used in abortions would. And we all know how well the latter works out.

So for argument's sake, if you want to make the argument completely parallel let's say this.

We control the unlawful use of firearms to take life but we don't regulate firearms themselves. So if we make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions, pro-lifers should similarly be fine with making sure we don't regulate or track the sale of equipment used to perform abortions right?

No I'm pretty sure that outlawing abortion wouldn't just mean making it legal for jurisdictions to add feticide as a crime to their penal codes.

Pro-lifers would want to actively, as much as possible, eliminate means and access to the procedure including using methods that they would find unacceptably invasive and controlling compared to the regulation of firearms.

I agree the title is a bit off. And while I do think some people just see it as stopping abortion a lot of people it has a lot more to do with just make taking a life actually be considered taking a life. Though those are the people who are usually fine with it being used as a medical necessity. The ones you speak of are generally the ones who do so purely on supposed religious grounds

You must be joking if you are seriously saying that pro-lifers do see their cause as an awareness movement.

"It's a child, not a choice" is not a slogan meant to make women grapple more intensely with the fact they are ending a human life. It literally means "Because it is an unborn baby you have no choice."

As far pro-choice the name does suggest that it is being honest but how many prochoice people actual admit they are taking a persons' life? Most I've seen try to say it isn't a person yet. Or some even to say it's not really even a separate life and is really just a part of them. Which isn't necessarily inaccurate but does end up being from what I've seen the larger part of the debate as everyone seems to have a different idea of when it is a person.

The idea that a zygote isn't a person yet is meant to short-circuit the pro-life argument that there is no choice since a human life is involved. However, if you accept the simple premise that abortion is one of the very specific few instances in which it is legal and acceptable for one person to end the life of another, then there is no need for that debate.

Which is consistent with modern legal theory. In any other situation where one person was attached to another the second person would have the right to sever the attachment even though it would kill the first. What makes in utero different? Would a pro-lifer argue that the law should prohibit detachment in this situation because it's saving life?

That's the hypocrisy of the pro-life stance. It's not pro-life, it's anti-abortion. Pro-choice is about choice over the fetus - whether that fetus can be considered a life or not.

[archibaldcrane]

My disdain for the left has rarely been as high as it is for people who say that Republicans aren't pro-life past the womb.

I get that you think their methods are harmful-- perhaps some of them are.

At a certain point you have to take people at the effectiveness of their actions, not their words or intentions.

[Tyrath]

Chat it up bitches.

[Charismatic]

This is a pretty strong statement to make without any documentation. Let me assist you:

http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-gi...igious-1700059 "People in red states are more generous with their green."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html "Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates."
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2013...and-europeans/ "Republicans are more generous in their charity giving than either Democrats in the United States or Europeans at large."
Arthur C. Brooks, 2006 " Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more."

On the stupid abortion topic. My issue is with those who oppose abortion as murder but support capital punishment. That makes zero sense to me. If abortion is taking a life, then so is capital punishment.

A lot of this reminds me of:

[Sho]

Damn. Outside of the Obamacare quip, Rubio put on a good response.

[Andalusian girls]

I didn't have time to reread these at the moment as I need to eat dinner and catch up on the debate, but aren't Republicans only more charitable when tithing to churches is included in "charitable giving"? There's a lot of evidence to support the assertion that donating to churches is not donating to charity (due to the fact that religion is big business), and when you take that away, Democrats are suddenly way out in front. Donating to churches is a lot like paying dues to a country club. It's not helping anyone but you and your small group of associates.

when measured as percentage of income conservatives give more to secular causes than do liberals, and it's grossly disingenuous to dismiss 100% of religious giving as doing nothing more than lining the pockets of the faithful given the massive amounts of charitable work done by religious organizations

money aside conservatives are also far more likely to volunteer their time and donate blood

[archibaldcrane]

when measured as percentage of income conservatives give more to secular causes than do liberals

money aside conservatives are also far more likely to volunteer their time and donate blood

Got a link?

[Andalusian girls]

do you read anything that gets linked