[Chas_P]

 cherdano, on 2021-September-10, 15:46, said:

I don't know the answer, but one of the plausible ones is "you are an ignorant racist misogynist a**hole".

Let me assure you of three things Arend.
1. I'm not "ignorant". I'm probably as least as well-educated, if not better-educated, than you are.
2. I'm not "racist". "Racist" is a term that you and those of your ilk choose to describe those who don't share your worldview. Dictionary.com describes "racist" as "the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." That's not me. I love all people who know how to behave themselves regardless of skin tone.
3. I'm not a misogynist. "Misogynist" is another term that halfwits like you like to toss around. Dictionary.com describes it as "a person who hates, dislikes, or mistrusts women." That's not me. I've been married to the best woman in the history of the world for over 61 years.
4. Hopefully this will prove to you that I'm not an "asshole". I do have one, as does everyone else.

Frankly, your opinion, like Richard's, is totally insignificant to me. But please feel free to keep expressing it. It's the American way.

[hrothgar]

 Chas_P, on 2021-September-10, 18:22, said:

I love all people who know how to behave themselves regardless of skin tone.

And in the past, you've let us know just how you want the darkies to behave...

[Chas_P]

 hrothgar, on 2021-September-10, 18:26, said:

And in the past, you've let us know just how you want the darkies to behave...

As previously stated...........

Quote

Frankly, your opinion, like Richard's, is totally insignificant to me. But please feel free to keep expressing it. It's the American way.

[hrothgar]

 Chas_P, on 2021-September-10, 18:32, said:

As previously stated...........

Chas, are you really so stupid that you think that you and I are having a conversation?

None of this is about convincing you of anything
You're a hopeless little piece of *****

The reason that I (amongst many many others) label you as a racist is so the rest of the community is aware just the general opinion is about you.

Note that you have no defenders.
You have no allies.

But you do have a whole bunch of people who openly label you as a racist.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2021-September-10, 18:16, said:

Disclaimer: My understandings can be wrong. I am willing to learn.

Now, my grasp on things is that those walking from Guatemala to the U.S. border are not immigrants but asylum-seekers, and there is a difference. I don't think asylum seekers would affect the question about making immigration harder or easier.

Well, maybe. I think that they wish to be in the US. If seeking asylum is likely to succeed, then they are asylum seekers. But their wish is to be in the US.

It's another broken part of the system. I doubt that anyone attempts the journey unless they have very strong reasons for doing so. When they get to the border, they must pass an asylum test. I don't know just what qualifies and what doesn't but I imagine there is some sort of checklist. Can they prove that...., I think I will not try to make a list.

I guess if the problem were easy to solve, we would have solved it. And I certainly do not claim a solution.

But the question on the political grouping test, asking if I would like it to be easier or harder to immigrate, seems inadequate. As did most of the questions.

[Chas_P]

 hrothgar, on 2021-September-10, 18:38, said:

You have no allies.

But you do have a whole bunch of people who openly label you as a racist.

That doesn't bother me. I know who I am. You, OTOH, I view as nothing more than an arrogant, foul-mouthed greasy little turd who is mighty proud of the way he turned out. I wish you a happy life.

[johnu]

 Chas_NoDignityNoIntegrityNoHonor, on 2021-September-10, 19:06, said:

That doesn't bother me. I know who I am. You, OTOH, I view as nothing more than an arrogant, foul-mouthed little turd who is mighty proud of the way he turned out. I wish you a happy life.

It's way past time for Chas_NoDignityNoIntegrityNoHonor to FAKE quit this thread until he loses self-control once again and is unable to stop himself from posting.

[pilowsky]

 Gilithin, on 2021-September-10, 15:31, said:

I looked through the methodology but could not find where they state what they use for axes in their "abstract political landscape". Are they using the (popular in the US) economic vs social model, the more traditional (popular in Europe) radical-conservative vs authoritarian-liberal, or something else entirely?

Methodology notwithstanding, it is clear from the type of questions asked that some things are rated very highly as 'matters of concern' in the USA that doesn't rate as important enough to be asked about in the Australian version.


You might not understand these types of questionnaires or take them seriously, but I know for a fact that this is how political parties guide their policy-making.
Politicians don't really care about abstract ideas of moral 'good'; they care about being elected.


Australian far-right loonies exist. They are just the same in their world-view as those in the USA.
It is even possible that the proportions are similar.
The rump of the MAGA base in the USA is about 20-30 million (more than the population of Australia).
Catchphrases like 'cancel culture' are being promoted (with little success) by Sky news (that's what Murdoch calls his Fox channel in Australia).


Australia does not have the "right to say what you want" and "the right to carry guns" as top 5 political issues.


The left in America would generally be considered 'wet' - left-wing conservatives.
The mainstream Republicans would be considered 'dry' - right-wing conservatives.


The MAGA faction is a tiny group that sometimes manages to get senate representation because of the vagaries of the Hare-Clark voting system.


Someone like Bernie would probably be considered on the right-wing of the Australian Labor (that's how we spell it for the party) Party.


I doubt that you would find more than 1% of the Australian electorate in favour of "open-carry" or abolishing free medical care for everyone or eliminating free University education (there is a small PAYG charge now) or getting rid of the social security safety net for the unemployed or aged.

[Gilithin]

It is completely natural for national politics to concentrate on the areas of disagreement between the major political parties of their country. As you point out, America has a broad agreement to ignore the left side of most political graphs completely. I usually categorise the choice as between the right and the more right. Even on the heat map of the original (US) link, it is remarkable just how linear the American voter population is - in most such graphs for mature democracies, the entire range is covered.

But you did not answer about the axes being used. It was a genuine question and I am interested in which political model is being used for Australian preferences.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-10, 20:16, said:

Disclaimer: My understandings can be wrong. I am willing to learn.

Now, my grasp on things is that those walking from Guatemala to the U.S. border are not immigrants but asylum-seekers, and there is a difference. I don't think asylum seekers would affect the question about making immigration harder or easier.

 kenberg, on 2021-September-10, 18:47, said:

Well, maybe. I think that they wish to be in the US. If seeking asylum is likely to succeed, then they are asylum seekers. But their wish is to be in the US.

It's another broken part of the system. I doubt that anyone attempts the journey unless they have very strong reasons for doing so. When they get to the border, they must pass an asylum test. I don't know just what qualifies and what doesn't but I imagine there is some sort of checklist. Can they prove that...., I think I will not try to make a list.

I guess if the problem were easy to solve, we would have solved it. And I certainly do not claim a solution.

But the question on the political grouping test, asking if I would like it to be easier or harder to immigrate, seems inadequate. As did most of the questions.

Further thoughts on that question from the NYT poll (or quiz or whatever):


I looked up the exact wording of the question

The choices were
Much easier, slightly easier, no change, slightly harder, much harder.
"How easy or difficult should it be to immigrate to the United States?

Is it a clear question?
Winston mentions that many are not immigrants but are asylum seekers. In answering the question, I did not make that distinction. Further, my guess is that of those who took the poll, few made that distinction. And if they did make that distinction, did they then make other distinctions? Some immigrants go through a legal process before coming here. Perhaps those who do not do this should also not be classified as immigrants. If we do not classify asylum seekers as immigrants, who do we classify as immigrants?

So that's one (I think minor) problem with the question, it did not specify who was to be regarded as an immigrant. I say it's a minor problem because I would place a fair size bet that most who responded to it took the same view that I did, that by "immigrant" the question meant someone who is not a US citizen but who would like to come to the US and become a US citizen. Of course this is a large diverse group that can be broken into many sub-categories but I doubt most responders worried about that.

The bigger problem with the question was that immigration, however we classify immigrants, asylum seekers etc, is a complex issue. Start with a simple question: Are we to set immigration policy primarily to benefit those who wish to come here or primarily to benefit the country? "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free". Very idealistic. I looked it up and these were placed on the Statue of Liberty in 1905. My paternal grandfather came through Ellis Island in 1905, my father and my uncle came through in 1910. Perhaps they were yearning to breathe free and perhaps they were allowed in because the government thought it was our mission to help the huddled masses, but I strongly suspect there was some strong economic motivation at play. The nation needed and wanted immigrant labor, the people who came thought the US was a good place to make a living.

So that would be a good question to see how people view the role of government: Should our immigration policy be directed toward helping the poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free or should it be directed toward the economic benefit. of the country. Of course there can be a synthesis of these goals and that could be included on the question as well. The fact that sometimes the two goals can work in tandem does not mean that they always work in tandem and we could do a better job of tis if we acknowledged both that there is some interplay between the two goals, but the two goals are not identical. We could then decide whether we seek support ofr immigration policies based on what it would do for the huddled masses or based on what it would do for us. I am pretty sure that when my father came over, it was the second of these goals that dominated thinking.


I believe the NYT poll is highly flawed. That's no problem, I can just ignore it. But the questions, and the flaws in the questions, illustrate our current problems. Possibly clarifying the questions could help us toward a better approach to solving the problems.

Anyway, that's my reason for tis expanded response.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2021-September-11, 06:45, said:

Winstonm, on 2021-September-10, 20:16, said:

Disclaimer: My understandings can be wrong. I am willing to learn.

Now, my grasp on things is that those walking from Guatemala to the U.S. border are not immigrants but asylum-seekers, and there is a difference. I don't think asylum seekers would affect the question about making immigration harder or easier.





Further thoughts on that question from the NYT poll (or quiz or whatever):


I looked up the exact wording of the question

The choices were
Much easier, slightly easier, no change, slightly harder, much harder.
"How easy or difficult should it be to immigrate to the United States?

Is it a clear question?
Winston mentions that many are not immigrants but are asylum seekers. In answering the question, I did not make that distinction. Further, my guess is that of those who took the poll, few made that distinction. And if they did make that distinction, did they then make other distinctions? Some immigrants go through a legal process before coming here. Perhaps those who do not do this should also not be classified as immigrants. If we do not classify asylum seekers as immigrants, who do we classify as immigrants?

So that's one (I think minor) problem with the question, it did not specify who was to be regarded as an immigrant. I say it's a minor problem because I would place a fair size bet that most who responded to it took the same view that I did, that by "immigrant" the question meant someone who is not a US citizen but who would like to come to the US and become a US citizen. Of course this is a large diverse group that can be broken into many sub-categories but I doubt most responders worried about that.

The bigger problem with the question was that immigration, however we classify immigrants, asylum seekers etc, is a complex issue. Start with a simple question: Are we to set immigration policy primarily to benefit those who wish to come here or primarily to benefit the country? "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free". Very idealistic. I looked it up and these were placed on the Statue of Liberty in 1905. My paternal grandfather came through Ellis Island in 1905, my father and my uncle came through in 1910. Perhaps they were yearning to breathe free and perhaps they were allowed in because the government thought it was our mission to help the huddled masses, but I strongly suspect there was some strong economic motivation at play. The nation needed and wanted immigrant labor, the people who came thought the US was a good place to make a living.

So that would be a good question to see how people view the role of government: Should our immigration policy be directed toward helping the poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free or should it be directed toward the economic benefit. of the country. Of course there can be a synthesis of these goals and that could be included on the question as well. The fact that sometimes the two goals can work in tandem does not mean that they always work in tandem and we could do a better job of tis if we acknowledged both that there is some interplay between the two goals, but the two goals are not identical. We could then decide whether we seek support ofr immigration policies based on what it would do for the huddled masses or based on what it would do for us. I am pretty sure that when my father came over, it was the second of these goals that dominated thinking.


I believe the NYT poll is highly flawed. That's no problem, I can just ignore it. But the questions, and the flaws in the questions, illustrate our current problems. Possibly clarifying the questions could help us toward a better approach to solving the problems.

Anyway, that's my reason for tis expanded response.

As to the poll, I have grown increasingly suspect about all polls, this one included. The questions usually are framed poorly and this one is no exception.

As to the question of asylum seekers compared to immigrants, I found this and it was quite helpful.

[awm]

There are some ways that the US is arguably more liberal than most of Europe. In particular:

1. Getting US citizenship is relatively easy. Here in Switzerland we have people who were born here and lived their whole life here and still are not citizens because their parents are from someplace else.
2. The US government routinely produces forms in basically every language. In most countries these forms are only in the official national language.
3. There is no official “church of the US” and government money doesn’t go to any religious institution. Sure, Republicans like to chip away at the edges of this but in Switzerland the government directly gives money to major churches.

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2021-September-11, 11:12, said:

There are some ways that the US is arguably more liberal than most of Europe. In particular:

1. Getting US citizenship is relatively easy. Here in Switzerland we have people who were born here and lived their whole life here and still are not citizens because their parents are from someplace else.
2. The US government routinely produces forms in basically every language. In most countries these forms are only in the official national language.
3. There is no official "church of the US" and government money doesn't go to any religious institution. Sure, Republicans like to chip away at the edges of this but in Switzerland the government directly gives money to major churches.

Thanks. I think of liberal/conservative as multi-dimensional. People speak of being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (or the other way around) but I think it goes far beyond that. I might try to say more later, busy right now.

[Gilithin]

 kenberg, on 2021-September-11, 13:22, said:

Thanks. I think of liberal/conservative as multi-dimensional. People speak of being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (or the other way around) but I think it goes far beyond that. I might try to say more later, busy right now.

This is part of the issue - in America the opposite of conservative is liberal. In most of the rest of the world the opposite of conservative is socialist and liberal is the traditional opposite of authoritarian.

[pilowsky]

 awm, on 2021-September-11, 11:12, said:

There are some ways that the US is arguably more liberal than most of Europe. In particular:

1. Getting US citizenship is relatively easy. Here in Switzerland we have people who were born here and lived their whole life here and still are not citizens because their parents are from someplace else.
2. The US government routinely produces forms in basically every language. In most countries these forms are only in the official national language.
3. There is no official "church of the US" and government money doesn't go to any religious institution. Sure, Republicans like to chip away at the edges of this but in Switzerland the government directly gives money to major churches.

No country in Europe is crazier than the USA (the use of the term 'liberal' in reference to political philosophy is comical in the USA).


1. Switzerland is very tough on citizenship, but citizenship happens to about 0.5% of the population per year (around 40,000 new citizens). More importantly, there is a clearly defined pathway.
Switzerland is renowned as the toughest of all European countries. Amongst the many racist things about the USA, you still have to pass an English test to become a citizen (no nasty tinted people allowed here).
The US grants citizenship to ~850,000 people each year - which is about 0.26% - roughly half as welcoming as the Swiss - who are notorious (although better than the Japanese).


When Melania Trump gave a speech she was "called out" by important people like Bette Midler because "she can't speak English".
This is hilarious coming from a country where the President ordered the removal of diphthongs because they were too hard to spell; the reason the Americans have fones of different colors I suppose.


2. The US govt produces forms in every language - how is this a form of liberalism?


3. No official church: I take it this is some sort of joke? In the US, funding of churches (in the form of tax concessions) is given to any youtube that believes almost anything that must be "taken on faith" - including the church of sciencefictionology.

[pilowsky]

 Winstonm, on 2021-September-11, 08:34, said:

As to the poll, I have grown increasingly suspect about all polls, this one included. The questions usually are framed poorly and this one is no exception.

As to the question of asylum seekers compared to immigrants, I found this and it was quite helpful.

You might be suspect, but I suspect you mean suspicious - watch out, the American English police will come and revoke your citizenship.

[pilowsky]

 Gilithin, on 2021-September-11, 05:25, said:

It is completely natural for national politics to concentrate on the areas of disagreement between the major political parties of their country. As you point out, America has a broad agreement to ignore the left side of most political graphs completely. I usually categorise the choice as between the right and the more right. Even on the heat map of the original (US) link, it is remarkable just how linear the American voter population is - in most such graphs for mature democracies, the entire range is covered.

But you did not answer about the axes being used. It was a genuine question and I am interested in which political model is being used for Australian preferences.

From looking at the methodology it appears that the pollsters are attempting to help you work out your alignment to the groups that are seeking election.
They do this by looking at the published policies of the largest parties (Labor, Liberal, Green and a few others). Then they look at the policies that are of most interest to Australians based on GKW and create a visual analogue scale of agreement with the positions.
The difference in results that I get taking both the US and Australian 'test' reveals the massive "right-shift" in US political thinking - nothing to do with objective left/right.


What you are doing when you answer the questions is finding out how your views align with the published views of the people standing for election.


Clearly, this has very little to do with any kind of synthesised political philosophy.


How many Americans have actually read anything by Marx/Hitler/(any American politician)? If they did, would it include a discussion of whether or not to build a US/Mexico wall, or gun control or climate change?
People do not vote on the basis of a synthesised political philosophy they vote according to perceived self-interest (emphasis on perceived).


I have voted for the Australian Labor Party at every election since I turned 18. Except once when the party leader stated in a speech that "Asians were coming to Australia and stealing your jobs". Since the other party is racist to the core I voted "informal".


My vote is typically against my self-interest as an American would perceive it since the party I'm a member of favours higher taxation and more government spending on pointless activities such as health education and welfare.


Over the past 10 years, Australia has presided over the slow destruction of investment in education and science - while at the same time moaning about a lack of STEM knowledge.
Spending money on things that don't seem useful immediately is not easily understood by the majority.
Watch any episode of Rand Paul being contemptuous of science spending.

[Winstonm]

 pilowsky, on 2021-September-11, 15:20, said:

You might be suspect, but I suspect you mean suspicious - watch out, the American English police will come and revoke your citizenship.

Here in the U.S., the second meaning of suspect, i.e., to have doubts of : DISTRUST, is a fairly common usage.

[pilowsky]

 Winstonm, on 2021-September-11, 16:32, said:

Here in the U.S., the second meaning of suspect, i.e., to have doubts of : DISTRUST, is a fairly common usage.

No wonder it's hard to get US citizenship.

[cherdano]

 Chas_P, on 2021-September-10, 18:22, said:

Wait wait, I said one possible answer. Why did you think this one applies to you?