Party Politics Have Become Dangerous

ZRoberts1991

Rookie
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
29
Reaction score
7
Points
1
Hi I know this is my first post but I've actually hung out on these boards for months reading through what others have had to say. Some people have pushed me towards writing a political blog and putting my thoughts out there so I bit the bullet finally and wrote my first post.

Most on this board have always struck me as being very knowledgable so I figured this would be the perfect place to put my thoughts up and welcome any feedback and criticism. Look forward to having a discussion on where our two party political system is headed.

The Tuskegee Point

Here are my thoughts below

This is my first post through this site, and my main goal is to fully understand our political system and how our government will run through the course of my lifetime. I’m essentially still an innocent child in terms of grasping the nuances of our political system, I haven’t necessarily been corrupted yet or held firm beliefs for years that are hard to eschew. I’ve merely taken in whatever information that’s been available to me, and tried to formulate an opinion based off that information. I’ve done my best to not keep it one-sided, I’ve consistently read literature and news that come from all sides of the political spectrum. If there’s one conclusion I’ve been able to draw upon so far, it’s that the two party political machine in this country has become quite dangerous. Over the next few decades we will likely see the rise of the millennials, and it’s clear that our generation has become rather disenchanted with this system as half of millennials consider themselves independent. I do firmly believe it’s our role to move away from this system to some extent in the future as we begin to populate positions within the government.

The danger that has arisen with our system of Democrats versus Republicans is the polarization that exists within these parties. We as citizens should first look at the issues within our nation, formulate where our beliefs lie on those issues and then affiliate ourselves with the party that fits within the majority of those beliefs. However, this is not how it often works. In 2011, David McRaney authored a book titled You Are Not So Smart, in which he references more than once that when people affiliate themselves with a political party they will then adopt all the views that political party identifies itself with. Once you affiliate yourself with either the democratic or republican party you will then seek out literature, media, and entertainment outlets that conform precisely with your views. You will not often weigh the counter-arguments, which is how we have reached this stage of polarization. All it generally takes is for one person to be impassioned about a single issue, before they align themselves with every belief of a specific political party.

I must make it clear that the individual is not necessarily at fault within this scenario. Our system has now designed itself to the point where the word bi-partisan is becoming extinct if we exclude the millennial generation in this premise. News media was never supposed to be slanted towards a side of the political spectrum, it actually counteracts the principles journalism is founded upon. Unfortunately, that is no longer the world we live in today. Nearly every forum of news somehow finds itself aligned with a specific political ideology. For every Fox News there’s an MSNBC, for every Rush Limbaugh, there’s a Bill Maher, for every Michael Moore, there’s a Dinesh D’Souza. These means of media have infiltrated almost every issue within our society. It has become nearly impossible to discuss an issue that hasn’t been politicized, even if it’s rooted in science. I’m still in shock that the science of climate change has become partisan. The same can be said for stem cell research as well. When political affiliations supersedes the role of science, we are putting ourselves in a very precarious situation. Nazi Germany was well-known for only allowing science that fit its views as a National Socialist society, pretty much rendering the scientific method obsolete. We are allowing ourselves to now succumb to the ways of Nazi Germany in this regard. I know that’s an extremely bold statement, and while we’re still far off from suppressing the honest search for knowledge to the extent that the Nazi’s did, we’re closer than many of us would otherwise believe.

The area in which our two political party system has really begun to hurt us as a nation is the hateful and vitriolic attacks the parties continually lob against each other. The word unity within our political system has been fading for some time now. But it’s affected more than just capitol hill. This partisan hatred has now spewed over into the general public. I’m aware that the twenty-four hour news cycle can make it very hard to offer elongated researched reports, but the short snipe attacks that are offered are severely hindering us. Politics have become a topic that is now off-limits in social conversations if the two people sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Many seem to accept this as the norm, but there’s something clearly wrong about this. Honest debate between two people with different views should never be considered taboo. However, with the maniacal hatred the parties have for one another, these honest debates have turned into shouting matches with neither person offering any real concrete understanding of the issues they find themselves entangled in. Both political parties have a tendency of taking very complex, multi-facated issues and making them seem extremely simplistic. Barack Obama is not socialist because he wants to socialize our healthcare industry. If that was the case, then nearly every American would be a socialist because the majority of us approve of our public education system, which is rooted in socialist principles. Republicans also aren’t all ignorant bigots just because they recognize that differences with different cultures of this country do exist and it’s fair to take them into account when making policy decisions. These points are very well illustrated in Thomas Sowell’s book Ethnic America. If we are to heal the wound that continues to fester between these parties, we must stop with the generalizations that each tend to endorse.

I’m aware that it may be much too late to reverse the blind partisan allegiance that exists within some of the older people within this country, but it should not be passed down to our younger generations. I hope as millennials, that we can take in all the good that those who preceded us pass down, but also weed out the negative habits that can lead us in the wrong direction. Obviously, feel free to express your thoughts in the comments section.
 
Last edited:

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,432
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
Put your thoughts here so we can discuss them instead of redirecting people to your site.
 

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,432
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
Fair enough, my thoughts on the two party political system are below.

This is my first post through this site, and my main goal is to fully understand our political system and how our government will run through the course of my lifetime. I’m essentially still an innocent child in terms of grasping the nuances of our political system, I haven’t necessarily been corrupted yet or held firm beliefs for years that are hard to eschew. I’ve merely taken in whatever information that’s been available to me, and tried to formulate an opinion based off that information. I’ve done my best to not keep it one-sided, I’ve consistently read literature and news that come from all sides of the political spectrum. If there’s one conclusion I’ve been able to draw upon so far, it’s that the two party political machine in this country has become quite dangerous. Over the next few decades we will likely see the rise of the millennials, and it’s clear that our generation has become rather disenchanted with this system as half of millennials consider themselves independent. I do firmly believe it’s our role to move away from this system to some extent in the future as we begin to populate positions within the government.
I understand the youth thing and a flair for the dramatic but our system works pretty well. The multi-party systems of Europe are a clusterfuck with groups making deals with other groups to form power.

There is no legal requirement for two parties. In fact, there are MANY. The problem is that voting for the Greens, for example, is pretty much a defacto vote for Republicans because they are a minority and will stay a minority no matter what.

It's better to vote for someone that can influence policy closer to what you want. It may not be exactly what you want but it's moving in the right direction. If enough people get on board with what you want that's the direction the party will go.

Millennials are probably tuned out because that's pretty much the way it's always been. Younger people aren't generally that engaged in politics. They have careers to think about, starting families, partying, sex, entertainment, music, etc. They do tend to vote left when they do though and votes are mined come election time but most probably don't stay involved.
The danger that has arisen with our system of Democrats versus Republicans is the polarization that exists within these parties. We as citizens should first look at the issues within our nation, formulate where our beliefs lie on those issues and then affiliate ourselves with the party that fits within the majority of those beliefs. However, this is not how it often works. In 2011, David McRaney authored a book titled You Are Not So Smart, in which he references more than once that when people affiliate themselves with a political party they will then adopt all the views that political party identifies itself with. Once you affiliate yourself with either the democratic or republican party you will then seek out literature, media, and entertainment outlets that conform precisely with your views. You will not often weigh the counter-arguments, which is how we have reached this stage of polarization. All it generally takes is for one person to be impassioned about a single issue, before they align themselves with every belief of a specific political party.
You need a few paragraph breaks, it helps for reading.
If that premise is true then why is there so much disagreement in the parties? Ever watch a presidential candidate nomination process? Many people overstate party policy over riding thought but the fact is that there are basic core values but a lot of disagreement within parties. Sorta like a family.

But there is a bit of a group think mentality, it's human nature. You choose your friends, you may disagree on some things but are probably like minded on most things. You can't eliminate that unless you bust up the friendships and assign companions for people.

This country has been divided from day one. You should read some early American politics, it makes today look like a church picnic. It was a contact sport in those days, duals were fought. Newspapers were brutal. John Adams tried to get the Sedition Act passed to tone it down.
I must make it clear that the individual is not necessarily at fault within this scenario. Our system has now designed itself to the point where the word bi-partisan is becoming extinct if we exclude the millennial generation in this premise. News media was never supposed to be slanted towards a side of the political spectrum, it actually counteracts the principles journalism is founded upon. Unfortunately, that is no longer the world we live in today. Nearly every forum of news somehow finds itself aligned with a specific political ideology. For every Fox News there’s an MSNBC, for every Rush Limbaugh, there’s a Bill Maher, for every Michael Moore, there’s a Dinesh D’Souza. These means of media have infiltrated almost every issue within our society. It has become nearly impossible to discuss an issue that hasn’t been politicized, even if it’s rooted in science. I’m still in shock that the science of climate change has become partisan. The same can be said for stem cell research as well. When political affiliations supersedes the role of science, we are putting ourselves in a very precarious situation. Nazi Germany was well-known for only allowing science that fit its views as a National Socialist society, pretty much rendering the scientific method obsolete. We are allowing ourselves to now succumb to the ways of Nazi Germany in this regard. I know that’s an extremely bold statement, and while we’re still far off from suppressing the honest search for knowledge to the extent that the Nazi’s did, we’re closer than many of us would otherwise believe.
Again, you have no historical perspective. The Nazis (unfortunately) were hell on wheels in the lab and science department. Global warming is political because it's been politicized by the party that would use it to increase government power. The globe has always warmed and cooled. The debate isn't if we should do what we can for the environment, people agree on that for the most part. But not all agree that government should make us wards of the state for the greater good.

Most of the divisions you are harping on is because the progressives want to drag us kicking and screaming into every fucking pet cause they can dream up. Resistance to it creates a "divide". The right isn't interested in bending over and grabbing their ankles and losing our freedoms (even more than we have). The independants typically swing the elections one way or another, they get duped into the causes and flip to the other side when it gets too much or didn't turn out as advertised.
The area in which our two political party system has really begun to hurt us as a nation is the hateful and vitriolic attacks the parties continually lob against each other. The word unity within our political system has been fading for some time now. But it’s affected more than just capitol hill. This partisan hatred has now spewed over into the general public. I’m aware that the twenty-four hour news cycle can make it very hard to offer elongated researched reports, but the short snipe attacks that are offered are severely hindering us. Politics have become a topic that is now off-limits in social conversations if the two people sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Many seem to accept this as the norm, but there’s something clearly wrong about this. Honest debate between two people with different views should never be considered taboo. However, with the maniacal hatred the parties have for one another, these honest debates have turned into shouting matches with neither person offering any real concrete understanding of the issues they find themselves entangled in. Both political parties have a tendency of taking very complex, multi-facated issues and making them seem extremely simplistic. Barack Obama is not socialist because he wants to socialize our healthcare industry. If that was the case, then nearly every American would be a socialist because the majority of us approve of our public education system, which is rooted in socialist principles. Republicans also aren’t all ignorant bigots just because they recognize that differences with different cultures of this country do exist and it’s fair to take them into account when making policy decisions. These points are very well illustrated in Thomas Sowell’s book Ethnic America. If we are to heal the wound that continues to fester between these parties, we must stop with the generalizations that each tend to endorse.

I’m aware that it may be much too late to reverse the blind partisan allegiance that exists within some of the older people within this country, but it should not be passed down to our younger generations. I hope as millennials, that we can take in all the good that those who preceded us pass down, but also weed out the negative habits that can lead us in the wrong direction. Obviously, feel free to express your thoughts in the comments section.
Hmmm, here's where I call bull. Most of us endorse public education so that sorta makes us socialist in nature? Wrong. There's nothing about capitalism that says we can't educate our children so they can become fruitful and productive. Although the socialist aspect has been getting deeper in years of late, that's why you are seeing growing opposition to public ed. Many think they'd be better taking their tax dollars and spending it on competitive private schools that focus more on academics than social awareness.

I also think you misread Sowell, unless he's way different than what I know of him. I doubt he wants cultures taken into consideration when making policy decisions, that's a leftist philosophy. And harmful. The right tends to favor the 'e pluribus unum' concept where we accept cultures but want them to enter into a melting pot instead of each culture spooning out what it can get from the public trough.
 
OP
Z

ZRoberts1991

Rookie
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
29
Reaction score
7
Points
1
Fair enough, my thoughts on the two party political system are below.

This is my first post through this site, and my main goal is to fully understand our political system and how our government will run through the course of my lifetime. I’m essentially still an innocent child in terms of grasping the nuances of our political system, I haven’t necessarily been corrupted yet or held firm beliefs for years that are hard to eschew. I’ve merely taken in whatever information that’s been available to me, and tried to formulate an opinion based off that information. I’ve done my best to not keep it one-sided, I’ve consistently read literature and news that come from all sides of the political spectrum. If there’s one conclusion I’ve been able to draw upon so far, it’s that the two party political machine in this country has become quite dangerous. Over the next few decades we will likely see the rise of the millennials, and it’s clear that our generation has become rather disenchanted with this system as half of millennials consider themselves independent. I do firmly believe it’s our role to move away from this system to some extent in the future as we begin to populate positions within the government.
I understand the youth thing and a flair for the dramatic but our system works pretty well. The multi-party systems of Europe are a clusterfuck with groups making deals with other groups to form power.

There is no legal requirement for two parties. In fact, there are MANY. The problem is that voting for the Greens, for example, is pretty much a defacto vote for Republicans because they are a minority and will stay a minority no matter what.

It's better to vote for someone that can influence policy closer to what you want. It may not be exactly what you want but it's moving in the right direction. If enough people get on board with what you want that's the direction the party will go.

Millennials are probably tuned out because that's pretty much the way it's always been. Younger people aren't generally that engaged in politics. They have careers to think about, starting families, partying, sex, entertainment, music, etc. They do tend to vote left when they do though and votes are mined come election time but most probably don't stay involved.
The danger that has arisen with our system of Democrats versus Republicans is the polarization that exists within these parties. We as citizens should first look at the issues within our nation, formulate where our beliefs lie on those issues and then affiliate ourselves with the party that fits within the majority of those beliefs. However, this is not how it often works. In 2011, David McRaney authored a book titled You Are Not So Smart, in which he references more than once that when people affiliate themselves with a political party they will then adopt all the views that political party identifies itself with. Once you affiliate yourself with either the democratic or republican party you will then seek out literature, media, and entertainment outlets that conform precisely with your views. You will not often weigh the counter-arguments, which is how we have reached this stage of polarization. All it generally takes is for one person to be impassioned about a single issue, before they align themselves with every belief of a specific political party.
You need a few paragraph breaks, it helps for reading.
If that premise is true then why is there so much disagreement in the parties? Ever watch a presidential candidate nomination process? Many people overstate party policy over riding thought but the fact is that there are basic core values but a lot of disagreement within parties. Sorta like a family.

But there is a bit of a group think mentality, it's human nature. You choose your friends, you may disagree on some things but are probably like minded on most things. You can't eliminate that unless you bust up the friendships and assign companions for people.

This country has been divided from day one. You should read some early American politics, it makes today look like a church picnic. It was a contact sport in those days, duals were fought. Newspapers were brutal. John Adams tried to get the Sedition Act passed to tone it down.
I must make it clear that the individual is not necessarily at fault within this scenario. Our system has now designed itself to the point where the word bi-partisan is becoming extinct if we exclude the millennial generation in this premise. News media was never supposed to be slanted towards a side of the political spectrum, it actually counteracts the principles journalism is founded upon. Unfortunately, that is no longer the world we live in today. Nearly every forum of news somehow finds itself aligned with a specific political ideology. For every Fox News there’s an MSNBC, for every Rush Limbaugh, there’s a Bill Maher, for every Michael Moore, there’s a Dinesh D’Souza. These means of media have infiltrated almost every issue within our society. It has become nearly impossible to discuss an issue that hasn’t been politicized, even if it’s rooted in science. I’m still in shock that the science of climate change has become partisan. The same can be said for stem cell research as well. When political affiliations supersedes the role of science, we are putting ourselves in a very precarious situation. Nazi Germany was well-known for only allowing science that fit its views as a National Socialist society, pretty much rendering the scientific method obsolete. We are allowing ourselves to now succumb to the ways of Nazi Germany in this regard. I know that’s an extremely bold statement, and while we’re still far off from suppressing the honest search for knowledge to the extent that the Nazi’s did, we’re closer than many of us would otherwise believe.
Again, you have no historical perspective. The Nazis (unfortunately) were hell on wheels in the lab and science department. Global warming is political because it's been politicized by the party that would use it to increase government power. The globe has always warmed and cooled. The debate isn't if we should do what we can for the environment, people agree on that for the most part. But not all agree that government should make us wards of the state for the greater good.

Most of the divisions you are harping on is because the progressives want to drag us kicking and screaming into every fucking pet cause they can dream up. Resistance to it creates a "divide". The right isn't interested in bending over and grabbing their ankles and losing our freedoms (even more than we have). The independants typically swing the elections one way or another, they get duped into the causes and flip to the other side when it gets too much or didn't turn out as advertised.
The area in which our two political party system has really begun to hurt us as a nation is the hateful and vitriolic attacks the parties continually lob against each other. The word unity within our political system has been fading for some time now. But it’s affected more than just capitol hill. This partisan hatred has now spewed over into the general public. I’m aware that the twenty-four hour news cycle can make it very hard to offer elongated researched reports, but the short snipe attacks that are offered are severely hindering us. Politics have become a topic that is now off-limits in social conversations if the two people sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Many seem to accept this as the norm, but there’s something clearly wrong about this. Honest debate between two people with different views should never be considered taboo. However, with the maniacal hatred the parties have for one another, these honest debates have turned into shouting matches with neither person offering any real concrete understanding of the issues they find themselves entangled in. Both political parties have a tendency of taking very complex, multi-facated issues and making them seem extremely simplistic. Barack Obama is not socialist because he wants to socialize our healthcare industry. If that was the case, then nearly every American would be a socialist because the majority of us approve of our public education system, which is rooted in socialist principles. Republicans also aren’t all ignorant bigots just because they recognize that differences with different cultures of this country do exist and it’s fair to take them into account when making policy decisions. These points are very well illustrated in Thomas Sowell’s book Ethnic America. If we are to heal the wound that continues to fester between these parties, we must stop with the generalizations that each tend to endorse.

I’m aware that it may be much too late to reverse the blind partisan allegiance that exists within some of the older people within this country, but it should not be passed down to our younger generations. I hope as millennials, that we can take in all the good that those who preceded us pass down, but also weed out the negative habits that can lead us in the wrong direction. Obviously, feel free to express your thoughts in the comments section.
Hmmm, here's where I call bull. Most of us endorse public education so that sorta makes us socialist in nature? Wrong. There's nothing about capitalism that says we can't educate our children so they can become fruitful and productive. Although the socialist aspect has been getting deeper in years of late, that's why you are seeing growing opposition to public ed. Many think they'd be better taking their tax dollars and spending it on competitive private schools that focus more on academics than social awareness.

I also think you misread Sowell, unless he's way different than what I know of him. I doubt he wants cultures taken into consideration when making policy decisions, that's a leftist philosophy. And harmful. The right tends to favor the 'e pluribus unum' concept where we accept cultures but want them to enter into a melting pot instead of each culture spooning out what it can get from the public trough.
I appreciate your feedback. However through your response it's clear to me that either I didn't really clarify my points in the piece well enough or it was just misconstrued. I'll try to elaborate on what I really meant according to the points you referenced.

First, Im not advocating moving to a system that incorporates more major political parties. I was addressing the fact that the two party political system and the twenty four hour news media have created an environment within the political system that proliferates animosity towards one another much more often then it used to. I'm aware that those within each party disagree with one another, I'm also aware that's the reason for the existence of a thing called "the primaries". If I'm honest it did seem that you did tend to undermine me to a degree to the fact that I am in fact young. I am in no way advocating that you aren't very knowledgable on these topics, but it seemed as if you immediately denied the possibility I may have some knowledge of my own. Your distrust for my arguments due to age can somehow be seen with the way in which you discuss why our younger generation isn't involved in politics and why we are independent.

Anyways, back to the original point. The fact is not that the well-informed amongst the public and the politicians dont have disagreements, of course they do. But a large section of the American public isn't that politically inclined, including those of your generation as well. Just because they may be fervent about a political, doesn't mean they're not easily persuaded with some of the hateful tactics that the political parties use through the media

Touching upon the nazi regime. I never once stated that the Nazi Regime did have a team of scientists at their back going hell on wheelz. My premise was that the scientists within a National Socialist society are there to preform scientific experiments that fit the overall vision of the Nazi party. If they are to pursue science or release papers that came to a conclusion that the political party disagrees with, they could very well find themselves out of a job, if not led to a gas chamber all by themselves. This is clearly illustrated in F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. So obviously somewhere my point wasn't written clearly enough, but to state that the Nazi Regime used the Scientific Method as it was supposed to is outright false. If anything you should agree with my premise as conservatives continually point to the fact that when liberals state, "97% of climatologists agree to climate change is false, because many feel pressured to agree that climate change is man-made so they can receive more grant money to pursue their research." Nazi scientists lived under a very similar environment as the conservatives say that scientists live under in regards to climate science.

And onto education. I never said the our public education system was purely socialist, but there's no denying its organization is rooted in forms of socialism, similarly to Obama's healthcare reform. Yes there have been advisements made to the clear outright theory of capitalism, but the theory of capitalism is to let the market and the invisible hand determine the best of services and that includes education. Obviously, we built our own form of education but you're correct in stating that people are beginning to see differently. Still, to once again not acknowledge that our public education system, with its controlled salaries by the state, public funding, isn't rooted in socialist principle to at least some extent is flat our wrong.

The last point I will admit is my fault. I didn't articulate exactly what I meant through quoting Sowell. Your interpretation is correct. When I said affect policy discussion, I meant in affecting it the exact way that you discussed which is letting them figure out for themselves and not forcing us into helping them through governmental policies.

Its clear you're bright, but I wonder whether you disregarded my entire original discussion because of my youth. Anyways I appreciate your feedback.
 
Last edited:

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,432
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
I appreciate your feedback. However through your response it's clear to me that either I didn't really clarify my points in the piece well enough or it was just misconstrued. I'll try to elaborate on what I really meant according to the points you referenced.

First, Im not advocating moving to a system that incorporates more major political parties. I was addressing the fact that the two party political system and the twenty four hour news media have created an environment within the political system that proliferates animosity towards one another much more often then it used to. I'm aware that those within each party disagree with one another, I'm also aware that's the reason for the existence of a thing called "the primaries". If I'm honest it did seem that you did tend to undermine me to a degree to the fact that I am in fact young. I am in no way advocating that you aren't very knowledgable on these topics, but it seemed as if you immediately denied the possibility I may have some knowledge of my own. Your distrust for my arguments due to age can somehow be seen with the way in which you discuss why our younger generation isn't involved in politics and why we are independent.
I explained it and didn't put you down for being young, I said it's why you don't have perspective. Or history. Read up on just how contentious politics always was. We had a civil war, Lincoln was killed, there are many examples.
Anyways, back to the original point. The fact is not that the well-informed amongst the public and the politicians dont have disagreements, of course they do. But a large section of the American public isn't that politically inclined, including those of your generation as well. Just because they may be fervent about a political, doesn't mean they're not easily persuaded with some of the hateful tactics that the political parties use through the media
So is it the fault of the political smear campaign or the ones being hypnotized in front of the TV? And what are you wanting to do about it? I support the right of people to be stupid. The outcome is unpleasant but I dislike the alternatives more.
Touching upon the nazi regime. I never once stated that the Nazi Regime did have a team of scientists at their back going hell on wheelz. My premise was that the scientists within a National Socialist society are there to preform scientific experiments that fit the overall vision of the Nazi party. If they are to pursue science or release papers that came to a conclusion that the political party disagrees with, they could very well find themselves out of a job, if not led to a gas chamber all by themselves. This is clearly illustrated in F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. So obviously somewhere my point wasn't written clearly enough, but to state that the Nazi Regime used the Scientific Method as it was supposed to is outright false. If anything you should agree with my premise as conservatives continually point to the fact that when liberals state, "97% of climatologists agree to climate change is false, because many feel pressured to agree that climate change is man-made so they can receive more grant money to pursue their research." Nazi scientists lived under a very similar environment as the conservatives say that scientists live under in regards to climate science.
Who decides what we research? Scientists with unlimited public funding by way of political pressure? That's what the right opposes. To not oppose it would create harmony on the political front but why is it wrong to oppose what you disagree with?
And onto education. I never said the our public education system was purely socialist, but there's no denying its organization is rooted in forms of socialism, similarly to Obama's healthcare reform. Yes there have been advisements made to the clear outright theory of capitalism, but the theory of capitalism is to let the market and the invisible hand determine the worst of services and that includes education. Obviously, we built our own form of education but you're correct in stating that people are beginning to see differently. Still, to once again not acknowledge that our public education system, with its controlled salaries by the state, public funding, isn't rooted in socialist principle to at least some extent is flat our wrong.
You are broad brushing and doing it to make a point I don't really get. All public service salaries are determined by the government by definition. You're saying we are socialist because we have a government. What do you mean capitalism determines the worst? I suppose it does but the worst fails. Government tends to prop up losers, capitalism picks winners.
The last point I will admit is my fault. I didn't articulate exactly what I meant through quoting Sowell. Your interpretation is correct. When I said affect policy discussion, I meant in affecting it the exact way that you discussed which is letting them figure out for themselves and not forcing us into helping them through governmental policies.

Its clear you're bright, but I wonder whether you disregarded my entire original discussion because of my youth. Anyways I appreciate your feedback.
I don't even know how old you are. That wasn't my point, no need to be defensive. You were sorta representing millenials (I think) and they are tuned out politically like the younger generation usually is. Many probably couldn't tell you who the majority leaders are in congress but could rattle off bands all day long I never even heard of. Every generation is like that.
 
OP
Z

ZRoberts1991

Rookie
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
29
Reaction score
7
Points
1
I appreciate your feedback. However through your response it's clear to me that either I didn't really clarify my points in the piece well enough or it was just misconstrued. I'll try to elaborate on what I really meant according to the points you referenced.

First, Im not advocating moving to a system that incorporates more major political parties. I was addressing the fact that the two party political system and the twenty four hour news media have created an environment within the political system that proliferates animosity towards one another much more often then it used to. I'm aware that those within each party disagree with one another, I'm also aware that's the reason for the existence of a thing called "the primaries". If I'm honest it did seem that you did tend to undermine me to a degree to the fact that I am in fact young. I am in no way advocating that you aren't very knowledgable on these topics, but it seemed as if you immediately denied the possibility I may have some knowledge of my own. Your distrust for my arguments due to age can somehow be seen with the way in which you discuss why our younger generation isn't involved in politics and why we are independent.
I explained it and didn't put you down for being young, I said it's why you don't have perspective. Or history. Read up on just how contentious politics always was. We had a civil war, Lincoln was killed, there are many examples.
Anyways, back to the original point. The fact is not that the well-informed amongst the public and the politicians dont have disagreements, of course they do. But a large section of the American public isn't that politically inclined, including those of your generation as well. Just because they may be fervent about a political, doesn't mean they're not easily persuaded with some of the hateful tactics that the political parties use through the media
So is it the fault of the political smear campaign or the ones being hypnotized in front of the TV? And what are you wanting to do about it? I support the right of people to be stupid. The outcome is unpleasant but I dislike the alternatives more.
Touching upon the nazi regime. I never once stated that the Nazi Regime did have a team of scientists at their back going hell on wheelz. My premise was that the scientists within a National Socialist society are there to preform scientific experiments that fit the overall vision of the Nazi party. If they are to pursue science or release papers that came to a conclusion that the political party disagrees with, they could very well find themselves out of a job, if not led to a gas chamber all by themselves. This is clearly illustrated in F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. So obviously somewhere my point wasn't written clearly enough, but to state that the Nazi Regime used the Scientific Method as it was supposed to is outright false. If anything you should agree with my premise as conservatives continually point to the fact that when liberals state, "97% of climatologists agree to climate change is false, because many feel pressured to agree that climate change is man-made so they can receive more grant money to pursue their research." Nazi scientists lived under a very similar environment as the conservatives say that scientists live under in regards to climate science.
Who decides what we research? Scientists with unlimited public funding by way of political pressure? That's what the right opposes. To not oppose it would create harmony on the political front but why is it wrong to oppose what you disagree with?
And onto education. I never said the our public education system was purely socialist, but there's no denying its organization is rooted in forms of socialism, similarly to Obama's healthcare reform. Yes there have been advisements made to the clear outright theory of capitalism, but the theory of capitalism is to let the market and the invisible hand determine the worst of services and that includes education. Obviously, we built our own form of education but you're correct in stating that people are beginning to see differently. Still, to once again not acknowledge that our public education system, with its controlled salaries by the state, public funding, isn't rooted in socialist principle to at least some extent is flat our wrong.
You are broad brushing and doing it to make a point I don't really get. All public service salaries are determined by the government by definition. You're saying we are socialist because we have a government. What do you mean capitalism determines the worst? I suppose it does but the worst fails. Government tends to prop up losers, capitalism picks winners.
The last point I will admit is my fault. I didn't articulate exactly what I meant through quoting Sowell. Your interpretation is correct. When I said affect policy discussion, I meant in affecting it the exact way that you discussed which is letting them figure out for themselves and not forcing us into helping them through governmental policies.

Its clear you're bright, but I wonder whether you disregarded my entire original discussion because of my youth. Anyways I appreciate your feedback.
I don't even know how old you are. That wasn't my point, no need to be defensive. You were sorta representing millenials (I think) and they are tuned out politically like the younger generation usually is. Many probably couldn't tell you who the majority leaders are in congress but could rattle off bands all day long I never even heard of. Every generation is like that.
Ok glad we can come to a better understanding. Im not advocating we switch to outright socialism or communism to defend against stupidity. I'm encouraging that we will villainies the opposite political party less as I become older, I know that's very idealistic, but doesn't hurt to see the situation in the regard.

I'm also not disagreeing with what you stated about finding within science, you're right. Im just stating that to say nazi scientists had conflicts of interests that affected their work would be wrong. You implied originally that I had no idea about Nazi Germany, when I beg to differ.

I did a typo when I said worse, I meant best. I'm aware that capitalism can distinguish winners from losers.The point I was making was that naming Obama a socialist because of what he did with his healthcare reform is a bit asinine, and made that connection with our public school system which runs under similar principles to some extent.
 

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,432
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
Ok glad we can come to a better understanding. Im not advocating we switch to outright socialism or communism to defend against stupidity. I'm encouraging that we will villainies the opposite political party less as I become older, I know that's very idealistic, but doesn't hurt to see the situation in the regard.

I'm also not disagreeing with what you stated about finding within science, you're right. Im just stating that to say nazi scientists had conflicts of interests that affected their work would be wrong. You implied originally that I had no idea about Nazi Germany, when I beg to differ.

I did a typo when I said worse, I meant best. I'm aware that capitalism can distinguish winners from losers.The point I was making was that naming Obama a socialist because of what he did with his healthcare reform is a bit asinine, and made that connection with our public school system which runs under similar principles to some extent.
I didn't label obama (small O) a socialist, he's more of a fascist in my mind. He wants private companies to assume the risk and investment while confiscating as much of their profits as he can for his social programs. He also has built relationships with many a big business, including health insurance providers.

In no way shape or form is obamaCare like public education as far as I can see. You need to support such assertions instead of assuming them to be true. Public ed comes from our tax dollars, health insurance isn't (yet) but I do believe it to be the end game where government runs the whole show. Maybe then you'll have a better case to make but like I said before it isn't against 'capitalism' to educated the future work force.
 

Mad Scientist

Feels Good!
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
24,196
Reaction score
5,424
Points
270
"Why put any thought into anything when I can just mindlessly cheer for one side? Or jump on the bandwagon when a news outlet shows one candidate ahead in a fake poll?"

- Average American
 
OP
Z

ZRoberts1991

Rookie
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
29
Reaction score
7
Points
1
Ok glad we can come to a better understanding. Im not advocating we switch to outright socialism or communism to defend against stupidity. I'm encouraging that we will villainies the opposite political party less as I become older, I know that's very idealistic, but doesn't hurt to see the situation in the regard.

I'm also not disagreeing with what you stated about finding within science, you're right. Im just stating that to say nazi scientists had conflicts of interests that affected their work would be wrong. You implied originally that I had no idea about Nazi Germany, when I beg to differ.

I did a typo when I said worse, I meant best. I'm aware that capitalism can distinguish winners from losers.The point I was making was that naming Obama a socialist because of what he did with his healthcare reform is a bit asinine, and made that connection with our public school system which runs under similar principles to some extent.
I didn't label obama (small O) a socialist, he's more of a fascist in my mind. He wants private companies to assume the risk and investment while confiscating as much of their profits as he can for his social programs. He also has built relationships with many a big business, including health insurance providers.

In no way shape or form is obamaCare like public education as far as I can see. You need to support such assertions instead of assuming them to be true. Public ed comes from our tax dollars, health insurance isn't (yet) but I do believe it to be the end game where government runs the whole show. Maybe then you'll have a better case to make but like I said before it isn't against 'capitalism' to educated the future work force.
The post I wrote was a blog post, which was targeted at the public, not just yourself. When I mention Obama being accused of a socialist it has nothing to do with what you said, merely just what the narrative has been through conservative media at times. Your are taking the pub ed and health care reform analogy way too literally. Some within the conservative community have labeled Obama a socialist due to his health care reform, I understand that public education is funded through tax dollars and such. I merely make the point that the way its system is set up it does have socialist principles. It does not make it a socialist function though, even though others in the past have said our education system is socialist and should be privatized. Like I stated, you're taking the analogy and putting too much rigorous thought into it. It was only supposed to illustrate a simple point on how Obama is not a staunch socialist just because of his healthcare reform.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top