Another 'basic political topic'

[Craig234]

Many/most Republicans seem to have difficulty, to be unable, to understand a difference between being for or against something, and rights for others, for limits on opposing those they disagree with.

It's why we constantly see them loudly demand rights for themselves they want to violate for people they disagree with - including things like 'religious freedom'.

An example is flag burning. I don't like flag burning. I think people who want to do it are choosing poorly how to make their point - a point I might otherwise agree with.

But the issue here is whether people who look at the flag burners and say "I don't like that", then say "so I support jailing/shooting/whatever" them, versus saying "I respect their freedom to make that wrong choice." I can look at them doing that and say 'I don't like that', yet celebrate freedom.

Republicans also don't understand how easy they are manipulated over this. There are cheap politicians who want their votes who will pander to them all day with tears pouring how much they love the flag and hate the flag burners and calling for prison or worse for them to get votes, for politicians who want to screw them.

Republicans have a lot to learn about "freedom", despite their demagogues chanting the word constantly. One of those things is to support freedom for things they disagree with, unless the harm is unacceptable, like selling poisonous food or attempting a coup.

 

[TobyOne]

Dumb topic.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Again, the last person who should be lecturing anyone on "freedoms," or acceptance of others, or tolerance of any kind is a cancel culture, vilification intending, authoritarian Bernie Sanders supporter.

 

[Crovax]

Many/most Republicans seem to have difficulty, to be unable, to understand a difference between being for or against something, and rights for others, for limits on opposing those they disagree with.

It's why we constantly see them loudly demand rights for themselves they want to violate for people they disagree with - including things like 'religious freedom'.

An example is flag burning. I don't like flag burning. I think people who want to do it are choosing poorly how to make their point - a point I might otherwise agree with.

But the issue here is whether people who look at the flag burners and say "I don't like that", then say "so I support jailing/shooting/whatever" them, versus saying "I respect their freedom to make that wrong choice." I can look at them doing that and say 'I don't like that', yet celebrate freedom.

Republicans also don't understand how easy they are manipulated over this. There are cheap politicians who want their votes who will pander to them all day with tears pouring how much they love the flag and hate the flag burners and calling for prison or worse for them to get votes, for politicians who want to screw them.

Republicans have a lot to learn about "freedom", despite their demagogues chanting the word constantly. One of those things is to support freedom for things they disagree with, unless the harm is unacceptable, like selling poisonous food or attempting a coup.

So how do you feel about other people having guns and their right to do so?

 

[HIP56948]

Republicans also don't understand how easy they are manipulated over this. There are cheap politicians who want their votes who will pander to them all day with tears pouring how much they love the flag and hate the flag burners and calling for prison or worse for them to get votes, for politicians who want to screw them.

True, they do fall for that kind of Bullshit. I DO wish they would stop saying "THE" flag.
THE flag is in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington. Some people burn a flag to protest the laws and government.
I wouldn't do that but if it makes them feel better, so be it.

 

[Craig234]

Here's another topic: one view is that the US has citizens, and parties can try to appeal to them, but all citizens have rights and can choose what they prefer.

But Republicans have found that telling their voters that Democrats are monsters trying to destroy the country, turning Americans against one another much more, 'increases voter turnout' so they do it. It's a radicalizing, corrupt political process, which has the irony that it justifies that view of THEM as they radicalize to the point of wanting to steal the presidency in a coup.

 

[Michael Cole]

Here's another topic: one view is that the US has citizens, and parties can try to appeal to them, but all citizens have rights and can choose what they prefer.

But Republicans have found that telling their voters that Democrats are monsters trying to destroy the country, turning Americans against one another much more, 'increases voter turnout' so they do it. It's a radicalizing, corrupt political process, which has the irony that it justifies that view of THEM as they radicalize to the point of wanting to steal the presidency in a coup.

The Lincoln Project knows how to call the Republicans monsters. John Fetterman knows how to connect with everybody, without calling anyone a monster.

Maybe Bernie should take a lesson or two. Who am I kidding?

"Billionaires do not deserve to exist!!!"

Yeah, what @OrphanSlug said.

 

[Chillfolks]

So how do you feel about other people having guns and their right to do so?

But but that’s different didn’t you know.

 

[Mithrae]

The Lincoln Project knows how to call the Republicans monsters. John Fetterman knows how to connect with everybody, without calling anyone a monster.

Maybe Bernie should take a lesson or two. Who am I kidding?

"Billionaires do not deserve to exist!!!"

Yeah, what @OrphanSlug said.

Source for that quote please?

And then, your justification for why anyone "deserves" billions of dollars? Aside from the inherently upward-concentrating nature of the capitalist system I mean; being an efficient productive system obviously doesn't impart some kind of natural justice to it as a distributive system.

Heck, quite aside from merely not 'deserving' billions of dollars there are plenty of reasons why that level of accumulation is extremely dangerous: In terms of concentration of power and political influence; fallacious self-attribution of that level of success; distancing from the 'real world' struggles and issues faced by most folk; real or perceived independence from other people and environment; numbing of empathy brought about by those three factors of perceived superiority, lack of connection and lack of appreciation; wildly extravagant consumption of material resources; and vastly disproportionate contribution to undermining the earth- and eco-systems on which our global civilization depends.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that when Google convened a meeting of the rich and famous at the Verdura resort in Sicily this July to discuss climate breakdown, its delegates arrived in 114 private jets and a fleet of megayachts, and drove around the island in supercars. Even when they mean well, the ultrarich cannot help trashing the living world.​

​

A series of research papers shows that income is by far the most important determinant of environmental impact. It doesn’t matter how green you think you are. If you have surplus money, you spend it. The only form of consumption that’s clearly and positively correlated with good environmental intentions is diet: people who see themselves as green tend to eat less meat and more organic vegetables. But attitudes have little bearing on the amount of transport fuel, home energy and other materials you consume. Money conquers all.​

​

The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars. Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such knowledge is likely to trouble them.​

Embarrassment of Riches

For the sake of life on Earth, we should set an upper limit on the money any person can amass.

www.monbiot.com

 

[Michael Cole]

Source for that quote please?

My memory from one of the debates. It's paraphrased. Said to Bloomberg.

And then, your justification for why anyone "deserves" billions of dollars? Aside from the inherently upward-concentrating nature of the capitalist system I mean; being an efficient productive system obviously doesn't impart some kind of natural justice to it as a distributive system.

Heck, quite aside from merely not 'deserving' billions of dollars there are plenty of reasons why that level of accumulation is extremely dangerous: In terms of concentration of power and political influence; fallacious self-attribution of that level of success; distancing from the 'real world' struggles and issues faced by most folk; real or perceived independence from other people and environment; numbing of empathy brought about by those three factors of perceived superiority, lack of connection and lack of appreciation; wildly extravagant consumption of material resources; and vastly disproportionate contribution to undermining the earth- and eco-systems on which our global civilization depends.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that when Google convened a meeting of the rich and famous at the Verdura resort in Sicily this July to discuss climate breakdown, its delegates arrived in 114 private jets and a fleet of megayachts, and drove around the island in supercars. Even when they mean well, the ultrarich cannot help trashing the living world.​

​

A series of research papers shows that income is by far the most important determinant of environmental impact. It doesn’t matter how green you think you are. If you have surplus money, you spend it. The only form of consumption that’s clearly and positively correlated with good environmental intentions is diet: people who see themselves as green tend to eat less meat and more organic vegetables. But attitudes have little bearing on the amount of transport fuel, home energy and other materials you consume. Money conquers all.​

​

The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars. Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such knowledge is likely to trouble them.​

Embarrassment of Riches

For the sake of life on Earth, we should set an upper limit on the money any person can amass.

www.monbiot.com

I'm not a hater. Of anybody. That's my point.

Tax the hell out of 'em. Don't try to get me to hate them.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Again, the last person who should be lecturing anyone on "freedoms," or acceptance of others, or tolerance of any kind is a cancel culture, vilification intending, authoritarian Bernie Sanders supporter.

Since when has Bernie Sanders ever thought once about possibly wanting to be an authoritarian president solely for the purpose of abusing the office at the risk of impeachment for bribery and treason?

Until he does, you can't call him or any other democratic socialist an authoritarian wanna-be.

 

[Michael Cole]

Since when has Bernie Sanders ever thought once about possibly wanting to be an authoritarian president solely for the purpose of abusing the office at the risk of impeachment for bribery and treason?

Until he does, you can't call him or any other democratic socialist an authoritarian wanna-be.

Nobody is saying he's Trump.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Nobody is saying he's Trump.

Anyone who says Bernie Sanders is an authoritarian does not know what that word means. A politician must be like Trump the Terrorist to fit that term, regardless of his/her political ideology.

 

[Mithrae]

My memory from one of the debates. It's paraphrased. Said to Bloomberg.

I'm not a hater. Of anybody. That's my point.

Tax the hell out of 'em. Don't try to get me to hate them.

Saying that billionaire-level accumulation of wealth is harmful and dangerous and no-one actually deserves it - perhaps paraphrased into the functionally equivalent but more sinister-sounding "billionaires don't deserve to exist" - is not being hateful towards anyone, of course. I similarly try to avoid hatefulness (and correspondingly encourage understanding, compassion and love) as one of my highest priorities morally, politically and in life.

But then, consider someone who has done well in business or whatever and made themselves say $20 million; enough for five or six nice homes for them, their kids and a couple of spares for holidays, nice cars for all and college funds for the kids, with plenty left over to invest and, with rather modest returns, maintain an income stream several times higher than the national median. Pretty significant personal contribution to higher costs on the housing market and hence indirectly to homelessness and struggling families, and quite likely to climate change through construction, energy and transport emissions; way above what would be sustainable as a global average, by implication meaning that in order for this guy and his family to have that much, others must have less. Never mind, pretty much all of us dream of having that much wealth, so let's just call it comfortably rich and consider it a pretty reasonable ambition. But then he keeps accumulating wealth. Eventually he's got $40 million. He knows or could vaguely guess and easily learn that some nine million people die of hunger each year. If he decided to sell his shares and try to do some good with half his wealth, how much difference would $20 million make to the lives of twenty thousand people in poverty? Our calendar years and the dominant religion of our countries are named after a fellow whose primary message was to give everything to the poor, a bit extreme maybe, but surely with forty million dollars our guy could manage to give half? Nah... he'll give a few hundred thousand away over the years, and consider himself a very generous being. Eventually he's got $60 million... $90 million... $120 million. How much good could a hundred million dollars make to the lives of a hundred thousand people? Probably the most revered figure of the 20th century was an Indian activist who (partly inspired by Jesus via Tolstoy) likewise advocated a generous, minimalist lifestyle. No, our friend still needs to accumulate more wealth for himself! He'll give away a few million, and they should be damn thankful to get it! $200 million... $300 million.

At what point do we recognize that this guy simply does not give a flying **** about anyone but himself and perhaps those around him? We're not quite talking Ted Bundy levels of evil here, of course - rather than actively enjoying and directly causing suffering, it's simply ignoring distant suffering and his own indirect contributions to it, albeit at a far greater scale. I suppose one could make the case that beyond a certain point and particularly in our capitalist culture wealth is an addiction, and our hypothetical mega-millionaire is as much a slave to his money as an addict to heroin. There's room for some compassion there, particularly for those who were raised in that kind of environment and never really had much of a chance. Billionaires should not exist... as much for their own psychological wellbeing as for the preservation of democracy and our planetary environment.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Dumb topic.

Nope. It's true.

We know you can't see it though, so don't sweat it.

 

[Craig234]

Anyone who says Bernie Sanders is an authoritarian does not know what that word means.

Bernie might be the least authoritarian, the most opposite of authoritarian, national politician in US history - and one of the most such American PEOPLE. Anyone who would say otherwise is essentially crazy.

 

[Michael Cole]

Bernie might be the least authoritarian, the most opposite of authoritarian, national politician in US history - and one of the most such American PEOPLE. Anyone who would say otherwise is essentially crazy.

Telling billionaires they shouldn't exist is authoritarian. 100%.