DiscussMormonism.com

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:13 pm

Or is it just a case where the rich donors know that socking it to the rich is what Biden has to say in order to purchase enough votes to win, but with a wink and a nod Biden tells the elite liberal billionaires that he'll never actually tax any billionaire who supports him and helps him get reelected. When will you ever realize that this tax the rich rhetoric is a lie. It's yours and my tax dollars (labor/private property) that Democrats purchase their votes with.

Unfortunately, there is some truth in that. Even some Democrats are sometimes seduced by lucrative offers of wealthy donors and lobbyists to legislate in their favor and give them tax breaks they don't deserve. This does not make it right nor detract from the fact that too many wealthy and powerful are allowed to take advantage of tax breaks that unfairly benefit them to the detriment of others who are much less well off.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:58 pm

Unfortunately, there is some truth in that. Even some Democrats are sometimes seduced by lucrative offers of wealthy donors and lobbyists to legislate in their favor and give them tax breaks they don't deserve. This does not make it right nor detract from the fact that too many wealthy and powerful are allowed to take advantage of tax breaks that unfairly benefit them to the detriment of others who are much less well off.

I don't know if the Democratic party would even know what to do if they had a clear path for any/all legislation they wanted. We'd likely just get some pretty milquetoast centrist stuff. Status quo neoliberals (or, as MAGA calls them, socalists marxist communist leftist liberal baby eaters) love not having majorities, because it gives them a ready-made excuse for why they can't pass anything that's even a sliver left of Reagan.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:00 pm

Totally unrelated, here's a study published in Psychological Science on how lower cognitive ability is a reliable predicter for someone holding social conservatism, or right-wing authoritarianism ideologies. Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

Also totally unrelated, here's a meta-analysis, published in the European Journal of Personality, reaffirming that lower cognitive ability is associated with a stronger endorsement of right-wing ideologies. The Association of Cognitive Ability with Right–Wing Ideological Attitudes and Prejudice: A Meta–Analytic Review

Also, completely unrelated to any posts within this thread, here's a study published in the journal, Intelligence, showing that lower SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores for university students was directly correlated to conservative ideologies. Conservatism and cognitive ability

Obviously, all unrelated. Just posting for no reason whatsoever.

Not really as unrelated as you might think.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:04 pm

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:58 pm

Unfortunately, there is some truth in that. Even some Democrats are sometimes seduced by lucrative offers of wealthy donors and lobbyists to legislate in their favor and give them tax breaks they don't deserve. This does not make it right nor detract from the fact that too many wealthy and powerful are allowed to take advantage of tax breaks that unfairly benefit them to the detriment of others who are much less well off.

I don't know if the Democratic party would even know what to do if they had a clear path for any/all legislation they wanted. We'd likely just get some pretty milquetoast centrist stuff. Status quo neoliberals (or, as MAGA calls them, socalists marxist communist leftist liberal baby eaters) love not having majorities, because it gives them a ready-made excuse for why they can't pass anything that's even a sliver left of Reagan.

I don't disagree with any of that; it only adds to what I just said. Even the Democrat Party is not entirely free of selfish, self-serving or intimidate-able politicians. Ending the filibuster in the Senate would help a lot and, if I am not mistaken, there are enough Democrats in the senate right now to do that if all of them could be persuaded to agree to it.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:27 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:04 pm

I don't know if the Democratic party would even know what to do if they had a clear path for any/all legislation they wanted. We'd likely just get some pretty milquetoast centrist stuff. Status quo neoliberals (or, as MAGA calls them, socalists marxist communist leftist liberal baby eaters) love not having majorities, because it gives them a ready-made excuse for why they can't pass anything that's even a sliver left of Reagan.

I don't disagree with any of that; it only adds to what I just said. Even the Democrat Party is not entirely free of selfish, self-serving or intimidate-able politicians. Ending the filibuster in the Senate would help a lot and, if I am not mistaken, there are enough Democrats in the senate right now to do that if all of them could be persuaded to agree to it.

Yeah, that's a big if. Right now, Manchin and Sinema are absolutely against it. Manchin will almost certainly be replaced with an R -- Sinema probably with a D. The big question is "will it help a lot?" How would you feel about it if R's had slim control over both houses and Trump behind the Resolute Desk?

On the other hand, maybe it would make the House more functional. Right now, the R's can pass any extreme legislation they want (well, they could, if they had the ability to run anything), knowing that the Senate or President will rescue them from the public backlash once the public got a look at the results. Without that cover, maybe the House will trend toward being more responsible. One can hope.

I do think dems, if given a shot, would reform taxes to shift more of the burden to the top end of the income spectrum. I don't think a claw back of the middle class's lost ground through a wealth tax would pass, though.

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:08 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:00 pm

Totally unrelated, here's a study published in Psychological Science on how lower cognitive ability is a reliable predicter for someone holding social conservatism, or right-wing authoritarianism ideologies. Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

Also totally unrelated, here's a meta-analysis, published in the European Journal of Personality, reaffirming that lower cognitive ability is associated with a stronger endorsement of right-wing ideologies. The Association of Cognitive Ability with Right–Wing Ideological Attitudes and Prejudice: A Meta–Analytic Review

Also, completely unrelated to any posts within this thread, here's a study published in the journal, Intelligence, showing that lower SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores for university students was directly correlated to conservative ideologies. Conservatism and cognitive ability

Obviously, all unrelated. Just posting for no reason whatsoever.

Not really as unrelated as you might think.

Perfectly relatable! It has long been obvious to me that the less intelligent and well-informed are less likely to honestly evaluate and accept innovations that could improve the status quo.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:00 pm

Totally unrelated, here's a study published in Psychological Science on how lower cognitive ability is a reliable predicter for someone holding social conservatism, or right-wing authoritarianism ideologies. Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

Also totally unrelated, here's a meta-analysis, published in the European Journal of Personality, reaffirming that lower cognitive ability is associated with a stronger endorsement of right-wing ideologies. The Association of Cognitive Ability with Right–Wing Ideological Attitudes and Prejudice: A Meta–Analytic Review

Also, completely unrelated to any posts within this thread, here's a study published in the journal, Intelligence, showing that lower SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores for university students was directly correlated to conservative ideologies. Conservatism and cognitive ability

Obviously, all unrelated. Just posting for no reason whatsoever.

I'm not surprised at the low Analogy test scores. It's been my experience that conservatives won't sign on to a liberal-leaning proposition until the issue affects them personally, which makes me question their ability for abstract thought.

I've heard several Trump fans explicitly say that, indeed, we need a dictator. What they aren't smart enough to imagine is a dictator with whom they disagree. Democracy (like diversity) is favored for a reason beyond their ability to reason.

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 8:47 pm

The only stupidity I see is in people who allowed themselves to bamboozled by the COVID fearmongers...

Exactly, when they could be rectally inserting horse dewormers and inhaling bleach as Trump recommended.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:13 am

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 8:47 pm

The only stupidity I see is in people who allowed themselves to bamboozled by the COVID fearmongers...

Exactly, when they could be rectally inserting horse dewormers and inhaling bleach as Trump recommended.

I am not surprised at all on the limited amount of stupidity ajax observes.

It's like an ant claiming the rest of the world doesn't exist because all it sees is its precious anthill.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:49 pm

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:27 pm

I don't disagree with any of that; it only adds to what I just said. Even the Democrat Party is not entirely free of selfish, self-serving or intimidate-able politicians. Ending the filibuster in the Senate would help a lot and, if I am not mistaken, there are enough Democrats in the senate right now to do that if all of them could be persuaded to agree to it.

Yeah, that's a big if. Right now, Manchin and Sinema are absolutely against it. Manchin will almost certainly be replaced with an R -- Sinema probably with a D. The big question is "will it help a lot?" How would you feel about it if R's had slim control over both houses and Trump behind the Resolute Desk?

I think that would be disastrous! Trump would surely staff his cabinet and appointments solely with incompetent and unqualified sycophants and yes men who have sworn loyalty only to him. He would probably pardon all those who collaborated with him in the attempted insurrection, and even try to pardon himself.

On the other hand, maybe it would make the House more functional. Right now, the R's can pass any extreme legislation they want (well, they could, if they had the ability to run anything), knowing that the Senate or President will rescue them from the public backlash once the public got a look at the results. Without that cover, maybe the House will trend toward being more responsible. One can hope.

Maybe, but I have little hope of that. I fear that Trump is too stupid and narcissistic to admit to being mistaken about any decision he might have made, no matter how great the public backlash and evidence against it. I doubt the situation would be much better (and might even be a bit worse) even if D's had a slim margin in both houses, with Trump "behind the Resolute Desk." I think he would petulantly veto any legislation written and submitted by Democrats, especially if it is good legislation, just because he can't bear the prospect of Democrats getting credit for anything good.

I do think dems, if given a shot, would reform taxes to shift more of the burden to the top end of the income spectrum. I don't think a claw back of the middle class's lost ground through a wealth tax would pass, though.

That seems quite plausible to me, though I hope we are both wrong about your second sentence!