Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Ah, but it's not irrelevant. Because you can never change someone's mind if you don't know what they're thinking to start with. Nobody lives forever. So if you really want to keep rich people from acting that way, you need to make sure their children's children don't grow up with the same mindset and opinions about class.
Edit: Tagg's pretty clearly just trying to stand up for his father. I don't think it represents any kind of insight into Romney's psyche.
edited 21st Feb '13 7:50:21 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.UY: How would you suggest changing their mind? We can't exactly force them to associate with poor people unless we ban private schools or something. I suppose one way would be if we stop giving them special treatment. They won't be able to think of themselves as better than others.
edited 21st Feb '13 7:55:58 PM by Kostya
I don't buy the 'Rich = Evil' schtick anymore than I buy the 'Poor=Lazy' schtick. Although I love how much the party of FDR and JFK indulges in rich-bashing.
I mean yes, most of wealthy are to some degree self-centered and primarily working for there own interests.
But to frank I think this is also true for most of the human race irregardless of class.
@Dr. Tentacles noted that "It's easy to see when it's in your face. Not so much when it isn't." Which is true, but not exclusively true only for the rich. Everyone has a monkeysphere to some extent.
I don't see the Rich on average as anymore apathetic than any other class, it's just that there actions & vices have more of an effect than the actions & vices of the average man or the poor could ever have.
I mean a wealthy person can defraud thousands, bribe government officials, and create multi-million dollar ponzi schemes. A lower-middle class person can commit minor embezzlement, steal office supplies, and scratch up other people's cars with there keys.
You can probably tell whose actions have a bigger effect on the world.
There's no actual record she said that.
edited 21st Feb '13 8:06:51 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Selective pressures: if you're rich and a selfish asshole, you will be rewarded for it. You can be a nice rich guy, but you have to compete with the selfish assholes, who can (and will and have been shown to) game the system in your favour.
I mean, I think that's their fundamental mindset, but they haven't admitted to that yet.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Kostya: To some degree, Democratic attitudes have caused the rich to adopt the "job creators" meme in self-defense. You can't deny that Democrats indulge in a bit of rich-bashing. Look at someone like Elizabeth Warren. Do you know how annoying it is to be accused of elitism by a Harvard graduate? So when you refer to the rich in negative ways, or accuse them of sociopathy, it causes them to retreat farther into conservative ideology. FDR was the most economically progressive president ever. Did anyone accuse him of hating the rich? Of course not.
Edit: RT, are you really preaching reverse Social Darwinism? Really?
edited 21st Feb '13 8:05:19 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Deviant you have to understand that my mentality is that whatever helps the greatest number of people is the best policy. The policies that are disliked by the rich do this so as long as they oppose those policies I will treat them as obstacles to prosperity.
Also rich people being Democrats is not strange. I do not hate rich people, I hate how they treat poor people. If they paid them well, paid decent tax rates, and stopped trying to ignore regulations for profit I wouldn't have a problem with them. I am not a communist. I believe rich people should be allowed to have a better quality of life and can have more money than others they just have to not be idiots about it.
UY: Dude the rich have been screwing people over for years, unintentional or not. I believe Democratic attitudes are an effect of their actions rather than a cause.
edited 21st Feb '13 8:11:03 PM by Kostya
FDR was a wildly popular president, in part because of his ability to unite people behind an American identity, rather than class or ethnicity. You could disagree with his policy, and many did. But the fact is, FDR accomplished his program because rich people back then were more economically progressive. Simple as that. So if it happened then, it can happen again.
@Kostya: And I'm telling you that if you think of someone as nothing but an obstacle, they'll be unlikely to stand aside.
edited 21st Feb '13 8:11:24 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Frankly, this is more of my issues with rich people who act like the Kochs and the like, they lack this:
@Kostya: It's possible for something to be both an effect and a cause. That's how a vicious circle works.
Re: FDR. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean there wasn't far more support among the elite for Keynesian economics and socialistic elements in government than there is now.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Representative Markey compares Citizens United ruling to Dred Scott decision on slavery
He definitely wasn't. Reverse Social Darwinism would be saying we should reward people for being nice. He was suggesting that the system does reward people who are selfish and that causes problems.
And, yet, even then, some of the rich people attempted to organize a fascist coup.
edited 21st Feb '13 8:22:39 PM by deathpigeon
@Tentacles
Huey Long.
And he disliked Roosevelt because he didn't think FDR was leftist enough.
Wait, Social Darwinism is basically 'Survival of the Strong'. So are you implying niceness is the opposite of strength?
edited 14th Dec '13 8:28:39 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016@Kostya: The Democrats weren't really any better than the Republicans at that point. Just biased in different ways. But I get what you mean. Unions were a response to mistreatment by robber barons. Fair enough.
But take a look at the unions. The hostile ones, the ones with Marxist elements, they died out or were crushed by force. They were frightening to the elite, and so the elite reacted violently. People like Teddy Roosevelt and Rockefeller negotiated with moderate unions, not explicitly anti-rich ones.
@deathpigeon: Nope. That's incorrect. Social Darwinism teaches that the best people rise to the top. Radical Taoist, ironically, has adopted the reverse version of the philosophy he hates so much. He believes that the worst people rise to the top.
Both are wrong, incidentally. Moral worth has nothing to do with financial success.s
edited 21st Feb '13 8:27:24 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.I was just randomly watching snippets of every early Presidential debate,...and I've noticed one two big things about them.
The first being that they did not seem to be as nasty and mud-slinging [especially averted in the original,...even haggard Nixon was comparatively civil and subdued compared to Gore,Mc Cain,Romney or Perot]
But the second was that the common theme on both sides seemed to be "deficits don't matter",...it's almost as if this deficit hatred is something new. Reagan himself said this,he cited Mondale for saying this,...Cheney reportedly was like this?
Why the change in attitude? The 70's and early 80's were in a bad recession to were they not?

His son, Tagg, said it
.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!