The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Pretty bad stuff dude. You can do better than that.

Stop being arrogant and actually listen to what the other person is trying to tell you.

Alright, if you insist.

Let’s dive into the interesting world of development economics! Now, broadly speaking, development economics is the study of how nations and communities improve their economic capacity and social capital. This field looks at how nations develop their economies over time. It also examines what lessons can be learned from their successes and mistakes.

This means taking a look at how other nations achieved high levels of human development. Take Taiwan for example. At the end of the Chinese Civil War, Taiwan  suffered from a stagnant economy and hyperinflation. The Kuomintang remnant was largely reliant on American aid. Economic activity mainly consisted of agricultural products. However, in just four decades, Taiwan would go from an economic backwater to a powerhouse of productivity, rivalling GDP per capita seen in much of the Western world. How did they achieve this remarkable feat?

Well, the roots of Taiwan’s success can be traced to the land reform movement of the 1950’s. Taiwan used to be dominated by large Japanese farms, each with a landlord and dozens of peasants tending to their crops. Indigneous Taiwanese owned little land. However, with the fall of Japan at the end of the Second World War, most of the foreign landowners fled Taiwan. This presented the KMT with an excellent opportunity to enact land reform. This was implemented through several different methods: government leases of land to farmers, land grants to tenants, and the sale of government and privately owned land.

This policy proved to be an enormous success. Crop yields increased, as farmers invested more capital into their land, inequality fell, farmer’s income increased substantially, and the price of land fell significantly. This also allowed for small manufacturing businesses in the countryside, as some farmers decided to create other enterprises to supplement their main income source.

At the same time, Taiwan enacted a strict industrial policy that imposed harsh tariffs on manufacturing products produced outside of the country. This may seem counterintuitive, given current economic consensus on trade, but these policies allowed Taiwan to develop a domestic manufacturing sector with a strong rural base. While many peasants moved to the cities, others were able to receive training and return to their home villages.

Another key feature of Taiwan’s success was American aid. USAID provided Taiwan with substantial external direct aid. This provided a catalyst for substantial economic growth on the island, with GDP growing by over 300% between 1950 and 1980. These policies also lowered inequality and increased metrics like life expectancy.

Of course, not all was well in Taiwan; the country was a one-party state ruled by the KMT, who cracked down on attempts to democratize the country or create independent unions outside of the rigid corporatist framework that the KMT imposed. However, by 1986, their control over internal affairs waned considerably, and KMT leadership embraced a transition to democracy. With the end of corporatism and state-run unions, manufacturing wages increased by nearly 60% over a three year period. Today, Taiwan’s economy has fully converged with many Western nations.

How does this relate to sweatshops? Well, it suggests that foreign-owned manufacturing may not be the only method to increase economic development. In fact, these firms may hurt economic development through rent seeking, an economic behavior where firms try to maximize wealth without adding additional value to the economy. Lobbying for more favorable regulation, for example, is a form of rent seeking behavior.

Similar to how states and municipalities offer tax incentives to attract businesses, developing countries often engage in similar behaviors in order to attract foreign investment. Additionally, foreign businesses may exploit government corruption in order to maximize their profits. This incentivizes corruption and can undermine political stability.

Sweatshops are an outgrowth of this problem. In many cases, companies are incentivized to undermine unionization efforts and government oversight. This can prolong the problem and lead to worse conditions for workers in these factories. Bangladesh, for example, is notorious for its textile industry. Work stoppages and disruptions are common, with many workers suffering from abysmal conditions in their workplace.

Are these sacrifices worth it in the long run? Perhaps, but that isn’t the question we should be asking. Here’s a better question: Can we help countries achieve economic development using a more humane approach? The answer is yes, absolutely! A combination of factors, most notably economic aid, stable government, transparency, and (in certain cases) land reform, can provide for quick economic development. Additionally, these measures produce more humane results for the working class, without generating long standing inequalities.

To say that sweatshops perform a ‘moral good’ is outrageous; their owners seek to maximize profit at every opportunity, and will not hesitate to embrace rent seeking when it provides them with an economic profit. How can this be considered a moral good? Not to mention the massive burden they place on their employees and their families.

The International community can combat the allure of these companies with a combination of direct aid and increased oversight. The ILO (International Labor Organization) at the United Nations should be further empowered to address matters such as these.

This goes without saying that there is no 'one size fits all' model for economic development. Every nation confronts its own unique set of challenges and obstacles. However, countries like Taiwan provide a realistic framework for economic development, at a smaller toll in human life.

References

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, R. of C. (T. (n.d.). Land-to-the-tiller program transformed Taiwan. Retrieved from https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=10&post=15716

Minns, J., & Tierney, R. (2003). The Labour Movement in Taiwan. Labour History, (85), 103. doi: 10.2307/27515930

Hsiao Tseng, The Theory and Practice of Land Reform in the Republic of China, 2nd edition, China Research Institute of Land Economics, Taipei, 1968

Schwab, D., & Werker, E. (2018). Are economic rents good for development? Evidence from the manufacturing sector. World Development, 112, 33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.014

[GeorgiaModerate]

Except we aren't talking about numbers in a data set, we are talking about premature deaths due to preventable spread from a novel virus. These people are someone's mother who loved and nurtured them; a beloved husband who takes care of his elderly partner; a friend and daughter who donates her time helping local kids, but who had the misfortune of a weakened immune system from recently overcoming cancer. I'm willing to sacrifice as much as I can to help make sure none of those people meet an awful, premature death - and I do consider each one of their lives worth immeasurable value, unlike material objects.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The USPS has been a target of privatization for decades now; Bush's reforms were intended to lead to its eventual insolvency, thereby manipulating the public into disapproving of its performance and being more receptive to its privatization. Why would you want to privatize a public service with a long tradition and a track record of such success that to turn public opinion against it, they had to deliberately sabotage it? Clearly not because it is failing to achieve its goals.

Thousands of Americans work for the USPS, which serves as an important source of financial stability for historically marginalized workers and those in rural communities. It ensures that all Americans are able to remain connected to each other, to their government and community, and to engage in business without worrying about paying prices deliberately inflated to provide profits in an industry that was previously devoid of the profit motive. The purpose of dismantling such an institution is obvious; it disproportionately harms the least empowered section of workers, creates a new opportunity for profit-seeking, removes an important resource from rural and low income communities, and enables them to crush the public sector unionized workforce that makes up the USPS.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes, as have the Republicans.

...and neither party has been as egregious about it as corporate America, especially in the media and entertainment sectors. American audiences need to rebel against any aspect of mass media molded around the sensitivities of CCP censors.

[President Johnson]

They should go back to their Biden +4 sample, OH and IA isnt part of the blue wall. Trump will rebound in the South

Collapses happen, and the +4 sample could have easily become a +7 sample as other pollsters suggest  (and I have seen worse for the President lately). Collapses usually have causes in consequences, and nobody could ever undo the effects of the President's lame and offensive response to COVID-19 fast enough to rescue any President. Had this happened to Obama in early 2012, then he would be cooked politically. (That Obama would have acted differently makes that a moot argument. Obama had a cozy relationship with the intelligence agencies that got knowledge of this long before Trump and tried to get this President's attention).

COVID-19 has drifted from the "frequent flier" profile to people who use the subways and city buses.  It has started to kill at a rate reminiscent of a bad war. Americans got impatient about involvement in Vietnam when American death tolls mounted into the 200's, and Americans got unsympathetic to a war that was basically a costly stalemate. When the known death toll is about ten times as much and has no connection to any noble purpose such as stopping the spread of Communist rule, then Americans will want a change in leadership. That change is evidently not coming from within the GOP that has nearly lockstep loyalty characteristic of a commie, fascist, or Ba'athist Party.

The closest analogue to the COVID-19 plague in American history for mass death is the Civil War -- both sides.

Had Trump handled this well he would be on track to win in November for having done nothing that decisively shows him an unmitigated disaster. He has his rock-solid support from what Hillary Clinton regrettably (if accurately) called "a bucket of deplorable(s)", and he got away with an impeachable deed. He has performed well (if not perfectly) for his super-rich backers in getting tax cuts and regulatory relief. But 2000 deaths a day?

Hey, hey, Donald Trump!
How many corpses did you send to the dump?

Surely you saw the numbers from MSN; if you can dispute the last numbers from early this month, you cannot dispute the nearly-lockstep direction from March (where the numbers were not so unconventional). It is about a 6% shift in every grouping of states that I see.

I have been leery of predicting Trump losing any more than 413 electoral votes (375 to 413 is Texas, which has been shaky for Trump) with 413 (every state that Trump lost or won by fewer than 10%) as a worst-case scenario for him.

Strange things happen in collapses. In 1976 Carter won every state (five of them) bordering Georgia; in 1980 Trump lost every state bordering his own state. In 1932 Hoover lost whole regions (Great Lakes, High Plains, and Far West) then usually seen as late as 1928 as reliably Republican in Presidential elections. In 1992 George HW Bush lost a raft of states that hadn't gone D since the 1960's.

Face it:

1. Donald Trump had a total share of the popular vote lower than those of some electoral losers (Kerry, Romney) of close elections and close to some (McCain, Dukakis, Dewey) absolutely crushed in landslides. He will have to gain some to avoid having to win on a lucky distribution of the popular vote.

2. The under-40 vote is about 20% more D than R; the over-55 vote is about 5% more R than D (and I really can't make a distinction in those age groups over 55 in political orientation). About  1.5% of all people over 55 die each year, and younger voters tend to replace them in the electorate.  Over four years since 2016 that suggests that Trump will be lucky to get 44.4% of the popular vote due to demographic change alone. He is absolutely not winning with that: an even swing of 1.5% causes Trump to lose Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin alone.

3. COVID-19 seems to have been ravaging elderly people, and I assume voters as much as non-voters.   

4. Trump has done nothing to appeal to younger voters. Tax cuts? Young adults have been overworked and underpaid, and the tax cuts are for owners and bosses. Regulatory relief? Trump has been anti-environment in the extreme. Young adults today expect to be around to see the worst effects of global warming. Trump's ideology supports a paradise for executives, shareholders, and landlords -- not working people who get to feel such at its worst.   

[Fuzzy Bear]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

[S019]

When we talk about having Hogan/Baker type candidates in any state it's worth noting that we only have these people in 2020 due to rare and likely non-replicable circumstances from 2014.

These two are only around in 2018 because they had a term in 2014, and they lucked out in 2014 because they caught

1a) a wave R year
1b) sufficient support from suburban voters
2) dogsh*t-tier opponents (M*rtha C**kley and *ntonio Br*wn)

(1a) could certainly happen in a Biden administration but (1b) is really unlikely in the Trump era (as others noted the GOP base now is different) and (2) doesn't happen very often.

So saying VA could elect a Hogan/Baker type Republican in the Trump-era ignores a lot of context and a lot of pieces that need to correctly fall into place. Arguably Gillespie would have been a Hogan-type chamber of commerce-type R but the politics of 2017 were different enough from the politics of 2014 that it was obvious he needed to run on MS-13. If Hogan and Baker were running for a first term in 2018 they probably would have had the same thing happen to them.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

[Pericles]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

If people don't obey the rules then the lockdown will last for longer, there will be more deaths and more damage to the economy.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

Much edge!  Very chad!

[Fuzzy Bear]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

Much edge!  Very chad!

Some of these folks are selfish, sure.  On the other hand, the God Complex of several of the Governors and Mayors here is more than a little scary.  Constitutional Rights don't apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; they apply ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  (I'm paraphrasing Mr. Justice Sutherland here.)  And people who have poured their life savings into a business (as some of these people have) are not wrong in questioning measures to close businesses that are occurring (A) in states and localities where the incidence of the disease is minimal (B) after the "curve" has been "flattened". 

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

Much edge!  Very chad!

Some of these folks are selfish, sure.  On the other hand, the God Complex of several of the Governors and Mayors here is more than a little scary.  Constitutional Rights don't apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; they apply ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  (I'm paraphrasing Mr. Justice Sutherland here.)  And people who have poured their life savings into a business (as some of these people have) are not wrong in questioning measures to close businesses that are occurring (A) in states and localities where the incidence of the disease is minimal (B) after the "curve" has been "flattened". 

I get that, but you can restart a business and/or get federal assistance to tide you over before businesses reopen. I can't get my parents back if they get sick and die though.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

Much edge!  Very chad!

Some of these folks are selfish, sure.  On the other hand, the God Complex of several of the Governors and Mayors here is more than a little scary.  Constitutional Rights don't apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; they apply ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  (I'm paraphrasing Mr. Justice Sutherland here.)  And people who have poured their life savings into a business (as some of these people have) are not wrong in questioning measures to close businesses that are occurring (A) in states and localities where the incidence of the disease is minimal (B) after the "curve" has been "flattened". 

I get that, but you can restart a business and/or get federal assistance to tide you over before businesses reopen. I can't get my parents back if they get sick and die though.

I'm 63 years old and an essential worker.  My wife (who I come home to every day) is a 65 year old cancer survivor.  Life and death are on my mind every day.  I take what precautions I can.  But death is not a Preventable Accident, and this disease's victims are mostly old folks with pre-existing conditions that would be vulnerable in a severe flu epidemic.  The vulnerable can be quarantined.  But there are those who speak of shutting down American business for months more.  Some people are in a situation where, despite the curve being flattened and the number of cases being far below what was predicted, they are told they can't open their business.  Some of these folks are facing ruin and bankruptcy.  And after being told they'd have to be shut down until the curve was flattened, they're now being told they have to remain shut down for possibly months more until a significantly greater standard is met.  Small business owners have never been a Democratic mass constituency; they have always been heavily Republican, going back to the New Deal.  That's because the regulations that hinder Big Business CRUSHES small businesses.  I understand there's some manipulative greed behind some of these arguments, but there are people indeed facing ruin, and they are not without reason to believe that their facing ruin is not absolutely necessary.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

None of these posts are high-quality. Take it somewhere else, y'all.

[The Dowager Mod]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

OK?

The party switch still happened. Why did Vermont go from being the most Republican state in the union to being one of the most Democratic?

Vermont historically wasn’t a liberal state, on the contrary it was quite conservative. Vermont Republicans prior to the Great Depression were in lockstep with the conservative GOP establishment (exemplified by figures such as Lodge Sr. (Jr.’s grandfather), Aldrich (Rocky’s grandfather), Platt, etc.), which at that time dominated the Northeastern United States with their strong support amongst Yankee Protestants. Conversely the progressive Republicans such as Lafollette, Johnson, Norris and Borah were concentrated in the Midwestern and Western US where they found strong support amongst the poorer and more agrarian populations there, particularly German and Scandinavian Protestants. Voteview illustrates this quite well as their scatter plots of the early 20th century show a cline running between Progressives like Bob Lafollette and conservatives like Nelson Aldrich and Henry Cabot Lodge Sr.. The Republicans which are more aligned with Lafollette are almost always from Western states whilst the Republicans which are more aligned with Aldrich and Lodge are almost always from Eastern and inner midwestern states (including Vermonters).

Even during the New Deal era Vermont continued to send rather conservative Republicans to Washington such as Warren Austin and Ralph Flanders, the latter whom remained a senator until 1959. Even someone like Prouty was moderately conservative and he remained a senator until 1971. Additionally, the Vermont delegation at the 1968 RNC supported Nixon over Rockefeller (9 votes going to the former and 3 to the latter). Beyond the mid 20th century however, Vermont was clearly moderating as a result of generational turnover and left wing migration, and as a result it’s Republican Party pitched further to the left to stay in power. Hence why by the late 20th century Vermont Republicanism became exemplified by figures like Stafford and Jeffords who had very moderate voting records. Today, 48% of Vermont’s population was born outside of the state, which is the highest foreign born population in the Northeast aside from NH.

Both parties had solid bases of both liberals and conservatives but after the Civil Rights Movement, conservatives by and large left the Democratic Party and went to the Republican Party and liberals by and large left the Republican Party and joined the Democratic Party. That's a switch! 

This is muddying the waters. Whilst it’s true that the Republicans and Democrats contained factions which differed from each other ideologically. The cores of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have always been conservatism and liberalism respectively. You may find this idea absurd because you analyse history within a modern and America-centric framework but I’d advice you to look at the developments of Liberalism and Conservatism outside of the US in countries like Canada and the UK. Why Disraeli the Conservative promoted a philosophy of an active and paternalistic government whilst in the same time period Gladstone the Liberal advocated laizze faire capitalism and free trade? 19th century Liberals viewed centralised government as primarily an upholder of hierarchy and inequality and a tool for cracking down on individual liberty, this attitude began to be reassessed around the turn of the century as Liberals began to see a need for government intervention in order to fight against the perceived inequalities caused by unrestrained capitalism. Conversely, conservatives concerned that the excesses of capitalism would lead to an increase of social vices and class resentment/revolution saw a need for a more active government to regulate industry and assist the working classes and thus keep them attached to the dominant socio-political structure. This is why you see the scenario in 1904 which is inaccurately portrayed as some “flip” with Republican Teddy Roosevelt embracing economic reform whilst Democrat Alton Parker holding on to more classical liberal positions. In reality it’s just the aforementioned dynamics taking place. Liberalism and Conservatism aren’t a collection of policy positions, they’re outlooks which when applied to government take a variety of forms depending on the time period, political environment and the individual who holds them.

Of course you had left wingers in the Republican Party such as LaFollette and La Guardia, but they were clearly political outsiders. LaFollette (and other Western radicals) being a Republican because of his opposition to the Internationalism of the Democratic Party, and La Guardia being a Republican due to his opposition to Tammany corruption in NYC. You also had rather reactionary elements within the Democratic Party in the Deep South which remained Democrat not only due to the Civil War but because the wealthy Planter class, being supportive of free trade which would open up foreign markets to their agricultural exports, were opposed to Republican nationalist efforts.

As for the so called “Liberal Republicans” of the 5th party system, they’re the result of Republican organisations in Union heavy and  urban states like New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New Jersey largely accepting the new deal and the Keynesian zeitgeist in order to remain competitive in states which shifted rapidly leftward during the depression. They were essentially the Charlie Bakers of their time except the political consensus was far more interventionist and the general Republican political disadvantage and their ability to win over Democratic voters gave them more credibility. They weren’t apart of some fully fledged century long liberal tradition in the GOP and have little relation to the Western Radicals of the early 20th century.

These elements and their decline didn’t revolve around the 1964 CRA either. It was far broader than that. The Western Radicals began declining in the GOP as it moved away from reformism in the 20s and as the Democrats made inroads into the west during the 30s (most of them were dead by the 60s anyway). Southern planters started voting Republican in the 50s not only because of the civil rights plank in 48 but because the Republicans under Eisenhower moving towards free trade was able to greatly strengthen his appeal in the anti-protectionist South. As for the Rockefeller Republicans, their decline was not only a result of the GOP moving towards neoliberalism, but the USA and the rest of the Anglosphere moving towards neoliberalism. States like New York which were considered out of reach for anyone to the right of Rockefeller sent Conservative party backed candidates to the senate in 1970 and 1980, Reagan was able to win with broad appeal in 1980 and expand upon his victory in 1984. As Republican electability increased across the nation whilst running on more conservative platforms, Rockefeller Republicans became defunct. The embrace of neoliberal economics was a global phenomenon and  would have happened regardless of the CRA’s passage.

Also, from 1860 until 1960, the South was SOLIDLY Democratic in presidential elections (notwithstanding a few elections) but then all of a sudden in 1964, the Deep South voted Republican for the FIRST TIME EVER in a presidential election. Wow, I wonder what happened in-between 1960-1964 to make that happen?

The South wasn’t solidly Democratic prior to 64. Eisenhower and Nixon made massive inroads there in their campaigns and Republicans downballot were also doing increasingly well (See John Tower, 1962 Alabama senate race, etc.). Yes it’s obvious Goldwater benefitted from backlash against the CRA, but to say that at this point the South was suddenly a Republican stronghold or that Southern Democrats were almost entirely conservative is inaccurate. It took decades to get the South to vote the way it does today on both the presidential level and downballot, especially in the outer South. A large part of that is because of demographic changes, generational turnover and other issues causing alienation. Hence why you have areas like NE MS, Northern AL, Central TN, much of AR, Southern OK, parts of TX, and the Appalachian states especially remaining supportive or competitive for even non southern democratic presidential candidates like Dukakis and Mondale. Heck, even Kerry in 2004 came within 10 points of AR. It’s also worth pointing out that at least around half  of these Southern Democratic senators and a higher proportion of Southern Democratic Reps were not conservative at all. Figures like Sparkman, Hill, Long and Fulbright were supporters of segregation and at the same time rather loyal to the National Democratic agenda, and remained popular in the Deep South.

[Fuzzy Bear]

None of these posts are high-quality. Take it somewhere else, y'all.

The post by Mr. Reactionary I originally quoted was a high quality post.  Mr. Reactionary's post belonged here. nMr. Reactionary's post was a post worthy of this forum, and for you to post what you just did puts you in the same boat with whom you're criticizing.

Here's the post that's worthy of this forum:

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I’m not a Christian, so this isn’t intuitive to me. Help me understand. If all that matters is accepting Jesus as the Son of God for salvation, but all of his teachings about caring for the poor and weak, living simply, turning the other cheek aren’t relevant and don’t mean anything, then why bother having and studying the New Testament? Why did God waste everyone’s time having Jesus proclaim a moral code and advise people how to live a moral life, if it didn’t matter and wasn’t important to follow? Seems kind of strange if the only point of Jesus was to come down and tell people “you must achieve salvation through me, full stop” for him to mess things up by taking about morality and babbling on in the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

My understanding as a Christian: our first priority, as regards our salvation, should certainly be to recognise the role of Jesus as Son of God. Relative to our belief that we will ultimately enjoy an eternity with Christ in heaven, yes, that is all that "matters", because we do assume that what we do here pales in comparison with what is to come after death.

But this emphatically does not deal with what Christians are to do in their time "on earth", which is addressed by Christ through His teachings and the rest of the New Testament. What Jesus did here – and I may be paraphrasing a little – was to provide the rationale for the restrictive set of laws that were handed down to the Israelites in the Old Testament. The overarching principles of Christlike behaviour are to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself, and these are axiomatic to the rest of Jesus' teachings. We continue to study the New Testament and the rest of Jesus' advice on how to live a moral life because, like basically everyone prior to Jesus' ministry, we have trouble going from those two axioms (one of which was provided to Moses!) to the other theorems of Christian living.

Returning to the wider political question at hand, your question is a pretty common misconception of Christianity (and a valid one, because we really haven't done enough to address it either through words or actions). It's quite easy to see how the idea that Christians don't really care about morality would come about, just from observing how Evangelicals tend to interact in the political sphere. There is an argument to be made (and that has been made, by a number of Evangelicals) that it's too easy for the average Evangelical to focus on their personal salvation and lose sight of how a Christ-follower ought to act with regard to politics. But by that token, no self-respecting Evangelical would fall for the sign that Mr. Sander erected, since it goes against the basic tenets of Christianity. An Evangelical Republican voter believes that Trump's election was directly willed, or at least permitted, by God. They do not believe that Trump is somehow superior to God.

Then we have the opposite misconception of Jesus and Christianity: one that gets excessively caught up in interpreting Jesus' teachings as a hippiefied sermon on loving everyone and giving up all of one's possessions to the poor. There's nothing particularly wrong with those statements – in fact, Jesus got at these precise points many times during his ministry – but nowadays the people who push this interpretation tend to sideline or ignore the very central concept of Jesus' role in our personal salvation. Fuzzy is essentially right when he says that those who hold to this version of Jesus are essentially thinking of Him as His era's version of Bernie Sanders; I'd add that this falls into the same mistake that Jesus' own contemporaries made when they asked if He would LIBERATE ISRAEL!!!!1!11!! from Roman tyranny. Jesus' purpose was not to be a political leader, and the modern redistributionist interpretation of His teachings are not the be-all end-all of Christianity.

And as regards what Dule and T'Chenka wrote earlier: the thing is that the definition of "Christian" is not "those who follow the teachings of Christ". You are a Christian if you have accepted Christ. The mark of a Christian in public and social spheres ought to be one who follows the teachings of Christ. One is more central to Christianity than the other, but that does not mean that the other isn't important. Similarly, a lot of Christians in politics – on the right and on the left – have forgotten one or the other of these two concepts.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Credit where credit is due

I voted Likely Pressley, but I think she is being definitely overestimated by most posters. It's correct to note that Pressley was elected against an incumbent, but the difference between her and say AOC is that while AOC was elected on a broad ideological message which, as much as I may hate, has at least some sort of appeal to extremely liberal Democrats of all stripes, Pressley won off of blatant race baiting. That may work great in the only majority minority district in the state, but it certainly won't be nearly as effective statewide (I doubt AOC could win statewide either, but conflating the two is a mistake.)

[brucejoel99]

Credit where credit is due

I voted Likely Pressley, but I think she is being definitely overestimated by most posters. It's correct to note that Pressley was elected against an incumbent, but the difference between her and say AOC is that while AOC was elected on a broad ideological message which, as much as I may hate, has at least some sort of appeal to extremely liberal Democrats of all stripes, Pressley won off of blatant race baiting. That may work great in the only majority minority district in the state, but it certainly won't be nearly as effective statewide (I doubt AOC could win statewide either, but conflating the two is a mistake.)

The rest of the thread literally makes clear how that particular reply lacked any quality (let alone of a 'high' variety).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Credit where credit is due

I voted Likely Pressley, but I think she is being definitely overestimated by most posters. It's correct to note that Pressley was elected against an incumbent, but the difference between her and say AOC is that while AOC was elected on a broad ideological message which, as much as I may hate, has at least some sort of appeal to extremely liberal Democrats of all stripes, Pressley won off of blatant race baiting. That may work great in the only majority minority district in the state, but it certainly won't be nearly as effective statewide (I doubt AOC could win statewide either, but conflating the two is a mistake.)

The rest of the thread literally makes clear how that particular reply lacked any quality (let alone of a 'high' variety).

People are right for the wrong reasons all the time and the post itself was spot on, the subsequent ones not so much (to put it mildly).

[brucejoel99]

Credit where credit is due

I voted Likely Pressley, but I think she is being definitely overestimated by most posters. It's correct to note that Pressley was elected against an incumbent, but the difference between her and say AOC is that while AOC was elected on a broad ideological message which, as much as I may hate, has at least some sort of appeal to extremely liberal Democrats of all stripes, Pressley won off of blatant race baiting. That may work great in the only majority minority district in the state, but it certainly won't be nearly as effective statewide (I doubt AOC could win statewide either, but conflating the two is a mistake.)

The rest of the thread literally makes clear how that particular reply lacked any quality (let alone of a 'high' variety).

People are right for the wrong reasons all the time and the post itself was spot on, the subsequent ones not so much (to put it mildly).

OP claims "Pressley won off of blatant race baiting." Subsequent replies show how neither Pressley nor her campaign engaged in anything that could even remotely constitute 'race-baiting,' thereby making clear that OP's post was neither high-quality nor something "spot on" that was "right for the wrong reasons."

You yourself are just wrong (to put it mildly).