![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThere's been some discussion here about the right wing response to the shocking, I tell you, SHOCKING re-election of President Obama and the over-the-top reaction we've been seeing. A lot of it has involved personal idiocies from Freeper vowing everything from cutting off disabled Obama supporting relatives from support (I kid you not) divorcing spouses, spitting on neighbors, moving into bunkers, etc.
And there have been some hints of payback from people actually in a position to hurt either Obama supporters or perceived Obama supporters. The CEO of the same coal company that forced employees to spend a day without pay listening to a Romney speech laid off over a hundred employees on November 9th after publicly reading an unctuous and insulting "prayer," and on Thursday a man claiming to be a business owner in Georgia called C-Span and boasted about cutting employee hours and laying off two people because of the election. “I tried to make sure the people I laid off voted for Obama,” he said.
The fact remains -- Obama won.
Attempts at limiting the franchise and making it hard to vote didn't help Republicans. It just pissed off a lot of voters to the point where they were willing to stand in line for seven hours to vote for a Democrat. Threatening to fire employees if Obama were re-elected didn't help Republicans. It just highlighted the insidious damage Citizens United has done to our political environment. Attacking blacks, women, gays, and hispanics didn't work. It just galvanized a large portion of black, gay, female, hispanic, etc. voters into fighting Republicans.
So my question is, Republicans, what's the next step?
A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.
Is that what's going to happen, Republicans? Because I have to tell you, you've been marching to the right for so many years you're on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff. Are you going to openly embrace the genteel racism of Charles Murray? Are you going to openly work to limit the vote only to people of a certain income level? Is the aim going to be disenfranchising large portions of the public and telling the rest, "vote for us or we'll fire you?"
Just curious.
*
And there have been some hints of payback from people actually in a position to hurt either Obama supporters or perceived Obama supporters. The CEO of the same coal company that forced employees to spend a day without pay listening to a Romney speech laid off over a hundred employees on November 9th after publicly reading an unctuous and insulting "prayer," and on Thursday a man claiming to be a business owner in Georgia called C-Span and boasted about cutting employee hours and laying off two people because of the election. “I tried to make sure the people I laid off voted for Obama,” he said.
The fact remains -- Obama won.
Attempts at limiting the franchise and making it hard to vote didn't help Republicans. It just pissed off a lot of voters to the point where they were willing to stand in line for seven hours to vote for a Democrat. Threatening to fire employees if Obama were re-elected didn't help Republicans. It just highlighted the insidious damage Citizens United has done to our political environment. Attacking blacks, women, gays, and hispanics didn't work. It just galvanized a large portion of black, gay, female, hispanic, etc. voters into fighting Republicans.
So my question is, Republicans, what's the next step?
A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.
Is that what's going to happen, Republicans? Because I have to tell you, you've been marching to the right for so many years you're on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff. Are you going to openly embrace the genteel racism of Charles Murray? Are you going to openly work to limit the vote only to people of a certain income level? Is the aim going to be disenfranchising large portions of the public and telling the rest, "vote for us or we'll fire you?"
Just curious.
*
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 16:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 17:30 (UTC)And guess what, even by that metric, Obama won.
Next?
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 18:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 19:20 (UTC)Republican legislatures were able to redraw districts as a result of the 2010 census.
How those newly drawn districts favoring Republican voters would help them:
A specific example in Pennsylvania district.
Another example, from a New York district.
A huge interactive Google Map that shows how redistricting worked. (https://www.google.com/fusiontables/embedviz?viz=MAP&q=select+col5%3E%3E0+from+1cXD8Bee2av01zxmFjaNENFDgh8Iko6rzIO-POVU&h=false&lat=35.434954102297176&lng=-83.96182754687504&z=4&t=1&l=col5%3E%3E0&y=4&tmplt=2)
This huge report goes into mind numbing detail. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/111128906/Redistricting-and-Congressional-Control-A-First-Look)
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 17:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 22:10 (UTC)Exactly, and the whole system in the US is a little bit more complicated (for a reason) than a simple popular vote.
But you've lost the point completely, so could you be more clear, please? Your answer "They won the popular vote. In a fair world, you would think that would translate..." doesn't actually answer the question because no matter what your "fair world" is, we definitely live in the unfair one, so let's keep to what we have here and now.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 22:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 14:28 (UTC)I didn't say you're shifting. The point was - there are many factors influencing election results and it's incorrect to pick one you like the most or generalize, like Paft does.
The initial question was to Paft cause she likes things simple and straight - feed the poor to stop poverty and so on.
We can go further with this picture "shift from 2008" , (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president), or how to explain narrowing gap between the candidates - Obama got with 5,5 M less votes than in 2008 (62 vs 69,5). Nice comparison tool is available here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/).
Anyway, I'm happy that the the States are too diverse to allow one simple explanation for the whole country.
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 18:33 (UTC)Should the poor not be fed? And no, my claim is not that feeding the poor will end poverty. Feeding the poor will, however, make poverty less dangerous and keep the poor healthy enough that they have a better chance of getting out of poverty.
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 19:21 (UTC)Poverty is when you have no food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment.
That's why people afraid it in the first place.
That's why people want to get out of it.
Getting out of poverty usually means working hard to get some food, clothing, etc.
You want to eliminate the "working hard" portion and provide things for free. But that's changes the whole thing - there are no more poor people, they all have shelter, food AND they don't need to do anything at all to get it.
And thus your words "getting out of poverty" simply don't apply cause that's not the poverty we defined above.
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 19:29 (UTC)In a developed, industrialized country, poverty includes having inadequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment.
v: That's why people afraid it in the first place.That's why people want to get out of it. Getting out of poverty usually means working hard to get some food, clothing, etc.
Do you think the poor don't work hard?
There are many families in this country who have jobs, work hard, and are still poor.
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 19:47 (UTC)It's obvious that feeding and sheltering those whom you call "poor" doesn't eliminate or reduce what you call "poverty" because the more comfortable life you create for them, the less incentives they have to abandon this life.
Your method doesn't work.
I don't mind reducing poverty, I'm on your side - but you're not.
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 20:29 (UTC)No. Let's ensure that they have enough food, shelter, and medical care that they don't have to spend every spare minute struggling for these things, and stay healthy enough to work.
Most civilized and developed societies grasp this concept.
v: It's obvious that feeding and sheltering those whom you call "poor" doesn't eliminate or reduce what you call "poverty" because the more comfortable life you create for them, the less incentives they have to abandon this life.
Your method doesn't work.
And you imagine allowing people to get sick from malnutrition and descend into homelessness DOES work?
We've tried a society without a social safety net. It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled.
Do you like that idea?
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 22:41 (UTC)I.e. let's give them more food, shelter and medical care for free.
As expected, you DO want it simple and straight - but it's not.
So, there are Smith and Jones families, immigrants. Both have shitty place to live and junkfood cause that's what newcomers can afford.
Babysitting and dish-washing for $X per hour.
Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation, charges $(X+5) per hour, buys insurance and moves into better apartment.
Jones family works not that effective so they can't raise prices and stay where they were.
And here come you and move Jones family in a better place, providing them for free all the things the other family has earned working hard.
The fact that Smith's taxes were spent to keep you and to supply Jones family makes the situation even nicer.
>>And you imagine allowing people to get sick from malnutrition and descend into homelessness DOES work?
If we're talking about silly kids eating candies instead of a full meal - your language may apply.
But we're talking about self-responsible adults whom you picture as silly kids requiring care.
Otherwise I don't understand your constant willing to decide for the others what to eat and how to live.
I don't even think in terms of "allowing people" to do this and that, because I respect others, and I don't think my _ideas_ on how to live are better or worse than let's say yours.
You, obviously, think that your ideas are the best, and other people shall be forced to do as you want.
>> We've tried . It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled.
Sorry, but this makes no sense.
it's like saying in 1960 in the USSR, "We've tried to live without communist party, it didn't work."
Or in Germany in 1940: "We've tried to live without World War 2, it didn't work."
Or nowadays, "We've tried to live without Facebook, it didn't work."
(no subject)
Date: 16/11/12 17:03 (UTC)I have absolutely no problem with giving people who cannot afford to pay for their own food, shelter, and medical care free food, shelter, or medical care.
What do you think is likely to happen to them if we don't?
v: So, there are Smith and Jones families, immigrants. Both have shitty place to live and junkfood cause that's what newcomers can afford. Babysitting and dish-washing for $X per hour. Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation, charges $(X+5) per hour, buys insurance and moves into better apartment. Jones family works not that effective so they can't raise prices and stay where they were.
What do you mean "not that effective?" Are you claiming that any failure to get ahead economically means the Jones family must be somehow dumber, lazier, less deserving than the Smith family? Maybe the Jones family's employers are screwing them over, not paying them enough and working Mr. and Mrs. Jones into burnout. Maybe Mr. Jones has been hurt and is unable to work long hours. Maybe Mrs. Jones is sick and can't work at all -- not surprising if all they can afford is "junk food."
v: And here come you and move Jones family in a better place, providing them for free all the things the other family has earned working hard.
Uh, no, offering someone assistance to keep them fed, healthy and with a roof over their heads does not mean they're going to be enjoying the same amenities as families who manage to move into the middle class.
You do understand that, right?
v: The fact that Smith's taxes were spent to keep you and to supply Jones family makes the situation even nicer.
My taxes are also being spent. So are the Jones' taxes.
What makes you think I don't pay taxes, by the way?
V: If we're talking about silly kids eating candies instead of a full meal - your language may apply.
But we're talking about self-responsible adults whom you picture as silly kids requiring care.
No, I don't see them as "silly kids." I see them as hardworking people who literally can't afford to pay for the necessities of life.
Do you think every working adult who depends on a foodbank at the end of the month is the equivalent of a "silly kid?"
paft: We've tried . It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled.
v: Sorry, but this makes no sense. it's like saying in 1960 in the USSR, "We've tried to live without communist party, it didn't work." Or in Germany in 1940: "We've tried to live without World War 2, it didn't work." Or nowadays, "We've tried to live without Facebook, it didn't work."
Actually, it's this weird analogy of yours that makes no sense. This notion I keep seeing from the right that doing away with the social safety net is some sort of daring and new experiment that won't have dire consequences for many people is more akin to someone saying "Let's get rid of all those pesky traffic signs on the highway and see what happens. And while we're at it, let's eliminate all those silly anti-discrimination laws. And food safety laws. What could happen?"
(no subject)
Date: 16/11/12 18:52 (UTC)We're back to the beginning (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1604886.html?thread=128942870#t128942870) so let's jump straight to the main question: how will your efforts to turn "poverty" into a relatively careless life (food, shelter etc. are free) encourage people to start working and maintaining themselves?
>> What do you mean "not that effective?" Are you claiming that any failure to get ahead economically means the Jones family must be somehow dumber, lazier, less deserving than the Smith family?
By "not that effective" I mean that Jones family is making less job at a time and/or customers are less satisfied with their job.
As for your "Maybe" - I specified, that "Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation". You disagree it usually brings more customers and better earnings which, in turn, may bring higher quality of life?
>>Uh, no, offering someone assistance to keep them fed, healthy and with a roof over their heads does not mean they're going to be enjoying the same amenities as families who manage to move into the middle class.
I wasn't saying a word about the "middle class". I gave you an example of two families in the same starting position, both below the standards you may assume. One family went above this line on its own while another family worked worse, yet made the same transition because you want them to.
>>My taxes are also being spent. So are the Jones' taxes. What makes you think I don't pay taxes, by the way?
It's not about you paying taxes. It's about you as a fictional state employee deciding whom to subsidize.
State employees are, by definition, paid by taxes of those who do non-state jobs: build cars, make tacos, wash dishes.
The problems for better-working Smith family are that they have to:
1) maintain you, who makes them pay for the worse-working Jones family.
2) actually, pay for worse-working Jones family.
>>This notion I keep seeing from the right that doing away with the social safety net is some sort of daring and new experiment that won't have dire consequences for many people is more akin to someone saying "Let's get rid of all those pesky traffic signs on the highway and see what happens. And while we're at it, let's eliminate all those silly anti-discrimination laws. And food safety laws. What could happen?"
What could happen indeed?
Let me tell you the story about anti-discrimination law. I once worked for a really good guy from Mexico who didn't give a shit about all that racist crap, and neither did I, "- Hola whiteass! Hola wetback!". Once he didn't hire a really nice black guy for some project and, when I asked, he explained that he may have difficulties with laying this guy off after the project is done because of anti-discrimination laws. And his small business can't afford possible legal expenses, so it's easier not to hire this guy in the first place.
I was very surprised but have encountered more cases like this later on.
I'm afraid these laws don't prevent discrimination but do the opposite.
Same is minimum wage law, for example - no one is going to pay $7/hr for concrete mixing or picking tomatoes which makes it impossible for the US citizen to get that job and speeds up illegal immigration.
Again, I like when people are well paid and live in good houses, I'm on your side - but you're not.