Biden for PREZ?!?!?!

[Cow Poke]

Well then, how about you just stop defending a liar and a treasonous con man instead of just suggesting that someone shut him up?

How bout let's be civil and stop the nonsense.

Let's try this --- show me your best example of me "defending a liar". K?

[JimL]

How bout let's be civil and stop the nonsense.

Let's try this --- show me your best example of me "defending a liar". K?

You just defended him. You said someone should just keep him from expressing his lies publicly.

[Cow Poke]

You just defended him. You said someone should just keep him from expressing his lies publicly.

OK, if that's your best example, then step up and use my actual quote. Let's look at my actual quote, instead of your misinterpretation of it, OK?

[JimL]

OK, if that's your best example, then step up and use my actual quote. Let's look at my actual quote, instead of your misinterpretation of it, OK?

Okay, have you looked yet? Let me know.

[Cow Poke]

Okay, have you looked yet? Let me know.

So, you can't really provide my actual quote, and critique that, eh?

OK, let's move on to your NEXT 'best example' of me defending Trump.

[Sparko]

? I usually use Political Compass's charts.

In their charts, what is typically regarded as the left-wing to right-wing continuum runs from the bottom left to the top right, as I've marked here:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28148[/ATTACH]
(Don't get confused by the fact that they've labelled their horizontal economic axis as 'left' and 'right', that's only referring to economics and not social elements which are on the vertical axis. The traditional left-wing vs right-wing continuum runs from bottom-left to top-right along the diagonal.)

That explains a lot about you Star. You confuse Authoritarian/Libertarian with Conservative/Liberal. You have the charts rotated clockwise in your mind.

[Sparko]

I understand "right-wing" to mean consolidation of power and authority (economic and social) in the hands of the few rather than the many, while I understand "left-wing" to mean a distribution of power and authority (economic and social) to the many.

There's your problem right there.

At least in the USA, the Republicans are against big government, and the Democrats are for it. They want more control, more social programs, more government nannying. The republicans want less regulations, more control in the private sector, less government regulations, and less social programs.

When the government has all the power and authority, then it is "in the hands of the few" and that is what you get under liberal policies. Everyone going to the government for food and jobs.

[Sparko]

Nonsense! The only reason certain non union companys like yours provide the decent benefits that they do is because unions exist in the first place.

Unions had a purpose at one time. They have outlived their usefulness and have become corrupt. Probably back when the mobs took them over.

[Sparko]

I'm not a fan of the term "populist" because I tend to think it's a bit vague and ill-defined. But, best I can understand "populism" it largely refers to the upper-left corner of the political compass charts: Reasonably conservative social / cultural values, quite nationalist, and anti-multiculturalism, combined with traditional left-wing New Deal economic policies and relatively high government spending on social programs. So, for example, FDR is an example of the US's most "populist" president: New Deal economic policies + internment camps for Japanese people.

If you want to argue that the average political position in modern day America is a tad upper-left of center in the political compass charts, rather than being a tad lower-left of center as I was suggesting, sure. I would say I think that's within the margin of error in terms of where I see the US populace. I think they are a bit left of center on economic issues, and where exactly to put them on the vertical axis is a bit more of a challenge. I would say that the populace is gradually drifting downward (as conservative Christians age out and as the atheist population grows and people become more comfortable with same sex marriage / marijuana / latino immigration etc).

Starlight, can I ask a serious question? I don't mean any disrespect or offense here... But are you autistic? You seem to have an odd reliance and obsession with charts.

[rogue06]

Unions had a purpose at one time. They have outlived their usefulness and have become corrupt. Probably back when the mobs took them over.

When the union leaders went from representing the working men and women they represented to preferring to hobnob with the CEOs was the beginning of the end

[Starlight]

Starlight, can I ask a serious question? I don't mean any disrespect or offense here... But are you autistic? You seem to have an odd reliance and obsession with charts.

No. But you seem to have an odd hatred of them.

At least in the USA, the Republicans are against big government, and the Democrats are for it. They want more control, more social programs, more government nannying. The republicans want less regulations, more control in the private sector, less government regulations, and less social programs.

'Big government' is different to 'controlling government'. If the government is taxing the rich and passing wealth to the needy, that wealth empowers the poor, the sick etc to be able to do things and live lives and have chances that they otherwise wouldn't have.

If you have minimal government, all the power rests in the hands of the few ultra-rich billionaires, which is power to the few and not the many.

The type of government that makes for the freest and most empowered and happiest people, according to all the empirical data, is a high-taxing high-spending government that builds great infrastructure for the populace to use (roads, rail, electricity grids, fibre broadbands, airports etc), provides great healthcare and education, supports the poor and needy etc, because this gives everyone in the country the freedom to not worry about the basics and ensures everyone is equipped with the necessities of life. It puts everyone up to a standard where they can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. If you think of it in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the government has the task of making sure nobody is on the lowest levels of the pyramid of having to worry about not having shelter or enough food, and so frees people up to focus on living at the higher levels - trying to live fulfilled lives with meaning and love etc.

All the Republican "small government" BS talking point boils down to at the end of the day is making sure those ultra-rich billionaires are doing phenomenally well and letting the rest of the country starve to death or die from lack of healthcare or from pollution put out by the factories owned by those billionaires etc. It devolves into feudalism where the billionaires become the Lords and the rest of the country their surfs / slaves.

[KingsGambit]

Starlight, can I ask a serious question? I don't mean any disrespect or offense here... But are you autistic? You seem to have an odd reliance and obsession with charts.

Honest question, why do people here seem to have a problem with charts? Sam got mocked mercilessly for using them. I find them to be very useful in understanding peoples' points.

[Starlight]

Starlight, can I ask a serious question? I don't mean any disrespect or offense here... But are you autistic? You seem to have an odd reliance and obsession with charts.

People do say "a picture's worth a thousand words".

A lot of the data analysis I do in academic study and scientific research involves charts. I find they tend to be a lot clearer at conveying points than vague terminology tends to be. It's one thing to make assertions about something being bigger than something else, it's quite another thing to lay it out clearly in a graph showing the relative sizes etc. In a graph you can clearly point to things and say "why is that line here and not here?" etc and see trends and outliers you wouldn't otherwise have noticed.

For one of the papers I wrote, we'd collected rather a lot of data - about 800 pages in Excel. But we were able to do half a dozen graphs and tables and fit it all into a concise little 6 page journal article.

[Terraceth]

Unions had a purpose at one time. They have outlived their usefulness and have become corrupt. Probably back when the mobs took them over.

I dislike these kinds of all-encompassing claims about unions, whether it be positive or negative. Some unions are pretty bad. Some unions are pretty good. Rhetoric that tries to paint all unions as corrupt or all unions as the greatest organizations are both incorrect and unhelpful.

[KingsGambit]

I'm grateful for my union because management blatantly ignores the contract all the time and will not stop even when confronted. They'll only stop when they're forced to pay out grievance money, and even then they'll resume again eventually.

At the same time I'm probably going to stop paying for union membership soon because I found out that they will support all employees equally whether they're union members or not.