DEMOCRATS: Van Jones absolutely NAILS it on CNN

[g5000]

I agree that people are swinging back to things like parents rights. Aren't parents rights a good thing? I disagree with people moving left economically. People got a good dose of that and they have had enough.

The movement is about more than "parents' rights". It's about denying rights to anyone who isn't a straight, white, male.

National Socialism.

 

[Mac-7]

Mac1958

As usual mac1958 lies about trump voters

We are no more national socialists than you are a communist

 

[Laslow]

The movement is about more than "parents' rights". It's about denying rights to anyone who isn't a straight, white, male.

National Socialism.

You see this happening how? People are being told that being born white makes you evil and that there is nothing they can do about it. The left is spouting white hatred every chance they get. We have tv shows about drag queens, and have of the characters on tv seem to be gay. How are you getting at some oppressive movement?

 

[dblack]

Just stuck into traditional ways, however I started reading and learning about the advantages and with the last two Presidential elections being disasters, I thought it couldn't be any worse than what we have currently in place. Also, if you are a serious voter it forces to learn about other candidates so you could rank them. That will give third parties more exposure than just Republican or Democrat. Our country needs to grow and change to be the best and this would be a step forward. The current process is not working, so why stick with it? It seems it is producing worse and worse candidates. Primaries would help encourage candidates to stick around longer as well and create debate, which we are lacking in the party's currently. What reasons are you for it?

I was originally drawn to it because it seemed like it would help third parties get established. But on further research, it's effect on that is minimal. Australia, for example, still maintains two strong parties, despite having had RCV, in various forms, for over a century. It does give third parties more voice, more impact on the political landscape, but bigger, more organized parties still have a distinct advantage.

But it has another effect, one that I've never valued much until lately - ranked choice voting encourages consensus over division. The nature of the ranking system means that second-place votes are nearly as important as first place votes. And last-place votes can sink a candidate otherwise popular with their base. This provides a built-in incentive for candidates to avoid alienating voters, even voters nominally on the "other side" - a second-place vote is much better than a last-place vote.

RCV also lets voters do something they can't do under the current scheme. They can actually vote AGAINST a candidate they find totally unacceptable. This means we can finally crawl from under the burden of the "lesser-of-two-evils" strategy. If you rank a candidate dead last, you're choosing every other candidate that you rank, over them. That means you can vote against a candidate you are adamantly opposed to (eg Clinton), without voting for a candidate who is merely slightly less objectionable (eg Trump). In other words you can rank the candidates you truly believe in at the top, without having to worry about whether or not they have a realistic chance to win. ie you could rank Green, Libertarian, or independents high on your list - with Clinton and Trump at the very bottom. If you have some preference between those two, you can still show it by whether they're ranked last, or second-to-last, but you don't have to lie and put them at the top of your list. You'll never have to "hold your nose" and vote for someone shitty out of fear.

 

[Laslow]

The movement is about more than "parents' rights". It's about denying rights to anyone who isn't a straight, white, male.

National Socialism.

So the left has created a super term that combines all the isms? There is some sort of super group who is anti-gay and very, very racist. It sounds like tin foil hat stuff. The left has called people Nazi so much they actually believe it. I'm assuming the wall is the key to all of it. Stopping or even slowing illegal immigration is racist? You guys do know a house seat was just flipped in Texas by a woman who was born in Mexico. The first republican in that district in forever. I don't think black people and Asians are really thrilled about illegal immigration either. It is so cool you guys found a new way to call people Nazis. As I've mentioned before, this thread was about about the left realizing the errors in their ways on identity politics. They have found the new holy grail of identity groups, and it doesn't even exist. That is wild.

 

[dblack]

So once people are convicted of crimes its okay to treat them differently then people who are not convicted? Well congratulations, you just proved my point.

No, I didn't. People who commit crimes, who violate the rights of others, give up their claim on equal rights. That's the entire point of criminal law.

Sometimes there are "good" reasons to treat people differently and politics is the mechanism by which we determine that "good".

Nope. Just the one. You don't get use that as an excuse to endorse wholesale corporatism.

You don't recognize working class families as a group of people with particular sociopolitical concerns?

Of course. But I don't believe the government is there to satisfy the "particular sociopolitical concerns" of any one group, or any set of politically favored groups.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, I didn't. People who commit crimes, who violate the rights of others, give up their claim on equal rights. That's the entire point of criminal law.

In other words we have good reason to treat different groups of people, ie. criminals, differently. It's okay to admit it. You can put away the silly notion that we must always treat everyone equally under the law.

Nope. Just the one. You don't get use that as an excuse to endorse wholesale corporatism.

Where did I do any such thing?

Of course. But I don't believe the government is there to satisfy the "particular sociopolitical concerns" of any one group.

What about "Americans"? You don't think the American government should be more concerned with the sociopolitical concerns of the group of people called "Americans"? You think the American government should treat every human being the same, regardless of citizenship?

What I'm trying to do is to get you to put away these silly absolutes that lack any nuance and context. If you're going to pout and stomp your feet and demand we treat everyone eqwually all the time then I'm going to ask you simply, "what about criminals?" and sit back and watch you hem and haw and try and justify why it's okay in that instance but absolutely not in others without at all discussing the context of why it might be "good" to treat other groups of people differently as well.

 

[dblack]

In other words we have good reason ...

... to ignore your persistent attack on equal rights and write you off as just another authoritarian statist douchebag. Yep. That.

What about "Americans"? You don't think the American government should be more concerned with sociopolitical concerns of the group of people called "Americans"? You think the American government should treat every human being the same, regardless of citizenship?

Exactly. That's the whole point of equal rights, something you clearly oppose.

What I'm trying to do is to get you to put away these silly absolutes that lack any nuance and context.

Keep trying, I guess. You're not making much headway just yet.

 

[Curried Goats]

... to ignore your persistent attack on equal rights and write you off as just another authoritarian statist douchebag. Yep. That.

Don't lash out because you can't make intelligent replies, try harder.

Yep. That's the whole point of equal rights, something you clearly oppose.

So non citizens should have equal rights to citizens?

Keep trying, I guess. You're not making much headway just yet.

Well you do seem unusually thick headed.

 

[dblack]

So non citizens should have equal rights to citizens?

Did I stutter?

Well you do seem unusually thick headed.

Good to know. At this point, I'd take your approval as a dubious endorsement at best.

 

[Curried Goats]

Did I stutter?


Good to know. At this point, I'd take your approval as a dubious endorsement at best.

No but I do want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting you.

To clarify, American citizens are legally allowed to vote in American elections. Is it your argument, that in order to treat everyone equally, that we not only need to let children and babies vote in our elections, but also non citizens as well? If so, that's some hot take.

 

[B. Kidd]

I think it is telling in a thread about liberals realizing identity bullsht is harmful to them, that you would post this comment. You were so impressed with Van that you rewound it and played it again. Then in the very thread you started, you couldn't help yourself from producing that little gem. You yourself seem pretty wrapped up in identity.

Dimm's are chained to the race card!!
It's their only cover for their failed policies when all is said and done.
Their brand is dead!!!

 

[dblack]

No but I do want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting you.

To clarify, American citizens are legally allowed to vote in American elections. Is it your argument, that in order to treat everyone equally, that we not only need to let children and babies vote in our elections, but also non citizens as well? If so, that's some hot take.

No, that's an idiotic strawman.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, that's an idiotic strawman.

You said we have to treat everyone equally. That it was the bedrock of a just society. Everyone includes citizens and non citizens, so what is it? Should citizens and non citizens alike be allowed to vote or should citizens be treated differently?

 

[dblack]

You said we have to treat everyone equally. That it was the bedrock of a just society.

No, I didn't.

I cited equal rights and equal protection. If you don't understand these terms, ask. But pretending they mean some something else is a weak way to support your position.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, I didn't.

I cited equal rights and equal protection. If you don't understand these terms, ask. But pretending they mean some something else is a weak way to support your position.

I'm asking you to clarify what they mean by equal because the way you describe it is contradictory. Non citizens do not have equal rights to citizens. They do not have the equal right to vote. That should be obvious to you.

 

[dblack]

I'm asking you to clarify what they mean by equal because the way you describe it is contradictory. Non citizens do not have equal rights to citizens. They do not have the equal right to vote. That should be obvious to you.

The term causing the confusion is "rights", not "equal". "Rights", unfortunately, means different things in different contexts. Constitutionally protected rights are the unalienable rights - innate freedoms held by any conscious person. They aren't dependent on any government and don't require that anyone else do any thing for you. The "right" to vote is not an unalienable right.

So, no. Equal rights doesn't mean everyone gets to vote, it means your rights are the same as everyone else's. They don't depend on which special interest groups claim you as a member.











person

 

[Mac1958]

Looks like others noticed too.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Maybe we should stop letting the party be lead by old ass white people...

Old ass white people are inherent leaders…they founded, built, fund and run the greatest nation on the globe while dark people destroy EVERY district, city, state and nation they try to run.
Sorry Kunta Kinte…I don’t make the facts.

 

[marvin martian]

Will Democrats take note? I doubt it.

You didn't. You still vote for and support the people who are making these idiotic statements and policies.