You won the World Cup, why riot?

[andrewjoy]

I have not looked into anything that is happening in Xinjiang.

I was referring to the hysteria of everyone thinking that Russia hacked the election ( FYI facebook adds are not hacking) and china " taking over the world".

[chuckdee]

@Blaise170 - Glad someone is catching on LOL!

We have enough separation and discontent in other places that baiting people is just picking at low-hanging fruit trying to add to the noise.

Can we all just get along?

That quote is misquoted many times as "Can't". When it's really a more existential question. Can we all just get along? On a keyboard forum of all things? This is not a debate in any shape nor form, as no one is truly considering questions nor positions. There are no winners and no losers, so no real reason to reply. The only way to win when people will not consider the words being wasted, is not to reply. Otherwise, it's just spit and wind (or, in this case, wear on mechanical keys).

[Blaise170]

Russia did hack the electoral process whether you personally believe it or not - otherwise 12 Russian nationals wouldn't have been indicted on hacking charges.

And for one of the least biased news sources you could possibly need: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/14/62905849 ... ion-attack

[chuckdee]

I love NPR. But it's been a while since NPR was non-biased. Just speaking truth.

[Blaise170]

I consider it left leaning but still mostly neutral. How about a squarely right wing source then?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/rod ... announced/

[fohat]

I love NPR. But it's been a while since NPR was non-biased. Just speaking truth.

NPR is biased towards the truth. Few if any media sources are less biased, but reporting against the direction in which the arc of justice bends encourages or apologizes for injustice.

If you want an in-depth analysis of what happened in 2016, I recommend this:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/362 ... n-roulette

[chuckdee]

NPR has other biases other than truth in my observation. That's the reason that I use more than one source in order to filter the biases.

I consider it left leaning but still mostly neutral. How about a squarely right wing source then?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/rod ... announced/

Oh, you didn't have to post a link for my benefit. Sorry if it came off that way. I was just refuting (as you said above) the fact that they are totally unbiased. They're better than most, but definitely left-leaning IMO.

That's neither bad nor good. It's just my observation for the terms of framing the conversation. But thanks, anyway!

[fohat]

but definitely left-leaning IMO.

Only by coincidence, as a result of the dramatic rightward lurch in US politics in the past 4 decades or so.

Another book that helps put things into perspective is this one:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/353 ... racies-die

[andrewjoy]

The move to the right in many places across the western world is a reaction to how toxic the mainstream left has become.

We need to return to more classical liberal, centralist thinking.

[Blaise170]

Ha, next you'll be telling us that Jews secretly control the government.

[andrewjoy]

Yes liberals often say that all the time.

Think you just proved my point

[kbdfr]

The move to the right in many places across the western world is a reaction to how toxic the mainstream left has become. […]

So basically authoritarian regimes are a consequence of, well, of… of what exactly

[zrrion]

We need to return to more classical liberal, centralist thinking.

Liberal = left. You can't have a liberal centrist. I will agree with you on liberals needing to go back to their roots though. I just understand that their roots are in turn of the century socialism/labor movements.

[Blaise170]

Yes liberals often say that all the time.

Think you just proved my point

It's a knee-jerk response to nonsense. The "move to the right" is not so easy to explain away as "toxic mainstream left". The extreme right has always existed and always will; the current political climate certainly makes it more conspicuous.

[fohat]

"move to the right" is not so easy to explain away as "toxic mainstream left"

The extreme right has always existed and always will; the current political climate certainly makes it more conspicuous.

In the US today, after the huge artificial rightwards translocation of the 1980s, "the media" (whatever that now is) would have you believe that the center is the left, the right is the center, the far right is hardly past the center, and the left is now the extreme left.

Until recent decades, today's Republican party would have been off the scale and Hillary Clinton would have been a center-right candidate.

[andrewjoy]

We need to return to more classical liberal, centralist thinking.

Liberal = left. You can't have a liberal centrist. I will agree with you on liberals needing to go back to their roots though. I just understand that their roots are in turn of the century socialism/labor movements.

In US English sure.

Liberal in UK English is a centrist idea

Hence the term "classical Liberal" to reduce confusion.

For example the current labour party leadership in the UK are left ( very far left ) but they are anything but liberal

[Muirium]

It’s more complicated than that. Jezza and his pals are socially liberal: pro LGBT rights and the rest. Just don’t expect their sympathy if you happen to be a Jew…

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -community

[andrewjoy]

Socialists like Jezza and Comrade Owen Jones don't support liberal ideals. They may align themselves with some campaigns and groups that support, or at least claim to support liberal ideas but this is all due to the socialist view of one group oppressing another group. Groups are given rights or advantages over other groups.

This is the opposite to liberal thinking where each person no matter who they are gets treated as an individual and has INDIVIDUAL rights and not group rights.

That is why a true liberal should be 100% against things like recruitment targets based on gender or race or any other characteristic; or things like that labour conference where tickets where cheaper for certain minorities. That kind of thing is so insulting and illiberal I cannot support any of it, its dehumanising.

[Bass]

It’s more complicated than that. Jezza and his pals are socially liberal: pro LGBT rights and the rest. Just don’t expect their sympathy if you happen to be a Jew…

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -community

Nonsense! I counter with this article:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/an ... 58601.html

Disclaimer: I am not a brit but I was born and raised Jewish (though I am more or less agnostic now), so I am pretty familiar with the history of anti-semitism and Israel. The way I see it many people abuse that term to in order to discredit critics of Israel, which Corbyn certainly is.

[Muirium]

Yeah, I know, I was being a wee trolly. Trouble is, it’s contradiction all the way down in politics. The shorter, the firmer, the better written the statement: the less true! Why? Because we humans are complicated, and a world full of us even more so. There are no general solutions. Only daily give and take, as we slowly build history, piece by piece, none the wiser.

I honestly both like and dislike Corbyn in truth. Glad we have better options than him here in Scotland. His genuine socialist beliefs are, well, a very different wind indeed than we usually feel coming up from the motherland. But he’s as far from power as Britain is itself.

[Bass]

Indeed, I think Corbyn himself is a very interesting enigma for sure. It might be weird for me to say this as an American, but his presence in politics does make me envy you folks across the pond. At least you guys seem to have actual choices in your elections whereas "the lesser of two evils" continues to prevail over here. Well, I guess we have Bernie Sanders but sometimes I feel like he lacks a backbone compared to Corbyn, especially on foreign policy. Not to mention we Americans are too busy blaming Russian facebook trolls instead of growing a movement to fix legitimate flaws in our elections like the undemocratic electoral college. You'd think we'd learn our lesson after it made the loser of the popular vote win two recent elections, but nope!

[Muirium]

Republican wins against the popular vote are a feature, not a bug. But you have a way to patch it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... te_Compact

Which I strongly suggest you do. Because as their white base slowly recedes from the majority of the American population, Republicans will rig whatever it takes to remain competitive. Democracy be damned.

[andrewjoy]

The reason for the electoral college is to give a voice and some power in elections to the smaller flyover states. Without it they would have almost no say in any election.

Its not ideal by any means and we do need to come up with something better that gives everyone a voice in decisions.

I think the best way would be to have smaller central government and more power to local authorities.

[Blaise170]

That's kind of the point. The electoral college gives more power to the minority voters (read: flyover states) for issues which will affect much larger populations in places such as California, Texas, or New York. You'll notice that in any given US election, candidates focus on states that are known as "swing states" and focus less on states that are mostly guaranteed to be a victory (or loss) for them. Clinton received 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but because of the "swing states", Trump is now the president. Popular voting would fix that and encourage voters to actually participate in elections (a common question in US presidential elections is "Why should I vote if the electoral college doesn't represent me?"). As it stands, only about 58% of the population voted because people feel that they are not being represented.

[andrewjoy]

Yes but the issue is that if they get rid of the system then people in the flyover states may as well not vote as the votes in the big cities would dwarf them.

That why i think that more local government would be the best solution, move more power from the federal government to the local state level.

[Blaise170]

So the needs of the few should dwarf the needs of the many?

[andrewjoy]

Well no, but you need to have a system where everyone at least gets a vote that worth using.

[zrrion]

You can win a majority of the electoral college with something like 20% of the popular vote. Whatever the electoral college was supposed to do, it carries with it side effects that are undeniably bad and undemocratic.

[vivalarevolución]

The reason for the electoral college is to give a voice and some power in elections to the smaller flyover states. Without it they would have almost no say in any election.

Its not ideal by any means and we do need to come up with something better that gives everyone a voice in decisions.

I think the best way would be to have smaller central government and more power to local authorities.

Uh, you actually believe that reasoning? The electoral college still exists because it allows the parties to only campign in like five states, and even only campaign in a few areas of that state. Then they can completely ignore issues of concern in states where the winner is predictable, which is the vast majority of the population. It eliminates the voices of more Americans than it supposedly lifts up. It is a system of convenience that allows a candidate to win an election with far less than the majority of votes. And the Republican Party loves it because they know their popularity is declining and they have a very difficult time with winning the majority of votes.

[savantstrike]

The reason for the electoral college is to give a voice and some power in elections to the smaller flyover states. Without it they would have almost no say in any election.

Its not ideal by any means and we do need to come up with something better that gives everyone a voice in decisions.

I think the best way would be to have smaller central government and more power to local authorities.

Given the fact that even in these larger states the sentiment among citizens who don't live in large metropolitan areas sometimes differs dramatically from sentiment among city dwellers, the system is still an improvement over a popular vote system.

New York City voters swing the entire state in a direction that the population outside the city doesn't necessarily want to go. The same with Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, LA, etc. It's good if there can be some middle ground once in a while, although I'm well aware that compromise died around the same time as personal accountability and the words please and thank you .