Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Prodromos]

I've never heard of an election won or lost over foreign policy. Most people generally don't care all that much about it, and those who do tend to be opposed to isolationism. Not a lot of voters believe the best defense strategy is to hunker down and hope nobody attacks. Most people believe in maintaining a strong chain of alliances and closely cooperating with other countries diplomatically, economically and militarily in order to nip threats to America in the bud.

Actually, I just came across a survey a couple of days ago which said that half of all Americans would support preemptively nuking North Korea, lmfao.

Americans are terrifyingly supportive of nuking civilians in North Korea - Vox

[sumskilz]

Well I agree that's secondary, unless the President is stupid enough to make it primary. Eg, when Bush invaded Iraq, I'm fairly sure it spiked in terms of importance. So long that foreign policy doesn't affect people at home directly, nobody cares. Once too many body bags start arriving, then people get mad.

What do you think would happen if Trump decided to invade Iran?

Well Bush invaded Iraq, found no WMDs, and then got himself reelected, so I guess it didn't matter that much. Something like the Iraq war generated a lot of talk, but it was all partisans shouting at each other or preaching to the choir. The issue with wars, is that they haven't mattered much politically since the US stopped instituting the draft. The military families tend to get behind what the president orders, and if you're not supporting the war, in their eyes, you're not supporting the troops.

About Iran, here's a summery of a poll:

Iran was characterized by 53% of adults in the United States as either a “serious” or “imminent” threat, up 6 percentage points from a similar poll from last July...

Despite their concerns, 60% of Americans said the United States should not conduct a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian military, while 12% advocate for striking first.

If Iran attacked, however, 79% said that the U.S. military should retaliate: 40% favored a limited response with airstrikes, while 39% favored a full invasion.

If it looks like Iran struck first, no problem. If it's "pre-emptive", I don't know if it will make much of a difference. I'm betting most of that 60% are not potential Trump voters, so it depends on how it's sold to the rest, and if other things matter more (which they probably will).

I was trying to find an example of how disinterested Americans are about the rest of the world. Here it is. Only 37% of Americans correctly answered that Macron is the president of France, and this was a multiple choice question with Justin Trudeau, Malcolm Turnbull, and Theresa May as the other possible choices. Trudeau was the only other French name, which suggests most didn't know who he is either, despite being next door. If everyone just guessed randomly you'd expect about 25% correct, so 37% doesn't even mean that many knew the answer. Yet 86% knew (or correctly guessed) the vector by which the Zika virus is spread, so it's not as if they aren't paying attention to anything.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'd be focused more on ''If Iran attacked'' because if there ever is going to be a war, the narrative will be that Iran attacked first.

But yeah misinformed public is indeed quite the issue. I read a few examples quite some time ago about people supporting affirmative action, but when asked using the description of the policy rather than the name, they would not support it at all.

Overeall however Bush heavily resented by the end of his mandate, McCain promising an even more hawkish policy was soundly beaten and Romney as well. Republican's Achille's heel is healthcare, which somehow they had managed to weaponize a few years ago to their advantage and sweep Congress. It'll be hard to do anything like that again.

I honestly wonder what will be their reaction when they lose Texas: become a copy of the Democratic party, thus making elections simply between liberals and social justice or go further to the right.

I found this article pretty interesting:
https://theweek.com/articles-amp/827...mpression=true

What's funny is that by looking at the quadrant, what used to be the ''liberal consensus'' which is both economically and socially liberal is at a dead end. This is why centrists suffer. Leftwing voters are hardcore interventionist in the economy and socially liberal. Conservatives are strong on conservative values and mixed on the economy, meaning that swing voters are going to be on economic intervention.

[Muizer]

It's an interesting article. Quite funny I suppose that the Political Compass puts such role models as Mugabe and Castro in the quadrant that this article urges politicians not to ignore!

What is an astute observation is that politicians like Trump appeal to socially conservative, economically interventionist quadrant, but act in the interest of the socially conservative, economically liberal.

This is what you see all over the place with the new right, which in its search for allies invariably compromises its economic agenda in favour of its socially conservative one. The 'old right' tends to be happy to oblige, because it means they get the support for their capitalist agenda in exchange for usually nothing but some social conservative rhetoric and symbolic measures that amount to nothing.

[Basil II the B.S]

In practice, the interventionist element of Trump's agenda was the infrastructure plan, and that hasn't materialized. He also shifted on immigration, however he has been restrictive on trade. That's 1 out of 3. How much it's the result of having to deal with the Republican party and their preferences isn't given, though it's a possible explanation.

The other element might as well be that most countries are now so embedded in the global system that they can't simply do interventionist policies anymore because those result in crowding out. This was the Mitterrand lesson in the 80s but it has got a lot worse, see what happened with Hollande or Tsipras. Both went full redistributive and had to do a u-turn because they were getting slaughtered by speculation. At least the US still has its central bank, the other two were at the complete mercy of traders.

Kinda why I'm so negative on the prospects of the West. The power will shift to China because we created a system where we can't prevent that from happening anymore. Then again, seeing what White Liberals are doing, even China is a better option.

[sumskilz]

Overeall however Bush heavily resented by the end of his mandate, McCain promising an even more hawkish policy was soundly beaten and Romney as well.

Bush got an approval boost when he invaded Iraq, and then another when Saddam was captured. What didn't play well at home was his making a big scene about declaring victory followed by the place turning into a cluster with our guys still in the middle of it, and then all the subsequent seemingly indefinite spending. Strictly from the point of view of his approval rating, it would have gone better to declare victory and just leave the place in shambles, out of sight out of mind. There were a lot of factors that contributed to his declining popularity though, a lot of them being economic, plus his handling of Hurricane Katrina. Obama beating McCain in the rust belt is telling.

[Basil II the B.S]

I attribute it mainly due to enthusiasm and flag waving dying off and the cost remaining. Once media start hammering about how costly these things are and people for instance want healthcare, they get annoyed.

But yeah, Hurricane Katrina was a factor as well.

[95thrifleman]

People support war when our side is winning. The first stage of Iraq was a walk-over, plenty of pictures of the other side's dead bodies, monuments falling and kids swarming US soldiers and getting candy. Hence the approval boost.

When it became a tarpit that sent home American sons, fathers and brothers home in bodybags it became a political liability.

[Abdülmecid I]

I found this article pretty interesting:
https://theweek.com/articles-amp/827...mpression=true

Indeed, it's a nice article, thanks for sharing, Basil. The decreasing popularity of "laissez-faire'' policies is not surprising, considering that, in times of growing inequality, the relatively impoverished society usually demands state interventionism to fix the issues of the economy. In contrast to the euphoria of the prosperous '80s, nowadays the development is somewhat weak following the collapse and subsequent stagnation of 2008, while unemployment has been reduced mainly thanks to the proliferation of unsatisfyingly paid jobs with particularly flexible working hours and rights.

Interesting to note also that the Democrats, despite the current narrative, have actually moved rightwards since the '80s, in an effort to imitate Reagan's strategy. The journalist mentions Bill Clinton, but I'd argue that the shift was evident at least since the mid '80s, with the of candidacy of Gary Hart. His populist rhetoric was essentially composed of a mix between Republican principles and Democrat moderation. Hart could have easily secured his nomination, had he been clever enough to refrain from obvious extramarital affairs, when constantly pursued by the newspapers. One of the reasons (perhaps even the primary one) for Hillary's defeat in 2016 was that she failed to understand that we are not in the '90s anymore, which means that her light conservatism and cordial relations with Wall Street encouraged many potential voters to either abstain or support the controversial "anti-establishment" guy.

What is an astute observation is that politicians like Trump appeal to socially conservative, economically interventionist quadrant, but act in the interest of the socially conservative, economically liberal.

That's the most classic conclusion regarding the rise of the populist right in power. What many of their fans fail to realise is that, at best, only a marginal portion of their self-contradictory promises can be materialised (usually the part concerning the attacks on convenient scapegoats, like Communists, Jews or immigrants). You can notice this trend pretty much everywhere, from Hungary and Austria to Philippines and Washington. In the future, perhaps even France, if Mme Le Pen finally succeeds in interrupting her losing streak. This tendency is confirmed from a historical perspective, as well. In Germany, Hitler quickly abandoned his revolutionary message, after having reassured the country's industrial and commercial magnates of his innocent intentions, just before his attempt to gain the Chancellorship. Italy is an even more extreme example, as Mussolini had already guaranteed his reactionary credentials, by violently crushing the worker strikes (a tast previously unfulfilled by the police force), before being invited by the King and the financial and political elite to receive the control of the executive power.

[Basil II the B.S]

I personally go with another factor. If you are a legitimate economic laissez faire guy, then the bailouts make no economic sense. The entire financial sector, from insurance companies that created Credit Default Swaps to rating agencies, through banks and hedge funds under that reasoning should be all dead. Western governments went with ''if they crumble, they kill the economy, so state intervention is ok''.
So we shifted from free market capitalism to ''free market, unless you are upper class and in that case your job will be saved by the government''. It's pretty obvious that under that reasoning, everyone else who's job was maybe off-shored to India gets mad and starts saying ''if government intervention is ok, then why is it for thee but not for me?''.

I think you are correct about the part-time or temp jobs. Economists love them, but I have yet to meet someone who has 3 part time jobs and says ''I love my precarious position''. They also don't really provide a career path and long term opportunities. I don't overly buy the inequality argument because most people are ok with others being rich so long that they deserve it. What they get mad about is when they find that the system is rigged, and it is. Education prices in the US are a class barrier. You need the right high school for the right college for the right job. If your parents are upper class, chances are that by the time you are 14, you speak 4 languages fluently because you lived abroad or had extra teachers. Random dumb example, Ivanka's daughter speaks Mandarin at 8. Good luck to any working class kid competing with that, ever, unless you have a super high IQ and even that might not be enough.

[Prodromos]

Laissez faire economics have never been popular. Most people are uneducated in economics and find the free market counter-intuitive. They believe wealth is a zero-sum game and that central planning is a better method of allocating resources than individuals making their own choices in a free market. There's also an element of godlessness to it; when you believe this life is the only one you'll have, it's tempting to take resources from others by force so that you don't "miss out" on a luxurious life. Ultimately, opposition to the free market stems from a combination of ignorance and immorality. The "elites" are supposed to protect the people from their own worst instincts, but many of them find it more profitable to pander to the people in exchange for wealth and power. Unfortunately, that's not a recipe for a healthy and prosperous society.

[Morifea]

I personally go with another factor. If you are a legitimate economic laissez faire guy, then the bailouts make no economic sense. The entire financial sector, from insurance companies that created Credit Default Swaps to rating agencies, through banks and hedge funds under that reasoning should be all dead. Western governments went with ''if they crumble, they kill the economy, so state intervention is ok''.
So we shifted from free market capitalism to ''free market, unless you are upper class and in that case your job will be saved by the government''. It's pretty obvious that under that reasoning, everyone else who's job was maybe off-shored to India gets mad and starts saying ''if government intervention is ok, then why is it for thee but not for me?''.

Truth spoken. At least in the USA the Government was competent enought to ensure some little kind of compensation for the bailout-money. They made sure to get enough influence over those banks, cutting Boni, dividends etc. and could later sell the shares with a profit. In Germany this chance was totally wasted... Best examble would be the Deutsche Bank. This company was to proud to accept financial help, but it beneffited all the same from the Bail-outs and guarantees the Government gave. Same time it wasted billions for boni for their incompetend "London Boys".

Had the Government forcefully recapitalized those banks in exchange for a fitting number of shares, the whole affair would have been better for those banks, the economy..... and myself as a poor Shareholder

[Basil II the B.S]

The solution was simply do what Iceland did: jail bankers who had turned the country into a casino. What you got instead is the opposite: they got bailed out and within 6 months had ballooning compensations. Incompetence, carelessness and greed were rewarded. It's also one of those things where you can't even point fingers left or right, because everyone did it.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Afroamerican woman was indicted for manslaughter, because her unborn baby was shot in a dispute and she shall have initiated the dispute. The charge against the shooting woman was dismissed.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...dismissed.html


Sweet home Alabama...

[Cope]

Afroamerican woman was indicted for manslaughter, because her unborn baby was shot in a dispute and she shall have initiated the dispute. The charge against the shooting woman was dismissed.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...dismissed.html


Sweet home Alabama...

Do we know more about the circumstances? The article seems to indicate that the person who's child died was responsible for causing the altercation. If the prosecution can show that the shooter had reasonable cause to fire (self-defense) then it seems perfectly reasonable that the parent should be charged for endangering the child.

[Prodromos]

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...bys-death.html

Jefferson County prosecutors say they have not yet made a decision whether they will prosecute the woman who is charged in the death of her unborn child after the woman was shot during a fight.

Marshae Jones, 27, was indicted by a Jefferson County Bessemer Cutoff grand jury in April and arrested this week on a felony manslaughter charge.

Jones was five months pregnant when lawmen say she initiated a fight with another woman in December 2018. That woman, Ebony Jemison, shot Jones, who was five months pregnant at the time. The fetus did not survive.

Cutoff District Attorney Lynneice Washington, the first African-American female district attorney in the state, is out of the country. Chief Assistant District Attorney Valerie Hicks Powe late Thursday night issued a statement about the case.

“Foremost, it should be state this is a truly tragic case resulting in the death of an unborn child. We feel sympathy for the families involved, including Mr. Jones, who lost her unborn child,’’ Powe said. “The fact that this tragedy was 100 percent avoidable makes this case even more disheartening.”

The shooting happened about noon on Tuesday Dec. 4, 2018 outside Dollar General on Park Road, said Pleasant Grove police Lt. Danny Reid. Officers were dispatched to the scene on a report of someone shot but arrived to find that the victim – later identified as Jones - had been driven to Fairfield. Police and paramedics found Jones at a Fairfield convenience store. From Fairfield, Jones was taken to UAB Hospital where she underwent surgery.

Jemison was taken into custody and charged with manslaughter.

According to authorities, Jones was the aggressor in the dispute that day and continued to press the fight even after Jemison had gotten into her vehicle to try to get away. It was then that Jemison got hold of a gun and fired a shot at Jones to stop the attack.

“Unfortunately, some groups have attempted to tie this case to the anti-abortion law recent passed by the (state) legislature,’’ Powe said. “This case predates the passage of the legislation and we must point out the new law played no role in the consideration of the grand jury.”

Powe pointed out that it was the grand jury, after looking at the facts presented by the investigation law enforcement agency, which made the decision to bring charges against Jones. “In fact, the actions of both Ms. Jones and the shooter, Ebony Jemison, were presented to the grand jury at the same time,’’ she said. “The grand jury, based on the facts presented, determined that Ms. Jemison acted in self-defense and did not warrant charges against her, and that Ms. Jones should face charges for her actions resulting the death of unborn child.”

As Powe told AL.com earlier Thursday, she reiterated that the case has not been handled any differently than the way any other felony case is handled.

[Aexodus]

‘Tis victim blaming to blame Ms Jones (single mum?), it wasn’t her fault she got shot no matter how much she aggravated the shooter.

[sumskilz]

‘Tis victim blaming to blame Ms Jones (single mum?), it wasn’t her fault she got shot no matter how much she aggravated the shooter.

Nah, it's her fault she got shot. You repeatedly attack someone, even while that someone is trying to flee, you get shot, it's on you.

[Aexodus]

If she endangered the life of the other person, fine. I’m in favour of stand your ground laws, but it doesn’t sound like lethal force was justified.

[sumskilz]

If she endangered the life of the other person, fine. I’m in favour of stand your ground laws, but it doesn’t sound like lethal force was justified.

In Alabama, use of deadly force in self-defense is legal when someone is assaulting you, attempting to force their way into your vehicle, and/or trying to pull you out of your vehicle. Sounds to me like more than one of those criteria were met. In any case, a grand jury found the shooting to be a justified case of self-defense, so legally it has to proceed from that.