Protest March in Detroit tonite

**erikd** · July-15-16, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I'm a Republican, but I'm not ashamed of the racist fools on the right. They don't represent me. They never have.

Your lecture makes many very good points. All I will add is that I believe the exact same case can be made in reverse. There are racist and otherwise evil fools on the left too. And they don't represent the majority of the Democratic Party's thinking.

I really don't see the difference. If you do, then I suggest to you that you are no different than those who think President Obama supports everything Jeremiah Wright every said.

This was a valid argument, and exactly the same argument, that I would have made 10-15 years ago. Unfortunately, this argument is no longer valid, because the crazies have now taken over the GOP.

Trump isn't just some right-wing whacko who wants to ban Muslims, doesn't believe in climate change, thinks that vaccines cause autism, thinks that President Obama faked his birth certificate, etc... He is about to become the GOP candidate for president who believes in all of these crazy things. To top it off, his VP running mate is just as crazy, and doesn't even believe in evolution.

These aren't just some fringe radicals who happen to vote Republican, these are the top Republican candidates for the most important elected positions on earth.

To be sure, there are Democrats who believe in crazy things, but they haven't taken over the party, and chosen nominees for president who believe in crazy delusions.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-16-16, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by erikd

This was a valid argument, and exactly the same argument, that I would have made 10-15 years ago. Unfortunately, this argument is no longer valid, because the crazies have now taken over the GOP.

...

To be sure, there are Democrats who believe in crazy things, but they haven't taken over the party, and chosen nominees for president who believe in crazy delusions.

Delusional is not exclusive to the Republican party. Granted, it has manifested itself sooner -- but I see plenty of delusional thinking on the left too.

What do I think is delusional on the left? Thinking that avoiding the term Islamic Terror can save us from it. Thinking that an increase in the minimum wage helps the poor. Thinking that controlling guns is the solution to violence. Thinking that police departments are systematically racist. Thinking that Republicans support Donald Trump very much. And most important, thinking that Donald Trump cannot win the election.

I do believe we will see President Trump this fall. Yes, its will be a sad day, fueled by delusional thinking of Progressives and Democrats too.

[[Do not believe for a second that I support Trump, or could ever pull the level for him. But I think the left is underestimating the forces at play. That is delusional, and will be partly responsible for a future President Trump.)

**erikd** · July-16-16, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Delusional is not exclusive to the Republican party. Granted, it has manifested itself sooner -- but I see plenty of delusional thinking on the left too.

What do I think is delusional on the left? Thinking that avoiding the term Islamic Terror can save us from it. Thinking that an increase in the minimum wage helps the poor. Thinking that controlling guns is the solution to violence. Thinking that police departments are systematically racist. Thinking that Republicans support Donald Trump very much. And most important, thinking that Donald Trump cannot win the election.

I do believe we will see President Trump this fall. Yes, its will be a sad day, fueled by delusional thinking of Progressives and Democrats too.

[[Do not believe for a second that I support Trump, or could ever pull the level for him. But I think the left is underestimating the forces at play. That is delusional, and will be partly responsible for a future President Trump.)

Having a different opinion or plan to deal with complex social, economic, or foreign policy issues is not delusional. Implementing a higher minimum wage may or may not ultimately benefit poor people, but it depends on a myriad of other factors as well. It isn't a cut-and-dried situation.

Likewise, the gun control issue. While there is strong evidence that gun control laws can work to decrease violence [[see Australia), it is not completely delusional to assert that a similar program would not yield the same results in America.

Foreign policy is another example. There is some delusional thinking by the right-wing crazies who claim that liberal/Democrats "Think that avoiding the term Islamic Terror can save us from it." Nobody has ever said that not using the term "Islamic Terror" will "save us from it." That is ridiculous. What has been said and advocated, most notably by President Obama, is that labeling our fight against terrorism as a fight against "Islamic Terrorism" only helps to reinforce the propaganda and recruiting tactics employed by ISIS and other terrorist organizations who position America as an anti-Islamic enemy. Taking the religious aspect of the terrorism fight down a notch won't "save us from terrorism", but it will certainly increase our ability to gain support and allies from the Muslim world.

None of these are examples of crazy or delusional thinking. They are all well-reasoned concepts that are supported by logic, rational thinking, and evidence. That is not to say that they are perfect or flawless ideas, which they really can not be, as they deal with very subjective and complex grey areas of the social construct.

Most importantly, these examples of "delusional" thinking on the left are simply not equivocal to the actual delusional thinking now promoted by the right.

Saying that the effective Australian-style gun control should be implemented in America is not delusional. Saying that climate change is just a lie, promoted by global conspiracy of scientists and foriegn governments, is delusional.

Saying that increasing the minimum wage will benefit poor people is not delusional. Saying that evolution is not real is delusional.

Do you see the difference?

**Wesley Mouch** · July-16-16, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by erikd

Having a different opinion or plan to deal with complex social, economic, or foreign policy issues is not delusional. Implementing a higher minimum wage may or may not ultimately benefit poor people, but it depends on a myriad of other factors as well. It isn't a cut-and-dried situation.

Likewise, the gun control issue. While there is strong evidence that gun control laws can work to decrease violence [[see Australia), it is not completely delusional to assert that a similar program would not yield the same results in America.

Foreign policy is another example. There is some delusional thinking by the right-wing crazies who claim that liberal/Democrats "Think that avoiding the term Islamic Terror can save us from it." Nobody has ever said that not using the term "Islamic Terror" will "save us from it." That is ridiculous. What has been said and advocated, most notably by President Obama, is that labeling our fight against terrorism as a fight against "Islamic Terrorism" only helps to reinforce the propaganda and recruiting tactics employed by ISIS and other terrorist organizations who position America as an anti-Islamic enemy. Taking the religious aspect of the terrorism fight down a notch won't "save us from terrorism", but it will certainly increase our ability to gain support and allies from the Muslim world.

None of these are examples of crazy or delusional thinking. They are all well-reasoned concepts that are supported by logic, rational thinking, and evidence. That is not to say that they are perfect or flawless ideas, which they really can not be, as they deal with very subjective and complex grey areas of the social construct.

Most importantly, these examples of "delusional" thinking on the left are simply not equivocal to the actual delusional thinking now promoted by the right.

Saying that the effective Australian-style gun control should be implemented in America is not delusional. Saying that climate change is just a lie, promoted by global conspiracy of scientists and foriegn governments, is delusional.

Saying that increasing the minimum wage will benefit poor people is not delusional. Saying that evolution is not real is delusional.

Do you see the difference?

The pejorative word 'delusional' is strong, and I think leads us to labeling each other.

We disagree on policy, and on effects -- and that's a healthy debate -- so long as neither of us closes our mind to ideas.

That's what I think is dangerous today. Both left and right disrespect the other side. That's wrong.

And both left and right exude a smugness that they, and only they are right.

Its that smugness that is dangerous. When we are convinced that we, and only we, have the right answer. And we label others as mean or evil.

Take minimum wage. I think its a mistake -- and harms our must vulnerable citizens. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not evil. I sincerely believe that there are a lot of people who are having opportunity taken from them. There are families that may have a second family member who really needs a supplemental income. Sure, its not a 'living wage'. But sometimes it doesn't need to be. I think the left is smug in their opinion that raising minimum wages helps all. I think I should be allowed that opinion, and not labelled as 'evil'.

Am I allowed to think that the goal of personal freedom, including the right to pay or work for whatever wage I wish, is more important than the imposition of egalitarian ideals.

**Canadian Visitor** · July-16-16, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Take minimum wage. I think its a mistake -- and harms our must vulnerable citizens. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not evil. I sincerely believe that there are a lot of people who are having opportunity taken from them. There are families that may have a second family member who really needs a supplemental income. Sure, its not a 'living wage'. But sometimes it doesn't need to be. I think the left is smug in their opinion that raising minimum wages helps all. I think I should be allowed that opinion, and not labelled as 'evil'.

Am I allowed to think that the goal of personal freedom, including the right to pay or work for whatever wage I wish, is more important than the imposition of egalitarian ideals.

If I might interject............while noting this is wandering away from the intended topic of the thread...

I happen to find your 'tone' respectful and believe that all points of view ought to be subject to challenge and debate.

That said, in your closing you make an untenable argument. If one were to accept it, one would have to agree than an employer can impose a 100-hour work week; have un-safe labour conditions, so long as the employee agreed to it.

I don't believe that the majority, or even a material minority of the population would support that.

The argument in favour of greater freedom than less, is fine, with the caveat that absolutes are almost always unsupportable, and have highly undesirable outcomes, as a general rule, even for their advocates.

***

On the narrow issue of the minimum wage, setting aside your 'belief' might it be reasonable to instead consult the evidence?

How about looking at Ontario with a minimum wage of $11.25cdn, or Australia at $14.80 AU [[around $12 USD) or Ireland at about $14 USD)

Then consult the unemployment rates of those nations?

Is low-skill unemployment that much higher? What about the labour-force participation rate? Median Income?

I think, on balance, you would find that across a variety of jurisdictions you would see a marginal decline in low-skill employment, but not a dramatic one.

The effects of which are mitigated by more affordable access to higher education, which is then attained at a greater rate, along with various social safety net tools to ensure under-employed folks don't face the most damning effects of poverty.

All of which is to say, as you point out, policy is nuanced and most people, irrespective of their politics don't pay enough attention to said detail.

But as someone who ventures here [[and other forums) and tries to often post thoughtful, detailed policy ideas. Its my experience that the people for whom they are meant, rarely take an interest. Having already concluded that what they believe or feel is true, research is an unnecessary burden.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-17-16, 11:22 AM

CanadianVisitor, I'd like to respond to your counter-post, but I'm soaking in the latest Baton Rouge incident.

I would hope that everyone of all points of view can get behind our police officers -- warts and all -- while they continue their appropriate advocacy.

BLM has a choice. One of them is wise. The other is no different than the Trump when he didn't disavow David Duke. Is BLM really anti-cop? They can tell us they are not -- but they choose to be silent and let anti-cop speech flourish. They have the opportunity to define themselves. Silence speaks volumes.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-18-16, 10:35 AM

Kudos to President Obama for making a clear statement in support of police:

We may not yet know the motives for this attack, but I want to be clear: there is no justification for violence against law enforcement. None. These attacks are the work of cowards who speak for no one. They right now wrongs. They advance no cause. The officers in Baton Rouge; the officers in Dallas—they were our fellow Americans, part of our community, part of our country, with people who loved and needed them, and who need us now—all of us—to be at our best.

Today, on the Lord’s day, all of us stand united in prayer with the people of Baton Rouge, with the police officers who’ve been wounded, and with the grieving families of the fallen. May God bless them all.

Meanwhile, BLM's leader manages takes a bolder step, and advocates an end to violence.

I’m waiting for more information like everybody else,” he said. “I have more questions than answers. The movement began as a call to end violence. That call remains.

This difference I can tell.

Bravo, President Obama.

[[source: The Atlantic)

**erikd** · July-19-16, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

The pejorative word 'delusional' is strong, and I think leads us to labeling each other.

We disagree on policy, and on effects -- and that's a healthy debate -- so long as neither of us closes our mind to ideas.

That's what I think is dangerous today. Both left and right disrespect the other side. That's wrong.

And both left and right exude a smugness that they, and only they are right.

Its that smugness that is dangerous. When we are convinced that we, and only we, have the right answer. And we label others as mean or evil.

Take minimum wage. I think its a mistake -- and harms our must vulnerable citizens. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not evil. I sincerely believe that there are a lot of people who are having opportunity taken from them. There are families that may have a second family member who really needs a supplemental income. Sure, its not a 'living wage'. But sometimes it doesn't need to be. I think the left is smug in their opinion that raising minimum wages helps all. I think I should be allowed that opinion, and not labelled as 'evil'.

Am I allowed to think that the goal of personal freedom, including the right to pay or work for whatever wage I wish, is more important than the imposition of egalitarian ideals.

Good post.

The minimum wage debate is a perfect example of an issue that has validity and merits on both sides of the issue. It isn't crazy/delusional/evil/wrong to support either side of the argument.

I completely agree with you in these situations.

However, I also think that it is appropriate to call out crazy or delusional statements that are just flat-out incorrect. Saying that evolution isn't real, or that Obama is a secret Muslim conspiring against America, are crazy and delusional statements. They simply are not true.