Once again, proof that the US is FAR left of the establishment [Archive]

Dean

5th January 2011, 18:27

The US is a democracy, sure, but hardly democratic. The polling itself is democratic in a strict sense. The political system as a whole, is not democratic. That's simply a fact.

Nations in which a tyrant or tyrannous upper classes have to fear their underlings have a million different democratic referendums across diverging constituencies. But these referendums are at best mild imprints on a footprint left by corporations and institutions of the ruling milieu - at worst, they are private aggregations of personal data used for marketing and population control agendas.

This is unquestioningly the model of democracy presented in the US and other prevalent imperial regimes (and often the client states of these regimes).

It's a simple fact that for a nation to really be democratic - that is defined primarily as democratic, its policies centered on the democratic ideals, it should have an empowered democratic system. We don't have that. We have an empowered corporate-capitalist one with a heavy emphasis on militarization, bureaucratization, and inegalitarianism (or a centralist distribution of wealth).

RGacky3

5th January 2011, 18:42

except polling public opinion has no bearing on public policy, which means its not realyl a democracy (a democracy requires it to be democratic).

it should have an empowered democratic system. We don't have that.

Exactly.

Â¿Que?

5th January 2011, 18:51

47YujkXkOao

Heres the actual poll (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_poll).

Theres more proof that the US is mostly progresssive and the government is not because the US is not a democracy.

Sorry You "American values are conservative" people, facts are tough things.
I thanked you because I agree, but that's not the actual poll on your link. The poll was conducted by 60 minutes and vanity fair. You posted a router's article on yahoo news.

In any case, for any real hardcore data analysts, I checked the ICPSR website, and they don't appear to have the data set.

progressive_lefty

5th January 2011, 18:59

I have to read more about the Senate in the United States, as I am currently not an expert.
Is it true that there needs to be a 2/3 vote in favour of legislation, as oppossed to simply a majority of people voting in favour of legislation? If its true, for me that demonstrates the sorts of problems that the US has with trying to have a democracy that reflects its population.
Not to mention the fact that you have both a President and two houses, seperate from each other.

ComradeMan

5th January 2011, 19:21

Abolish private property- become left.

thriller

5th January 2011, 19:28

Sorry to stay off topic, but the US is not, and never was, a democracy. It's a republic. Definitions should be used.

Republic:
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

RGacky3

5th January 2011, 19:33

I have read more about the Senate in the United States, as I am currently not an expert.
Is it true that there needs to be a 2/3 vote in favour of legislation, as oppossed to simply a majority of people voting in favour of legislation? If its true, for me that demonstrates the sorts of problems that the US has with trying to have a democracy that reflects its population.
Not to mention the fact that you have both a President and two houses, seperate from each other.

Let me just clear things up for you a bit. The senate needs a simple majority to pass a bill, unless theres a philibuster, which prevents a bill from coming up for vote, a philibuster (which is when someone blocks the processs through just taking up the floor) can only be broken by a 2/3ds vote, it used to be used only once in a blue moon, now its used by the republicans for almost every democratic proposal.

The actualy congressional and governmental process is not the thing that destroys any part of democracy, that process COULD be much more democratic, (its not perfect, not even close, but it could be made more democratic), whats destroying it is monied interest, which includes many many things. Here are some:

1. Campain contributions: by corporations and individuals with political/economic interests, which are now absolutely unlimited and through groups like citizens united have the ability to be anonymous (i.e. send their money through a group so as to save their image). These are the people who pay politicians, these are the ones that write the checks of the parties, you work for who pays for you.

2. Post governmental pay off, or family pay off: Almost every member of government after his term works as a "consultant" or work as a lobbyist, meaning after they do the bidding of the corporations, those corporations pay them HUGE salleries for doing nothing, not only that but many of those members of government will have members of the family get put on the board of directors or get some other really cushy corporate job with a huge pay check.

3. Simply the market: the state system makes it possible for corporations to threaten to pull investment, or pull funding if the politicians refuse to follow commands, and its well known that corporations will actually take a hit on profits to stop things like unionization. This tool is much less used however, because its extremely risky.

4. Media coverage: THe media is made by and for the rich, and paid for by major corporations.

Bud Struggle

5th January 2011, 19:34

The recently elected House of Representitives is reading the Constitution and trying to repeal healthcare.

Geez get a grip. That's what the America people voted for. All these polls are crap.

ComradeMan

5th January 2011, 19:37

The recently elected House of Representitives is reading the Constitution and trying to repeal healthcare.

Geez get a grip. That's what the America people voted for. All these polls are crap.

Opinion polls are notoriously unreliable... I don't trust them much either way.

RGacky3

5th January 2011, 19:39

All these polls are crap.

Facts are stubborn things Bud.

The recently elected House of Representitives is reading the Constitution and trying to repeal healthcare.

Actually a very small percentage of the people did, the vast majority of people don't vote, especially for congressional races.

The truth hurts Bud. America is'nt a democracy, get that in your head, its as democratic as the soviet union was, they got to vote too, I guess they voted for Gulags.

(BTW, I'm for replealing the healthcare plan too, and getting single payer.)

Opinion polls are notoriously unreliable... I don't trust them much either way.

There are tons of them showing similar things, and they are much more reliable than trying to figure out public opinion by public policy, thats the worst way to figure out public opinion.

Bud Struggle

5th January 2011, 20:14

Facts are stubborn things Bud. That seems to be more your problem than mine.

Actually a very small percentage of the people did, the vast majority of people don't vote, especially for congressional races. So who care about the people that don't vote? Actually, Fuck them. :) And if they can't even vote--they certainly wont revolt. Forget them. :D

The truth hurts Bud. America is'nt a democracy, get that in your head, its as democratic as the soviet Union was, they got to vote too, I guess they voted for Gulags. America can be anything it wants to be--and it doesn't choose whatever you represent when the rubber meets the road. And that's all that counts.

There are tons of them showing similar things, and they are much more reliable than trying to figure out public opinion by public policy, thats the worst way to figure out public opinion. Like all your posts--charming in their way, but in reality--who cares?

ComradeMan

5th January 2011, 20:38

danyboy27

5th January 2011, 21:07

So who care about the people that don't vote? Actually, Fuck them. :) And if they can't even vote--they certainly wont revolt. Forget them. :D

Actually its a verry dire and serious matter that so much people dont vote.
When the people dosnt participate into the legislative process it mean that they dosnt really care about the state anymore.
what do you do when you dont trust the state? black market, not paying your taxes, breaking various laws, distrupting peace etc etc.

the legislative system is failing the people, and just like rousseau said, when the legislative system is rotten, the whole thing is bound to collapse.

this is happening beccause the particular will of a minority group prevail over the one of the majority, It took a certain amount of time for this to happen, the apathy toward the governement slowly growing over the decades, to create finally this huuge mass of people who dosnt trust the legislative system anymore.

No wonder the prison population and crime is up in the us, this is the direct reflection of the general mindset toward the governement and its laws.

Â¿Que?

5th January 2011, 21:37

Pierre.Laporte

6th January 2011, 01:44

I'm writing an essay at the moment delving into this statement somewhat.

The American population displays a lot of sentiments of anti-capitalism. For instance the union presidents of the AFL-CIO, CTW, and their affiliates are demonized as these money hungry "union bosses" who don't care about the well being of the common guy. It was pretty transferred over from the common sentiment of the corporate CEO and applied to the labor union. Further proof is the avoidance of the term "corporation" or even "company." Words like small business is favored much more, when in reality most anything a politician says benefits small business really benefits a large multinational corporation ten times more.

There's also the peculiar term of "creating more jobs." When I think of this term, I'm not sure about anyone else, I envision a working class man going back to work at a steel mill. This is exactly the rosy ideal many politicians want to portray. When you hear "creating jobs" you have to create twice as much profits for the company before they even think of "creating more jobs." But no one would say "I want to increase profits for large corporations" as it would be political suicide.

The financial crisis has exemplified another common sentiment that has existed in the US, and that is the demonization of wall street investors and the entire establishment of Wall Street itself. This has always existed sometime or another in the country, but due to recent events it has obviously gotten even more this way. Obama, along with some Democrats took advantage of this demonization, however they promptly stopped when the campaign donors, the driving force of the Obama camp, told him to hush up or lose support. Even on the right, we see this sentiment in the Tea Party movement, which commonly uses the "evil wall street bankers" as a rallying call.

However the orchestraters of the Tea Party, the GOP, and the Democratic Party will of course stop once they rally the support and never actually follow through attacking the power of Wall Street. It's just a rallying call to muster up public support. That's obvious.

On one hand they exploit this, to the point where it gets them the support they need. To balance this, they generally intimidate anyone away from entertaining the thoughts of their inner socialist. Through extensive propaganda campaigns against socialism and demonizing actual socialist words themselves, they effectively protect themselves from shooting themselves in the foot by flirting with anti-capitalist sentiment. Although at this point I'm preaching to the choir because as anarchists, socialists, and communists I'm sure we've all felt our fair share of discrimination due to the propaganda campaigns mentioned above.

Even von Mises felt it necessary to write an entire book on this mentality to basically ridicule them, and discuss how pervasive he thought Marxist philosophy was.

#FF0000

6th January 2011, 03:20

The poll included a random sample of 1,067 adults across the United States from November 29 to December 2. The margin of error may be plus or minus 3 percentage points, 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair said

Vanity Fair Paid circulation 1.167.499 (in 2008)
60 Minutes.....? viewing stats? Aprrox. 1,31 million source
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/latham-fails-to-give-nine-a-ratings-win/story-e6frg996-1225905868266)
USA Population 310,578,000 (2010)

Random Sample represents 0,000034% of USA.

I don't like polls- they prove little.

Nope. A sample of that size is completely sound and works just fine. Take a statistics class or something (especially if you're in college and need easy Math credits).

So who care about the people that don't vote? Actually, Fuck them. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif And if they can't even vote--they certainly wont revolt. Forget them. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

I disagree. I think voting is the very bare minimum that one can do and depending on what their political goals are it's probably not even useful.

The way I see it, a ballot is a "don't give a fuck about anything for 4 years" voucher. Check the candidate, drop it in a box, and enjoy the unwarranted self-importance and being able to look down on people who might get involved in political activism on every other day for not doing this one thing for whatever reason.

America can be anything it wants to be--and it doesn't choose whatever you represent when the rubber meets the road. And that's all that counts.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make when you say things like this, Bud. Most Americans aren't revolutionary socialists? Well, what a surprise, I guess. It doesn't mean our ideas are discredited or that we should abandon them because they are, for the moment, unpopular.

DuracellBunny97

6th January 2011, 03:29

I am a TYT fan, and Cenk is absolutely right here, this is the antithesis of democracy, ignoring the voice of the common people in favour of... what the hell is the american government doing this for anyways? just to spite the people? but at the same time, this poll didn't cover a huge amount of the american people, why couldn't it be put to an actual vote? I guess that would have taken too long, but still, it would be democratic.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th January 2011, 03:46

I'm glad most americans see raising taxes on the absurdly wealthy as a better alernative to spending cuts. But hey, the people who went out to vote and decided what govt we have definitely decided on the ultra pro-business party (as opposed to the slightly less ultra pro-business party lol). Like bud said many americans may support not cutting taxes for billionaires but that's who was elected (not that the process is fair).

This poll doesn't seem especially bad though. Some are ridiculous.

Should people go hungry at night?
Should children die of curable diseases?
Should everyone be given a good education?
Should everyone be able to retire comfortably at 40?

Everybody would agree with all of those things but getting people to try and achieve it en masse is unattainable at the moment.

RGacky3

6th January 2011, 05:59

That seems to be more your problem than mine.

Not really, I agree with the polls and statistics.

So who care about the people that don't vote? Actually, Fuck them. :) And if they can't even vote--they certainly wont revolt. Forget them. :D

THey don't not vote because they are lazy, its because they tried voting, and it was just was just as bad as the republicans bein in charge, why should they vote? Voting is just a ceremony for which puppet of the corporate world is in charge.

I'd say they are the smarter ones.

America can be anything it wants to be--and it doesn't choose whatever you represent when the rubber meets the road. And that's all that counts.

Not through the representative system we have now it can't, why don't we have single payer healthcare?

Like all your posts--charming in their way, but in reality--who cares?

Clearly you don't, which makes me wonder, why the hell are you still here?

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 09:07

Nope. A sample of that size is completely sound and works just fine. Take a statistics class or something (especially if you're in college and need easy Math credits.

Sorry, but I don't really like opinion polls, I remember a professor of mathematics warning us about these kinds of statistics etc. I am not saying they don't have their use, but to say they are "proof" of something is a different matter.

A random sample of about 1000 is generally acceptable but....

Where was this "random" sample taken? Vanity Fair readers? In the street? 60 Minutes viewers- online? What was the sample? How random was the random sample?

What were the questions? Were they loaded type questions- or balanced ones?

Should people go hungry at night?
Should children die of curable diseases?
Should everyone be given a good education?
Should everyone be able to retire comfortably at 40?

Who wouldn't answer yes/no to those types of questions? I suppose even KKK members might probably answer these "progressively".

Of course there is also the danger of the bias of response too.

When it comes to political matters I have seen so many of these polls come and go and yet when it came to election day/voting the results did not correspond.

Â¿Que?

6th January 2011, 15:35

Sorry, but I don't really like opinion polls, I remember a professor of mathematics warning us about these kinds of statistics etc. I am not saying they don't have their use, but to say they are "proof" of something is a different matter.
You're right, it's not proof. It's evidence.

A random sample of about 1000 is generally acceptable but....

Where was this "random" sample taken? Vanity Fair readers? In the street? 60 Minutes viewers- online? What was the sample? How random was the random sample?

What were the questions? Were they loaded type questions- or balanced ones?

Should people go hungry at night?
Should children die of curable diseases?
Should everyone be given a good education?
Should everyone be able to retire comfortably at 40?

Who wouldn't answer yes/no to those types of questions? I suppose even KKK members might probably answer these "progressively".

Of course there is also the danger of the bias of response too.

When it comes to political matters I have seen so many of these polls come and go and yet when it came to election day/voting the results did not correspond.
Nothing to argue here. Need to look at the actual poll, not some article about it. We all know the news sources are notorious for misrepresenting scientific studies. And the fact that it is Vanity Fair/60 minutes doesn't bode well for the actual poll either. These are not research centers.

In any case, it seems ComradeMan is making a good case to be skeptical.

RGacky3

6th January 2011, 17:27

Heres the origional poll (http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2011/02/60-minutes-poll-201102?currentPage=7)

NOTE: This poll was conducted by telephone November 29–December 2, 2010, at the CBS News interviewing facility among a random sample of 1,137 adults nationwide. Some low-percentage answer choices have been omitted.

Your right its evidence, but taking along with tons and tons of other policy polls that are evidence for the US being far left of the estabilishment, you can say with pretty good certinty that the US public is far left of the establishment.

Bud Struggle

6th January 2011, 17:44

Here are some of the questions:

Which one of these fantasy worlds
would you most like to visit?

The N.F.L. may not play next season, because
team owners and players have not agreed on a
new collective-bargaining agreement.
What would an N.F.L. lockout mean to you?

Researchers are claiming that someday
it may be possible to have a terrible memory
wiped from your mind. Is there a moment
in your life that you would want removed from
your thoughts forever, or would you want
to keep all your memories no matter what?

Which one of these fashion items would you
most like to see fall out of style for good?

Our country is trillions of dollars in
debt, and the number increases every day.
Which denomination comes after a trillion?

Which statement best describes your thoughts
about Hollywood’s latest movies?

There are, I think 9 questions in total. (I posted them slightly out of order.)

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2011/02/60-minutes-poll-201102?currentPage=1

Am I missing something here--Gack was this the right poll?

RGacky3

6th January 2011, 18:14

Bud Struggle

6th January 2011, 18:30

Yup, it was'nt a purely political poll.

But, if the nature of the poll throws you off (I don't know why it would, consiering its a random sample). I can find you tons of other polls.

Do you have any?

Not on you case Gack, I guess tend to be a bit more pragmatic about things than you. Both in the meaning of polls as opposed to elections and as the the meaning of terms like "Communism."

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 18:30

Yup, it was'nt a purely political poll.

But, if the nature of the poll throws you off (I don't know why it would, consiering its a random sample). I can find you tons of other polls.

Do you have any?

The problem is with these polls in the first place. I am not trying to undermine the value of statistics here but don't forget the old saying about "lies, damned lies and then statistics". ;)

Manic Impressive

6th January 2011, 18:49

It's strange most Americans I know are considerably further left of the democrats that includes some family I've got in Arizona and many Americans I met while in Asia. It kind of reminds me of what comedian Rich Hall said about American peoples political view point "in America Democrats are people who have seen the sea"

Rooster

6th January 2011, 19:09

I wouldn't say that taxing the rich more is revolutionary. It's just capitalism with a happy face and it won't solve any of the underlying problems.

RGacky3

6th January 2011, 19:52

Not on you case Gack, I guess tend to be a bit more pragmatic about things than you. Both in the meaning of polls as opposed to elections and as the the meaning of terms like "Communism."

Pragmatic is'nt the word I would use, ignorant is more like it.

You just dismiss facts unless they agree with you, which makes you willfully ignorant.

You define socialism in a way that suits you, ignoring how it is defined by ... socialists, and every one else.
You ignore polls in favor of elecionts, ignoring the GIANT monied interests in elections and the fact that a small segment of the population votes.

Its almost as if you don't care about facts.

The problem is with these polls in the first place. I am not trying to undermine the value of statistics here but don't forget the old saying about "lies, damned lies and then statistics". ;)

Well, they have their problems, but they're the most accurate way to examime public opinion thats available, so use them in combination and context.

Hexen

6th January 2011, 19:56

the U.S is a democracy, but not a free one.

To better explain it, the US is basically a "democracy" for the wealthy few while everyone else below them (us) is just their slaves (er...I mean "workers"/"shareholders" which are just common euphemisms).

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 20:14

Plutonomy.

Pierre.Laporte

6th January 2011, 20:15

I agree with Comrademan to a point, we don't know the specifics of how the poll was conducted. There's always reasons to be skeptical and we should look at the money behind it to see where it was coming from. It doesn't completely invalidate the poll, but just means we shouldn't rely on it.

I think there's something to be said about the point that RGacky3 made. You don't need statistics to prove it, however. In my previous post I noted how in my opinion, the buzz words that politicians use borrow from innate anti-capitalist views held by many Americans, but then distorted to support neoliberal causes. We can also look at the United States historically and see the huge numbers in the IWW and the Socialist Party. Clearly a great deal of Americans have flirted with leftist ideas. We wouldn't have had the first red scare had this not been the case.

How come we can't get similar numbers? The position that I hold is that the problem lies in two fronts. On one hand any leftist has taken a beating by gigantic propaganda campaigns. Anarchist, communist, socialist, we are all hated by those that hold power (largely corporate with most of government being their puppets). Another problem that we face is that radicals in this era can only relate to other radicals. I think as a whole each of us has done a poor job of trying to outreach to average working class citizens to enlighten them with radical ideas. In the past we saw our predecessors do a fantastic job through literature distribution, lectures, and discussion. Outreach, perhaps along those lines, needs to occur again.

RGacky3

6th January 2011, 20:31

I agree with Comrademan to a point, we don't know the specifics of how the poll was conducted. There's always reasons to be skeptical and we should look at the money behind it to see where it was coming from. It doesn't completely invalidate the poll, but just means we shouldn't rely on it.

Yes we do,

"NOTE: This poll was conducted by telephone November 29–December 2, 2010, at the CBS News interviewing facility among a random sample of 1,137 adults nationwide. Some low-percentage answer choices have been omitted. "

I think there's something to be said about the point that RGacky3 made. You don't need statistics to prove it, however. In my previous post I noted how in my opinion, the buzz words that politicians use borrow from innate anti-capitalist views held by many Americans, but then distorted to support neoliberal causes.

Which is why the word "socialist" generally polls MUCH MUCH lower than than actual socialist ideas, which is because socialism has been made a dirty word.

Thats why with statistics I generally prefer ones specific issues, rather than political labels, which can be twisted.

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 20:44

Yes we do,

"NOTE: This poll was conducted by telephone November 29–December 2, 2010, at the CBS News interviewing facility among a random sample of 1,137 adults nationwide. Some low-percentage answer choices have been omitted. ".

Telephone poll :rolleyes: Could suggest response bias because you wanted to sound nice to that sexy voice over the phone. ;)
:lol:

danyboy27

6th January 2011, 20:50

To better explain it, the US is basically a "democracy" for the wealthy few while everyone else below them (us) is just their slaves (er...I mean "workers"/"shareholders" which are just common euphemisms).

this is much more complicated than that.

in theory, this kind of democracy can work and is efficient, having elites forced to do a respectable legislative job for the will of the people have worked in the past in many civilisation, but sooner or later, the particular will of some individual with vested interest kick in and replace the general will.

the roman republic, before it became an autocratic system was a pretty good at the time, but ultimately, when the senate took over and designated their homeboy to rule the show, it was the begining of the end.

the problems we have today with capitalism is somehow the same we had in the past with monarchy; those who run the show dosnt have to be competent to have all this power over other, and power without accountability lead to major clusterfuck.

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 20:58

the roman republic, before it became an autocratic system was a pretty good at the time, but ultimately, when the senate took over and designated their homeboy to rule the show, it was the begining of the end..

I'm not quite sure that's how it went really.... :crying:

In fact Caesar was progressive, the Gracchi had also been progressive and were "against" the status quo who held power in the Senate. The Senate didn't take over, it was the Senatorial system with two consuls that replaced the monarchy.

I like the idea of the Senate's homeboy though... unfortunately I don't think they did Ray Bans at the time but cruising around in your toga, chariot and sunglasses would have been cool all the same...:cool:

Bud Struggle

6th January 2011, 21:03

The poll was a piece of fluff conducted in about as unscientific manner as possible. It not only is misleading it is an outright farce.

I support highter taxes for the rich--does that make me a radical. I also would like to live in Narnia--does that make me a radical?

I don't think that bowties should be abolished (I wear them on occasion) does that make me a Reactionary?

This entire thread is a cross between wishful thinking and a bade joke.

I would suggest that the OP actually READ THE POLL before he post threads on it.

RGacky3

6th January 2011, 21:18

This entire thread is a cross between wishful thinking and a bade joke.

Well thanks for your insight and facts.

The poll was a piece of fluff conducted in about as unscientific manner as possible.

How was it done in an unscientific manner?

I support highter taxes for the rich--does that make me a radical.

It makes you more progressive than the establishment.

I also would like to live in Narnia--does that make me a radical?

Nothing to do with anything.

I would suggest that the OP actually READ THE POLL before he post threads on it.

Done, again, this is one of many.

Telephone poll :rolleyes: Could suggest response bias because you wanted to sound nice to that sexy voice over the phone. ;)
:lol:

Do you know how most polls are done?

having elites forced to do a respectable legislative job for the will of the people have worked in the past in many civilisation,

THe key word there is "FORCED."

the roman republic, before it became an autocratic system was a pretty good at the time, but ultimately, when the senate took over and designated their homeboy to rule the show, it was the begining of the end.

A Good system according to what standard? Do you know how that system worked? It was'nt democratic at all, it was an autocratic system the whole time.

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 21:21

How was it done in an unscientific manner?

Well for a start the selection of questions were classical examples of how not to ask questions on a balanced poll- they were completely loaded. CultofAbeLincoln posted a sample and from what I saw they would not be taken seriously for statistical analysis.

Do you know how most polls are done.

Yeah, like this and that's why I don't trust them very much.

#FF0000

6th January 2011, 21:24

Yeah I think it's safe to say this was a hella dumb poll.

RGacky3

6th January 2011, 21:27

Well for a start the selection of questions were classical examples of how not to ask questions on a balanced poll- they were completely loaded. CultofAbeLincoln posted a sample and from what I saw they would not be taken seriously for statistical analysis.

That one specific question that this thread was about, what was wrong with that one?

Yeah, like this and that's why I don't trust them very much.

Then what do you trust to guage public opinion?

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 21:32

That one specific question that this thread was about, what was wrong with that one? Then what do you trust to guage public opinion?

Gauging is one thing, claiming absolute truth is another one- i.e. proof.

danyboy27

6th January 2011, 21:43

THe key word there is "FORCED."
.
by the general will of those who vote him in to do the administrative job.
no matter how decentralised a system could become, you need people to manage stuff, people who should be accountable. Elite or not, somebody have to do this.

A Good system according to what standard? Do you know how that system worked? It was'nt democratic at all, it was an autocratic system the whole time.
false, it wasnt an autocratic system the whole time. For the first 100 year or so of the republic, there where general assemblies, laws where voted by those assemblies and the people had to dirrectly vote on laws that would come in effect. Even the Senate who was the elite wasnt able to control everything beccause a certain number of senator where plebian and they dirrectly worked for the people.

i consider that i was a good system if you look up at how things was during those time in other places of the world.

I am not claiming that the roman republic was the best system at the time, but it sure did the job for a hundred year or so before it was replaced by an autocracy.

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 21:47

by the general will of those who vote him in to do the administrative job.
no matter how decentralised a system could become, you need people to manage stuff, people who should be accountable. Elite or not, somebody have to do this.

false, it wasnt an autocratic system the whole time. For the first 100 year or so of the republic, there where general assemblies, laws where voted by those assemblies and the people had to dirrectly vote on laws that would come in effect. Even the Senate who was the elite wasnt able to control everything beccause a certain number of senator where plebian and they dirrectly worked for the people.

i consider that i was a good system if you look up at how things was during those time in other places of the world.

I am not claiming that the roman republic was the best system at the time, but it sure did the job for a hundred year or so before it was replaced by an autocracy.

500 years?

danyboy27

6th January 2011, 21:56

500 years?

forgive my fail sir.

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 22:03

forgive my fail sir.

Caesar is clement...

http://thm-a02.yimg.com/nimage/c84b57ea3a5b3ade (http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTf2nQOyZNc20Aj3BNBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBpY2Y5NXN iBHBvcwM2BHNlYwNzcgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1huk4alh2/EXP=1294380112/**http%3a//uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3fback=http%253A%252F%252Fuk.images.search.ya hoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253Dthumb%252B up%2526ei%253Dutf-8%2526fr%253Dslv8-tyc7%26w=109%26h=107%26imgurl=www.novojonov.ru%252 Fresource%252Fsmiley-set-big%252Fsmiley-thumb-up.png%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Ftraveliving.in%25 2Fbuddhist-teaching-in-lamayuru-and-trip-to-mulbek%26size=9k%26name=smiley%2bthumb%2bup%2b...% 26p=thumb%2bup%26oid=c84b57ea3a5b3ade%26fr2=%26no= 6%26tt=19395501%26sigr=1269at54m%26sigi=11sjq8htc% 26sigb=12gn3jg83%26.crumb=Rpth6xJ1BU5)

(In reality thumbs up was Roman the sign for "kill" and thumbs down didn't exist!!!)

Revolution starts with U

6th January 2011, 22:42

ComradeMan

6th January 2011, 23:06

In reality, all we know is that it was thumbing sign... something involving having the thumb out. You will find no evidence whether it was thumbs up, or thumbs down. We can only assume as such because the thumbs up stayed around.

Sorry, but we do know a little more than that.
Pollice compresso favor indicabatur

Pliny: "There is even a proverb that bids us turn down our thumbs to show approval" (Natural History, XXVIII.25). pollices premere- "turn down our thumbs," The opposite gesture a thumb pointing up or infesto pollice as found in Quintilian signifyingdeath. Also pollex "to close down the thumb (premere) was a sign of approbation; to extend it (vertere, convertere; pollex infestus) a sign of disapprobation."

It also makes sense in the way people still think of "stick it up him" in terms of a sword.

It seems a 19th century artist by the name of Gerome misinterpreted the Latin term pollice verso (thumb turned) and painted it downwards.

A Roman medal from Gaul c3rd century CE illustrates gladiators and a closed fist of mercy.

http://www.class.ulg.ac.be/images2/medaillon.jpg
Médaillon de Cavillargues

progressive_lefty

6th January 2011, 23:29

Let me just clear things up for you a bit. The senate needs a simple majority to pass a bill, unless theres a philibuster, which prevents a bill from coming up for vote, a philibuster (which is when someone blocks the processs through just taking up the floor) can only be broken by a 2/3ds vote, it used to be used only once in a blue moon, now its used by the republicans for almost every democratic proposal.

Thanks for your post, now I understand the significance of the Filibuster. In the past I wasn't aware of it.

Apoi_Viitor

7th January 2011, 00:20

I think it's quite apparent the American Populace is more progressive than their leaders...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/pdf/dww_public_opinion.pdf

Skooma Addict

7th January 2011, 01:48

Americans are too progressive/protectionist on economic issues for their own good. Caplan discusses this in more depth in his book Democracy the God that Failed. Basically, economists, who are generally the most informed people on such matters, are more market oriented when it comes to economic matters than the general population.

Pierre.Laporte

7th January 2011, 01:55

Yes we do,

"NOTE: This poll was conducted by telephone November 29–December 2, 2010, at the CBS News interviewing facility among a random sample of 1,137 adults nationwide. Some low-percentage answer choices have been omitted. "

The very problem with that is that it only gets people with telephones. Many people don't have land lines any longer and rely on cell phones instead. As such, this probably only polled older Americans as opposed to young ones.

We also have no idea how "random" it is. Perhaps they were only surveying people who lived in large cities? We can never always be looking down their shoulder so no matter how well done polls are performed, they can never be taken as a mandate or an exact science.

The poll is probably in the right area. It's just good practice not to rely on them as completely reliable.

RGacky3

7th January 2011, 16:03

Basically, economists, who are generally the most informed people on such matters, are more market oriented when it comes to economic matters than the general population.

I'm not buying that at all, back that up.

It's just good practice not to rely on them as completely reliable.

Which is why its just part of the bigger picture, you gotta look at other polls as well.

Bud Struggle

7th January 2011, 18:39

Which is why its just part of the bigger picture, you gotta look at other polls as well.

I hear Vogue is comming out with one next week. :D

Bud Struggle

7th January 2011, 22:07

It makes you more progressive than the establishment.

Than so was Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. :rolleyes::lol:

Being for an adjusted tax structure doesn't make you "Progressive" it just makes you for a tax structure that had been in place for 60 years until Bush came along.

ComradeMan

7th January 2011, 22:09

danyboy27

7th January 2011, 23:53

People never want to pay more tax themselves but don't mind others paying it- especially if they are seen to be wealthier.

Progressive would be to abolish most taxes as state organised theft.

Instead of taxes, we should all get mentatory government service.
half of the week we work at our regular job, the other half, we would contribute to our society has a whole by building road, organizing education courses in science and technology or designing the future plan of the lattest public building.

Instead of giving away money where god know where, you would be able to dirrectly contribute to society.

and for those who dosnt want to contribute they would be able to leave anytime for another place.

If you are not ready to contribute to the community you live in, then why are you living in this community at all?

RGacky3

8th January 2011, 09:05

Than so was Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. :rolleyes::lol:

Being for an adjusted tax structure doesn't make you "Progressive" it just makes you for a tax structure that had been in place for 60 years until Bush came along.

We're going by whats considered "progressive" today, progressive means moving more left to what we have now.

Keep in mind, other polls include the single payer, cutting defense, public controls on the financial system.

Also keep in mind, that this is in context, the context is a system that views progressive as the far left, socialism is'nt even an option.

Progressive would be to abolish most taxes as state organised theft.

Look up what progressive means in American politics, you dont' know what your talking about, what your talking about is American Libertarians.

RGacky3

8th January 2011, 09:06

Instead of taxes, we should all get mentatory government service.
half of the week we work at our regular job, the other half, we would contribute to our society has a whole by building road, organizing education courses in science and technology or designing the future plan of the lattest public building.

Instead of giving away money where god know where, you would be able to dirrectly contribute to society.

and for those who dosnt want to contribute they would be able to leave anytime for another place.

If you are not ready to contribute to the community you live in, then why are you living in this community at all?

THere are so many problems with that I don't even know where to begin, start a new thread, but think about tha idea for a bit first, its disasterous.

Bud Struggle

8th January 2011, 12:39

We're going by whats considered "progressive" today, progressive means moving more left to what we have now.

Keep in mind, other polls include the single payer, cutting defense, public controls on the financial system.

Also keep in mind, that this is in context, the context is a system that views progressive as the far left, socialism is'nt even an option.

I don't see tax cuts for the rich as ideological. No one itheir right mind wants them but the rich--and the Congress gave the rich the tax cuts because the rich pay the bills for the Congress's political campaigns.

That is all it is about.

Apoi_Viitor

8th January 2011, 15:11

Basically, economists, who are generally the most informed people on such matters, are more market oriented when it comes to economic matters than the general population.

There was a poll a while back about the political/economic opinions of economists, and accordingly, most economists (80%) identify as 'progressive', where as only 20% identify themselves as either libertarian or conservative. (Granted, probably anyone who was a Keynesian or left of one identified themselves as progressive) Unfortunately, I was unable to re-locate that specific poll, but...

RGacky3

8th January 2011, 17:18

I don't see tax cuts for the rich as ideological. No one itheir right mind wants them but the rich--and the Congress gave the rich the tax cuts because the rich pay the bills for the Congress's political campaigns.

That is all it is about.

People who believe in markets would want tax cuts across the board.

Bud Struggle

8th January 2011, 20:39

People who believe in markets would want tax cuts across the board.

There are almost fewer of those people than there are Progressives.:D Again, you are fighting a strawman. (Too much time in Norwegian saunas betting hit by birtch branches! :D )

No. Most people want the rich (who benefit more from the system) to pay a bigger share of the load. It seems reasonable.

There was a poll a while back about the political/economic opinions of economists, and accordingly, most economists (80%) identify as 'progressive', where as only 20% identify themselves as either libertarian or conservative. (Granted, probably anyone who was a Keynesian or left of one identified themselves as progressive). Great!

Unfortunately, I was unable to re-locate that specific poll, but... I think it was in Cosmo between the Armaini ads and the Gevinchy ads. :D

RGacky3

8th January 2011, 20:54

There are almost fewer of those people than there are Progressives.:D Again, you are fighting a strawman.

Not really, if you look at the mainstream media you'd think market fundementalism is the common consensus.

I.e. the idea that the market actually works.

No. Most people want the rich (who benefit more from the system) to pay a bigger share of the load. It seems reasonable.

Not if you believe that the rich got their out of their own merits, and they deserve to be there and the poor deserve to be poor because the market works.

But yeah, it is reasonable, I agree, but what your saying is reasonable is far left of the establishment.

Apoi_Viitor

8th January 2011, 22:39

I think it was in Cosmo between the Armaini ads and the Gevinchy ads. :D

Ehh, this is somewhat similar (but not what I was looking for):

Academics, intellectuals, and the highly educated overall constitute an important part of the Democratic voter base. Academia in particular tends to be progressive. In a 2005 survey, nearly 72% of full-time faculty members identified as liberal, while 15% identified as conservative. The social sciences and humanities were the most liberal disciplines while business was the most conservative. Male professors at more advanced stages of their careers as well as those at elite institutions tend be the most liberal.[21] Another survey by UCLA conducted in 2001/02, found 47.6% of scholars identifying as liberal, 34.3% as moderate, and 18% as conservative.[25] Percentages of professors who identified as liberal ranged from 49% in business to over 80% in political science and the humanities.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Academia

Bud Struggle

8th January 2011, 22:53

Ehh, this is somewhat similar (but not what I was looking for):

Academics, intellectuals, and the highly educated overall constitute an important part of the Democratic voter base. Academia in particular tends to be progressive. In a 2005 survey, nearly 72% of full-time faculty members identified as liberal, while 15% identified as conservative. The social sciences and humanities were the most liberal disciplines while business was the most conservative. Male professors at more advanced stages of their careers as well as those at elite institutions tend be the most liberal.[21] Another survey by UCLA conducted in 2001/02, found 47.6% of scholars identifying as liberal, 34.3% as moderate, and 18% as conservative.[25] Percentages of professors who identified as liberal ranged from 49% in business to over 80% in political science and the humanities.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Academia

Well, that cover's that 2% of the population!

RGacky3

8th January 2011, 23:11

Bud Struggle

8th January 2011, 23:34

What I like about this is Bud is essnecially arguing that Americans are exceptionally stupid, wheread I'm making the argumetn that no, Americans are just like everyone else.

Its strange to see Bud against Americans and me for them.

Well you got to be the hot tub tester for the Norwegian Bikini Team--that's better than I've ever done. ;)

Seriously--I would argue that the Proletariat is pretty stupid. You would think the problem acute--I think it's more chronic. :) And if by chance a Proletarian becomes Class Conscious--he doesn't stay Proletarian--he becomes a Bourgeois.

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 10:37

Seriously--I would argue that the Proletariat is pretty stupid. You would think the problem acute--I think it's more chronic. :) And if by chance a Proletarian becomes Class Conscious--he doesn't stay Proletarian--he becomes a Bourgeois.

Well, based on facts and polls and the public perception, your wrong, also the idea that the proletarian, only in the US I suppose, is stupid .... is pretty stupid, akin to the idea that blacks are dumb otherwise they would'nt be slaves.

ComradeMan

9th January 2011, 11:28

Well you got to be the hot tub tester for the Norwegian Bikini Team--that's better than I've ever done. ;)

Seriously--I would argue that the Proletariat is pretty stupid. You would think the problem acute--I think it's more chronic. :) And if by chance a Proletarian becomes Class Conscious--he doesn't stay Proletarian--he becomes a Bourgeois.

People who see everything in terms of "them and us" and divide humanity by class, race or whatever else are pretty stupid- but then society is pretty pavlovian in many senses.

While we're on the subject- having a high-level of education and/or being an academic does not de facto stop someone from being selfish, greedy and money loving inasmuch as being the opposite does not stop you from being an altruistic and socially conscious person.

The argument is not about how much money or education a person has but rather what their values viz. society and its progress are.

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 11:51

People who see everything in terms of "them and us" and divide humanity by class, race or whatever else are pretty stupid

And people that think that their interests and those of the corporate rulers are the same are also pretty stupid.

Your Boss may be a nice guy, goes to church every sunday, treats his family nice, and overall a kind person, but when profits go up, he aint giving it to you, he's maximising profits for corporate, and trying to get as much as he can, and when profits go down, he's not cutting the profits, nor is he cutting his pay, your getting laid off.

ComradeMan

9th January 2011, 12:00

And people that think that their interests and those of the corporate rulers are the same are also pretty stupid.

Your Boss may be a nice guy, goes to church every sunday, treats his family nice, and overall a kind person, but when profits go up, he aint giving it to you, he's maximising profits for corporate, and trying to get as much as he can, and when profits go down, he's not cutting the profits, nor is he cutting his pay, your getting laid off.

...and therefore it is useless to see things in any other way than by a statement of values. Like you said in another post, that guy in the suit on the jet in business class could be of working class origin too... ;)

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 12:31

Yeah, and what? Does'nt mean they deserve to be in that power, nor does it mean they have the same interests as me.

ComradeMan

9th January 2011, 12:45

Yeah, and what? Does'nt mean they deserve to be in that power, nor does it mean they have the same interests as me.

Who said that? I didn't.

The trouble is that your analyses suck at times. All these stupid "proofs" and sweeping generalisation based on unsourced opinion and perception.

The fact that your using poorly worded and unscientific, in my opinion, telephone opinion polls to prove something that is open to debate on definition doesn't help.

Define progressive.

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 13:06

THe way the poll was done is pretty much the same way reuters and gallop and other organizations do their polls.

What you said is that "The argument is not about how much money or education a person has but rather what their values viz. society and its progress are." When your talking about power dynamics and economics, what their values are are not neccessarily as important as what their power and economic interests are.

The trouble is that your analyses suck at times. All these stupid "proofs" and sweeping generalisation based on unsourced opinion and perception.

Or they are based on numerous polls and basic facts that lead to a conclusion, tons of your arguments are just based on what you think.

Define progressive.

IT does'nt really need to be defined, in the United States it pretty much has a universal definition, basically its people that support more public control on the economy.

ComradeMan

9th January 2011, 13:15

THe way the poll was done is pretty much the same way reuters and gallop and other organizations do their polls.

Source?

The poll has been discussed itself and serious questions were raised from a solid theoretical basis about its validity in terms of context, question structure, sample base and reliability in general.

Secondly, opinion polls are okay as evidence but they are not okay as proof- there is a difference.

What you said is that "The argument is not about how much money or education a person has but rather what their values viz. society and its progress are." When your talking about power dynamics and economics, what their values are are not neccessarily as important as what their power and economic interests are..

Very often their values necessitate their economic ineterests but the two are not sufficient proofs.

Or they are based on numerous polls and basic facts that lead to a conclusion, tons of your arguments are just based on what you think.

Numerous polls? Really? And in any case, so what? You could troll around the net all day finding polls for this and polls for that etc. It doesn't really mean you can build valid arguments claming "proof" on them.

IT does'nt really need to be defined, in the United States it pretty much has a universal definition, basically its people that support more public control on the economy.

Well if it's so easy, define it.

In the United States = not universal, but okay- I know what you mean.

but then...

"pretty much universal"- :laugh:-

people that support more public control on the economy

You call that progressive? :laugh:

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 13:26

Source?

The poll has been discussed itself and serious questions were raised from a solid theoretical basis about its validity in terms of context, question structure, sample base and reliability in general.

Secondly, opinion polls are okay as evidence but they are not okay as proof- there is a difference.

Source (http://media.gallup.com/PDF/FAQ/HowArePolls.pdf)
Ok its evidence, but there is a shit load of evidence.

Again, you shit on polls, but whats a better way to gague public opinion?

So far all I've heard from people like you and Bud are hunches, which are way way less scientific than even the worst done poll.

Very often their values necessitate their economic ineterests but the two are not sufficient proofs.

No, values do not necessitate economic interests.

No matter WHAT your values are, as a boss of a company its in your interests to gain the most profit from the least cost. As a worker its alwasy in your economic interests to have a higher wage for less work.

Numerous polls? Really? And in any case, so what? You could troll around the net all day finding polls for this and polls for that etc. It doesn't really mean you can build valid arguments claming "proof" on them.

About as close to proof when it comes to public opinion as possible, i.e. pretty hard to debate it, if 10 polls are made where the majority believe in god by a large margin, you can't "prove" beyond a doubt that most people believe in God, but you can get pretty damn close.

Your argument is aking to the anti-evolution argument i.e. "well you can't totally absolutely PROOOVE it." Its not an argument.

Well if it's so easy, define it.

In the United States = not universal, but okay- I know what you mean.

but then...

"pretty much universal"- :laugh:-

people that support more public control on the economy

You call that progressive? :laugh:

In the United States the word progressive i.e. people that call themselves progressive means pretty much that.

It does'nt matter what I call progressie or what you call progressive, it matters what the common definition is for progressive.

Again, your just dicking around with semantics here, which does'nt change anything.

ComradeMan

9th January 2011, 14:04

Source (http://media.gallup.com/PDF/FAQ/HowArePolls.pdf) Ok its evidence, but there is a shit load of evidence. Again, you shit on polls, but whats a better way to gague public opinion?

Public opinion- is subjective and notoriously changeable and easily manipulated.

But speaking of public opinion...

It's how people vote on election day that counts.

So far all I've heard from people like you and Bud are hunches, which are way way less scientific than even the worst done poll.

What hunches? I'm not talking about Bud's opinion- that's up to him to discuss. But- "opinion", "hunch"- hmm... think about it and then think about what an opinion poll is.

No, values do not necessitate economic interests. No matter WHAT your values are, as a boss of a company its in your interests to gain the most profit from the least cost. As a worker its alwasy in your economic interests to have a higher wage for less work.

Of course they may do. If they don't then why are people always down on Lieut. Ferret because he is in the military?

About as close to proof when it comes to public opinion as possible, i.e. pretty hard to debate it, if 10 polls are made where the majority believe in god by a large margin, you can't "prove" beyond a doubt that most people believe in God, but you can get pretty damn close..

Look up the difference between evidence and proof. A proof must be irrefutable to be a proof.

Your argument is aking to the anti-evolution argument i.e. "well you can't totally absolutely PROOOVE it." Its not an argument.

Strawman. That's a classic logical fallacy you have named. No serious evolutionary biologist would probably claim "absolute proof" but based on the evidence they have they have a working hypothesis on which to build a theory.

In the United States the word progressive i.e. people that call themselves progressive means pretty much that.

Pol Pot thought he was progressive too... :rolleyes:

It does'nt matter what I call progressie or what you call progressive, it matters what the common definition is for progressive.

Appeal to consensus. Bear in mind that this is RevLeft too...

Progressive is all too often just a trendy word to replace "liberal".

Again, your just dicking around with semantics here, which does'nt change anything.

So if I presented a mathematical theorem but just accidentally got some of the symbols wrong it would be okay would it? I could accuse detractors of "dicking around" with numbers and so on...

FFS Given that this is primarily a written meaning then the onus is on people to at least attempt some kind of accuracy in their terminology etc or concede when ambiguity or error occurs.

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 15:31

Public opinion- is subjective and notoriously changeable and easily manipulated.

But speaking of public opinion...

It's how people vote on election day that counts.

When it comes to who is in office yeah, when it comes to public policy not really (because the money makes the policy).

When it comes to public opinion, no elections are not an effective gague, because A: people vote on different issues, B: Most people don't even vote.

So thats a bunch of shit.

What hunches? I'm not talking about Bud's opinion- that's up to him to discuss. But- "opinion", "hunch"- hmm... think about it and then think about what an opinion poll is.

What public opinion is, is THEIR FUCKING OPINION, not just what you think might be the case.

Thats what a public opinion poll is, you ask people what their opinion is, and these polls show that when it comes to specific issues, people are more to the left.

Of course they may do. If they don't then why are people always down on Lieut. Ferret because he is in the military?

What? What does that have anything to do with anything? Your economic interests are what gets you more for less, it has nothing to do with your personal values, thats between you and god, or you and your morals.

Look up the difference between evidence and proof. A proof must be irrefutable to be a proof.

Strawman. That's a classic logical fallacy you have named. No serious evolutionary biologist would probably claim "absolute proof" but based on the evidence they have they have a working hypothesis on which to build a theory.

All right smart ass, I'll change my words "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE."

Pol Pot thought he was progressive too... :rolleyes:

Ok, but we are talking about what the word refers too today in the United States ...

I can make arguments about any word using semantics, but its pointless and stupid.

Appeal to consensus. Bear in mind that this is RevLeft too...

Progressive is all too often just a trendy word to replace "liberal".

Do you want me to change the word "progressive" to "FURTHER LEFT" than the estabilishment? Are you really gonna be so Anal about words?

Yeah, its an appeal to consensus, because thats how we know waht words mean moron, because there is a consensus.

So if I presented a mathematical theorem but just accidentally got some of the symbols wrong it would be okay would it? I could accuse detractors of "dicking around" with numbers and so on...

Do you know what I'm refering too when I say the word "progressive"? If you honestly do not know what I am refering to I'll change the word, if you do, but you still are just being anal about it, then your juts dicking around.

The point of language is to be understood.

FFS Given that this is primarily a written meaning then the onus is on people to at least attempt some kind of accuracy in their terminology etc or concede when ambiguity or error occurs.

Progressive has meant, at leasat in the United States, for over 100 years, "more public control of the economy," its always meant that.

Now if your claiming that me using the word is confusing you because you don't know what I mean, then thats one thing, but if you know what I mean, but you still object because ... I don't know, then your just dicking around.

ComradeMan

9th January 2011, 16:29

When it comes to who is in office yeah, when it comes to public policy not really (because the money makes the policy).

When it comes to public opinion, no elections are not an effective gague, because A: people vote on different issues, B: Most people don't even vote. So thats a bunch of shit.

If people don't vote then they have expressed their opinion too- apathy. The people who do vote also express their opinion, i.e. who they vote for.

So your comment is a bunch of shit really.

What public opinion is, is THEIR FUCKING OPINION, not just what you think might be the case.

And this is our opinion, but we are not saying it's proof of things- unlike you and your OP title.. The fact that poll is seriously flawed, in my opinion, is also something you keep skipping over.

Thats what a public opinion poll is, you ask people what their opinion is, and these polls show that when it comes to specific issues, people are more to the left.

Like what? They pay less tax and other people pay more? :lol:

What? What does that have anything to do with anything? Your economic interests are what gets you more for less, it has nothing to do with your personal values, thats between you and god, or you and your morals.

What nonsense. Your economic interests are indeed what benefit you economically and socially and this is why people make value judgements and their subsequence choices. To put it simplistically, someone who was investing in an arms company wouldn't really give a fuck about wars and things would they? Otherwise they wouldn't invest.

All right smart ass, I'll change my words "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.".

It's not overwhelming evidence. One, in my opinion, poorly worded poll is not overwhelming evidence either. All this dramatic language such as "proof" and "overwhelming".

Ok, but we are talking about what the word refers too today in the United States ...I can make arguments about any word using semantics, but its pointless and stupid.

The argument is that proof means proof and evidence means evidence- deal with it. If you want a real semantic argument then you could argue that progressive indicated direction from point A towards point B on a political spectrum but if point A was completely reactionary and rightwing and movement towards point B would be progressive in itself but would not indicate arriving (necessarily) at point B (i.e. leftist/"progressive) position.

Do you want me to change the word "progressive" to "FURTHER LEFT" than the estabilishment? Are you really gonna be so Anal about words?

Ad hominems.... :rolleyes: a few fucking tax regulations here and there doesn't really make it all that leftist does it?

Yeah, its an appeal to consensus, because thats how we know waht words mean moron, because there is a consensus.

Incoherent nonsense.

The point of language is to be understood

Agreed

So try
a) spelling things in a recognisable way
b) using words correctly
c) stop assuming that US usage is universal when it isn't.

Just face it, this silly poll doesn't prove anything, it suggest a trend in thinking at one particular moment in time- highly circumstancial and although interesting not much on which to build a political position.

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 17:09

If people don't vote then they have expressed their opinion too- apathy. The people who do vote also express their opinion, i.e. who they vote for.

So your comment is a bunch of shit really.

Or it could express disdain for the political situation where you only get to vote for 2 corporatist parties.

So your comment is really just a bunch of shit.

I doubt that the 70% or so that don't vote do so because they don't care about the economic situation.

And this is our opinion, but we are not saying it's proof of things- unlike you and your OP title.. The fact that poll is seriously flawed, in my opinion, is also something you keep skipping over.

Whats the flaw, Comrademan.

You hav'nt pointed it out.

Like what? They pay less tax and other people pay more? :lol:

Like there should be a progressive tax policy, single payer health care, get out of the wars, and so on.

The option is'nt not they pay less or and I pay more, the option is everyone pays less, and the majority of americans don't want that, beceause they don't believe in market theory.

What nonsense. Your economic interests are indeed what benefit you economically and socially and this is why people make value judgements and their subsequence choices. To put it simplistically, someone who was investing in an arms company wouldn't really give a fuck about wars and things would they? Otherwise they wouldn't invest.

Someone who was investing in a company would have an economic interest in war. Thats what economic interests are.

Personal values may come into play in what you do, but you economic interests are someting completely different.

I get a feeling you make arguments juts to make them without actually thinking them through.

Economic interests are what benefit you economically, if you don't invest in an arms company, then you don't have an economic interest in war. Why you do or do not invest in that company does'nt matter when your making economic analysis.

Either way, your full of it, economic interests are based on .... economics.

It's not overwhelming evidence. One, in my opinion, poorly worded poll is not overwhelming evidence either. All this dramatic language such as "proof" and "overwhelming".

well, I'd say the number of polls out there are pretty overwhelming.

But is all this argumetn just about my chosen lanuage??? Really?

If you want a real semantic argument then you could argue that progressive indicated direction from point A towards point B on a political spectrum but if point A was completely reactionary and rightwing and movement towards point B would be progressive in itself but would not indicate arriving (necessarily) at point B (i.e. leftist/"progressive) position.

You are really anal about language huh. Why are you making these arguments? What relevance do they have to anything?

Ad hominems.... :rolleyes: a few fucking tax regulations here and there doesn't really make it all that leftist does it?

A progressive tax makes it more left than the establishment, which is what I said.

The point of language is to be understood

Agreed

So try
a) spelling things in a recognisable way
b) using words correctly
c) stop assuming that US usage is universal when it isn't.

Just face it, this silly poll doesn't prove anything, it suggest a trend in thinking at one particular moment in time- highly circumstancial and although interesting not much on which to build a political position.

A. If its really a problem for you I'll spell check and type slower, can you RAELLY not grasp points because of my spelling though?

B) I'm using words correctly, i.e. people (except for you) get my point.

C) Considering I'm talking about American politics I use American political terminology, and I said its universal within America.

I silly poll by itself does'nt prove anything, but this is one of many many polls that show the same thing, many of these polls have been here on revleft before, if you don't believe me tell me you don't believe me, I'll look them up for you, then you can apologise for being an anal dickwad.

ComradeMan

9th January 2011, 17:25

Or it could express disdain for the political situation where you only get to vote for 2 corporatist parties.

So your comment is really just a bunch of shit..

So the fact that one of these corporatist parties is proposing something slightly less corporatist than the other is to be seen as progressive is it?

Secondly, this is not a debate about the US system- but as I understood it there's nothing to stop someone setting up a party and standing for election. Who was that socialist senator you were posting about before?

I doubt that the 70% or so that don't vote do so because they don't care about the economic situation.

Then that is their opinion isn't it? They opine that the economic situation is not important and they are generally apathetic.

Whats the flaw, Comrademan. You hav'nt pointed it out.

Well the fact of the random sample was questioned on just how random it was, not just by me, and also the question sample was shown to be a classic example of loaded questions, not just by me, and so on and so on... read the posts why don't you?

Like there should be a progressive tax policy, single payer health care, get out of the wars, and so on.

The problem isn't with the issues per se.

The option is'nt not they pay less or and I pay more, the option is everyone pays less, and the majority of americans don't want that, beceause they don't believe in market theory.

The majority of Americans- according to one poll.

Someone who was investing in a company would have an economic interest in war. Thats what economic interests are. Personal values may come into play in what you do, but you economic interests are someting completely different.

So if someone's personal values were say, pacificism they would still invest in an arms manufacturer- either they wouldn't or they would be a hypocrite and thus negate their own values. Economic interests are subjective and are of course tempered by personal value judgements.

I get a feeling you make arguments juts to make them without actually thinking them through.

I get a feeling you just post the fist dumbass video you find on Youtube proclaiming something or other and then get nasty when people don't agree with you. What do you want a discussion or an echo chamber?

Economic interests are what benefit you economically, if you don't invest in an arms company, then you don't have an economic interest in war. Why you do or do not invest in that company does'nt matter when your making economic analysis.

What are my economic interests if they are not to benefit me materially? To benefit materially they serve to improve my own lifestyle and the choices which are defined by my values and personality. Vegans aren't going to invest in a fucking meat processing company are they? Or at least it's not likely is it? Why? Based on their values.

Either way, your full of it, economic interests are based on .... economics..

Either way your stating the obvious incorrectly, economic interests are based on interests, which are based on personal issues etc. Economics is just the study thereof and the application.

well, I'd say the number of polls out there are pretty overwhelming. But is all this argumetn just about my chosen lanuage??? Really?

Define overwhelming, as in massive, as in so many no one could argue differently despite resent results in the US congress? :thumbup1:

As for the rest- use words more accurately, it's in your interest in order to further your arguments.

I silly poll by itself does'nt prove anything, but this is one of many many polls that show the same thing, many of these polls have been here on revleft before, if you don't believe me tell me you don't believe me, I'll look them up for you, then you can apologise for being an anal dickwad.

Thank you- case closed. One silly poll, doesn't prove anything- in general polls should be treated with caution and used as circumstancial evidence which is not proof.

Your the one who is being anal because of your crappy poll.

RGacky3

9th January 2011, 18:52

So the fact that one of these corporatist parties is proposing something slightly less corporatist than the other is to be seen as progressive is it?

Most of the time its not really significant.

Secondly, this is not a debate about the US system- but as I understood it there's nothing to stop someone setting up a party and standing for election. Who was that socialist senator you were posting about before?

Senator Sanders, but if you honestly believe that the US political system is that simple your wildly mistaken. Its a very organized system to make sure only corporatists get in power.

OBviously there are some exceptions, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Then that is their opinion isn't it? They opine that the economic situation is not important and they are generally apathetic.

No, their opinion, which is correct, is that voting won't change the economic situation.

Well the fact of the random sample was questioned on just how random it was, not just by me, and also the question sample was shown to be a classic example of loaded questions, not just by me, and so on and so on... read the posts why don't you?

I have read the posts, and of coarse polls are not perfect, but we are just considering 1 question, which is'nt really loaded, and not really misleading, and about problems with the phone questioning, sure, but thats how many polls are done.

Also its a much better way to examine public opinion (overall, considering many polls), than trying to follow public policy, which are way way way way more influenced by money than public opinion.

The problem isn't with the issues per se.

No .... It is. If you are further left on the issues, then you are further left.

The majority of Americans- according to one poll.

Do you have another poll to counter it? (There are more polls btw).

So if someone's personal values were say, pacificism they would still invest in an arms manufacturer- either they wouldn't or they would be a hypocrite and thus negate their own values. Economic interests are subjective and are of course tempered by personal value judgements.

He probably would'nt, but that has nothing to do with eocnomic interests.

WHen your talking about economic interests you take their invesetments and every way they get income.

Obviously his economic interest is not in weapons, BECAUSE he's not invested in weapons, why he is or is'nt has nothing to do with economic theory.

I get a feeling you just post the fist dumbass video you find on Youtube proclaiming something or other and then get nasty when people don't agree with you. What do you want a discussion or an echo chamber?

I don't mind when people don't agree with me, but they should have a real point, or some facts, or something, I've taken back things many times when I've been shown wrong. But so far, you hav'nt really presented anything compelling at all.

What are my economic interests if they are not to benefit me materially? To benefit materially they serve to improve my own lifestyle and the choices which are defined by my values and personality. Vegans aren't going to invest in a fucking meat processing company are they? Or at least it's not likely is it? Why? Based on their values.

Economic interests does not deal with values and personality perse. If they are vegans and don't invest in a mean processing company, then w edon't talk about their economic interest in meat companies, they are not part of that equasion.

Either way your stating the obvious incorrectly, economic interests are based on interests, which are based on personal issues etc. Economics is just the study thereof and the application.

No .... Economic interests are based on economics. i.e. who gets what and how.

Personal issues are a different issues, when you study economics you take economic decisions and see incentives and power dynamics and see what Economic incentives there are. When it comes to moral incentives or whatever thats a different subject, and really irrelivant to what we are talking about.

Define overwhelming, as in massive, as in so many no one could argue differently despite resent results in the US congress? :thumbup1:

As for the rest- use words more accurately, it's in your interest in order to further your arguments.

The resulst in the US congress ... well, first of all, where was the progressive option? There was none, second, what percentage voted? A very small one, so there we go, shot down immediately.

As for the rest, I'm pretty sure most everyone else got what I meant.

Thank you- case closed. One silly poll, doesn't prove anything- in general polls should be treated with caution and used as circumstancial evidence which is not proof.

Your the one who is being anal because of your crappy poll.

Well it is evidence, on top of much much more evidence, that goes against washington convention. So my point pretty much stands.

(except for your nitpicking about hte definition of hte word "proof).