Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Polarized peoples are so vulnerable.

Not nearly as much as polarised bears. Just look at them: Endangered in the North and completely extinct in the South Pole.

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a polarized population.

There's nothing worse. Congress is paralyzed because of this polarization. And when Congress stops doing its job of passing legislation, the SCOTUS (via judicial activism) and the POTUS (via executive order, i.e. Trump's stupid wall emergency or DACA for example) end up picking up the slack. The whole system is broken in large part because of this insane polarization caused by the Duverger effect that naturally occurs with FPTP.

Indeed. Also, issues that shouldn't be bound to any party (social security, guns, religions) inevitably end up on one side only, which is just stupid. And the us VS them mentailty worsens this "decent VS I don't care" dichotomy. Which led, in part, to the current numbness electorate that led to Trump being elected despite... well despite him being Trump.

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a polarized population.

There's nothing worse. Congress is paralyzed because of this polarization. And when Congress stops doing its job of passing legislation, the SCOTUS (via judicial activism) and the POTUS (via executive order, i.e. Trump's stupid wall emergency or DACA for example) end up picking up the slack. The whole system is broken in large part because of this insane polarization caused by the Duverger effect that naturally occurs with FPTP.

A government passing poor legislation to bandaid problems is not better than a government not passing meaningful legislation. One looks effective because it’s doing “something”.

Doesn’t make it so.

aban57 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a polarized population.

There's nothing worse. Congress is paralyzed because of this polarization. And when Congress stops doing its job of passing legislation, the SCOTUS (via judicial activism) and the POTUS (via executive order, i.e. Trump's stupid wall emergency or DACA for example) end up picking up the slack. The whole system is broken in large part because of this insane polarization caused by the Duverger effect that naturally occurs with FPTP.

Indeed. Also, issues that shouldn't be bound to any party (social security, guns, religions) inevitably end up on one side only, which is just stupid. And the us VS them mentailty worsens this "decent VS I don't care" dichotomy. Which led, in part, to the current numbness electorate that led to Trump being elected despite... well despite him being Trump.

There is always an us vs them mentality. It's just split amongst parties more pronounced so than in a two party system. It is naïve to think that all Democrats are in agreement on HOW climate change should get fixed. Most Democrats are in agreement that it should.

Also there wasn't a numbness in 2016. Trump played a populist card, which has been working in other countries that have multiparty systems.

Overall though, having more people united behind a general ideology i.e. liberal tends to be more consistent than squabbling over whether they are progressive enough or moderate enough. Such in fighting is actually why the right has been able to consolidate a lot of its growth in recent years, not just in the US either. Many right wing coalitions have been uniting political despite some minor differences, but the left squabbles over minute details.

Hermit wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Polarized peoples are so vulnerable.

Not nearly as much as polarised bears. Just look at them: Endangered in the North and completely extinct in the South Pole.

If they weren't extinct extant in the South they'd be known as Bipolar Bears.

Edit to comply with The_Piper's objection.

There were never polarised bears in Antarctica, y'all. Just sayin.

I hear there are loads of ants though.

It used to be called Auntarctica, but the southeastern US pronunciation came into more widespread usage, and the u was dropped.

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a polarized population.

There's nothing worse. Congress is paralyzed because of this polarization. And when Congress stops doing its job of passing legislation, the SCOTUS (via judicial activism) and the POTUS (via executive order, i.e. Trump's stupid wall emergency or DACA for example) end up picking up the slack. The whole system is broken in large part because of this insane polarization caused by the Duverger effect that naturally occurs with FPTP.

Indeed. Also, issues that shouldn't be bound to any party (social security, guns, religions) inevitably end up on one side only, which is just stupid. And the us VS them mentailty worsens this "decent VS I don't care" dichotomy. Which led, in part, to the current numbness electorate that led to Trump being elected despite... well despite him being Trump.

There is always an us vs them mentality. It's just split amongst parties more pronounced so than in a two party system. It is naïve to think that all Democrats are in agreement on HOW climate change should get fixed. Most Democrats are in agreement that it should.

Also there wasn't a numbness in 2016. Trump played a populist card, which has been working in other countries that have multiparty systems.

Overall though, having more people united behind a general ideology i.e. liberal tends to be more consistent than squabbling over whether they are progressive enough or moderate enough. Such in fighting is actually why the right has been able to consolidate a lot of its growth in recent years, not just in the US either. Many right wing coalitions have been uniting political despite some minor differences, but the left squabbles over minute details.

You’ve normalized the dysfunction that the rest of the world is appalled with. The left isn’t squabbling over minute details. The left was taken over by moderate republicans in the 80’s and 90’s. The left wants to actually be left again. Propping up a republican who calls themselves a left winger should be rejected.

You right there are creating an us vs them mentality. Any one who isn’t in what you call the left is not ideal. Those middle ground people you are claiming are Republicans ie thems

Thanks for proving my point.

The_Piper wrote::lol:
It used to be called Auntarctica, but the southeastern US pronunciation came into more widespread usage, and the u was dropped.

You could say they were antarticulate?

willhud9 wrote:You right there are creating an us vs them mentality. Any one who isn’t in what you call the left is not ideal. Those middle ground people you are claiming are Republicans ie thems

Thanks for proving my point.

No, they actually say they are economically conservative, socially progressive. The fact that you don’t believe them is not my issue.

The Third Way is a position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of some centre-right and centrist economic and some centre-left social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to doubt regarding the economic viability of the state and the overuse of economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism, but at that time contrasted with the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by social liberals[4] and some social-democratic parties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

The_Piper wrote:There were never polarised bears in Antarctica, y'all. Just sayin.

Oh, do fuck off. Next thing you'll try to tell us that there never were any penguins in the Arctic.



Or that Jesus never rode a dinosaur.

Well thanks, I had to click on that video and unexpectedly chuckle. My poor hernia.
No penguins in the UncleArctic.

The_Piper wrote:Well thanks, I had to click on that video and unexpectedly chuckle. My poor hernia.

Sorry about that, chief.

The_Piper wrote:No penguins in the UncleArctic.

I told you not to tell me that!

What does economically conservative even mean?

I’d consider myself fiscally conservative. For example Richmond City promised business owners the city was going to renovate the Farmers Market down town. Meanwhile, the city blew through the budget, the renovations haven’t been started, Richmond schools are underfunded, and parking is a serious issue as large sections of the city are blocked off due to construction that isn’t happening.

That’s an economic mess caused via liberal spending. It could be fixed by restricting access to funds, budgeting accordingly, and being responsible. As such the city of Richmond screwed over a lot of small businesses around that area that have construction pylons blocking convenient parking to their business.

Like when people use big lump terms to define something you run into the issue of muddled meanings.

willhud9 wrote:What does economically conservative even mean?

I’d consider myself fiscally conservative. For example Richmond City promised business owners the city was going to renovate the Farmers Market down town. Meanwhile, the city blew through the budget, the renovations haven’t been started, Richmond schools are underfunded, and parking is a serious issue as large sections of the city are blocked off due to construction that isn’t happening.

That’s an economic mess caused via liberal spending. It could be fixed by restricting access to funds, budgeting accordingly, and being responsible. As such the city of Richmond screwed over a lot of small businesses around that area that have construction pylons blocking convenient parking to their business.

Like when people use big lump terms to define something you run into the issue of muddled meanings.

Just read the development application here.

https://richmondva.legistar.com/View.as ... C8C4217CA1

What popped out at me in the brief was that there seems to be a bunch of utility relocation and burial associated with the project. I’m guessing that’s the source of the schedule and cost overruns.

willhud9 wrote:What does economically conservative even mean?

I’d consider myself fiscally conservative. For example Richmond City promised business owners the city was going to renovate the Farmers Market down town. Meanwhile, the city blew through the budget, the renovations haven’t been started, Richmond schools are underfunded, and parking is a serious issue as large sections of the city are blocked off due to construction that isn’t happening.

That’s an economic mess caused via liberal spending. It could be fixed by restricting access to funds, budgeting accordingly, and being responsible. As such the city of Richmond screwed over a lot of small businesses around that area that have construction pylons blocking convenient parking to their business.

Like when people use big lump terms to define something you run into the issue of muddled meanings.

It’s too bad you don’t know what these terms mean. They have well uunderstood meanings. Fiscally conservative typically refers to austerity type spending, or supply side (trickle down), and liberal or progressive tends to refer to keynesian economics.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Seabass wrote:
There's nothing worse. Congress is paralyzed because of this polarization. And when Congress stops doing its job of passing legislation, the SCOTUS (via judicial activism) and the POTUS (via executive order, i.e. Trump's stupid wall emergency or DACA for example) end up picking up the slack. The whole system is broken in large part because of this insane polarization caused by the Duverger effect that naturally occurs with FPTP.

Indeed. Also, issues that shouldn't be bound to any party (social security, guns, religions) inevitably end up on one side only, which is just stupid. And the us VS them mentailty worsens this "decent VS I don't care" dichotomy. Which led, in part, to the current numbness electorate that led to Trump being elected despite... well despite him being Trump.

There is always an us vs them mentality. It's just split amongst parties more pronounced so than in a two party system. It is naïve to think that all Democrats are in agreement on HOW climate change should get fixed. Most Democrats are in agreement that it should.

Also there wasn't a numbness in 2016. Trump played a populist card, which has been working in other countries that have multiparty systems.

Overall though, having more people united behind a general ideology i.e. liberal tends to be more consistent than squabbling over whether they are progressive enough or moderate enough. Such in fighting is actually why the right has been able to consolidate a lot of its growth in recent years, not just in the US either. Many right wing coalitions have been uniting political despite some minor differences, but the left squabbles over minute details.

You’ve normalized the dysfunction that the rest of the world is appalled with. The left isn’t squabbling over minute details. The left was taken over by moderate republicans in the 80’s and 90’s. The left wants to actually be left again. Propping up a republican who calls themselves a left winger should be rejected.

Obama admitted his policies were Republican policies.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/2729 ... n-in-1980s

The Affordable Care Act is based on ideas developed by the conservative 'think tank' Heritage Foundation and implemented by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-the- ... i_b_551804

The Democratic leadership keep chasing after Republican donors and Republican votes and going ever rightward in the pursuit, leaving their base behind.

proudfootz wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Indeed. Also, issues that shouldn't be bound to any party (social security, guns, religions) inevitably end up on one side only, which is just stupid. And the us VS them mentailty worsens this "decent VS I don't care" dichotomy. Which led, in part, to the current numbness electorate that led to Trump being elected despite... well despite him being Trump.

There is always an us vs them mentality. It's just split amongst parties more pronounced so than in a two party system. It is naïve to think that all Democrats are in agreement on HOW climate change should get fixed. Most Democrats are in agreement that it should.

Also there wasn't a numbness in 2016. Trump played a populist card, which has been working in other countries that have multiparty systems.

Overall though, having more people united behind a general ideology i.e. liberal tends to be more consistent than squabbling over whether they are progressive enough or moderate enough. Such in fighting is actually why the right has been able to consolidate a lot of its growth in recent years, not just in the US either. Many right wing coalitions have been uniting political despite some minor differences, but the left squabbles over minute details.

You’ve normalized the dysfunction that the rest of the world is appalled with. The left isn’t squabbling over minute details. The left was taken over by moderate republicans in the 80’s and 90’s. The left wants to actually be left again. Propping up a republican who calls themselves a left winger should be rejected.

Obama admitted his policies were Republican policies.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/2729 ... n-in-1980s

The Affordable Care Act is based on ideas developed by the conservative 'think tank' Heritage Foundation and implemented by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-the- ... i_b_551804

The Democratic leadership keep chasing after Republican donors and Republican votes and going ever rightward in the pursuit, leaving their base behind.

I’m not sure why Will is trying to obfuscate here. We have discussed this many times. Third way describes themselves as right wing economically, but socially liberal. No ne is making accusations, or smearing. This is what they say they stand for.