SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years—more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany—a phenomenon possibly due to increased racial division, the rise of partisan cable news and changes in the composition of the Democratic and Republican parties.
That's according to new research co-authored by Jesse Shapiro, a professor of political economy at Brown University. The study, conducted alongside Stanford University economists Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, was released on Monday, Jan. 20, as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
In the study, Shapiro and colleagues present the first ever multi-nation evidence on long-term trends in "affective polarization"—a phenomenon in which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than toward their own. They found that in the U.S., affective polarization has increased more dramatically since the late 1970s than in the eight other countries they examined—the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.
"A lot of analysis on polarization is focused on the U.S., so we thought it could be interesting to put the U.S. in context and see whether it is part of a global trend or whether it looks more exceptional," Shapiro said. "We found that the trend in the U.S. is indeed exceptional."
Using data from four decades of public opinion surveys conducted in the nine countries, the researchers used a so-called "feeling thermometer" to rate attitudes on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 reflected no negative feelings toward other parties. They found that in 1978, the average American rated the members of their own political party 27 points higher than members of the other major party. By 2016, Americans were rating their own party 45.9 points higher than the other party, on average. In other words, negative feelings toward members of the other party compared to one's own party increased by an average of 4.8 points per decade.
The researchers found that polarization had also risen in Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland in the last 40 years, but to a lesser extent. In the U.K., Australia, Germany, Norway and Sweden, polarization decreased.
More information: Levi Boxell et al, Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization, (2020). DOI: 10.3386/w26669
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @10:04AM (5 children)
Holy fuck.... Trump derangement syndrome right fucking there. The money was to be provided by LAW. But Trump stopped it in defiance of the LAW until his personal request was fulfilled.
This is like police officer would be ordered to escort your tax refund to you but then instead of giving you the money, they hold on to it until you do "a favor" for them instead. No favor, no fucking money. Then the police get caught and you are like "oh noes, poor corrupt police officer, so difficult life, why that asshole couldn't just do the favor instead?"
Yeah, Biden could have told Obama to veto the bill and the aid would be halted? That's per fucking law. Trump could have vetoed the bill too, but it was approved by everyone so his veto was worth fuck all.
The president has to follow the LAW. Trump has NO discretion about this military aid. But he fucking *defied* the law. And he *defined* the law for his *personal* gain. It wasn't for betterment of America, that's for fucking sure.
Can Trump name one fucking corrupt Ukrainian official?? NONE! That's exactly how much he cares about corruption. He fired the ambassador that was putting pressure on Ukraine to cleanup corruption in its institutions instead.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:40PM (1 child)
First of all, Trump derangement syndrome means an unreasonable obsessive hatred of Trump. That's you, not me.
Under the law, Trump can withhold aid. Fuck, he could drone people in Ukraine. He is the chief executive and commander in chief, in case you didn't know.
You really think it is just fine for Biden to abuse government resources (US aid to Ukraine) to stop an investigation into his own corruption? Come on. That is corruption on top of corruption. That, right there, is *personal* gain. It wasn't for betterment of America, that's for fucking sure.
Meanwhile, for betterment of America, we need to stop the Biden corruption. Trump has no *personal* gain from that, because it might make Biden lose the primary. It's personal loss. Trump would be happy to run against Biden. Anyway, since when is running for president an immunity from investigation? Obama investigated Trump, going well beyond what was legal. Of course Biden should be investigated, for the betterment of America, and it is a duty to make Ukraine cooperate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday January 28 2020, @08:36PM
You're definitely suffering from Chronic Trump Derangement Syndrome. You know how you can tell? Replace Trump with Obama and ask yourself if the Republicans wouldn't have been foaming at the mouth demanding Obama actually be shot for treason? Not just impeachment, but charges of treason.
The only reason why you're fighting so hard to justify criminal and corrupt behavior is tribalism. When that's pointed out to you, you're response is either tribalism too, or this amazing disconnect with reality where you spin criminal actions as positive ones. There are two responses to your insanity; Joining it in your retarded echo chamber of denialism, or stand back in horror as we realize you've all gone fucking insane.
You're so far gone it's impossible for you to see criminal and corrupt behavior for what it is.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:40PM (2 children)
Two obvious rebuttals: Trump does have some discretion despite the claims to the contrary (such as, for example, the Ukraine doing things contrary to important US interests such as attacking the US). The issue at hand is whether Ukrainian failure to investigate a potential act of corruption by a high ranking US official, former VP Biden, counts as such an issue. I gather the Democrat position is no and the Republican position is a waffling yes.
And two, the two Bidens' actions being investigated lawfully are in the national interest even if the insistence on the investigation were done for Trump's advantage. We can't after all, expect Joe Biden's allies to call for the investigation. Such things are left to his enemies to do so. It would be nationally suicidal if we excused criminal activity if you could show some enemy had something to gain by any investigation and prosecution.
It'd be different, if Trump was being accused of violating the Bidens' constitutional rights for personal gain. But the Democrats have been very particular about not going there, perhaps because they don't want to risk there being some fire in that smoke.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday January 28 2020, @08:25PM (1 child)
Actually, you're a little wrong there. The real issue at hand isn't whether Trump can fight corruption, and can ask for an investigation. It's about how he did it. I agree that it's the President's job to do this, but not in a corrupt way.
Options:
1) Act like a strongman, deny aid, demand investigations into political rivals to receive aid.
2) Call a press conference. Announce that you are under the belief that an American politician acted improperly in the Ukraine, and that it's Biden. Publicly call upon the Ukraine to announce investigations where appropriate, the Department of Justice to conduct their investigations, and then bring up the matter before Congress asking them to investigate.
If he had properly delegated the job, and more importantly separated the job from the Congressionally mandated aid, and then stepped back and asked for the rest of us to do the job impartially to the best of our abilities... that would be one thing.
He didn't, and instead acted like a Mafia Don with threats and leverage. Which isn't really surprising at all giving the man's behavior, and such behavior is not appropriate for a US President. Ethically, Legally, or morally. This is not the foreign policy Americans should be proud of.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @10:27PM
Option 2 is gross and nasty. It is unmanly. It is impotent, weak, ineffective, and powerless. Such behavior is not appropriate for a US President. It would be an embarrassment for the nation.
Any president who would take option 2 is disqualified for holding office due to mental illness.
I damn well expect threats and leverage. Power is to be used. If you want an actor fag like Trudeau, move to Canada.