View Poll Results: Do you believe that partisan politics divides people unnecessarily?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    25 80.65%
  • No

    6 19.35%
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 100

Thread: Is partisan politics too partisan?

  1. #81
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All issues involves some level of subjective reasoning. Your argument is one for dissolving the union, not perfecting it.
    Your logic is flawed. Issues do not involve either all subjective reasoning, or all objective reasoning. All issues contains some subjective reasoning, but some issues involve more than others. Issues that are based on enough objective fact to garner a broad consensus, such as rules against murder, are valid for application at the federal level. When an issue is based on subjective reasoning to the point that it becomes a wedge issue, it is reasonable not to press for decision on that issue at the federal level.

    I also suspect that your stated preference for having this issues decided at the state and local level is based on emotion and not reason. After all, there is no objective evidence that states and localities do a better job of this.
    Sure there is. I'm an electrical engineer. I know quite a bit of math, and the discipline of statistical analysis validates the concept of federalism.

    There are any number of approaches to solve a particular problem in society. Some have more likelihood of solving the problem, but a higher risk of negative side effects, while others mitigate those side effects at the cost of being less effective at solving the issue they are meant to address. Still other solutions may be both more effective, and have fewer side effects than any alternatives. If only one of these solutions is applied universally, it will either be the optimal choice, or it will not be. If it is the optimal choice, the reward is greater for society when the law is applied universally. If the law is not the optimal choice, then society suffers as a result.

    The statistical reason that federalism is better, is that any law applied universally in response to a wedge issue is guaranteed to be sub-optimal in the views of a large percentage of the population. Dividing that decision among the states allows for states dominated by a particular subculture to achieve the result that is optimal for that subculture, increasing the ratio of satisfied citizens to dissatisfied citizens.

  2. #82
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Half the problem is partisanship can be so blinding that people end up standing up for things they don't believe.

    Bush:

    -Founded the faith-based initiatives programs that gave inner-city (predominately black) churches federal funding for their non-religious community work
    -First POTUS to include the United Negro College Fund in the federal budget
    -Rescued tens of millions of Africans from an early death by putting essentially all of Sub-Saharan Africa HIV patents on anti-viral medication
    -Appointed the first ever 2 black Secretaries of State and National Security Adviser
    -Had more women on his staff than any POTUS in history or since

    Hated by the two largest Democrat constituency groups, women and blacks.


    Obama:

    -Using drones eliminate terrorists
    -Ordered the attack on Abbottabad that killed Osama Bin Laden including the controversial doctrine of carrying out acts of war inside of Pakistan with their knowledge or permission
    -Carried out PRESIDENT BUSH'S auto bailout plan that saved Chrysler and General Motors.
    -Copied the Mitt Romney healthcare plan and rolled it out nationally inspired by the GOP think tank, The Heritage Foundation led in part my Newt Gingrich
    -Kept a member of President Bush's cabinet in his administration
    -Has always had Republican representation in his cabinet
    -President Bush's Wall Street Bailout wasn't even his doing but Republicans think it was
    -Kept Gimto open once privy to national security briefings he was excluded from when he promised to close it placing the security of the American people above his own credibility and reputation
    -Is fighting the FDA and Federal Courts in continuing to require minors to have a prescription for the morning after pill

    Hated by Republicans
    I couldn't agree more. And both presidents have done so much to piss off their own base, that if they'd belonged to the other party, they might have both been assassinated.

  3. #83
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    Ross Perot's run for president was largely seen as the reason why Bill Clinton won instead of Bush Sr. Those that voted for Perot, who would have mostly voted for Bush had there only been two options, disenfranchised themselves by voting for a third candidate in a two party system.

    And our system is a two-party system. The two parties control the vast majority of the money spent on campaigns, and viable third parties are unable to emerge because of fears that voting for a better third party will result in a worse result when the party you oppose the most wins as a result of the vote being split.

    You're an intelligent person. Why should I have to explain this concept to you? Do you not agree that it effectively discourages the emergence of a viable third party?
    For one thing, I've seen polls which indicate that more of those voters would have gone for Clinton instead of bush*. For another, I have to once again object to your misuse of the word disenfranchisement. People who vote for the losing candidate are not "disenfranchised". That is just hyperbole. Someone as rational as you claim to be shouldn't try to appeal to emotion using such emotionally-laden verbiage.

    As far as your main point here goes, why would I disagree with you? You just made my point for me! Because of the winner takes all method of determining the presidency (the one with a majority of electoral votes) the development of a two party system is inevitable. That's why, in spite of the desires of the framers, a two party system developed shortly after the ratification of the constitution.


    And in regulation for most other industries, there is a single side that wants rules that only big giant corporations can deal with, and artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace that protects their supremacy in the market.

    I'm an electrical engineer. I just finished my engineering degree this semester. For my senior design project, I built a complete autonomous helicopter using an open-source autopilot project. It cost me a grand total of about $1,400 for the whole project, and it performs as well as UAV's that cost the military about $55,000 each. I wanted to pay the money to branch that project and get it FAA certified, so that I could use it to start a business building and flying commercial UAV's. The FAA requires hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of investment, and years of testing to validate a flight system, even though the drone I made is no more or less dangerous than the R/C helicopter I used as the flight platform. The methods I used for communication are well documented, as was the code written to establish fail-safe behaviors, and the circuitry used to minimize hazards in the event of things like instrument failure. Still, it takes insane amounts of money, and years of red tape, to LEGALLY fly a drone the size of a desktop fan.

    Each of those legislations were presented in the name of preserving public safety. I value that goal, and I approve of any reasonable legislation towards that end. But the larger result of those legislations is that only companies with huge amounts of resources are able to produce goods for that industry. Economically, it creates artificial barriers to entry in the marketplace that stifles competition, and diminishes the power of consumer choice. Both of those results are detrimental to the free market, and to the social mobility of people who want to participate in it. Because of those laws, my only real option as an engineer is to go work for an aerospace company and take whatever pay they decide to give me, even though I'm willing and able to run a business and take on the greater risk, for the chance of a greater reward.
    IMO, you couldn't be more wrong.

    You claim that your device "performs just as well" as the ones the military uses, but you seem to lack the experience needed to make such an evaluation. Since some aspects of the UAV's the military uses are confidential, it seems you lack the knowledge needed to come to such a conclusion. It sounds to me as if your pride (and pride is an emotion) that has led you to this conclusion. Not that you shouldn't be proud of your efforts, but I just wanted to point out how emotions can lead even the most rational of humans astray

    You also assume that the technical performance (vs price) of a product is the only criteria a purchaser should use in deciding from whom they should purchase a product. This is not true. The military want a dependable source. Being undercapitalized, you are not a dependable source. Someone could sue you for a patent issue and, regardless of the merits of the suit, you could go under because you don't have the cash to defend your claim in court. And then, where would that leave the military?

    It would leave them looking for another supplier, something the military doesn't want to do. They can't go from supplier to supplier, each of whom produce slightly varying products, built from different sets of parts. This would mean training their personnel to fly and maintain a variety of UAV's (and maintain a variety of parts) instead of just one.

    And if your design had such a competitive advantage, you should have looked for financing. There are plenty of people willing to finance an endeavor that has the potential for such huge amounts of profits. If your design were so good, you should have had no problem hooking up with people with the money and experience to take your project into the market.

    For all the talk of how regulations are so costly, I have never known of a viable business going under due to regulation, and I've been involved in a great number of business start ups and earned more than I've lost.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #84
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    Your logic is flawed. Issues do not involve either all subjective reasoning, or all objective reasoning. All issues contains some subjective reasoning, but some issues involve more than others. Issues that are based on enough objective fact to garner a broad consensus, such as rules against murder, are valid for application at the federal level. When an issue is based on subjective reasoning to the point that it becomes a wedge issue, it is reasonable not to press for decision on that issue at the federal level.
    I think you should go back and re-read what I wrote. I never said "issues involve either all subjective reasoning or all objective reasoning"

    And you have presented no evidence to support your claim that issue which depend more on subjective issues (and I'm not sure that can be measured objectively) are better decided at a level lower than the federal govt.


    Sure there is. I'm an electrical engineer. I know quite a bit of math, and the discipline of statistical analysis validates the concept of federalism.
    Being an electrical engineer in now way qualifies you to be the judge of federalism, and you have presented no evidence to support your claim.


    There are any number of approaches to solve a particular problem in society. Some have more likelihood of solving the problem, but a higher risk of negative side effects, while others mitigate those side effects at the cost of being less effective at solving the issue they are meant to address. Still other solutions may be both more effective, and have fewer side effects than any alternatives. If only one of these solutions is applied universally, it will either be the optimal choice, or it will not be. If it is the optimal choice, the reward is greater for society when the law is applied universally. If the law is not the optimal choice, then society suffers as a result.

    The flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that there will be agreement as to what is a "side effect" and what is a "mitigation" or even what the effects are and if they are desirable or not.

    The statistical reason that federalism is better, is that any law applied universally in response to a wedge issue is guaranteed to be sub-optimal in the views of a large percentage of the population. Dividing that decision among the states allows for states dominated by a particular subculture to achieve the result that is optimal for that subculture, increasing the ratio of satisfied citizens to dissatisfied citizens.
    This is basically an appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy. Arguing that more people will be satisfied does not show that a policy is "better"

    I'm surprised that someone as intelligent and rational as you are would succumb to this fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #85
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    For one thing, I've seen polls which indicate that more of those voters would have gone for Clinton instead of bush*. For another, I have to once again object to your misuse of the word disenfranchisement. People who vote for the losing candidate are not "disenfranchised". That is just hyperbole. Someone as rational as you claim to be shouldn't try to appeal to emotion using such emotionally-laden verbiage.

    As far as your main point here goes, why would I disagree with you? You just made my point for me! Because of the winner takes all method of determining the presidency (the one with a majority of electoral votes) the development of a two party system is inevitable. That's why, in spite of the desires of the framers, a two party system developed shortly after the ratification of the constitution.
    The fact that it developed does not preclude the notion that it is detrimental to the system overall, or that it creates a system where special interests can manipulate the party system in a way that effectively destroys it as a platform for expressing the will of the people.

    IMO, you couldn't be more wrong.

    You claim that your device "performs just as well" as the ones the military uses, but you seem to lack the experience needed to make such an evaluation. Since some aspects of the UAV's the military uses are confidential, it seems you lack the knowledge needed to come to such a conclusion. It sounds to me as if your pride (and pride is an emotion) that has led you to this conclusion. Not that you shouldn't be proud of your efforts, but I just wanted to point out how emotions can lead even the most rational of humans astray
    IMO, I have a little more authority on which to base my reasoning than you do. The performance of some UAV's is classified. The performance of other systems is not. I base my assertions on industry research I have performed on systems fielded by the military. My assertion about the comparative performance of my system is based in fact, not wishful thinking. I have one acquaintance who works in the industry, on the projects in question, who flatly stated that with an extra $1,000 in precision instrumentation, my system would perform better than the systems they sell to the military.

    Ironically, that company won't offer me a job because I'm graduating with a 2.9 GPA (Mostly because I spent so much homework time doing projects), and their cutoff requirement is 3.0. I'll likely be working for another company instead making navigation and autopilot equipment for manned aircraft.

    You also assume that the technical performance (vs price) of a product is the only criteria a purchaser should use in deciding from whom they should purchase a product. This is not true. The military want a dependable source. Being undercapitalized, you are not a dependable source. Someone could sue you for a patent issue and, regardless of the merits of the suit, you could go under because you don't have the cash to defend your claim in court. And then, where would that leave the military?
    Naturally you are correct. I am also under-networked. I had planned on spending a few years working in the industry to build up a good network for when I was ready to start. However, because of all the artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace created by bogus legislation, it's all a rather moot point, considering that I'd need to be near Boing or General Dynamics' scale before I could make a decent profit and a stable business venture.

    Big, stable companies are important, but when you have to be so big to survive that it negatively effects social mobility in society, something is wrong with the way government is functioning.

    It would leave them looking for another supplier, something the military doesn't want to do. They can't go from supplier to supplier, each of whom produce slightly varying products, built from different sets of parts. This would mean training their personnel to fly and maintain a variety of UAV's (and maintain a variety of parts) instead of just one.
    Regardless of military or commercial application, I have to deal with FAA regulation. The regulations are the more damaging entity.

    And if your design had such a competitive advantage, you should have looked for financing. There are plenty of people willing to finance an endeavor that has the potential for such huge amounts of profits. If your design were so good, you should have had no problem hooking up with people with the money and experience to take your project into the market.
    Except for the fact that it's so hard to break into a big industry, that it would be easier for one of the larger companies to just steal my idea, or reverse engineer it and patent it themselves before I could get my idea off the ground.

    For all the talk of how regulations are so costly, I have never known of a viable business going under due to regulation, and I've been involved in a great number of business start ups and earned more than I've lost.
    Ever start a car company? Aerospace? Agriculture? Manufacturing?

    If you've started anything other than service industry companies, you have my respect. If any of the non-service industry companies you started have done anything other than being bought out by GE or some other behemoth the second they started gaining traction, then you're officially a badass.

  6. #86
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Being an electrical engineer in now way qualifies you to be the judge of federalism, and you have presented no evidence to support your claim.
    Being an electrical engineer qualifies me to speak authoritatively on the subject of statistical analysis. I presented plainly worded representations of the principles of statistics that validate federalism. I could also list a few principles of biology such as biodiversity, which illustrate additional benefits to be had in a system where multiple approaches are allowed, although my study of biology is more limited than my study of statistical analysis.

    If you like, you can go learn about statistics so that you will understand why I'm right with rigorous math. Most of it is algebra based, but you might need a little background in calculus to get a full understanding. I believe that Khan Academy has free online lectures on the subject.

    The flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that there will be agreement as to what is a "side effect" and what is a "mitigation" or even what the effects are and if they are desirable or not.
    On the contrary, the superiority of my argument lies in the fact that there will NOT be universal agreement across all of society. States may indeed be more or less divided than society as a whole, but the states that are more divided always have the option to pass the issue to local governments for even more control, and states that are less divided will have the option to make laws that conform to that subculture's values.

    This is basically an appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy. Arguing that more people will be satisfied does not show that a policy is "better"

    I'm surprised that someone as intelligent and rational as you are would succumb to this fallacy.
    That is an excellent point. However, "basically" being an appeal to majority rule is not the same as being a populist. I place great value in the necessity to protect the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority. Federalism helps with that by dividing the decision so that as a last resort, people who don't like the law can move to another state, where a federal law would require moving to another country to avoid the problem.

    There is a fine line between populism and popular sovereignty. I am having this same discussion with another poster who would be good competition for you in a "who can be more contrarian" contest.
    Last edited by SocialEngineer; 05-08-13 at 06:07 PM.

  7. #87
    User AristocraticRep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Naples, Florida
    Last Seen
    07-30-14 @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    52

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Yes it restricts progress, but more parties is the solution in my opinion, so I suppose that would be considered more "partisan". Allowing the Libertarian Party, Justice Party, Green Party, etc. more voice cuts back on the monopoly of power currently owned by the Dems and Reps, and allows for more ideas to be presented. Hopefully it would have the side effect of less two sided politics, with more alternatives creating more cooperation.
    "I think, therefore I am"- Rene Descartes
    "My reading of history convinces me that most bad governments comes from too much government"- Thomas Jefferson
    "Faith: not wanting to know what is true."- Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #88
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    The fact that it developed does not preclude the notion that it is detrimental to the system overall, or that it creates a system where special interests can manipulate the party system in a way that effectively destroys it as a platform for expressing the will of the people.
    Nor does it preclude the nation that it is beneficial or that the ability of special interests to influence the system are due to factors other than our having a two party system. After all, there are nations with multi-party systems that are also influenced by moneyed interests.


    IMO, I have a little more authority on which to base my reasoning than you do. The performance of some UAV's is classified. The performance of other systems is not. I base my assertions on industry research I have performed on systems fielded by the military. My assertion about the comparative performance of my system is based in fact, not wishful thinking. I have one acquaintance who works in the industry, on the projects in question, who flatly stated that with an extra $1,000 in precision instrumentation, my system would perform better than the systems they sell to the military.

    Ironically, that company won't offer me a job because I'm graduating with a 2.9 GPA (Mostly because I spent so much homework time doing projects), and their cutoff requirement is 3.0. I'll likely be working for another company instead making navigation and autopilot equipment for manned aircraft.
    The fact that you know more about the field does not mean that you know enough about the field (or business in general) to judge your vehicles performance in comparison to the militarys UAV's. Since the militarys UAV's are classified, there is no way you can know that which you claim to know.

    And for all we know, your friend is just blowing smoke up your ass.


    Naturally you are correct. I am also under-networked. I had planned on spending a few years working in the industry to build up a good network for when I was ready to start. However, because of all the artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace created by bogus legislation, it's all a rather moot point, considering that I'd need to be near Boing or General Dynamics' scale before I could make a decent profit and a stable business venture.

    Big, stable companies are important, but when you have to be so big to survive that it negatively effects social mobility in society, something is wrong with the way government is functioning.
    There are many paths to success. Your biggest obstacle to entering the competition was not regulation; it was your own lack of experience.

    Plenty of people have gone up against large corporations (Ben and Jerry's, many beverage companies, etc) and found success, in spite of regulations. Your inability to do the same is your own failing.


    Regardless of military or commercial application, I have to deal with FAA regulation. The regulations are the more damaging entity.
    If your design were so good, you should be able to get financing. Your inability to do so is your own failing, not the failing of regulations.


    Except for the fact that it's so hard to break into a big industry, that it would be easier for one of the larger companies to just steal my idea, or reverse engineer it and patent it themselves before I could get my idea off the ground.

    Ever start a car company? Aerospace? Agriculture? Manufacturing?
    Yes. I have started several companies, most of them successful. And they were in highly regulated industries like financial services and food services.


    If you've started anything other than service industry companies, you have my respect. If any of the non-service industry companies you started have done anything other than being bought out by GE or some other behemoth the second they started gaining traction, then you're officially a badass.
    Nothing wrong with being bought out. Ben & Jerry's did that, and now they're both mega-rich.

    You could do the same, if you have the knowledge and the cojones
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #89
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    05-12-13 @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    251

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by AristocraticRep View Post
    Yes it restricts progress, but more parties is the solution in my opinion, so I suppose that would be considered more "partisan". Allowing the Libertarian Party, Justice Party, Green Party, etc. more voice cuts back on the monopoly of power currently owned by the Dems and Reps, and allows for more ideas to be presented. Hopefully it would have the side effect of less two sided politics, with more alternatives creating more cooperation.
    That's reasonable. At the same time, the two party system's strangle hold is based largely on the support of moneyed special interests who have no interest whatsoever in reducing the divisiveness of the dialogue. They succeed in maintaining power by keeping everyone too scared to abandon their red or blue Kool-Aid out of the fear that the "other team" will win if they don't support the team assigned to them by the partisan discourse.

  10. #90
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is partisan politics too partisan?

    Quote Originally Posted by SocialEngineer View Post
    Being an electrical engineer qualifies me to speak authoritatively on the subject of statistical analysis. I presented plainly worded representations of the principles of statistics that validate federalism. I could also list a few principles of biology such as biodiversity, which illustrate additional benefits to be had in a system where multiple approaches are allowed, although my study of biology is more limited than my study of statistical analysis.

    If you like, you can go learn about statistics so that you will understand why I'm right with rigorous math. Most of it is algebra based, but you might need a little background in calculus to get a full understanding. I believe that Khan Academy has free online lectures on the subject.
    Your use of faulty assumptions demonstrates that your ability to use stats in a meaningful way is limited.

    On the contrary, the superiority of my argument lies in the fact that there will NOT be universal agreement across all of society. States may indeed be more or less divided than society as a whole, but the states that are more divided always have the option to pass the issue to local governments for even more control, and states that are less divided will have the option to make laws that conform to that subculture's values.
    And again you are making the faulty assumption that "making more people satisfied" is "better".

    Your assumption is rejected.


    That is an excellent point. However, "basically" being an appeal to majority rule is not the same as being a populist. I place great value in the necessity to protect the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority. Federalism helps with that by dividing the decision so that as a last resort, people who don't like the law can move to another state, where a federal law would require moving to another country to avoid the problem.

    There is a fine line between populism and popular sovereignty. I am having this same discussion with another poster who would be good competition for you in a "who can be more contrarian" contest.
    I did not mention populism and "moving to another state" is not how the Framers designed the system. According to the constitution, all states are forbidden from infringing on peoples rights, no matter how much this may leave them dissatisfied.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •