Trump

[ShockerPrez]

You can definitely throw in the times where he saluted the Marines with a coffee mug in his hand while exiting Marine 1, bowing to world leaders when he went on apology tours, and how he sounded pretty ridiculous whenever a teleprompter went out as some highlights of Obama's behavior that wasn't presidential. To me, the most un-presidential behavior President Obama exhibited was his need to inject himself in local occurrences that happened throughout the country. The Henry Louis Gates incident, Mike Brown, Mizzou, etc., it seeemed like he was hell bent on commenting on all of this before investigations or having the facts and it has really created some divides in this country not to mention it has made law enforcement's job even more dangerous than it already is by cultivating hostility throughout the country. He had a great amount of help from the media though.

Let's not forget Biden lol...that guy is a gaffe machine as well as creepy.

Yes. And then to hear libs talk about the cool and class he and his wife exuded in their term just leaves me shaking my head....

[Walker]

Yes. And then to hear libs talk about the cool and class he and his wife exuded in their term just leaves me shaking my head....

Yep, it was borderline worship. All I could think was, "Really, you guys think doofus is cool?" Thanks Millenials lol.

[pinstripers]

SNL singing "To Sir w Love"..............GMaFB

[ShockingButTrue]

To me, the most un-presidential behavior President Obama exhibited was his need to inject himself in local occurrences that happened throughout the country. The Henry Louis Gates incident, Mike Brown, Mizzou, etc., it seeemed like he was hell bent on commenting on all of this before investigations or having the facts and it has really created some divides in this country not to mention it has made law enforcement's job even more dangerous than it already is by cultivating hostility throughout the country. He had a great amount of help from the media though.

It was kind of noticeable wasn't it?

[jdshock]

What is the social platform of the progressive party? I'm going to do some reading, but would also like the opinion of a party member.

I think that the faction of democrats that call themselves "progressives" value a particular type of social justice. I don't want to just say "equality" or something like that because that's what every political ideology believes they provide, right? A libertarian believes no government intervention results in true equality, probably. I think this picture is a very rough description of the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Ideally, you have a system that takes advantage of some of the incentives that capitalism creates but still allows you to succeed whether you can get a "small" multi-million dollar loan from your father or whether you grew up in a single-parent home with no resources.

There are several assumptions progressives have that probably differ from other people. Just to highlight a few examples: (1) systemic racism isn't solved by just getting rid of a racist law that exists on the books -- if you have two centuries of either slavery or Jim Crow segregation, there is built in bias that doesn't go away the very next day; (2) equal pay between genders is a good thing -- if academic studies are telling us there is wage disparity, that's something we should be looking into. And this isn't an easy topic. If a woman gets paid less than a man for the exact same job, that's something we should obviously address. But maybe we're socializing our women to go into professions that pay less, so women make less because they join professions that pay less. How do we deal with that? (3) for me personally, I also think a huge concern is the future of automation. Unskilled jobs are going away, and they're going away fast. Truck drivers/cab drivers/delivery people/etc are the next huge industry that are going to be replaced completely. In a world with automation, you have to figure out a way to incentivize developments, but also make sure you aren't screwing up generations of people. Right now, the wealthy folks that own the businesses will receive the full benefit from automation. How do you make sure that all of those workers' families aren't thrown into poverty, though?

[Walker]

It was kind of noticeable wasn't it?

That sums it up perfectly.

[SB Shock]

The Presidnet has a lot of potential to turn things around for us. I just don't understand why he says some of the things he does. For example why did he bring up the idea that he lost the popular vote due to illegal voting? Just let it go, you are the President after all.

John Piper has an excellent piece for Christians entitled "How to Live Under an Unqualified President" and he points out one of Trumps many flaws as being.

My problem is with what he actually thinks: especially his obsession with outward appearance, sexiness, superficiality, wealth, his own status and accomplishments, and his quickness to berate and insult people and seek revenge on his critics.”

His solution is:

1. Let us pray that God would grant the gift of repentance (2 Timothy 2:25; Acts 11:18) and saving faith (Romans 10:1; Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8) to Donald Trump and all those in authority.


2. Until God answers that prayer, recognize that God’s providence rules over the unrepentant kings of the earth (Daniel 2:37–38, 4:35; Psalms 47:9; 135:6). “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). Therefore, God can restrain the pride and folly of secular leaders (Genesis 20:6). Just as with the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:9), and the Persian Cyrus, God makes the rulers of the earth “fulfill all [his] purpose” (Isaiah 44:28).


3. Accordingly, let us go on to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may
lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and holy in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:2–4).


4. And as we pray, let us recognize that, even in unbelieving leaders who cannot do God-pleasing works of faith, there is the possibility of promoting “good” conduct, which is “good” in the sense of having the outward form of what genuine trust in Christ would do.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-live-under-an-unqualified-president

[wufan]

I think that the faction of democrats that call themselves "progressives" value a particular type of social justice. I don't want to just say "equality" or something like that because that's what every political ideology believes they provide, right? A libertarian believes no government intervention results in true equality, probably. I think this picture is a very rough description of the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Ideally, you have a system that takes advantage of some of the incentives that capitalism creates but still allows you to succeed whether you can get a "small" multi-million dollar loan from your father or whether you grew up in a single-parent home with no resources.

There are several assumptions progressives have that probably differ from other people. Just to highlight a few examples: (1) systemic racism isn't solved by just getting rid of a racist law that exists on the books -- if you have two centuries of either slavery or Jim Crow segregation, there is built in bias that doesn't go away the very next day; (2) equal pay between genders is a good thing -- if academic studies are telling us there is wage disparity, that's something we should be looking into. And this isn't an easy topic. If a woman gets paid less than a man for the exact same job, that's something we should obviously address. But maybe we're socializing our women to go into professions that pay less, so women make less because they join professions that pay less. How do we deal with that? (3) for me personally, I also think a huge concern is the future of automation. Unskilled jobs are going away, and they're going away fast. Truck drivers/cab drivers/delivery people/etc are the next huge industry that are going to be replaced completely. In a world with automation, you have to figure out a way to incentivize developments, but also make sure you aren't screwing up generations of people. Right now, the wealthy folks that own the businesses will receive the full benefit from automation. How do you make sure that all of those workers' families aren't thrown into poverty, though?

Great summary! Your listing of pragmatic thoughts of some progressives illustrates beautifully the difficulty for progressives and conservatives to find a common ground. Equal outcome vs equal opportunity is the first thing that should be discussed before attempting a bipartisan solution to any problem. What is the end goal? Is it to have success AND failure, or is to have an ask/receive society? I have my ideas and you have yours, but there is surely an overlap on which to build.

[ShockingButTrue]

[jdshock]

What is the end goal? Is it to have success AND failure, or is to have an ask/receive society? I have my ideas and you have yours, but there is surely an overlap on which to build.

I believe this is what progressives need to figure out if they want to start having more than just moderate democrats gaining power. I don't believe there is a consensus.

What does failure mean in society? Death? I suppose most progressives probably want to provide resources so that doesn't happen. Even that is more difficult than it sounds, though. If you provide resources to an individual and he squanders them, do you let him die? What if there are children? If failure just means that you don't get every thing you want, then I definitely want a system that allows failure.

Personally, I'm really influenced by my belief that in the next century we are going to see 90% of all unskilled labor go away. I know that is a common argument that has been brought up every generation, but I just think there are a lot of signs that we're getting really close (close being a relative term). So, for example, I think a universal basic income makes a lot of sense. A low basic income hopefully allows individuals to survive, but people still have incentives to go out and create.

[ShockingButTrue]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/25/democrats-teaching-how-to-talk-to-real-americans/

This should get the ball rolling downhill some. It's a good start.

[Kung Wu]

I believe this is what progressives need to figure out if they want to start having more than just moderate democrats gaining power. I don't believe there is a consensus.

What does failure mean in society? Death? I suppose most progressives probably want to provide resources so that doesn't happen. Even that is more difficult than it sounds, though. If you provide resources to an individual and he squanders them, do you let him die? What if there are children? If failure just means that you don't get every thing you want, then I definitely want a system that allows failure.

Progressives advocate for a law that has made the extermination of 58,000,000 (MILLION) human beings since Roe v. Wade legal. If progressives truly want to provide resources to prevent death, conservatives will gladly show them how.

[jdshock]

Progressives advocate for a law that has made the extermination of 58,000,000 (MILLION) human beings since Roe v. Wade legal. If progressives truly want to provide resources to prevent death, conservatives will gladly show them how.

Come on, man. You know that pro-choice folks don't consider a fetus a human being. An abortion debate would be worse than the silly debate we're having about athlete benefits. You might not agree with it, but it's at least internally consistent.

Conservatives are much more susceptible to claims of hypocrisy:

[ShockerPrez]

I wouldn't be so opposed to government aid to the poor if I had the sense that those receiving would see it as a blessing and be thankful for it, as opposed to being a right. It's not a right.

Our economy works because of freedom and capitalism. If the welfare state continues to grow, our economy cannot support it forever. And I firmly believe that Western socialist societies can exist in no small part because there is a strong capitalist America that develops the technological advancements, military and commerce apparatus to the world, so that they can skirt some of the responsibilities of a sovereign nation and provide a welfare system to their much smaller population and claim it's a success.

[shocka khan]

Progressives advocate for a law that has made the extermination of 58,000,000 (MILLION) human beings since Roe v. Wade legal. If progressives truly want to provide resources to prevent death, conservatives will gladly show them how.

I guess you're not a libertarian after all. Either that, or I'm calling bullshit on your comment. You advocate for a smaller, more limited government for people, and yet you want a law to protect you from an issue that has, in all probability, never impacted you directly.

True definition of a tax and spend liberal, right there. Exhibit 1.