🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@JonKramer @pyranose

> my points are intended to indicate that both Biden and Obama were actively pursuing right wing goals.

Youve provided very few of those that were actually left-wing and line up with his actions... only 1 out of your list.

> Or, by inaction, allowing right wing goals to become a fait accompli.

In action is invalid. Saying someone who didnt act is right wing is completely proposturous and completely makes your stance hard to take seriously.

That said your one valid example of him have a stance on a single issue that is right-wing is great and all... but as I've said before we just had a discussion where about 20 things were listed about obama in the thread that were all clearly left-wing policy positions and votes and a total of I think 2 things (between you and one other person) who points out right-wing stance on issues... that would clearly result in a strong-left lean.

Even if i took every single thing you said that I found erroneous as examples as actual examples of right-wing activity and didnt debate it... we still wind up with like 4x more examples of him taking a left stance than a right stance and even then he is still very clearly, in aggregate, on the left.

@georgetakei

@JonKramer

> I am sure someone can come up with a counter to the argument. But I have yet to see it.

Which argument? That the plot above sucks and isnt remotely accurate?

Of course someone has, we just spent quite a while doing line by line on policy and decisions and showing how virtually every vote Biden or Obama have ever made has been left leaning with very very few examples of right leaning ones.

Now you may not agree with the argument, which is fine your allowed to be wrong, but to claim you have never even seen an argument formulated, when we just got through with one, is clearly erroneous.

> And without any argument to the contrary,

Except the one I just spent quite some time laying out...

> and what I have seen

Which seems selective...

> I tend to agree with the placement of those people on that scale.

I would expect you would incorrectly draw that conclusion, given your selective eye sight :)

> Just for an example, there are reasons Biden was called "The Senator from MBNA", a credit card company.

Do you think in order to be left you have to be anti-large company or something? I mean sure that starts to develop at the very radicalized extreme ends of the left... but no hating large companies is not a strict requirement barrier to the left. Assuming of course those businesses are well regulated (an unregulated business would be more of a right thing)

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@ceoln

> I had the impression that you were saying this independence was a good trait in everyone, bad people as well as good

Independence from your choosen groups of association **is** a good trait in everyone. It is not, however, a sufficient trait. And having one good insufficient trait is not an indication that you will be a good person or make good choices.

> since you seemed to be saying it’s something we want even in for instance extreme right Republicans

You have now added the word "extreme" twice despite me objecting to the description of these 5 people as extreme for voting in line with democrats.

I am saying it is a quality we want in republicans as a whole however. Because groupthink means they follow a immoral party, and without dissent no change occurs.

Republicans who think independently will still be bad actors like their party, so in and of itself wont immediately give us good results. But since they were going to be bad if they followed the party too, no harm caused.. BUT this does mean now the republican party has the mechnisms in place for change and dissent, and yes, that is what we want.

> My mistake. :)

I know :)

> And again, the reason you don’t find the logic adding up is that you think this is about one vote on one bill. It isn’t. At all.

"this is about"... what is this here? If you mean the discussion thread, then yes, we are discussing very specifically one vote on one bill (a very large one containing smaller bills)... so yes that is exactly what **this** is about.

Now if your pointing out the dynamic in the senate is more complex than this one bill.. sure, of course it is, I am quite aware of that too. and guess what, being aware of all that, your logic still seems nonsensical for the reasons I described.

@georgetakei

@ceoln

At this point i think you are not arguing in good-faith, but i also suspect it is not intentional and you think you are (so im not mad)..

There is an it, a very large it with many different sections... obviously you can agree with parts and disagree with others.. but there is one thing collectively to be voted. It is aggregately a good thing (the vote should be passed) or it is aggregately a bad thing (the vote should fail and it should go off for more revisions).

Just because a book has many chapers, and some may be good or some may be bad, it is erroneous to say there is no book and that it is not possible to say if the book, on aggregate, was good or bad.

> that is an inaccurate oversimplification of what is going on here, and does not at all capture the situation.

No it isnt, because it isnt an explanation of the entire situation, so it cant be an oversimplification of it. It is meant to describe on specific thing... either you think the vote should have passed, or you think it shouldnt... no matter how complex the system may be, this binary choice is still a binary choice (of course what you do after you dont pass it, wither improve it or drop it is another matter).

You keep trying to do mental gymnastics to some how make these 5 GOP people look bad for voting against party lines, yet somehow in the same breath agree that their vote is the one you agree should have been made... sorry you just cant do it and the more you try to pain that picture the weaker your argument will look.

> The defense appropriations bill is just one version of one bill of a set of bills that need to be passed to keep the government open.

If you saying there are other critical bills out thre other than this one... yea sure, of **course**... your point?

> If you’d like to find out more about the actual situation that the OP was commenting on, the Axios article I linked to might be a helpful start.

I've read (a lot of) the text of the bill, am intimately familiar with the procedures for passing new bills, am aware of the vote,am aware of the revision and anotation process, etc.

Can't imagine what about the situation that article is suppose to explain I havent already covered. So far you've said nothing I wasnt already aware of, and i have said nothing inaccurate about the process (at least not that you pointed out)... so what **exactly** do you think that article has in it that may be new to me? Obviously if there is something I'd be more than happy to read it, but my impression is it will just go over the stuff I am already aware of in far greater detail... maybe im wrong though. But yea, let me know why the article might be worth my time and ill happily give a read if it sounds like it will be.

@georgetakei

@JonKramer

When i say party line i dont mean "The principles of the party" I mean "We all vote the same way"

@georgetakei

@rspfau

I am not an educator in any formal sense. But i do donate a lot of my time tutoring low-income students for free. I also have presented and been a guest at many university lecturs. So I do have some familiarity.

@antares

@ceoln

> On the subject of “why don’t the Democrats just vote for it?”

Why do you keep putting quotes around things I never said and dont paraphrase my position in any way accurately?

I said if its a good bill they should vote for it. If they dont then they, as hundreds, are to blame far more so than 5 GOP members. If its a bad bill then those 5 GOP people did the right thing and had a good outcome, yet somehow they are still the bad guy.

> That is, the party is so unstable that if McCarthy allows to the floor anything the Democrats will vote for, especially if it wouldn’t pass otherwise, he may be replaced by someone who will promise not to do that.

Yup, a great example of the harm of group think. Another example that argues against your case.

@georgetakei

@ceoln

> And it’s also not just 5 Republicans; that’s the number that voted against the procedural thing to advance even their own DoD funding bill.

I mean its the only one we are discussing here at least. Anything said here was largely about this bill and this vote.. other incidents may be valid but not what has so far been discussed is all.

> But there are more than that keeping McCarthy from sticking to the bipartisan agreement, threatening to remove him as leader if he proposes anything a Democrat will vote for, etc. The party is a mess. And “independent thinking” isn’t helping. :)

What you basically just said was, a bunch of GOP people are pressuring McCarthy if he doesnt "tow the party line", and somehow GOP members who do not tow the party line (will vote against the party) are the problem? Sounds to me you jut gave yet another example against your own argument.

@georgetakei

@JonKramer

Yea the reality that people believe this does indeed suck.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

> Both Biden and obama never did anything but increase military spending.

I never claimed Biden or OBama were effectual in the least. We are only talking about if they are left or right based on their votes nothing more.

> Obama ramped up drone bombing. Biden has continued the border policies of the trump administration, including family separations. GITMO is still open. There is little or no movement on major polluters, curbing drug company monopolies, and a net increase in fossil fuel land leases.

I mean all of these are fine points of the failures of the administration. But aside from touching on immigration policy none of that has to do with right-left leaning. A drone bombinb, however wrong, in and of itself is not a left or right choice.

The monopoly situation would be a valid right wing thing... but neither Obama nor Biden made any political decisions to support monopolies. Granted they didnt have the oppertunity to do much to oppose it... but lack of action or ineffective action is not an indication of a stance. so this is moot.

> In many cases, it is a lack of action from the Biden and Obama administrations, but that isn't a left position either. It is a pretty far right position.

The what now... lack of action, as a general concept, regardless of what the action is, is a right-wing thing? I hope im misunderstanding this part, cause that sounds absurd to say.

> And I don't think Obama adopting Mitt Romney's healthcare plan is a left wing plan either,

Are you saying Obama care, literally universal healthcare, is a right wing thing because he decided to incorperate some things from mitt? What? If he hadnt then the bill wouldnt pass as it needed GOP support and we wouldnt have universal healthcare.... I mean yea its shit, but saying that a compromise towards universal healthcare that is shitter than it could be but needed to get the vote is somehow the same as being right wing... i mean.. ok... I cant even with that.

> and there is no push from Biden for a single payer system.

push? As far as I know Biden has always supported single payer systems. Surehe hasnt been able to ever make it happen. But his voting and position has been clear.

> In fact, I believe biden took that off the table in the Dem primaries back in 2020.

You need to be specific what you mean here for me to judge it.. that MAY be damning against him in this context.

> I see both Obama and Biden as right wingers. I'm far from the only one (https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020) :

I agree you absolutely are not the only one. You and **many** people are wrong about it, sure.

@pyranose @georgetakei

@ceoln

Using the term "cherry picking" for a hypothetical example of where having independence while being a good person is a weird use of the word... cherry picking is usually where you take real world data and ignore part of it... not where you give an example of a particular thing, yes its cherry picked, thats the point, its an example of something that happens.

> If it helps any, I will definitely agree that independent thinking is a good quality in a good person. :)

Considering this is what i said like 1000 times over, then you were never disagreeing with me. You literally just admirted you've been 100% agreement this whole time as this is exactly what I reiterated many times.

> But I will maintain that it’s not a good quality in the particular Republicans in question.

You are literally saying it was a bad bill and shouldnt have passed, and that these 5 republicans stopped it because they were acting independently... yet this was a bad thing?

I dunno your logic isnt adding up. What they did, according to you stopped the bill. Stopping the bill is a good thing according to you... yet somehow also a bad thing they were independent in this vote? What?

@georgetakei

@JonKramer

I mean thats kinda true im sure.. what i mean to say is "not tow the party line"

@georgetakei

@ceoln @georgetakei

> “No, that’s what YOU suggested

I never suggested it was a good bill at all. In fact I never said anything about if the bill was good or bad

The only thing i said is that the fact that the GOP doesnt engage in group think and people will disagree with their party and judge things independently is a good thing.

Regardless my stance works either way.

If it was a good bill then the 5 dissenting GoP voters int he house were not to blame, the 212 democrats who voted against it knowing it was a good bill but just to follow partiy lines are to blame. Ergo group think not independence is at fault.

If it was a bad bill, then that means those 5 dissenting GOP members out of the 435 members were the only ones engaging in independent thought and by breaking party lines were able to stop a bill that would have otherwise been bad and passed... again group think fails us and the independent thinkers save the day.

So literally what i said is accurate no matter how you dice it.

> I hope you’re arguing in good faith here

I very much am. I choose that argument because i mistakingly thought you thought the bill should be passed.. but as i point out above my argument works the other way just as well.

> There isn’t just a single bill involved

Yes this vote we are discussing is a single bill involved, it is called the Appropriations Bill. I dont even think you can have a single vote to pass multiple bills unless you collect those bills under a single bill. Which is exactly what we have here.

The name of that single bill is "Defense Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Bill"

This bill however itself contains many smaller bills collected into one.

> Congress doesn’t actually work the way the little “how a bill becomes law” pamphlets say.

When did I say that?

Ok... i mean no one here said it did...

> The 5 extreme Republicans are preventing the bipartisan bills that have passed the Senate, and could pass the House, from being introduced in the normal process

I mean that is mostly correct... but your language seems weird... You said earlier now it was a bad bill and should be stopped (earlier i thought you thought it was a good bill but whatever)... So if its a bad bill, then they arent extreme for stopping it... i mean unless you think all the democrats who voted against it are also extreme for the same reason.

> If the Democrats tried to introduce them on their own hook, every Republican would vote against them, because it would threaten their control to let them do that.

Ahh so the GOP would respond to the Dems introducing the bill the same way the Dems respond to the GOP introducing a bill... interesting, yea I can see how that is the GOPs fault lol

But yea its not right from either side... also not relevant to the context here.

> If you don’t understand how that works, I sympathize

Thankfully I do

> but I assure you it’s not “the House Democrats refuse to vote for the bipartisan bills that have passed the Senate just because they would have a Republican label on them”

Why are you using quotes around a thing I never said?

What I did say is that bills introduced by either side tend to be rejected by the other and we have very few if any bipartisan bills... but a bill is only bipartisan AFTER the vote so a statement like "refuse to vote for the bipartisan...." makes no sense.

> Some Democrats have been trying to persuade Mitch to introduce them and let them pass with broad D support, but so far he doesn’t have the spine.

Mitch will oppose bipartisanism at every turn, of course he wont let them.... just as the democrats do the same in return.

@ceoln

> You seem to be cherry-picking only cases where “independent thinking” leads to good outcomes. If the groups is heading in a good direction, and someone who would prefer a bad direction uses their “independence” to cause trouble and slow that down or redirect it, that’s bad.

You are making assumptions, I didnt say or do that.

For starters I didnt cherry pick any cases. George picked the case and we are discussing it. It was quite clearly picked by someone else. How could I cherry pick that?

I have also stated many times that while independent thinking is a requirement for any healthy effective legislature, it is **not** the only requirement. I have stated clearly that it requires both indepednent thought, and moral judgement to be effective.

Therefore if all we look at is independent thiking we will see both bad and good examples, because it is only one among many required properties.

> So it can be good or bad, whatever direction the group is currently headed, depending exactly on whether the “independence” is a deviation in a good or a bad direction.

No thats incorrect.

If a person is a bad person who doesnt engage in independent thought, then they will join a group that is a bad group. Bad people choose to want to be a part of things that are by extension bad. When a person joins party A or party B to join they will go with the one they perceive to be the one that they agree with the most (though maybe not agree with eniterly)... this leads to bad people forming bad groups.

So if i am a bad person, in a bad group, as tends to be the case, then i have two options, follow my own bad independent thought, or the groups bad collective thought. When you make a bad decision it isnt because you were thinking independently, its because your a bad person and would have made that bad decision either way.

Bad people joining good groups isnt the norm. But even when it does happen. Then if they act independently and do a bad thing, it isnt the fact that they are indepedent that is to blame, its the fact that they are morally corrupt (as a good person wouldnt do that). If that same person were to follow the group it would now result in a good act, but eliminate the protection against the group turning bad int he future. So while you may have gotten a good result this time, it is still a far more dangerous state than a good person thinking independently.

@georgetakei

@antares

I would argue it is perhaps just as important, maybe more so, for people to learn the skills even if they dont intend to work in a lab.

Ive seen what it looks like when someone isnt raised with a diverse education.. its ugly, very ugly.. hell its half the problem now. We need to go the other way and teach far more specialized and advanced skills of a broader range to students, not less.

@rspfau

@ceoln @georgetakei

> What? No. There are bipartisan spending bills that have passed the Senate with like 90+ votes.

We arent talking about bills, you are talking about this one which supposidly is a great bill and these 5 GOP people are ruining it

> The GOP, which controls the House, has not introduced those bills, or anything else reasonable, despite there having been an agreement basically to do exactly that the other week

Wait so now your saying the bill isnt reasonable? Soooooo... arent you saying that those 5 independent thinking GoP members stopped a **bad** bill from passing... ok so why are you saying independent thought is a bad thing, isnt this an example then of the independent thought of members of the GOP being a good thing since those 5 people just stopped this bad bill from going through?

It makes no sense, you are attacking them at being at a standstill for disagreeing, yet, dont actually want the bill to pass and literally all of the DNC agrees with these 5 GOP members and yet... somehow its a bad thing they dont all agree... man this is making me dizzy.

> The Democrats in the House can’t just vote for a bill that hasn’t even been introduced; that is not how it works At All

What, there was just a procedral vote, in the house, to introduce a bill. That vote was conducted by the house which consists of GOP and Dems.... of course the Dems get to vote when introducing bills... then they vote again when it gets to the sentate to pass it.

> I think your mental model of how the government actually works is a little oversimplified? We can both agree that it SHOULD be simpler and more sensible, but it’s not.

Pretty sure its not, I could tell you step by step the process to get a bill passed. This is the first one where it gets introduced int he house and involves votes from both sides to introduce it.

> Now if you’re mostly just saying “would that we had people as willing to cause trouble for good as these extreme Republicans are to cause trouble for evil”, I agree with the sentiment! :)

I mean that part is fairly valid, doing good and independent thought are obviously both criteria. With the democrats and the republicans doing evil not much else matters. But that doesnt make independent thought any less of a required virtue (along with goodness)