NSA official: mass spying has foiled one (or fewer) plots in its whole history

boing
63

So you’ve declared that different candidates don’t make any actual difference as the default assumption; no general trends can be good enough to even suggest you should prove otherwise, save a rigorous controlled experiment; and no such experiment is possible.

So that’s it then; you’re right because you are, and even to suggest one should look at evidence whether that is supported makes me a partisan who won’t consider reason. Sure, whatever. I don’t know why you would want to change any hearts or minds or electoral systems, though, because there’s no indication any of that could make a difference that would pass the kind of standards you demand here.

I mean, do you actually have a proper experiment to show anything you’ve said, like that low voter turnout is the result of partisanship and extremist policy? Because however inadequate the figures I’ve given are, you’ve given none, and only wanting impossible standards for proof of positions you disagree with is partisanship.

1 Like
64

That only works if you ignore my point about California (and I kinda think you did) My evidence to support my claim are the actual results of voting in a primarily Democrat state which results in a (what we call) Republican outcome as well as the results of voting in a primarily Republican state which resulted in an outcome we would normally associate with Democrats.

I don’t want to change the electoral system. I want to ignore it. I do not want to legitimize a foul and corrupt system with participation. I never have and I never will. I’m not the type to play along with the machinations of thugs, bullies, cheats, or liars.
My position, which I’ve stated over and over, is that it is the partisanship and theater of politics causing the greatest harm here. I support non political organizations attempting to effect positive change outside the political arena. I see this as the only effective method.
My initial post was in response to what I see as partisan bickering about whose fault this NSA kerfuffle is and what another party would have done if we had only elected them. As you know, I feel that divisiveness is a tool of those in power to distract the public from the real issues and I also feel that voting is theater to keep the people from feeling powerless.
Voting gives people the illusion of participation and it keeps them from doing something real and meaningful. Partisanship gives people the feeling of community and belonging when in reality it is a tool used to keep the people from forming a true community of citizens.

65

Well, if you mean not just the US system but every democracy in existence, that would be consistent enough. Preferring some forms over others would mean having a way to establish if votes make a difference, but maybe you think they never can.

I know you’ve said so, but if you’re going to demand controlled experiments for my opinions, it is only fair to expect them for yours. I think insisting that the parties are always equivalent is often just one more form of partisanship, and just like being a partisan for one of them means ignoring when they change; I’m not going to accept such a position on faith alone.

Do you have anything by way of evidence, and better than the sorts of general indications you’ve rejected from me? (I doubt my saying that one state was peculiar on two issues would have counted as such a proof.) Or is this all just a double standard?

66

I’m not trying to demand controlled experiments. You asked

and I replied that it would be pure speculation since the market drives these effects with equal or greater force than political action.

But you don’t have to accept my statements on faith. All you have to do is look around you. The planet is being destroyed, our government illegally spies on us, we kill people without due process, we bomb homes that might have a ‘terrorist’ in them, our schools are failing us, politicians have systematically destroyed our protected liberties, and on and on and so-forth. All of this is a result of our voting and our politics. At what point do we say to ourselves ‘this isn’t working anymore. maybe we should try something else.’?

67

Now, of course - and one of the things I would like to try that is new is large voter turnouts, with people making an effort to at least not pick the worst candidates. I agree things are bad and partisanship is wrong, so I don’t know why you keep telling me that like it’s some revelation. They’re not under dispute.

The dispute is that I think part of what needs to happen is considering what candidates actually do differently and voting intelligently to stem the worst aspects of them, in addition to work through other means; and you keep asserting that’s stupid, but it seems don’t feel the need to give any real evidence why I’m wrong. Until you offer one, I will end things here.

68

I don’t know if that’s intellectual dishonesty or not.
I’ve offered several reasons as to why. The California example is one but the big one is the inescapable fact that things have only gotten worse the further we head down this road.

But you want proof that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. Proving a negative statement is kinda tricky you know but how about this. Let’s re-examine your chart showing how depending on what party the president belongs to you get different job creation rates.
From 1949-1981 with the exception of 1953-1955 both the house and senate were controlled by the Democrats. Those are where we get our laws and spending approval.
From 81-92, the Reagan / Bush years the house remained democrat but from 82-87 the senate was Republican. It wasn’t until 1996 that we say the house controlled by Republicans. In fact from 1949-2013 the house was in control by the Democrats for all but 15 of those years.
During the greatest growth in private sector jobs (the Clinton era) both the house and senate were controlled by the Republicans. But the split was 50/50 during the Bush jr years.

That tells me despite your chart, these changes have nothing to do with who is in office.

69

That one chart - there were others, you might remember - showed the changes seem to depend on who is in the presidential office. You just asserted that they really should depend on congress instead, and then showed that’s wrong, so concluded they depend on neither. I really doubt you would have accepted that as an honest argument from me.

Anyway, you’ve made positive assertions too:

Do you have evidence that voting actually keeps people from doing anything more meaningful - most activists I have seen do both - or is actually responsible for any of our problems? Because it seems entirely made up so far.

70

You misunderstand. The numbers went up and down when Democrats controlled both the house and the senate. The highest growth was during a Republican controlled House and Senate as was the years with the lowest growth rates. There is no clear correlation between parties in the white house and parties in congress. It changes from year to year no matter who is running things.

71

At the time of Prop 8, California had a Republican governor. It passed with 52.24% voting yes and 47.76% voting no, so it is not like it was a landslide in favor of it. Also, if you look at the results by county, you will see that the counties that voted for Prop 8 are not the counties that tend to vote Democratic.

Prop 8.jpg910×659 51 KB

One data point does not make a line. Do the constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage generally happen as often in Democratic states as they do in Republican states? Are the bans approved in Democratic states with as wide of a margin as they are approved in Republican states?

Look at the states that allow same-sex marriage. Maine, Maryland, and Washington passed law by popular vote and all leaned towards Obama in the 2012 election. Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont passed laws by state legislature and basically all of them appear to lean Democrat.

Also, to be clear, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Prop 8 proponents lacked standing in the Supreme Court, so its decision means that it “leaves the original district court ruling (overturning Proposition 8) as the final ruling in the case; it also means that the Supreme Court did not discuss the underlying substantive merits of the case, and the case has not resulted in a formal precedent for states other than California.”

Regarding marijuana, Washington also legalized and it appears to lean Democrat. There are also multiple states where marijuana is decriminalized and/or legal for medical reasons. It is interesting that you point to Colorado as an example of a Republican state when it voted for Obama in the past two elections and elected Democrats as governors, lieutenant governors, and US senators, and generally Democratic majorities in the state senate and state house.

Focusing on a different subject, access to clinics that provide abortions and other health services for women, this shows how multiple Republican-led states are trying to close clinics: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/52446472 This is not one Republican governor or one Republican state legislature, this is multiple states.

2 Likes
72

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.