Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-25-2016, 11:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-25-2016, 11:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-25-2016, 07:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all.

If you believe in either science, God, or both, then you will not let either be your sole means of attempting to escape a dangerous circumstance. You will call for help. You will try to extricate yourself from the dangerous situation. Need I say more/ If God cannot be relied upon for miracles, then science does not lend itself to offering miracles.

Personally, if I were concerned about falling into holes, and if I were given a choice between a cell phone and a crucifix as a precaution against the threat, I'd go with the cell phone.

I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

Nothing says that a devout Christian could not affix the symbol of his choosing on a cell phone.

(08-27-2016, 02:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing says that a devout Christian could not affix the symbol of his choosing on a cell phone.

There are so many cell phone cases, I'd be surprised if one had to look very hard.

Quote:Bob Butler: We are becoming a hyper sensitive conflict seeking intolerant country.

I agree.

Quote:.. yes, it is impossible to know precisely what His (Jesus) message was…Your typical guy on the street asking himself what Jesus would do likely wouldn't be able to justify his answer before a tenured academic tribunal of Jesus experts.

True, but neither could they.

Quote:Can you come up with a better question? 

Nope.

Quote:While everyone and his sister will have a different spin on Jesus, what other question would pull out the best side of a typical American's sense of morality, peace and justice?

It’s an astute point.

Quote:Still, not every question can be answered using scientific methods. Given our culture, if one wants someone to consider if he is doing the proper moral thing, it's not a dumb question.

It’s not.  It a sound approach, and an  answer was developed a long time ago.  This answer is the authentic, or correct “right teaching”, which is what “orthodox” means. For 12 centuries after Constantine the answer to what would Jesus do, i.e. the orthodoxy, was preserved by the magisterium of the church.  I was raised Roman Catholic.  The orthodoxy did not take for me.  I stopped going to Mass when I was 21 and am pro-choice.  So much for orthodoxy.
 
As for what do you replace it with, I don’t know.  I don’t sweat this stuff much, but a lot of other people do not have my blasé attitude.  It is they who see issues with American culture since the sexual revolution.

Quote:Are you one of those angry white male heterosexuals who wants to bully and make sure his culture and manners remain dominant?  To show courtesy respect is to diminish the amount of respect other groups have to show you?

Where on earth are you getting this?

(08-27-2016, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]What you need is the best way of understanding the kind of subject matter you want to know. There are four basic ways of knowing: art, mystical religion, philosophy and science, and possibly gradations in between. Politics is not a mode of knowing, because it's a mode of action, acting on your knowledge, or a kind of subject matter; not a method of knowing it. Knowing politics would be political science, or political philosophy. And it's an art too, of course. Trump is a political artist, or more exactly, an entertainer. To say politics or law is a way of knowing, is like saying the atomic structure is a way of knowing. How you know it, the way you study and observe it, affects the subject matter and your view of it, but knowledge and subject matter is not identical.

I'll acknowledge art as a possible way of understanding the world and achieving fulfillment.  I'll note that in the past you have objected that mysticism and religion are distinct enough to deserve to be counted as different things.  I'm glad you have come over to my way of thinking.    

I'll deny that politics isn't a framework for understanding the world (world view) as well as providing goals for how one should improve one's culture and one's role within it (values).  We spend an awful lot of time, you, me and others on this forum, comparing, contrasting and insulting various political world views and values.  Trying to further comprehend and resolve such things won't be helped if you can't step out of your personal world view far enough to see what is going on in front of  your face.  Your refusal to see outside your personal framework isn't optimal.

People have strong political beliefs and values.  Your inability to see and acknowledge this doesn't change it.

I quite agree Trump has a talent as an entertainer.  While I see political systems such as red, blue, green or libertarian as structures for understanding and manipulating the world, I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around 'reality TV host' as being quite the same thing.  Well, yes, he can manipulate audiences using the talents he picked up running his show.  I am truly hoping that there is more to him than that particular approach to manipulating people.  Well, perhaps I am hoping more that he's going to lose, and thus it will not matter.  Alas, if there is something behind the showman's facade, I'm not sure what it is.

(08-27-2016, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Recently on this thread I've been engaging Classic as the red champion, Eric as the blue, with you championing science.  If all three of you aren't happy with me, perhaps I'm doing something right?    I was hoping, though, that science's champion could be a little more open to new paradigms.  According to my notes, it's supposed to be that way.  When we move towards the subject of guys dancing in white dresses though, your usual scientific objectivity and analysis fades as you operate in the realms of culture and politics.  

That's true. But are you doing something right? You always think so, as fully as those you "engage" might. And you can't see that fact very well. So operating within that realm of self-delusion, you have your limits.

Quote:This illustrates what I mean when I say most individuals don't operate in one realm of knowledge.  Most everyone has to shift between various ways of looking at things.  Stock market cycles and guys dancing in white dresses belong in different mental realms.  Most everyone will have to shift between such realms in the course of living their lives, and not be aware that they are doing it.  Different folks will spend different amounts of time in different realms, be most at home in different places, and shift under different circumstances.  There has to be a paradigm in that somewhere.  If one wants to make sense of the convoluted conversations we have around here, it is interesting to keep track of who is working in what realm and maybe even try to follow.

I agree. Maybe "try to follow;" do you? Not often where I lead, at least.

Acknowledged.  I may be aware of how world views and values can both focus and contain an individual's thinking, but don't claim total immunity to the effects.  Scientific values are better than most at reminding practitioners that new data requires new thinking, that no paradigm should be considered sacrosanct, that anything one believes should be subject to reevaluation.  Some variations of mysticism echo a similar principle, which is why the masters pour too much tea in the student's cup.  One must empty out old beliefs to make learn for new learning.  We could both gain by pushing these aspects of our varied traditions.

I acknowledge that you have found a path that brings you a knowledge of how the world works and a guidance on how you should act that gives you a deep satisfaction.  I have walked enough steps of that path to understand its basic nature, and to know it is not for me.  I doubt any man could or should try to walk every path he encounters to the same degree as someone who has committed a lifetime to one path alone.  My own path suggests trying to acknowledge, respect and understand many diverse paths, but I'm not going to be able to out quote the bible with JPT, discuss in detail the many and varied economic cycles with Mikebert, or critique one of your astrological charts.

But as you might push meditation and astrology, I'll be trying to push walking at least a kilometer in the other guy's shoes.  It's what I do.

(08-27-2016, 01:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

You are not Christian, and you are not a Republican, but you believe their ideas? What does it mean, then, to say you are "not" those things?

It means that I'm not directly tied to Christianity (not an Evangelical voter) or the Republican party (not a registered Republican voter).

(08-27-2016, 02:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-25-2016, 11:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-25-2016, 11:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-25-2016, 07:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all.

If you believe in either science, God, or both, then you will not let either be your sole means of attempting to escape a dangerous circumstance. You will call for help. You will try to extricate yourself from the dangerous situation. Need I say more/ If God cannot be relied upon for miracles, then science does not lend itself to offering miracles.

Personally, if I were concerned about falling into holes, and if I were given a choice between a cell phone and a crucifix as a precaution against the threat, I'd go with the cell phone.

I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

Nothing says that a devout Christian could not affix the symbol of his choosing on a cell phone.

What good would that do if the cell phone was severely damaged or the battery went dead?

(08-27-2016, 09:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

You are not Christian, and you are not a Republican, but you believe their ideas? What does it mean, then, to say you are "not" those things?

It means that I'm not directly tied to Christianity (not an Evangelical voter) or the Republican party (not a registered Republican voter).

So you are those things, unofficially.

(08-27-2016, 04:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll acknowledge art as a possible way of understanding the world and achieving fulfillment.  I'll note that in the past you have objected that mysticism and religion are distinct enough to deserve to be counted as different things.  I'm glad you have come over to my way of thinking.    

I'll deny that politics isn't a framework for understanding the world (world view) as well as providing goals for how one should improve one's culture and one's role within it (values).  We spend an awful lot of time, you, me and others on this forum, comparing, contrasting and insulting various political world views and values.  Trying to further comprehend and resolve such things won't be helped if you can't step out of your personal world view far enough to see what is going on in front of your face.  Your refusal to see outside your personal framework isn't optimal.

As I have said, I understand other political views better than those who hold them. I stand by that. The fact that I am still partisan, despite this, just shows that I consider those views to be false, at least when held with the narrow rigidity that some people hold them today.

Quote:People have strong political beliefs and values.  Your inability to see and acknowledge this doesn't change it.

I can see fine that these are in the realm of philosophy.

Quote:Acknowledged.  I may be aware of how world views and values can both focus and contain an individual's thinking, but don't claim total immunity to the effects.  Scientific values are better than most at reminding practitioners that new data requires new thinking, that no paradigm should be considered sacrosanct, that anything one believes should be subject to reevaluation.  Some variations of mysticism echo a similar principle, which is why the masters pour too much tea in the student's cup.  One must empty out old beliefs to make learn for new learning.  We could both gain by pushing these aspects of our varied traditions.

I agree there.

Quote:I acknowledge that you have found a path that brings you a knowledge of how the world works and a guidance on how you should act that gives you a deep satisfaction.  I have walked enough steps of that path to understand its basic nature, and to know it is not for me.  I doubt any man could or should try to walk every path he encounters to the same degree as someone who has committed a lifetime to one path alone.  My own path suggests trying to acknowledge, respect and understand many diverse paths, but I'm not going to be able to out quote the bible with JPT, discuss in detail the many and varied economic cycles with Mikebert, or critique one of your astrological charts.

Some aspects of my path are so simple that anyone can follow, if willing. The obvious does not have to be difficult to see. But the willing isn't there, without curiosity; which seems to have vanished from most people the moment the 2T ended. But when I was 16 and 17, my curiosity drove me to discover the obvious, and my path opened.

Quote:But as you might push meditation and astrology, I'll be trying to push walking at least a kilometer in the other guy's shoes.  It's what I do.

So you claim. But your pronouncements about me and others refute this to a degree. You, like almost all people here (at least if they are older than about 25), and most people today, are locked into their particular views, whatever you call them, and often angrily dismiss opposing views. I don't look for this to change. I look for one political philosophy to defeat the other; that's what happens in 4Ts, every time. For the rest, revolutions and awakenings come and go, followed by long periods of stasis. That's the way of evolution, human and otherwise.

(08-28-2016, 12:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 04:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll acknowledge art as a possible way of understanding the world and achieving fulfillment.  I'll note that in the past you have objected that mysticism and religion are distinct enough to deserve to be counted as different things.  I'm glad you have come over to my way of thinking.    

I'll deny that politics isn't a framework for understanding the world (world view) as well as providing goals for how one should improve one's culture and one's role within it (values).  We spend an awful lot of time, you, me and others on this forum, comparing, contrasting and insulting various political world views and values.  Trying to further comprehend and resolve such things won't be helped if you can't step out of your personal world view far enough to see what is going on in front of your face.  Your refusal to see outside your personal framework isn't optimal.

As I have said, I understand other political views better than those who hold them. I stand by that. The fact that I am still partisan, despite this, just shows that I consider those views to be false, at least when held with the narrow rigidity that some people hold them today.

I'c consider the above attitude a possible symptom of values lock.  Conservatives commonly explain to me how all liberals think, and say that because I am a liberal it follows that they know what I am thinking.  Buzz, wrong.  It is common for those holding one set of world views and values to have stereotypes  of opposing world views and values.  It seems to me that conservatives are more blatant about this than progressives, but in part that is because I lean progressive.  Hey, I have values too.  I do the "I understand them and still disagree with them" thing too.  Well, you know that.  That's what you are complaining about, no?  That's an occupational hazard.  It's part of being human.  Just don't think you're immune, that you are doing it less than others.  There are reasons for the "Eric the Obtuse" tag.

(08-28-2016, 12:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 04:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]People have strong political beliefs and values.  Your inability to see and acknowledge this doesn't change it.

I can see fine that these are in the realm of philosophy.

There is a saying.  "Those that can, do.  Those that can't, teach."  Most of the good professional philosophers I have encountered, respected and learned from are in academia.  The good professional politicians aren't.  I see a clear difference in how the two professions understand and manipulate the world.  Most people can.  I shall continue to speak to most people.

(08-28-2016, 12:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 04:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Acknowledged.  I may be aware of how world views and values can both focus and contain an individual's thinking, but don't claim total immunity to the effects.  Scientific values are better than most at reminding practitioners that new data requires new thinking, that no paradigm should be considered sacrosanct, that anything one believes should be subject to reevaluation.  Some variations of mysticism echo a similar principle, which is why the masters pour too much tea in the student's cup.  One must empty out old beliefs to make learn for new learning.  We could both gain by pushing these aspects of our varied traditions.

I agree there.

Hey.  Wow.  It can happen!  

(08-28-2016, 12:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 04:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I acknowledge that you have found a path that brings you a knowledge of how the world works and a guidance on how you should act that gives you a deep satisfaction.  I have walked enough steps of that path to understand its basic nature, and to know it is not for me.  I doubt any man could or should try to walk every path he encounters to the same degree as someone who has committed a lifetime to one path alone.  My own path suggests trying to acknowledge, respect and understand many diverse paths, but I'm not going to be able to out quote the bible with JPT, discuss in detail the many and varied economic cycles with Mikebert, or critique one of your astrological charts.

Some aspects of my path are so simple that anyone can follow, if willing. The obvious does not have to be difficult to see. But the willing isn't there, without curiosity; which seems to have vanished from most people the moment the 2T ended. But when I was 16 and 17, my curiosity drove me to discover the obvious, and my path opened.

I think this too can be viewed as a universal.  People with a wide variety of ways of seeing the world will say the basics are simple, obvious to the willing, to those ready to open their eyes.  The fact that others can't see it and are unwilling to open their eyes is troubling.  You have a world view.  It isn't universally embraced.  Welcome to the human race.  Worry less about others with closed eyes.  You can do more about your own eyes.  Or can you?  Have you the insurmountable handicap of being human?

(08-28-2016, 12:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 04:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But as you might push meditation and astrology, I'll be trying to push walking at least a kilometer in the other guy's shoes.  It's what I do.

So you claim. But your pronouncements about me and others refute this to a degree. You, like almost all people here (at least if they are older than about 25), and most people today, are locked into their particular views, whatever you call them, and often angrily dismiss opposing views. I don't look for this to change. I look for one political philosophy to defeat the other; that's what happens in 4Ts, every time. For the rest, revolutions and awakenings come and go, followed by long periods of stasis. That's the way of evolution, human and otherwise.

Too true for comfort.  To a great degree, in advocating our various world views and values, we're all tilting at windmills.  Again, your are stating a near universal, a broad truth that applies to you as well.  You too have been known to angrily dismiss opposing views.  They are not to be taken seriously.  They are to be swept aside by the tides of history.  Do you not recall Classic's recent post to that effect, predicting that Americans will triumph over liberals?

As I've said to Mikebert recently, we are becoming a confrontational hostile culture.  As a whole we are becoming better at screaming than listening.  I'd rather solve problems through the ballot box than on the battlefield.  I'd rather solve problems through courtesy and respect than through politics.  That's hard to do in today's culture, and part of it is the late 3T early 4T season.  Part of the problem is the culture of hostility and prevalence of closed minds itself.

At this time you and I seem near the point where we are obstinately  screaming at each other, trying to see who can deliver the same message in the most decisive way.  I'm thinking we are near a point of diminishing return.

(08-27-2016, 11:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 09:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

You are not Christian, and you are not a Republican, but you believe their ideas? What does it mean, then, to say you are "not" those things?

It means that I'm not directly tied to Christianity (not an Evangelical voter) or the Republican party (not a registered Republican voter).

So you are those things, unofficially.

Oh, leave the poor guy alone.  If I were a Trump supporter, I'd be trying to distance myself from everything I used to believe in too.  

(08-26-2016, 07:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-26-2016, 01:50 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You are making a mistake by associating me with rural red America. I'm a city slicker who was born and raised in a suburban/urban area with a lot of different kinds of people. So, we actually share many of the same values as far as public services that are associated with them. If you want to stick with applying your red stereotype to whoever you want that's fine. All that does is allow me continue to apply my blue stereotype to whoever I want. Sounds silly and unproductive to me. But then again, I'm not supposed be as intelligent as someone like you.

You've been pushing the Reagan / Rand red unravelling approach all along, and I don't expect you to change.  That would require your learning how to listen.  I'm not going to accept responsibility for your applying stereotypes rather than paying attention to what others are saying.  That's just your way.  Nothing I say or do seems apt to stop it. I don't know that you are unintelligent, you just have well defended values and world view.  Facts which conflict with your beliefs and values roll off you like water off a duck.  This is hardly unique to you nor to those with red values.  From my perspective, there is an epidemic of partisan thinking which is showing no sign of abating.

I know how to listen and I don't have a hearing problem. I don't have a problem with reading either. So, what's your problem? Are you a consistent communicator or do you constantly switch values to worldviews and worldviews to values like you've done and have been doing with me? Are you wrong about people most of time like you've been wrong about me most of the time? Have you considered that the issue that you were trying to pin on me is actually your issue? I doubt it because you view yourself as being a good person with values who is not capable of doing such a thing.

(08-27-2016, 11:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 09:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

You are not Christian, and you are not a Republican, but you believe their ideas? What does it mean, then, to say you are "not" those things?

It means that I'm not directly tied to Christianity (not an Evangelical voter) or the Republican party (not a registered Republican voter).

So you are those things, unofficially.

I've never been one of those things.

(08-28-2016, 01:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 11:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 09:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

You are not Christian, and you are not a Republican, but you believe their ideas? What does it mean, then, to say you are "not" those things?

It means that I'm not directly tied to Christianity (not an Evangelical voter) or the Republican party (not a registered Republican voter).

So you are those things, unofficially.

Oh, leave the poor guy alone.  If I were a Trump supporter, I'd be trying to distance myself from everything I used to believe in too.  

You may want to take a bit of your own advice. It's going to be fun to watch as Hillary is being attacked from the left and right. Are you a fan of the Democratic party like most Democratic voters that I know? What are Democratic voters going do after their party is destroyed?

(08-28-2016, 02:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You may want to take a bit of your own advice. It's going to be fun to watch as Hillary is being attacked from the left and right. Are you a fan of the Democratic party like most Democratic voters that I know? What are Democratic voters going do after their party is destroyed?

I'm more of a fan of blue values than of the Democratic Party.  Though the unravelling, both parties were trying to win by spending more on advertising than the other guys, and thus were taking money hand over fist from those with the most money.  As the Republicans were the party of Big Money, the Democrats didn't do well with this approach.  Bernie took a good shot at changing the culture, but couldn't pull it off.  We'll have to see if other Democrats follow his lead in future elections.

In the Awakening, the Democrats had been in power far too long.  They had become corrupt and complacent.  They were still working more for the People than Big Money, looking to buy black votes through programs like the War on Poverty and Civil Rights legislation.  This lost them the southern racists vote when Nixon pushed his southern strategy.  Hey.  I liked the New Deal.  FDR truly revitalized the nation.  Still, leave any set of politicians in power indefinitely, even when they start out with fresh energetic ideas, and they can stand getting shaken up a few decades down the road.

I'm hardly a blind fan of the Democrats.  The basic approach of working for the People rather than the Robber Barons is sound.  As for the rest, they are still politicians.  One always has to keep a fire lit under their rear ends or they'll implement rule of the elite, for the elite, by the elite.

The Republicans have always been the party of the Robber Barons.  Thing is, there are too few Robber Baron votes that they can't stay in power serving the Robber Barons alone.  They have to sell, one way or another, the idea that what is good for the Robber Barons (or General Motors) is good for America.  Pro business is pro America, at least in theory.

I found myself somewhat bemused an upset by the Bush 43 era Republican coalition.  Big Oil.  Fundamentalists.  Neo-Con militarists.  Wall Street.  They didn't have a lot in common save a dislike for the Democrats.  That was enough to win the election, but could they play well together in the world?  They couldn't play well together in Iraq at least.  The militarists wanted to prove that high tech could replace boots on the ground, that the US could kick ass and didn't have to walk as gently as they had since Vietnam.  They planed for quick in, take the WMDs, and quick out.  High tech worked great for them during the conventional war, but couldn't replace boots on the ground when the insurrection came.  Big Oil had boots on the ground near the oil and tried to reap the profits.  They couldn't let the military do their planned quick exist.  The idealists and fundamentalists thought changing the culture of a conquered people at gun point would be easy.  I mean, couldn't anyone see how superior they were to the locals?  It turns out that the local style of corrupt wasn't very compatible with the Republican form of corrupt.  Why couldn't they just accept the oil money and behave themselves?  I mean, that what the Arabs had been doing for years, why not now?

Add the unwillingness of 43 to pay the costs of his adventure with new taxes with the resultant collapse of the economy and you had a big time SNAFU.  Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

At this point the Republican base is fed up.  Hey, even you are disassociating yourself with their fractured remnants.  For many, supply side has failed once too often.  For many, the Republican eagerness to put troops near the oil led to disaster.  Some care that the Republicans had lied to start an optional war for oil.  Others are upset that they didn't filibuster the Democrats persistently enough.  The Establishment Republicans also seem to be loyal more to the Robber Barons than the Culture Warriors.  As a result the Alt Right is rising, trying to pull together the next wave of Culture Warriors.

Fourth Turnings are supposed to be transformative.  Well, the conservatives are doing their part...  falling apart at the seams, nominating a total outsider who doesn't look to have a chance.  Alas, the Democratic Establishment is too intact for my taste.  They need to fall apart and reinvent themselves too.  I don't know that Hillary will be a transformer.  She sorta almost talks a decent game.  She is persistent enough.  Can she get a regeneracy going?  I don't know.  It's hard to fall apart and reinvent one's self when the opposition beat you to the punch.  It would be too tempting to stand pat.

We'll have to see.  You, Eric and I have three different visions of the upcoming regeneracy and transformation.  I just don't know how hard Hillary will try to push, or whether the remnants of the Republican Establishment can or will try to dig in heels.

Quote:You may want to take a bit of your own advice. It's going to be fun to watch as Hillary is being attacked from the left and right. Are you a fan of the Democratic party like most Democratic voters that I know? What are Democratic voters going do after their party is destroyed?

Trump is also being attacked from the right as well as the left. Otherwise, Gary Johnson wouldn't be getting 10% of the vote - and Jill Stein is now getting 4% according to a poll related on MSNBC this morning.

That 6% gap between Johnson and Stein is down from 9% (Johnson 12%, Stein 3%). If that gap keeps narrowing, that's awesome news for Trump.

(08-28-2016, 10:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-28-2016, 02:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You may want to take a bit of your own advice. It's going to be fun to watch as Hillary is being attacked from the left and right. Are you a fan of the Democratic party like most Democratic voters that I know? What are Democratic voters going do after their party is destroyed?

I'm more of a fan of blue values than of the Democratic Party.  Though the unravelling, both parties were trying to win by spending more on advertising than the other guys, and thus were taking money hand over fist from those with the most money.  As the Republicans were the party of Big Money, the Democrats didn't do well with this approach.  Bernie took a good shot at changing the culture, but couldn't pull it off.  We'll have to see if other Democrats follow his lead in future elections.

In the Awakening, the Democrats had been in power far too long.  They had become corrupt and complacent.  They were still working more for the People than Big Money, looking to buy black votes through programs like the War on Poverty and Civil Rights legislation.  This lost them the southern racists vote when Nixon pushed his southern strategy.  Hey.  I liked the New Deal.  FDR truly revitalized the nation.  Still, leave any set of politicians in power indefinitely, even when they start out with fresh energetic ideas, and they can stand getting shaken up a few decades down the road.

I'm hardly a blind fan of the Democrats.  The basic approach of working for the People rather than the Robber Barons is sound.  As for the rest, they are still politicians.  One always has to keep a fire lit under their rear ends or they'll implement rule of the elite, for the elite, by the elite.

The Republicans have always been the party of the Robber Barons.  Thing is, there are too few Robber Baron votes that they can't stay in power serving the Robber Barons alone.  They have to sell, one way or another, the idea that what is good for the Robber Barons (or General Motors) is good for America.  Pro business is pro America, at least in theory.

I found myself somewhat bemused an upset by the Bush 43 era Republican coalition.  Big Oil.  Fundamentalists.  Neo-Con militarists.  Wall Street.  They didn't have a lot in common save a dislike for the Democrats.  That was enough to win the election, but could they play well together in the world?  They couldn't play well together in Iraq at least.  The militarists wanted to prove that high tech could replace boots on the ground, that the US could kick ass and didn't have to walk as gently as they had since Vietnam.  They planed for quick in, take the WMDs, and quick out.  High tech worked great for them during the conventional war, but couldn't replace boots on the ground when the insurrection came.  Big Oil had boots on the ground near the oil and tried to reap the profits.  They couldn't let the military do their planned quick exist.  The idealists and fundamentalists thought changing the culture of a conquered people at gun point would be easy.  I mean, couldn't anyone see how superior they were to the locals?  It turns out that the local style of corrupt wasn't very compatible with the Republican form of corrupt.  Why couldn't they just accept the oil money and behave themselves?  I mean, that what the Arabs had been doing for years, why not now?

Add the unwillingness of 43 to pay the costs of his adventure with new taxes with the resultant collapse of the economy and you had a big time SNAFU.  Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

At this point the Republican base is fed up.  Hey, even you are disassociating yourself with their fractured remnants.  For many, supply side has failed once too often.  For many, the Republican eagerness to put troops near the oil led to disaster.  Some care that the Republicans had lied to start an optional war for oil.  Others are upset that they didn't filibuster the Democrats persistently enough.  The Establishment Republicans also seem to be loyal more to the Robber Barons than the Culture Warriors.  As a result the Alt Right is rising, trying to pull together the next wave of Culture Warriors.

Fourth Turnings are supposed to be transformative.  Well, the conservatives are doing their part...  falling apart at the seams, nominating a total outsider who doesn't look to have a chance.  Alas, the Democratic Establishment is too intact for my taste.  They need to fall apart and reinvent themselves too.  I don't know that Hillary will be a transformer.  She sorta almost talks a decent game.  She is persistent enough.  Can she get a regeneracy going?  I don't know.  It's hard to fall apart and reinvent one's self when the opposition beat you to the punch.  It would be too tempting to stand pat.

We'll have to see.  You, Eric and I have three different visions of the upcoming regeneracy and transformation.  I just don't know how hard Hillary will try to push, or whether the remnants of the Republican Establishment can or will try to dig in heels.

The Republicans have always been the party of business. Robber Barons have a tendency to get in the way of business which requires them to be removed. Who are the Robber Barons of today? Who are the Rockefeller's, the Carnegie's, the Vanderbilt's and the Morgans of our time? Trump isn't financially big and powerful enough to be viewed as a Robber Baron. BTW, if you don't know who today's Robber Barons are, ask your candidate because she's most likely done business with them. Hillary isn't going to buck the system that turned her into a multi millionaire anymore than LBJ was going to buck the system that turned him into a millionaire. Bernie bucked the system enough to receive funds to purchase another home for himself. No, you're only hope is for a Republican to do what's needed to be done. Are Republicans falling a part at the seams or trimming off the unwanted fat/crap associated with the past? Nature has entered and is now the force in play within the Republican party. Do you trust nature or science? Hint...Republican voters are more in tune with nature than science.

(08-28-2016, 08:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The Republicans have always been the party of business. Robber Barons have a tendency to get in the way of business which requires them to be removed. Who are the Robber Barons of today? Who are the Rockefeller's, the Carnegie's, the Vanderbilt's and the Morgans of our time? Trump isn't financially big and powerful enough to be viewed as a Robber Baron. BTW, if you don't know who today's Robber Barons are, ask your candidate because she's most likely done business with them. Hillary isn't going to buck the system that turned her into a multi millionaire anymore than LBJ was going to buck the system that turned him into a millionaire. Bernie bucked the system enough to receive funds to purchase another home for himself. No, you're only hope is for a Republican to do what's needed to be done. Are Republicans falling a part at the seams or trimming off the unwanted fat/crap associated with the past? Nature has entered and is now the force in play within the Republican party. Do you trust nature or science? Hint...Republican voters are more in tune with nature than science.

I'm not sure myself any more than you or Butler that Hillary will buck the system, or how far. I just have a hunch that she will to a degree, since she is an idealist and a rebel girl at heart. The people will need to push her, and I don't know now if the people are any more up for a regeneracy now than the Democratic "Establishment." As I said, real change is unlikely for the next four years. Events move in cycles, and one important cycle is the 20-year one that corresponds to Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions. People get this one mixed up with others. But a "zero year" election and the following "one" year means a change in direction in Establishment politics, one way or another. It happens every time. So Hillary may not make it into the new decade, which will be a transformative one, whereas the last 2 decades have been the stand-pat and muddle-through time.

You see hope for Republicans to buck the system, because you agree with their ideas. But I see opposition to welfare and minority rights and support for trickle down, free market economics as more in line with the Establishment, and Trump comes from that system, and claims that his knowledge of cronyism means that he alone can fix it. If you believe that an expert practitioner of the current Establishment big-money, robber-baron system is the one to "fix" it, then I've got some California real estate to sell you at bargain Detroit prices.

(08-28-2016, 01:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 11:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 09:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'd choose the cell phone too because I'm not a Christian. The crucifix probably wouldn't do me much good as far as saving me.

You are not Christian, and you are not a Republican, but you believe their ideas? What does it mean, then, to say you are "not" those things?

It means that I'm not directly tied to Christianity (not an Evangelical voter) or the Republican party (not a registered Republican voter).

So you are those things, unofficially.

Oh, leave the poor guy alone.  If I were a Trump supporter, I'd be trying to distance myself from everything I used to believe in too.  

Right; in fact, if someone is a Trump supporter, it would be wise to distance oneself from anything one believes in. Because you are then following a candidate who believes in nothing and has no policy other than himself.

(08-28-2016, 02:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-28-2016, 01:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 11:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 09:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2016, 01:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]You are not Christian, and you are not a Republican, but you believe their ideas? What does it mean, then, to say you are "not" those things?

It means that I'm not directly tied to Christianity (not an Evangelical voter) or the Republican party (not a registered Republican voter).

So you are those things, unofficially.

Oh, leave the poor guy alone.  If I were a Trump supporter, I'd be trying to distance myself from everything I used to believe in too.  

You may want to take a bit of your own advice. It's going to be fun to watch as Hillary is being attacked from the left and right. Are you a fan of the Democratic party like most Democratic voters that I know? What are Democratic voters going do after their party is destroyed?

My prediction is that the Republicans may be destroyed, but what's more likely is that the two-party duopoly will be destroyed. Neither party is especially popular, and yet those are the only two choices we are given, and other parties are not allowed in the debates. I predict that this will be changed.

Quote:I'm not sure myself any more than you or Butler that Hillary will buck the system, or how far. I just have a hunch that she will to a degree, since she is an idealist and a rebel girl at heart. The people will need to push her, and I don't know now if the people are any more up for a regeneracy now than the Democratic "Establishment." As I said, real change is unlikely for the next four years. Events move in cycles, and one important cycle is the 20-year one that corresponds to Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions. People get this one mixed up with others. But a "zero year" election and the following "one" year means a change in direction in Establishment politics, one way or another. It happens every time. So Hillary may not make it into the new decade, which will be a transformative one, whereas the last 2 decades have been the stand-pat and muddle-through time.

You see hope for Republicans to buck the system, because you agree with their ideas. But I see opposition to welfare and minority rights and support for trickle down, free market economics as more in line with the Establishment, and Trump comes from that system, and claims that his knowledge of cronyism means that he alone can fix it. If you believe that an expert practitioner of the current Establishment big-money, robber-baron system is the one to "fix" it, then I've got some California real estate to sell you at bargain Detroit prices.

There is also a perihelion/opposition of Mars and the Sun in 2020 - and it is the start of a "4" decade, the last two of which - the 1930s and 1840s - played host to the two worst depressions in U.S. history, and both needed wars to end (World War II and the Mexican War).