Have your politics changed much throughout your lifetime?

[Deleted]

I always vote the guys that are not in power. To keep democracy alive. While i check if the guys i vote have opinions i like. I never would vote for right wing or left wing, never vote for populists, but stay in the middle. I always vote for Pragmatism rather than ideas. Most times, there are two big parties in the middle competing for power, so its easy for me whom to vote.

[RickJamesLich]

If you think that placing modern problems in a historical context that attempts to explain societal behavior is criticizing one group and letting the other off the hook, then you are misinterpreting what people are trying to say. Again understanding does not equate to condoning. It's fine to say that we should throw all the criminals in jail, but it is also meaningless. It's what literally every person would say. The point of understanding is to attempt to change things so that people no longer feel they need to become criminals to survive. You'll never eliminate crime. That's a pipe dream. Some people are shitty and don't care what is right or what is legal. Locking everyone up is addressing the symptoms without ever addressing the disease.

Um... I'm trying to say that trying to obtain some sort of "historical justice" isn't going to work lol. Also, the train of thought that the government will solve our problems, and that we cannot solve our own is a self defeating attitude.

The issue is that in the US, you already do not need to be a criminal to survive lol. Were you able to become successful without robbing people?

And I 100% agree that we will not eliminate crime, but I do think that doesn't mean we still can't focus on reducing crime. "Some people are shitty" is what you say have you ever considered the possibility that the government can't change these types no matter what they do?

[buck008]

What I'm getting at is that it's not the governments fault - rather the parents that raise their kids in awful conditions.



The bigger issue then poverty is what is causing certain groups to stay in poverty - namely, as I mentioned, having kids when not ready, drugs, crime IMO is the key cause. Essentially we see in the inner city a never ending cycle of people that have kids before they are not ready, irresponsibly raise them, and they go on to do the same with their own kids. The answer I feel is a cultural one, where we point the finger at what is actually causing this issue. It seems that you are under the impression that someone born into poverty though is almost destined for a life of continuing poverty which is not true. In addition to this, we've already seen that government intervention has done a lot of harm and created a dependency.

I'd personally like to see these issues solved, which is why I've adopted a more conservative view point. We've already seen the liberal answers aren't working in the cities where they are needed the most.

Where would you like parents to go exactly?

You did touch on one correct statement though. Poverty is a never ending cycle. A self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not sure what you think the social mobility numbers are in this country these days, but it is rare to even move up one tax bracket. There is a reason stories of people who do so are so interesting. It's because it doesn't happen. I'm also unsure of what government intervention has taken place and you've deemed to be unhealthy. I'm also curious as to what cultural element you think is to blame here.

- - - Updated - - -

Um... I'm trying to say that trying to obtain some sort of "historical justice" isn't going to work lol. Also, the train of thought that the government will solve our problems, and that we cannot solve our own is a self defeating attitude.

The issue is that in the US, you already do not need to be a criminal to survive lol. Were you able to become successful without robbing people?

And I 100% agree that we will not eliminate crime, but I do think that doesn't mean we still can't focus on reducing crime. "Some people are shitty" is what you say have you ever considered the possibility that the government can't change these types no matter what they do?

For the last time. I am not. Not. Absolutely not. Even a little bit. Not even kind of. Advocating "historical justice". Nor am I blaming modern white people. Nor am I attempting to excuse behavior. I am telling you that there are reasons that these things may have happened that go beyond the, frankly, simplistic view that you are taking. Understanding what has happened that led to where we are does not in any way attempt to place blame or plead for leniency. It attempts to understand. Period. End of thought. It attempts to say that when one comes up with a solution, one needs to consider the past and frame things in that manner.

I did not ever say that it is necessary to become a criminal to survive. I said that some people believe that to be true. We should understand what about society causes them to think this is true. How does locking away people who are already criminals reduce crime? You just took away some people without addressing why people commit crimes. And I do admit that some people will not be changed. That's why I said what I said.

[bergmann620]

What I'm getting at is that it's not the governments fault - rather the parents that raise their kids in awful conditions.

At the end of the day, everything is the government's fault, in one way or another. What I don't get is why you can't understand that the parents raising their kids in awful conditions were themselves 'raised' in awful conditions.

The bigger issue then poverty is what is causing certain groups to stay in poverty - namely, as I mentioned, having kids when not ready, drugs, crime IMO is the key cause.

Being born into poverty is the cause.

Essentially we see in the inner city a never ending cycle of people that have kids before they are not ready, irresponsibly raise them, and they go on to do the same with their own kids.

The answer I feel is a cultural one,

What culture? 'Being poor'? Or are you trying to say 'black' without sounding racist? Because we see the many of same issues in the hills of Kentucky and the trailer parks of Alabama that we see in the slums of Detroit.

where we point the finger at what is actually causing this issue. It seems that you are under the impression that someone born into poverty though is almost destined for a life of continuing poverty which is not true.

Actually, study after study has shown that it is pretty much true.

In addition to this, we've already seen that government intervention has done a lot of harm and created a dependency.

Yea, because the programs we've implemented have been designed like Advil, and not antibiotics. We've been treating symptoms only for generations.

I'd personally like to see these issues solved, which is why I've adopted a more conservative view point.

The more conservative viewpoint is to self-segregate and let the poor and minorities kill each other off.

[belfpala]

The more conservative viewpoint is to self-segregate and let the poor and minorities kill each other off.

I have top secret information about a catapult designed to throw people over a fence. Neither have been built yet.

[Elhaym]

Childhood doesn't really count. You just regurgitate what your parents say. In my adult life my political opinion hasn't changed much. I'm a bit jaded. I didn't bother voting for anyone last time around because it was a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

If berny gets the dem nod I might vote for him. I'm not a registered democrat so I won't be voting in their primary. Otherwise I won't be voting again.

[RickJamesLich]

Where would you like parents to go exactly?

You did touch on one correct statement though. Poverty is a never ending cycle. A self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not sure what you think the social mobility numbers are in this country these days, but it is rare to even move up one tax bracket. There is a reason stories of people who do so are so interesting. It's because it doesn't happen. I'm also unsure of what government intervention has taken place and you've deemed to be unhealthy. I'm also curious as to what cultural element you think is to blame here.

Where would I like the parents to go? Frankly I'd like to see deadbeat parents jailed lol. That's probably not a realistic response though, that being said what we can do is make sure that it's culturally unacceptable to raise kids in such conditions and make sure these types of parents are fully criticized. I think we should examine the welfare system once more and try to set it up so the parents can't benefit by gaming the system.

As for poverty, it's a very tricky thing, but we have seen minorities that do in fact go up the tax bracket, despite the liberal train of thought that it's next to "impossible". In fact many races, in particular of asian descent already suprass white people in terms of success and the average amount of money they make. I think it's an illusion to say that this can't happen with blacks, for example. I think people already have understood what happened - that doesn't solve the problem though lol. Also, your "understanding" may not be the same as the next. For example many would argue that the government, things like welfare in particular, have made black people worse off as a whole, compared to the position blacks were at immediately during and after the civil rights era.

For the last time. I am not. Not. Absolutely not. Even a little bit. Not even kind of. Advocating "historical justice". Nor am I blaming modern white people. Nor am I attempting to excuse behavior. I am telling you that there are reasons that these things may have happened that go beyond the, frankly, simplistic view that you are taking. Understanding what has happened that led to where we are does not in any way attempt to place blame or plead for leniency. It attempts to understand. Period. End of thought. It attempts to say that when one comes up with a solution, one needs to consider the past and frame things in that manner.

I did not ever say that it is necessary to become a criminal to survive. I said that some people believe that to be true. We should understand what about society causes them to think this is true. How does locking away people who are already criminals reduce crime? You just took away some people without addressing why people commit crimes. And I do admit that some people will not be changed. That's why I said what I said.

So if someone "understands" why crime rates are high in the black communities, where do we go? Also, who doesn't understand? For example, if a criminal was brought up with a rough childhood, and this is acknowledged by all, what is solved?

Um... perhaps what needs to be attacked is the mentality that you "need to be a criminal to survive", for example. I think this is going to do someone a lot more harm then government policies. For example, with Dylan Roof, him wanting to kill black people in the church, we can try to understand his train of thought, but what is really accomplished in the process. I think the problem goes WAY beyond understanding, basically.

- - - Updated - - -

At the end of the day, everything is the government's fault, in one way or another. What I don't get is why you can't understand that the parents raising their kids in awful conditions were themselves 'raised' in awful conditions.

I don't see how you can think it's reasonable to think everything is the government's fault lol. The problem is that even though the parents were originally raised in awful conditions, I don't think they have the right, morally, to do the same thing to their own kids, I guess. I wouldn't say that's the government's fault at all. I'd say that blame is strictly on the parents.

Being born into poverty is the cause.

But not the only one, as I have been mentioning.

What culture? 'Being poor'? Or are you trying to say 'black' without sounding racist? Because we see the many of same issues in the hills of Kentucky and the trailer parks of Alabama that we see in the slums of Detroit.

The answer culturally is to criticize those that have kids when they are not ready, for example. And criticizing the person that sells drugs in the community, not trying to protect the person. And yes we see the problem in many places, of course it's much larger in some places then in others, I'm sure you'll agree.

Actually, study after study has shown that it is pretty much true.

How do you explain the minorities that have become successful then? Was it a fluke on some level? There are a variety of non-white ethnicities in America that make more money on average compared to whites. How could this be possible if your study is true?

Yea, because the programs we've implemented have been designed like Advil, and not antibiotics. We've been treating symptoms only for generations.

Again, government involvement has been demonstrated to hurt black people more then help them in the last 50, 60, 70, 80 years. So more government involvement is going to help?

The more conservative viewpoint is to self-segregate and let the poor and minorities kill each other off.

Nah, it's rather to let them have dignity as opposed to giving hand outs. Welfare on some level is a good thing, but too much of it, like most things, can end up being just as bad. Essentially you are advocating having the government make things worse.

[bergmann620]

How do you explain the minorities that have become successful then? Was it a fluke on some level? There are a variety of non-white ethnicities in America that make more money on average compared to whites. How could this be possible if your study is true?

There are basically 2 minority groups that tend to do well. They generally arrive in our country having been decently educated, and in strong family units, and they promote those elements in their culture.

On the opposite side of that, we have people who were brought here against their will, stripped them of their culture, and had their family groups specifically split apart and sold off for 200 years. I can't imagine why those people would have cultural or family issues after that... Like, it's almost as bizarre as the poverty that has beset the Native Americans after we stole their lands and decimated their populations.

Again, government involvement has been demonstrated to hurt black people more then help them in the last 50, 60, 70, 80 years. So more government involvement is going to help?

Yes, if it is structured in such a way as to actually encourage forming and maintaining families, rather than marginalizing them. And further, if we actually invested enough to create safe, economically viable areas in which to raise children.

Nah, it's rather to let them have dignity as opposed to giving hand outs. Welfare on some level is a good thing, but too much of it, like most things, can end up being just as bad. Essentially you are advocating having the government make things worse.

How are we preventing them from having dignity by having programs that keep kids from starving to death?

Our social spending for the non-retired is a minuscule portion of the budget.

I am advocating specifically, three things:

1) Full employment.
2) Aid that advances traditional family structures (having two parents involved).
3) Ending the 'war on drugs'.

[buck008]

Where would I like the parents to go? Frankly I'd like to see deadbeat parents jailed lol. That's probably not a realistic response though, that being said what we can do is make sure that it's culturally unacceptable to raise kids in such conditions and make sure these types of parents are fully criticized. I think we should examine the welfare system once more and try to set it up so the parents can't benefit by gaming the system.

As for poverty, it's a very tricky thing, but we have seen minorities that do in fact go up the tax bracket, despite the liberal train of thought that it's next to "impossible". In fact many races, in particular of asian descent already suprass white people in terms of success and the average amount of money they make. I think it's an illusion to say that this can't happen with blacks, for example. I think people already have understood what happened - that doesn't solve the problem though lol. Also, your "understanding" may not be the same as the next. For example many would argue that the government, things like welfare in particular, have made black people worse off as a whole, compared to the position blacks were at immediately during and after the civil rights era.




So if someone "understands" why crime rates are high in the black communities, where do we go? Also, who doesn't understand? For example, if a criminal was brought up with a rough childhood, and this is acknowledged by all, what is solved?

Um... perhaps what needs to be attacked is the mentality that you "need to be a criminal to survive", for example. I think this is going to do someone a lot more harm then government policies. For example, with Dylan Roof, him wanting to kill black people in the church, we can try to understand his train of thought, but what is really accomplished in the process. I think the problem goes WAY beyond understanding, basically.

First of all, you can't jail the parents because then the state is 100% responsible for the kids. Or you are foisting them off on some relative that may or may not be able to handle it either. Also, I'm not giving liberal rhetoric about social mobility. The absolute most favorable numbers that I was able to find suggested that economic mobility has not changed much at all since the 70's. The most negative numbers painted a more dire picture. Even within the United States, the numbers swing wildly. According to the Economist (the more optimistic one), parts of California have as much mobility as the most egalitarian parts of Europe. The lowest number found was in North Carolina and was the worst in the First World. Basically, they say that the communities that tend to have the most upward mobility are integrated (both economically and ethnically) with good schools, strong family units, strong community spirit, and lower income gaps to begin with.

If you can figure out what to do about crime, you should probably start writing your Nobel acceptance speech. I'm just telling you that problem solving requires context or you bumble around and solve nothing. I also literally said that we need to address the problem of why people feel that way.

[Breccia]

No. I've always been a liberal. The only thing that's changed is I'm far more willing to listen to opposing viewpoints now, than when I was younger.

[Dug]

Yes I used to be a right minded racist/homophobe who was bitter with the world and only cared about myself. Then I grew up

[Felicia]

My parents are right-winged moderates. I'm the same (27). And even then... my parents are open minded, probably because we're all non-religious in my family. They agree with gay marriage, are pro-choice, and even agree with the IDEA of socialized healthcare. But aren't exactly thrilled with how Obama decided to implement it. My parents hate Obama. We are, on the other hand, pro military (big Navy family)... and feel that illegals need to go through the work to come here like all the immigrants before them. Anyone who wasn't born here, and is here illegally... needs to go back. And do it right.

[RickJamesLich]

There are basically 2 minority groups that tend to do well. They generally arrive in our country having been decently educated, and in strong family units, and they promote those elements in their culture.

On the opposite side of that, we have people who were brought here against their will, stripped them of their culture, and had their family groups specifically split apart and sold off for 200 years. I can't imagine why those people would have cultural or family issues after that... Like, it's almost as bizarre as the poverty that has beset the Native Americans after we stole their lands and decimated their populations.

First, there's way more then 2 groups of immigrants. Second, a lot of those "economic advantages" you may think other minorities have may not have been as big as you think. The chinese for example built rail roads in some of the most dangerous conditions ever. Very little food and the pay only was so low that it kept them trapped in the job, very close to a form of slavery. Many died doing the work as well (there are stories of people literally freezing to death while working on the train tracks). The chinese in the country don't have the same hostility towards white people or the government though, why is that? And why have they become more successful then whites? I think a lot can be learned in this lesson.

Yes, if it is structured in such a way as to actually encourage forming and maintaining families, rather than marginalizing them. And further, if we actually invested enough to create safe, economically viable areas in which to raise children.

The poor in our country live better then the middle class in most countries on this planet. Perhaps it's not the governments fault as much as you'd like to blame them? That being with the introduction of welfare, we've seen the black community go from bad to worse, at what point the amount of kids raised in a single family home was 25% for blacks, now it's at roughly 70%. Of course that is not the only factor, and racism of course is a big factor as well, but to pretend racism is just as prevalent now as it was during the civil rights era is silly. I think this goes to show that essentially, government help isn't really helping people rather creating more dependents.

How are we preventing them from having dignity by having programs that keep kids from starving to death?

Our social spending for the non-retired is a minuscule portion of the budget.

I am advocating specifically, three things:

1) Full employment.
2) Aid that advances traditional family structures (having two parents involved).
3) Ending the 'war on drugs'.

We are preventing them by having dignity by keeping them hooked on a system of hand outs. Also by attitudes like yours that they are "destined for poverty". As opposed to, you know, believing they can work hard and enjoy success like anyone else. I don't disagree with your points, but you must understand that welfare is a deterrent for many blacks to actually gain employment (not just blacks, but it's hitting hardest with them). There are many other issues with employment though that liberals take such as illegal immigration. Essentially illegals come into our country and take jobs that could potentially go to a poor black citizen instead. So the issue is a very complex one.

- - - Updated - - -

First of all, you can't jail the parents because then the state is 100% responsible for the kids. Or you are foisting them off on some relative that may or may not be able to handle it either. Also, I'm not giving liberal rhetoric about social mobility. The absolute most favorable numbers that I was able to find suggested that economic mobility has not changed much at all since the 70's. The most negative numbers painted a more dire picture. Even within the United States, the numbers swing wildly. According to the Economist (the more optimistic one), parts of California have as much mobility as the most egalitarian parts of Europe. The lowest number found was in North Carolina and was the worst in the First World. Basically, they say that the communities that tend to have the most upward mobility are integrated (both economically and ethnically) with good schools, strong family units, strong community spirit, and lower income gaps to begin with.

If you can figure out what to do about crime, you should probably start writing your Nobel acceptance speech. I'm just telling you that problem solving requires context or you bumble around and solve nothing. I also literally said that we need to address the problem of why people feel that way.

The state is already responsible for many of these people's kids lol. And again, I'm just saying what I'd like to happen.

As for "solving crime", nobody is going to do that lol. I never said I was going to. I do think we should look at cause and effect though, which you appear to be a fan of. Unemployment is definitely tied into crime, speaking of which, unemployment amongst blacks has drastically gone up since welfare was instituted. What I'm getting at is "throwing money at the problem" and including the government may not be the answer here. Rather the black community themselves should be focusing on solving their issues such as drug usage, black on black violence, single parent homes, unemployment and more. Is it their responsibility? No, but it's not the govenrment's either, and if they want to see real change, they will have to do it the old fashion way - themselves. That is how it's worked for every other minority group in the US. The black people need real leadership, not people who are quick to blame the cops when a criminal gets busted, someone that will call out the crappy parents as opposed to trying to blame it on white people and the government.

[ShadowofVashj]

I think I've been pretty consistent throughout my awareness and caring of such things. I don't agree with identity politics because it can be suck a finicky thing, but I certainly identify as "socially liberal, fiscally responsible". Boiling it down I guess that's Center leaning Left?

My biggest issue though before even discussing anything sadly is campaign finance. As long as this issue remains none of what we talk about really matters.

[Rukh]

I think I've been pretty consistent throughout my awareness and caring of such things. I don't agree with identity politics because it can be suck a finicky thing, but I certainly identify as "socially liberal, fiscally responsible". Boiling it down I guess that's Center leaning Left?

My biggest issue though before even discussing anything sadly is campaign finance. As long as this issue remains none of what we talk about really matters.

Voting for Sanders?

[ShadowofVashj]

Voting for Sanders?

Sighs... I would love too, but only if he nabs a really strong military background or foreign policy master VP (Jim Webb please!!). Our first go around with a "Professor President" of sorts didn't go so well for various reasons, some legitimate and some completely unfair, so I'm not sure how the country would go for a 2nd one in a row. However, working in his favor is that Sanders does *get it*, when it comes to campaign finance AND working, living wages for people. Economics > Everything else. I could go into a long winded thing about basic needs and Maslow and the world but I won't here.

TL;DR - I would love too, but I don't know how feasible it is yet.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Nah I was correct the first time. Trying to come up with excuses to justify why a drug dealer does what he does, for example, only leads to a train of thought where you say "I guess it's not that bad" but at the same time creates a lot of new problems (such as drug addicts lol).

When your only job prospects are minimum wage jobs because you have no skills and a high school diploma, would you rather do that, or make 20x the money peddling some herbs to middle class white people?

[Rukh]

Sighs... I would love too, but only if he nabs a really strong military background or foreign policy master VP (Jim Webb please!!). Our first go around with a "Professor President" of sorts didn't go so well for various reasons, some legitimate and some completely unfair, so I'm not sure how the country would go for a 2nd one in a row. However, working in his favor is that Sanders does *get it*, when it comes to campaign finance AND working, living wages for people. Economics > Everything else. I could go into a long winded thing about basic needs and Maslow and the world but I won't here.

TL;DR - I would love too, but I don't know how feasible it is yet.

I'm in a similar boat on the feasibility. I think his ideas are great, but unfortunately that's not all it takes for a great leader.

[Pony Soldier]

Never cared for politics. They're all the same, they're all a bunch of liars. I don't vote either because of this reason. Every presidential debate I hear the same shit coming out of their mouth. "If I become your president I'll do this and I'll do that blah blah blah" and when it comes time to deliver it seems they're never there to follow up. I find it pointless to get involved in that bullshit. I'll just stick to my video games.

[bergmann620]

The poor in our country live better then the middle class in most countries on this planet.

I'm so glad that our poor have it better than the middle class in Nicaragua.

That being with the introduction of welfare, we've seen the black community go from bad to worse, at what point the amount of kids raised in a single family home was 25% for blacks, now it's at roughly 70%.

In the same time period, the stats for white families have gone from 3% to 30%. I guess white 'culture' is just as bankrupt, but blacks had a head start on the poverty train.

I think this goes to show that essentially, government help isn't really helping people rather creating more dependents.

I think it goes to show that you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

As opposed to, you know, believing they can work hard and enjoy success like anyone else.

I believe some people can work hard and enjoy success. And the rest will fail, and without proper support, fall into the loop of poverty.

It's almost like you think there are a significant number of full-time jobs out there to be had, even though we have like 20,000,000 people unemployed and another 40,000,000 underemployed. Even college graduates are getting stuck living at home because those magic jobs just aren't there.

I don't disagree with your points, but you must understand that welfare is a deterrent for many blacks to actually gain employment (not just blacks, but it's hitting hardest with them). There are many other issues with employment though that liberals take such as illegal immigration. Essentially illegals come into our country and take jobs that could potentially go to a poor black citizen instead. So the issue is a very complex one.

We also need to destroy the machines.

Unemployment is definitely tied into crime, speaking of which, unemployment amongst blacks has drastically gone up since welfare was instituted. What I'm getting at is "throwing money at the problem" and including the government may not be the answer here.

So, why don't we 'throw money at the problem' by paying everyone that needs a job to do something? Boom. There goes most of the poverty and all of the unemployment.

Rather the black community themselves should be focusing on solving their issues such as drug usage, black on black violence, single parent homes, unemployment and more.

Why shouldn't THE COMMUNITY be focused on that? Why is it, when it comes time to deal with the problems, it's the 'black community', rather than "my community"?

The black people need real leadership, not people who are quick to blame the cops when a criminal gets busted, someone that will call out the crappy parents as opposed to trying to blame it on white people and the government.

We need real leadership. We also need cops that respect our civil rights- it's no coincidence that the same communities where police trust is brutally low also have Justice Department findings that cops in those areas have routinely abused civil rights and brutalized people they assumed were powerless. I guess, if it makes you feel like a man to 'call out crappy parents', then go for it. I'm just asking- where did you expect them to learn to be good parents?