2020 US Election (Part One)

[Berzerker]

both those right wing parties are gradually moving left so there is hope for the union

 

[Traitorfish]

No one ever questions the reality that US politics is a two party system featuring a right wing party and an extreme right wing party. What people generally don't grasp is that other than a negligible slice of the electorate the US population is all right wingers so those two parties are positioned in the only lanes that are going anywhere.

This does not seem consistent with my experiences, for example, on this forum.

Lexicus has previously contended, and I agree, that the majority of Americans are basically non-ideological. It's true, therefore, that there are relatively few dedicated progressives. But there aren't a much greater number of truly dedicated conservatives. Perhaps more, but not a sufficient mass to win elections. So the question is, does America have a centre party and a right-wing party (to describe the Democrats as "right-wing" is to unduly flatter the centre) because the American populace skew right, or does the American public appear to skew right because the only two political forces with the institutional weight to function at a federal level skew right? Can we assume that any electoral system, let alone one as dysfunctional as that of the United States, serves to perfectly and exhaustively express the policy-preferences for its citizenry?

 

[mitsho]

Yes, don't forget about the very large portion of "I just don't care, I don't really follow the news". But they by design prefer the status quo, or rather just want the state to leave them be. That statement doesn't preclude profiting from many of the benefits of the state though...

 

[El_Machinae]

Doesn't really if matter if people follow the news. The news is mostly a degraded infotainment. And, since it is funded through advertising, the news watching public is the product, not the customer

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This does not seem consistent with my experiences, for example, on this forum.

Lexicus has previously contended, and I agree, that the majority of Americans are basically non-ideological. It's true, therefore, that there are relatively few dedicated progressives. But there aren't a much greater number of truly dedicated conservatives. Perhaps more, but not a sufficient mass to win elections. So the question is, does America have a centre party and a right-wing party (to describe the Democrats as "right-wing" is to unduly flatter the centre) because the American populace skew right, or does the American public appear to skew right because the only two political forces with the institutional weight to function at a federal level skew right? Can we assume that any electoral system, let alone one as dysfunctional as that of the United States, serves to perfectly and exhaustively express the policy-preferences for its citizenry?

@mitsho hits it squarely. @Lexicus is right, what I called "independents" might more properly be called just "non-ideological" or less charitably "don't give a rap." But that leaves them available to courting, or scaring. Progressives call for change, and change is inherently scary. Clinton recognized that the Democratic party of the cold war and beyond era had specialized in helping the Republicans scare those people to the voting booth. Right now the GOP is on a path that is itself pretty freakin' scary, and that is good for the Democrats, but they better not make the mistake of thinking that means the independent/non-ideological/ just don't pay much attention block is going to suddenly grow some brass in regards to change.

 

[Takhisis]

If the baker didn't want to follow Colorado non-discrimination laws, he shouldn't have structured his business as a for-profit LLC.

Hmmm, this was shot down in either Will & Grace or 30Rock (I think the latter).

Do I get the right to refuse a to make a cake with a red flag with a white circle and a black cross on it?
I'm asking because here you'd be laughed off the shop if not physically attacked, but the US has an official Nazi Party as well as the KKK, not counting the Daughters of the Confederacy, National Rifle Association, Republican National Committee and other collaborateur organisations.

 

[Ajidica]

Do I get the right to refuse a to make a cake with a red flag with a white circle and a black cross on it?
I'm asking because here you'd be laughed off the shop if not physically attacked, but the US has an official Nazi Party as well as the KKK, not counting the Daughters of the Confederacy, National Rifle Association, Republican National Committee and other collaborateur organisations.

Is being a neo-Nazi a protected category under state anti-discrimination laws? Does the baker advertise themselves as a baker of politically themed cakes but declines to make a politically themed cake on the grounds they disagree with the message?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is being a neo-Nazi a protected category under state anti-discrimination laws?

This is the nutshell that the conservatives seem unable or unwilling to crack.

 

[Takhisis]

You have a legally incorporated Nazi Party (as well as the other organisations I mentioned above), and the rebel slaver Confederate battle flag is still a symbol of pride/state flag, so I'd say that anti-discrimination laws would protect both of those.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is being a neo-Nazi a protected category under state anti-discrimination laws? Does the baker advertise themselves as a baker of politically themed cakes but declines to make a politically themed cake on the grounds they disagree with the message?

Wait, a protected category? I'm used to the Canadian common law, where businesses are allowed to discriminate regarding sexual orientation only under a specific set of circumstances. In other words, sexual orientation is a protected status.

Is it not the same in the wedding cake state? Or are non heterosexuals a protected subgroup?

 

[Tristan_C]

This is the nutshell that the conservatives seem unable or unwilling to crack.

What do you think prevents neo-Nazis from being a protected class, and what makes you think conservatives agree with the concept of protected classes enough to bother with these gymnastics?

 

[Traitorfish]

What do you think prevents neo-Nazis from being a protected class, and what makes you think conservatives agree with the concept of protected classes enough to bother with these gymnastics?

The case in question was fought on the grounds of free exercise of religion, rather than on grounds of free speech, which implicitly locates religious belief in the category of a "protected class". At least some conservatives are therefore prepared to support the creation of legally protected classes, where such protections benefit them or those they identify with.

 

[El_Machinae]

I really want to distinguish between protected class and protection along a dimension. Do some jurisdictions have a list of subgroups that have suffered historical oppression, and then a series of increased protections for those groups?

In Canada, we protect free expression, not neo-nazis. We don't have protected categories. I might run into situations where the American hodgepodge of trying to undo previous crimes means that it's a little more confusing for me

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What do you think prevents neo-Nazis from being a protected class, and what makes you think conservatives agree with the concept of protected classes enough to bother with these gymnastics?

Because I know how to read. If you can find a non-discrimination law that references ideology as illegal grounds for discrimination, cite it. Otherwise, shut up.

 

[rah]

I'm starting to worry a tad more. Last week I had two more friends that hate Trump saying that despite their dislike of him they're making money hand over fist. These guys are not idiots and did not vote for Trump the last time, but I fear that if the economy doesn't outright tank in the next two years, they might be tempted to vote for him. Not that it matters in my state, but there might be a lot more of these idiots out there.

 

[El_Machinae]

Because I know how to read. If you can find a non-discrimination law that references ideology as illegal grounds for discrimination, cite it. Otherwise, shut up.

We protect religion. Which is just a sneeze away from an ideology.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm starting to worry a tad more. Last week I had two more friends that hate Trump saying that despite their dislike of him they're making money hand over fist. These guys are not idiots and did not vote for Trump the last time, but I fear that if the economy doesn't outright tank in the next two years, they might be tempted to vote for him. Not that it matters in my state, but there might be a lot more of these idiots out there.

Bubble economies always burst.

 

[rah]

But we're running out of time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We protect religion. Which is just a sneeze away from an ideology.

Great, so if that sneeze happens to catch the ink on a non-discrimination law before it dries and make it too blurry to read then maybe there will be a case.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm starting to worry a tad more. Last week I had two more friends that hate Trump saying that despite their dislike of him they're making money hand over fist. These guys are not idiots and did not vote for Trump the last time, but I fear that if the economy doesn't outright tank in the next two years, they might be tempted to vote for him. Not that it matters in my state, but there might be a lot more of these idiots out there.

It's because people don't actually care about the federal debt. Generating 3% growth by running 4% deficits during the peak of the business cycle is a big yawn.

That said, I cannot predict when their stimulus will actually implode upon itself. I'm not betting my portfolio that the implosion will happen before 2020. But I wouldn't be surprised if it did