(02-06-2020, 10:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 10:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]...except that blacks do not make a difference in the states in which they are the largest parts of state populations compared to the rest of the United States. Virginia would, Delaware, and Maryland (now that one might be a surprise, but it has lots of middle-class blacks) night still be voting R in Presidential elections except for large black populations. This said, the black vote is not going to swing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina D.The Hispanic vote is about as large as the black vote in Texas, and rarely enough to swing a statewide election. To be sure, neither Florida nor North Carolina could ever be close without the black vote, and if the Democrats win any statewide vote in Georgia, then the black vote will make a difference.
So why does Trump do unusually badly among blacks?
1. He is a racist and a religious bigot, and that scares blacks. I do not see him as particularly anti-black in the sense of a segregationist pol of the old days; his bigotry is more anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic. If the direction of his bigotry were toward Asians , then that would still scare blacks. Among ethnic and religious minorities, the common wisdom well known in practice is that bigots usually end up turning against other targets. (Even if Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter he scares Jews with his weak-to-non-existent condemnation of neo-Nazi violence. His type is more likely to turn against Jews -- even his daughter -- than people who show no "racial" consciousness).
2. He made his money as a landlord. Americans have more sympathy for capitalists who make their money as technological innovators or creators of intellectual property. If the 2020 election proves to be between media mogul Mike Bloomberg and real-estate profiteer Donald Trump, then Bloomberg will have the edge (if he were an oilman he would have that edge) among people who do not have an unqualified love for capitalism. Trump reminds too many people of a slumlord -- which may not be so much of a problem in rural areas and small towns.
3. He is anti-intellectual, and that hurts him among Jews (even with a daughter who converted), the black bourgeoisie, middle-class Hispanics, and the bulk of Asians who are more educated than whites of similar SES. Anti-intellectualism offends the well-educated, people who depend upon education for getting their jobs, and people who aspire to education as the only means that they have for escaping poverty. The Republican Party has been going blatantly anti-intellectual for several decades; consider that Eisenhower won 80% of the college-educated vote in the 1950's. On the other side, Donald Trump does well among ill-educated white people who see educated people more as exploiters (there are the people who correct their kids' grammar in school) than distant city-slickers. Trump is little-better educated than the typical high-school graduate with which he has affinity. He said "I love low-information voters", something that Republicans used to cavil about saying.
How many Jews are intellectuals? I've met quite a few Jews but very few were so called intellectuals. Trump made his fortune building luxury condo's and apartments for rich people. The slumlords that you speak of are some how or another related to a Democratic bureaucrat or politician connected to the government of some blue city. Yeah, I've been in those shit holes and wonder why their tenants don't string those greedy people up. But then I remember that those greedy people are most likely related to the bureaucrats running the police force too. I forget that there system isn't like our system.
These slum lord real estate greedy people can count Trump among their number. They are very likely to be Republicans who themselves live in some upscale conservative gated community. They are not likely connected to the government, because the government imposes regulations upon them, which all Republican slum lords and other large landlords and almost all Republicans oppose.
The Jews I have known tend to be smart as a tack.
(02-07-2020, 01:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 10:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 10:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]...except that blacks do not make a difference in the states in which they are the largest parts of state populations compared to the rest of the United States. Virginia would, Delaware, and Maryland (now that one might be a surprise, but it has lots of middle-class blacks) night still be voting R in Presidential elections except for large black populations. This said, the black vote is not going to swing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina D.The Hispanic vote is about as large as the black vote in Texas, and rarely enough to swing a statewide election. To be sure, neither Florida nor North Carolina could ever be close without the black vote, and if the Democrats win any statewide vote in Georgia, then the black vote will make a difference.
So why does Trump do unusually badly among blacks?
1. He is a racist and a religious bigot, and that scares blacks. I do not see him as particularly anti-black in the sense of a segregationist pol of the old days; his bigotry is more anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic. If the direction of his bigotry were toward Asians , then that would still scare blacks. Among ethnic and religious minorities, the common wisdom well known in practice is that bigots usually end up turning against other targets. (Even if Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter he scares Jews with his weak-to-non-existent condemnation of neo-Nazi violence. His type is more likely to turn against Jews -- even his daughter -- than people who show no "racial" consciousness).
2. He made his money as a landlord. Americans have more sympathy for capitalists who make their money as technological innovators or creators of intellectual property. If the 2020 election proves to be between media mogul Mike Bloomberg and real-estate profiteer Donald Trump, then Bloomberg will have the edge (if he were an oilman he would have that edge) among people who do not have an unqualified love for capitalism. Trump reminds too many people of a slumlord -- which may not be so much of a problem in rural areas and small towns.
3. He is anti-intellectual, and that hurts him among Jews (even with a daughter who converted), the black bourgeoisie, middle-class Hispanics, and the bulk of Asians who are more educated than whites of similar SES. Anti-intellectualism offends the well-educated, people who depend upon education for getting their jobs, and people who aspire to education as the only means that they have for escaping poverty. The Republican Party has been going blatantly anti-intellectual for several decades; consider that Eisenhower won 80% of the college-educated vote in the 1950's. On the other side, Donald Trump does well among ill-educated white people who see educated people more as exploiters (there are the people who correct their kids' grammar in school) than distant city-slickers. Trump is little-better educated than the typical high-school graduate with which he has affinity. He said "I love low-information voters", something that Republicans used to cavil about saying.
How many Jews are intellectuals? I've met quite a few Jews but very few were so called intellectuals. Trump made his fortune building luxury condo's and apartments for rich people. The slumlords that you speak of are some how or another related to a Democratic bureaucrat or politician connected to the government of some blue city. Yeah, I've been in those shit holes and wonder why their tenants don't string those greedy people up. But then I remember that those greedy people are most likely related to the bureaucrats running the police force too. I forget that there system isn't like our system.
These slum lord real estate greedy people can count Trump among their number. They are very likely to be Republicans who themselves live in some upscale conservative gated community. They are not likely connected to the government, because the government imposes regulations upon them, which all Republican slum lords and other large landlords and almost all Republicans oppose.
The Jews I have known tend to be smart as a tack.
I agree that the Jews that I've met were sharp and business savvy. Dude, there isn't enough Republicans in blue cities to oppose much of anything these days. Hell, you're even running out of conservative Democrats these days. You guys pretty much have the cities to yourselves and no one who lives outside of them really wants anything to do with them these days.
(02-06-2020, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 05:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, once the Republicans of Lincoln’s time were the party of industrial development and the abolitionists. The Democrats were the party of slavers and the agricultural land owners. At that point, the Whiggish arrow of progress was clearly pointing in the direction of the Republicans. So, no, the Republican position has been in flux for as long as there were Republicans. They went all the way from abolitionists to the Southern Strategy, from isolationists to the party of military strength, from what is good for General Motors is good for America, to refusing General Motors a loan. Both parties changed significantly over the years.
Perhaps the Machine Democrats of the north were a major step in the evolution of the parties. As I said, Tammany Hall used to send people to meet the immigrants, to tell them where they could find a place to live, where they could find a job, and tell them who to vote for. The Democrats thus began representing the common laborer, the Republicans the establishment factory owners.
The New Deal was another such milestone. The war on poverty was another. The civi rights efforts of the 1950s and 1960s was another.
If you asked me if by LBJ’s time the Democrats had held the Congress so long that it began to become inefficient and corrupt, you would find me agreeing. If when the jobs were being shipped overseas someone pointed out that the robber barons were donating to both Republicans and Democrats, and the politicians who agreed on how wonderful globalism was are still viewed with skepticism and suspicion, I would agree with you. It is not that one side was always good, the other always bad.
But today the elite and racist elements have created a Fox Fiction, a way of selling the middle of the country that government for the elites and racists is best. A lot of people from the middle of the country buy into the propaganda, do not let themselves see what is going on.
I don’t see this as lasting indefinitely. Every time the Republicans get in power they ruin the economy. (It's the economy, stupid. The Great Recession.) They persistently attack things like benefits, jobs, labor unions and voting rights which give the working man a chance. The elite / racist elements are obvious enough to be seen.
But if you buy into the Fox alternate reality, if you do not look for the obvious links, you fall into their trap. If you lie as long and as much as Trump, folks will become very skeptical of what you say. It has not happened enough yet.
One of the more interesting parts of the impeachment inquiry was the glimpse into the myth of the deep state. You got to see some of the establishment pros of the Ukraine experts, and of the politicians common in the administration. If you are familiar with the testimony, you found the established pros of the deep state were heroic, loyal to US policy, and responded to subpoena. It was the politicians who were corrupt, in the loop, trying to work a ‘drug deal’, and part of the cover up. This, the constant lies, the ‘OK Boomer’ meme, leave me hopeful the the moderates and independents that have driven the see saw might abandon the Fox vision and a new progressive era will result.
That does not imply that I am rooting for a corrupt or inefficient government. Keep an eye towards that. It has always happened before, and I expect it will happen again if you leave any group in power for too long.
But you have to know a difference between a government for the racists and elitists and a government for the people. You have to let go of the false reality.
I know the difference between the liberal version of government and the American government.
Really? You seem to be buying into the Fox Folly. You don't seem to pay attention to the history or the real views of folks you are supposedly debating. You just repeat the Trump / Fox lies and make up stuff on your own. For example, my view above is far more nuanced than your lies about my believing the Democrat's are good and Republicans bad fixed and unchanging through history. Just because you ignore facts and stick with simple stuff, not everyone does.
One thing the liberals take for granted is a reputation of conservative politicians and media lying. You get the impression that if you do mild fact checking, you will find all sorts of falsehood. I attempted to confirm this, to find a list of the most common whoppers associated with the fact checks that debunk them. I found myself a little surprised to find no easy confirmation. Does anyone have favorite examples of false propaganda and pointers to the fact check sites that debunk it? It seems we should have a thread with pointers to articles we believe and articles we don't.
(02-07-2020, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 01:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 10:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 10:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]...except that blacks do not make a difference in the states in which they are the largest parts of state populations compared to the rest of the United States. Virginia would, Delaware, and Maryland (now that one might be a surprise, but it has lots of middle-class blacks) night still be voting R in Presidential elections except for large black populations. This said, the black vote is not going to swing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina D.The Hispanic vote is about as large as the black vote in Texas, and rarely enough to swing a statewide election. To be sure, neither Florida nor North Carolina could ever be close without the black vote, and if the Democrats win any statewide vote in Georgia, then the black vote will make a difference.
So why does Trump do unusually badly among blacks?
1. He is a racist and a religious bigot, and that scares blacks. I do not see him as particularly anti-black in the sense of a segregationist pol of the old days; his bigotry is more anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic. If the direction of his bigotry were toward Asians , then that would still scare blacks. Among ethnic and religious minorities, the common wisdom well known in practice is that bigots usually end up turning against other targets. (Even if Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter he scares Jews with his weak-to-non-existent condemnation of neo-Nazi violence. His type is more likely to turn against Jews -- even his daughter -- than people who show no "racial" consciousness).
2. He made his money as a landlord. Americans have more sympathy for capitalists who make their money as technological innovators or creators of intellectual property. If the 2020 election proves to be between media mogul Mike Bloomberg and real-estate profiteer Donald Trump, then Bloomberg will have the edge (if he were an oilman he would have that edge) among people who do not have an unqualified love for capitalism. Trump reminds too many people of a slumlord -- which may not be so much of a problem in rural areas and small towns.
3. He is anti-intellectual, and that hurts him among Jews (even with a daughter who converted), the black bourgeoisie, middle-class Hispanics, and the bulk of Asians who are more educated than whites of similar SES. Anti-intellectualism offends the well-educated, people who depend upon education for getting their jobs, and people who aspire to education as the only means that they have for escaping poverty. The Republican Party has been going blatantly anti-intellectual for several decades; consider that Eisenhower won 80% of the college-educated vote in the 1950's. On the other side, Donald Trump does well among ill-educated white people who see educated people more as exploiters (there are the people who correct their kids' grammar in school) than distant city-slickers. Trump is little-better educated than the typical high-school graduate with which he has affinity. He said "I love low-information voters", something that Republicans used to cavil about saying.
How many Jews are intellectuals? I've met quite a few Jews but very few were so called intellectuals. Trump made his fortune building luxury condo's and apartments for rich people. The slumlords that you speak of are some how or another related to a Democratic bureaucrat or politician connected to the government of some blue city. Yeah, I've been in those shit holes and wonder why their tenants don't string those greedy people up. But then I remember that those greedy people are most likely related to the bureaucrats running the police force too. I forget that there system isn't like our system.
These slum lord real estate greedy people can count Trump among their number. They are very likely to be Republicans who themselves live in some upscale conservative gated community. They are not likely connected to the government, because the government imposes regulations upon them, which all Republican slum lords and other large landlords and almost all Republicans oppose.
The Jews I have known tend to be smart as a tack.
I agree that the Jews that I've met were sharp and business savvy. Dude, there isn't enough Republicans in blue cities to oppose much of anything these days. Hell, you're even running out of conservative Democrats these days. You guys pretty much have the cities to yourselves and no one who lives outside of them really wants anything to do with them these days.
Uhhh. Suburbia. Suburbia is becoming legitimately urban with high costs of infrastructure, traffic jams, costly public services, and proximity in many cases to rotting cities. Some old suburbs are themselves places becoming rotten in their own right. (Newark, New Jersey is the first, worst, and biggest such place).
Rural areas still have comparatively low costs of living, including such public services as education and law enforcement. Consider that in a small and isolated town in the boonies that salaries of teachers and sheriff's deputies can be low because such people have few viable options unless they are to move to the Big City (or even small ones or Suburbia). I can attest that were I looking for a new salesperson I could hardly find anyone with a more fitting skill-set than a good teacher. To a great extent, teaching is salesmanship. As for police -- small towns do not have the criminal syndicates that can bribe a crooked cop whose inadequate pay makes him vulnerable to the inducement of getting paid well for not busting the illegal profiteers off vice. Big cities and suburbs must pay well to keep good teachers and to keep their cops honest.
Let us also remember that, as Eric says, there is no monolithic capitalist class. The slumlord gets a nearly-passive return on investment as the investment physically rots. Real-estate interests are among the most reactionary interests in American life (aside perhaps from those who extract resources including energy). If the impresarios of intellectual property depend upon well-educated and creative people, the real estate interests can simply charge such well-educated and creative people exorbitant rents. The big money in Silicon Valley does not enrich software engineers; it enriches the landlords of those software engineers above all else. The software engineers simply become the conduit of wealth going to landlords.
The difference between rural America and urban America (and Suburbia has largely lost the rural characteristics that it once had) is that few people in rural America (unless you are speaking of ski-resort communities or the like) pay rents that take half or more of their income. Trump is a wealthy landlord above all else, someone who is the most rapacious capitalist that most people know in high-income urban areas but who are not so present in rural America. Unlike the capitalist who in fact innovates in technology or services, Trump has never been successful except as a real-estate baron or as a creator of schlock entertainment. Semi-literate people in rural America may love his superficial, mind-numbing schlock, but well-educated people despise it. (Know well: education and hours of TV watching are inversely related. It may be crude to call television the "Idiot Screen". but in general such fits.
(02-07-2020, 04:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 05:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, once the Republicans of Lincoln’s time were the party of industrial development and the abolitionists. The Democrats were the party of slavers and the agricultural land owners. At that point, the Whiggish arrow of progress was clearly pointing in the direction of the Republicans. So, no, the Republican position has been in flux for as long as there were Republicans. They went all the way from abolitionists to the Southern Strategy, from isolationists to the party of military strength, from what is good for General Motors is good for America, to refusing General Motors a loan. Both parties changed significantly over the years.
Perhaps the Machine Democrats of the north were a major step in the evolution of the parties. As I said, Tammany Hall used to send people to meet the immigrants, to tell them where they could find a place to live, where they could find a job, and tell them who to vote for. The Democrats thus began representing the common laborer, the Republicans the establishment factory owners.
The New Deal was another such milestone. The war on poverty was another. The civi rights efforts of the 1950s and 1960s was another.
If you asked me if by LBJ’s time the Democrats had held the Congress so long that it began to become inefficient and corrupt, you would find me agreeing. If when the jobs were being shipped overseas someone pointed out that the robber barons were donating to both Republicans and Democrats, and the politicians who agreed on how wonderful globalism was are still viewed with skepticism and suspicion, I would agree with you. It is not that one side was always good, the other always bad.
But today the elite and racist elements have created a Fox Fiction, a way of selling the middle of the country that government for the elites and racists is best. A lot of people from the middle of the country buy into the propaganda, do not let themselves see what is going on.
I don’t see this as lasting indefinitely. Every time the Republicans get in power they ruin the economy. (It's the economy, stupid. The Great Recession.) They persistently attack things like benefits, jobs, labor unions and voting rights which give the working man a chance. The elite / racist elements are obvious enough to be seen.
But if you buy into the Fox alternate reality, if you do not look for the obvious links, you fall into their trap. If you lie as long and as much as Trump, folks will become very skeptical of what you say. It has not happened enough yet.
One of the more interesting parts of the impeachment inquiry was the glimpse into the myth of the deep state. You got to see some of the establishment pros of the Ukraine experts, and of the politicians common in the administration. If you are familiar with the testimony, you found the established pros of the deep state were heroic, loyal to US policy, and responded to subpoena. It was the politicians who were corrupt, in the loop, trying to work a ‘drug deal’, and part of the cover up. This, the constant lies, the ‘OK Boomer’ meme, leave me hopeful the the moderates and independents that have driven the see saw might abandon the Fox vision and a new progressive era will result.
That does not imply that I am rooting for a corrupt or inefficient government. Keep an eye towards that. It has always happened before, and I expect it will happen again if you leave any group in power for too long.
But you have to know a difference between a government for the racists and elitists and a government for the people. You have to let go of the false reality.
I know the difference between the liberal version of government and the American government.
Really? You seem to be buying into the Fox Folly. You don't seem to pay attention to the history or the real views of folks you are supposedly debating. You just repeat the Trump / Fox lies and make up stuff on your own. For example, my view above is far more nuanced than your lies about my believing the Democrat's are good and Republicans bad fixed and unchanging through history. Just because you ignore facts and stick with simple stuff, not everyone does.
One thing the liberals take for granted is a reputation of conservative politicians and media lying. You get the impression that if you do mild fact checking, you will find all sorts of falsehood. I attempted to confirm this, to find a list of the most common whoppers associated with the fact checks that debunk them. I found myself a little surprised to find no easy confirmation. Does anyone have favorite examples of false propaganda and pointers to the fact check sites that debunk it? It seems we should have a thread with pointers to articles we believe and articles we don't.
-- the problem is most ppl don't have time 2 do that- unless that's your thing. What l mean is, 4 instance l like 2 do art on the side, when I'm not working, other ppl might like 2 ride bikes or play some sport, or perhaps play cards or pool with friends.. Other ppl like 2 read or fart around on discussion boards like 'm doing now Unless u actually like fact checking ppl aren't gonna do it. I try to get my info from various sources in order 2 form a valid opinion
(02-07-2020, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 01:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 10:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 10:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]...except that blacks do not make a difference in the states in which they are the largest parts of state populations compared to the rest of the United States. Virginia would, Delaware, and Maryland (now that one might be a surprise, but it has lots of middle-class blacks) night still be voting R in Presidential elections except for large black populations. This said, the black vote is not going to swing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina D.The Hispanic vote is about as large as the black vote in Texas, and rarely enough to swing a statewide election. To be sure, neither Florida nor North Carolina could ever be close without the black vote, and if the Democrats win any statewide vote in Georgia, then the black vote will make a difference.
So why does Trump do unusually badly among blacks?
1. He is a racist and a religious bigot, and that scares blacks. I do not see him as particularly anti-black in the sense of a segregationist pol of the old days; his bigotry is more anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic. If the direction of his bigotry were toward Asians , then that would still scare blacks. Among ethnic and religious minorities, the common wisdom well known in practice is that bigots usually end up turning against other targets. (Even if Donald Trump has a Jewish daughter he scares Jews with his weak-to-non-existent condemnation of neo-Nazi violence. His type is more likely to turn against Jews -- even his daughter -- than people who show no "racial" consciousness).
2. He made his money as a landlord. Americans have more sympathy for capitalists who make their money as technological innovators or creators of intellectual property. If the 2020 election proves to be between media mogul Mike Bloomberg and real-estate profiteer Donald Trump, then Bloomberg will have the edge (if he were an oilman he would have that edge) among people who do not have an unqualified love for capitalism. Trump reminds too many people of a slumlord -- which may not be so much of a problem in rural areas and small towns.
3. He is anti-intellectual, and that hurts him among Jews (even with a daughter who converted), the black bourgeoisie, middle-class Hispanics, and the bulk of Asians who are more educated than whites of similar SES. Anti-intellectualism offends the well-educated, people who depend upon education for getting their jobs, and people who aspire to education as the only means that they have for escaping poverty. The Republican Party has been going blatantly anti-intellectual for several decades; consider that Eisenhower won 80% of the college-educated vote in the 1950's. On the other side, Donald Trump does well among ill-educated white people who see educated people more as exploiters (there are the people who correct their kids' grammar in school) than distant city-slickers. Trump is little-better educated than the typical high-school graduate with which he has affinity. He said "I love low-information voters", something that Republicans used to cavil about saying.
How many Jews are intellectuals? I've met quite a few Jews but very few were so called intellectuals. Trump made his fortune building luxury condo's and apartments for rich people. The slumlords that you speak of are some how or another related to a Democratic bureaucrat or politician connected to the government of some blue city. Yeah, I've been in those shit holes and wonder why their tenants don't string those greedy people up. But then I remember that those greedy people are most likely related to the bureaucrats running the police force too. I forget that there system isn't like our system.
These slum lord real estate greedy people can count Trump among their number. They are very likely to be Republicans who themselves live in some upscale conservative gated community. They are not likely connected to the government, because the government imposes regulations upon them, which all Republican slum lords and other large landlords and almost all Republicans oppose.
The Jews I have known tend to be smart as a tack.
I agree that the Jews that I've met were sharp and business savvy. Dude, there isn't enough Republicans in blue cities to oppose much of anything these days. Hell, you're even running out of conservative Democrats these days. You guys pretty much have the cities to yourselves and no one who lives outside of them really wants anything to do with them these days.
The government and its police force doesn't run everything in blue cities. We still have a capitalist society everywhere, and greedy landlords are buying everything in sight. Some blue cities like mine at least have some minimal rent control. I notice in the Almanac that coastal blue cities' home prices are 5 times that of heartland red state cities, but rents are only twice as high. Landlords in red state cities get away with a lot more. Plus, it depends on the city, as I told you before. The coastal blue cities, which are often the most Democratic cities, are so expensive to live in that there really aren't many slums there anymore. They have been gentrified.
(02-06-2020, 03:53 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You people keep over looking known facts related to American law. Illegal gun purchase, illegal gun possession and illegal gun traffic are already viewed as against the law and the law/government already has to the right/power to take action and do something about them anytime it wants to these days. Why do you guys continue to overlook this? Is it your relationship with poor minorities and poor whites who are barely educated and primarily minority related communities that have a bad relationship with police and global crime organizations providing the bulk of the economics related to certain areas that's holding big city liberals back from doing their jobs and enforcing laws that are already on the books or what? Here's what I think, I don't think your liberal governments have the money or the facilities or the assets that it needs to protect itself and society from all the criminals that it has these days. Keep in mind, we don't live in Minneapolis or New York City or Chicago or Washington, DC or Baltimore or San Francisco or any other blue city that has all kinds of major problems. I'm not interested in having a liberal police chief or a liberal school administrator associated with a liberal movement who are afraid to address crime related issues or school related issues directly associated with groups of people who are affiliated with them. Like I said, I graduated from high school before the liberal double standards came into play.
First of all, I live in an exurban environment, not a city. Second, the overwhelming percentage of the populace is blue collar and hyper-Republican. So on the surface, your idea of what constitutes a problem doesn't apply here, yet the cops will freely admit that they are overly wary of every traffic stop or interaction with people who have been drinking. And this state is so gun-friendly that virtually no gun is illegal here. That actually make matters much worse. And just for informational purposes: NYC is now the safest city in the US, and one of the safest in the world, so city size and liberal association don't apply either. What NYC has is a solid handle on guns. That took a long time to achieve, but getting guns off the streets has made a huge difference.
Classic-Xer Wrote:Hint... A Mexican American Gen Xr my age of either sex is more likely to agree with my views and my views of them as equals than the views of a pampered liberal who was occupies an office for show or a liberal who obviously view of them as being inferior, incapable of learning and unworthy of having them doing the speaking for them and defending them these days. Funny, I hear a lot about racism and see a lot of finger pointing by those who don't seem able to understand what's driving their media or understands its obvious ties racist views that are still held by many liberals these days. Hint...Your racist speaker and her wealthy liberal contributor don't want them living any where near them. You can say what you want, but that's not going to change what we see or change what we are smart enough to pick up on or unfortunate enough to experience or learn first hand these day.
That's about as weird a comment as I've seen from you. If your pro-Trump, then the few Latinx people are likely to trust you as far as they can throw you. We have a very active Latinx community here, and I know a few of them quite well. They're wary -- and most are legal residents. They tend to work hard and appreciate the opportunities they have.
(02-06-2020, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I think you and many others will be amazed when you learn how rights that you and others have that are directly related to our 2A rights. Yes, we are free to use them against liberal troops wearing blue dunce caps and liberal officers wearing fancier blue dunce caps and liberal politicians legalizing illegal seizures and illegal trials and other illegal activity they need enrich themselves and enrich their failing states and social policies and so forth. Yep, it could end up being quite a blood bath or restricted to relatively small blood baths in some particular areas. You are familiar with the American way and the American preference pertaining to where it chooses to fight its wars?
I know you believe that the 2A is there to support revolution if one is needed, but almost zero percent of the judges who decide things like that would agree with you. The few who will are overruled every time.
So using weapons to start and pursue an insurrection will land you in jail, like these folks.
(02-06-2020, 08:33 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the DNC, they have just been caught rigging a Caucus in broad daylight. The Notion that an app that conveniently "glitches" changing votes from those for a disliked by the leadership candidate to a vote for a leadership approved candidate who just happens to also be a corporate donor for the company that made the app; and then the party leaders then assert that the process is being handled fairly. Such events and circumstances would be considered laughable and demand calls for UN monitors if this happened an another country with less trusted institutions. DNC would have us be like Algeria or Iran in terms of the honesty of the electoral process.
Really? And just why would the DNC try to make asses of themselves? Remember, Trump supporters crashed their phone bank with massive crank calls. If you want to blame, start there.
(02-07-2020, 09:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]-- the problem is most ppl don't have time 2 do that- unless that's your thing. What l mean is, 4 instance l like 2 do art on the side, when I'm not working, other ppl might like 2 ride bikes or play some sport, or perhaps play cards or pool with friends.. Other ppl like 2 read or fart around on discussion boards like 'm doing now Unless u actually like fact checking ppl aren't gonna do it. I try to get my info from various sources in order 2 form a valid opinion
That's the brilliance of the Trump modality: lie constantly about everything, until the very concept of truth is so muddled it can't be found. Once that happens, it's all visceral: who you hate, who you love. Then, Trump turns up the hate quotient to 11, because nothing is more motivating than hate. It's a hard game to counter, especially now that Trump has full control of all the institutions that can stop it.
This will be great history for future generations, assuming it doesn't take hold on a permanent basis.
(02-07-2020, 04:29 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I think you and many others will be amazed when you learn how rights that you and others have that are directly related to our 2A rights. Yes, we are free to use them against liberal troops wearing blue dunce caps and liberal officers wearing fancier blue dunce caps and liberal politicians legalizing illegal seizures and illegal trials and other illegal activity they need enrich themselves and enrich their failing states and social policies and so forth. Yep, it could end up being quite a blood bath or restricted to relatively small blood baths in some particular areas. You are familiar with the American way and the American preference pertaining to where it chooses to fight its wars?
I know you believe that the 2A is there to support revolution if one is needed, but almost zero percent of the judges who decide things like that would agree with you. The few who will are overruled every time. So using weapons to start and pursue an insurrection will land you in jail, like these folks.
The principle from Shogun would apply. The only possible justification for rebelling against the government is if you win. Thus, the Patriots against George III were justified. The Confederacy was not.
(02-07-2020, 04:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 08:33 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the DNC, they have just been caught rigging a Caucus in broad daylight. The Notion that an app that conveniently "glitches" changing votes from those for a disliked by the leadership candidate to a vote for a leadership approved candidate who just happens to also be a corporate donor for the company that made the app; and then the party leaders then assert that the process is being handled fairly. Such events and circumstances would be considered laughable and demand calls for UN monitors if this happened an another country with less trusted institutions. DNC would have us be like Algeria or Iran in terms of the honesty of the electoral process.
Really? And just why would the DNC try to make asses of themselves? Remember, Trump supporters crashed their phone bank with massive crank calls. If you want to blame, start there.
As I heard it, there was lots of disinformation resulting from the Caucus. One theory was that the way to fight foreign interference in US elections was to create so much domestic interference that the foreigners are drowned out.
(02-07-2020, 04:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 08:33 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the DNC, they have just been caught rigging a Caucus in broad daylight. The Notion that an app that conveniently "glitches" changing votes from those for a disliked by the leadership candidate to a vote for a leadership approved candidate who just happens to also be a corporate donor for the company that made the app; and then the party leaders then assert that the process is being handled fairly. Such events and circumstances would be considered laughable and demand calls for UN monitors if this happened an another country with less trusted institutions. DNC would have us be like Algeria or Iran in terms of the honesty of the electoral process.
Really? And just why would the DNC try to make asses of themselves? Remember, Trump supporters crashed their phone bank with massive crank calls. If you want to blame, start there.
Prank calls would only effect the total number of voters/turnout levels. Such wouldn't really effect the specific percentages of candidates votes. The only type of irregularities than can effect composition would have to come from inside the party apparatus. Several polling stations have been credited and had entered counts with completely different voting numbers from the numbers that were recorded on the ground. Sorry but the DNC clearly rigged it, specifically the same elements that tried to present Harris, and later Warren as nominees now want Buttigieg to be the nominee.
(02-06-2020, 06:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 04:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 07:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?
No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.
The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.
I assume that you are the authority in matters that directly relate to you. I'll already informed you that you are free to give up all your rights and go along with the liberals and continue believing whatever they want you to believe and continue believing in them and their goodness and all their promises too. You are free to vote against us and free to talk bad about us and free to ignore a political system loaded with super delegates and free to ignore the crap a group of fellow liberals pulled in the House and free to agree with your so called President in liberal terms or The Speaker of the House in American terms and even agree with her petty/third rate liberal view of her worthless and despicable accomplishment and continue doing a good job of convincing us to let go you and cut all ties with you like they want these days. Like I've said, a clear line of distinction between us and them is already being drawn right now between the two societies. In case you haven't been paying attention or up on current events, the reactionary agenda is now squarely on your side and no longer hidden like it was 20 years ago.
"Give up all your rights" ha ha. = give up your "right" to own and carry weapons of war with which you can blow away hundreds of innocent people. I don't think Mr. Brower will miss that right too much if it goes away.
Our fellow liberals in the House did their duty.
Pelosi has passed more good legislation than Drumpface Shithead could ever dream of passing.
Yes, your reactionary agenda is no longer hidden. It's Mussolini uber alles. If the country must be split between you rednecks and we blues, so be it. You can have your authoritarian, polluting state dedicated to the desires of the oligarchs and the religious goons.
I think you and many others will be amazed when you learn how rights that you and others have that are directly related to our 2A rights. Yes, we are free to use them against liberal troops wearing blue dunce caps and liberal officers wearing fancier blue dunce caps and liberal politicians legalizing illegal seizures and illegal trials and other illegal activity they need enrich themselves and enrich their failing states and social policies and so forth. Yep, it could end up being quite a blood bath or restricted to relatively small blood baths in some particular areas. You are familiar with the American way and the American preference pertaining to where it chooses to fight its wars?
Clearly not so. The Republicans interest in our "rights" is limited to the right to carry and own weapons of war. Uh, no you are NOT "free" to use them against liberal troops (not) wearing dunce caps (those belong to
your side's uniform). Those who use them in that way, do so by breaking the law. That means you are not "free" to use them; you can only use them in an uprising or rebellion, which the constitution does not enable you to stage. Our constitution and our liberty in no way depends on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Not at all. It depends on the willingness of American voters to vote for liberals instead of fake presidents and stooge legislators.
Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.
(02-06-2020, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 04:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2020, 07:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have any remaining question that the Republican party has become, at least in the House and Senate, an authoritarian party capable of defending any misdeed of the President in the defense of its power? Does anyone doubt its willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and perhaps rig elections on behalf of the President and his Party?
No room remains for any judgment of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of integrity and venality, or shortsightedness and vision within the GOP.
The essence of fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary agenda. Mussolini learned much from Lenin.
I assume that you are the authority in matters that directly relate to you. I'll already informed you that you are free to give up all your rights and go along with the liberals and continue believing whatever they want you to believe and continue believing in them and their goodness and all their promises too. You are free to vote against us and free to talk bad about us and free to ignore a political system loaded with super delegates and free to ignore the crap a group of fellow liberals pulled in the House and free to agree with your so called President in liberal terms or The Speaker of the House in American terms and even agree with her petty/third rate liberal view of her worthless and despicable accomplishment and continue doing a good job of convincing us to let go you and cut all ties with you like they want these days. Like I've said, a clear line of distinction between us and them is already being drawn right now between the two societies. In case you haven't been paying attention or up on current events, the reactionary agenda is now squarely on your side and no longer hidden like it was 20 years ago.
"Give up all your rights" ha ha. = give up your "right" to own and carry weapons of war with which you can blow away hundreds of innocent people. I don't think Mr. Brower will miss that right too much if it goes away.
Our fellow liberals in the House did their duty.
Pelosi has passed more good legislation than Drumpface Shithead could ever dream of passing.
Yes, your reactionary agenda is no longer hidden. It's Mussolini uber alles. If the country must be split between you rednecks and we blues, so be it. You can have your authoritarian, polluting state dedicated to the desires of the oligarchs and the religious goons.
I do not have a firearm. I am not a sport hunter, and if I were I would be perfectly happy to let the police store it on my behalf if I did not have a cause to use it -- such as deer hunting.
As for supporting a gun grab -- I have no problem with the government separating firearms from criminals, addicts, habitual drunkards, lunatics, spouse-abusers, illegal aliens, idiots, and people on the no-fly list. None of those would have protection of any 'gun rights' in accordance with the militia clause. If the military will not trust someone with a military weapon, then perhaps one should not be the sort to have one. OK, I have left room for the elderly and the handicapped who would never be inducted into the Armed Services. Gun-grabbing legislation could be drafted without discrimination.
On the other hand I will stand for the right of people who have legitimate cause to have hunting weapons to keep and bear them. I know some sport hunters and I would never take away an important part of their identity.
As for a defense, a dog is much more reliable and much less drastic. Criminals have good cause to fear dogs who do far better in reading malign intent and identifying people lying in wait than do we.
(02-07-2020, 07:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]As for supporting a gun grab -- I have no problem with the government separating firearms from criminals, addicts, habitual drunkards, lunatics, spouse-abusers, illegal aliens, idiots, and people on the no-fly list. None of those would have protection of any 'gun rights' in accordance with the militia clause. If the military will not trust someone with a military weapon, then perhaps one should not be the sort to have one. OK, I have left room for the elderly and the handicapped who would never be inducted into the Armed Services. Gun-grabbing legislation could be drafted without discrimination.
Well, some call it the militia clause, others more accurately as a justification clause. All other rights with a justification clause are not read as the justification clause limiting the implementation clause. There are allowed more than one possible justification, and no requirement to list them all. I have told you this many times before. You choose to remain willfully ignorant. Political opinion over rides rule of law?
That said, most of the types of people you list above do show just cause for the removal of the right without any modification of the 2nd. The limitation is that you would have to follow due process. The removal of a right, any right, does include a requirement for due process. You cannot grab arms on a whim.
The no fly list has a problem there. It is a quick and blanket list. It does not take due process, a court action and proof beyond reasonable doubt to end up on the no fly list. The creators of the list were more concerned with prompt reaction to threats than following legalities. There is also no established way to get off the list should a mistake get made. As such, you cannot apply the no fly list to void a constitutionally guaranteed right.
This could change, but that is one reason why the list as currently formulated does not effect the right to bear arms.
(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.
You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.
(02-07-2020, 07:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 07:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]As for supporting a gun grab -- I have no problem with the government separating firearms from criminals, addicts, habitual drunkards, lunatics, spouse-abusers, illegal aliens, idiots, and people on the no-fly list. None of those would have protection of any 'gun rights' in accordance with the militia clause. If the military will not trust someone with a military weapon, then perhaps one should not be the sort to have one. OK, I have left room for the elderly and the handicapped who would never be inducted into the Armed Services. Gun-grabbing legislation could be drafted without discrimination.
Well, some call it the militia clause, others more accurately as a justification clause. All other rights with a justification clause are not read as the justification clause limiting the implementation clause. There are allowed more than one possible justification, and no requirement to list them all. I have told you this many times before. You choose to remain willfully ignorant. Political opinion over rides rule of law?
Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it? How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent? So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past. I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites.
Bob Butler Wrote:That said, most of the types of people you list above do show just cause for the removal of the right without any modification of the 2nd. The limitation is that you would have to follow due process. The removal of a right, any right, does include a requirement for due process. You cannot grab arms on a whim.
The no fly list has a problem there. It is a quick and blanket list. It does not take due process, a court action and proof beyond reasonable doubt to end up on the no fly list. The creators of the list were more concerned with prompt reaction to threats than following legalities. There is also no established way to get off the list should a mistake get made. As such, you cannot apply the no fly list to void a constitutionally guaranteed right.
This could change, but that is one reason why the list as currently formulated does not effect the right to bear arms.
I have an easier modality: license owners and register weapons. I see nothing in the 2nd that can be stretched far enough to deny that solution. By implication, 'bearing arms' is a public display, so a manufactured right of privacy is out in this case. Nor can it be considered a burden, when licensure is common for a wide variety purposes already. Are you OK with that option?
(02-08-2020, 10:35 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it? How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent? So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past. I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites. ...
I have an easier modality: license owners and register weapons. I see nothing in the 2nd that can be stretched far enough to deny that solution. By implication, 'bearing arms' is a public display, so a manufactured right of privacy is out in this case. Nor can it be considered a burden, when licensure is common for a wide variety purposes already. Are you OK with that option?
I have no problem with your calling the supposed strict constructionist hypocrites…
I could go with licensing owners and registering weapons assuming all jurisdictions do not attempt to use the process to systematically deny a right. Some blue areas attempting a gun prohibition have officially defined licensing and registering processes, but individual bureaucrats or law enforcement people can deny systematically the license or registration on essentially a whim. You shouldn’t be able to deny a constitutional right on whim. You would need to follow due process, to prove a weapon illegal, an individual a felon or insane, etc… If you attempt to deny constitutional rights without due process, that would turn into a felony.
The Founding Father’s did provide for a solution. The US Congress could regulate the militia. The militia was defined as all males of military age (with tweaks), The definition is changeable with standard legislation, without an amendment. The states appointed militia officers. Thus, congress could redefine the militia to include everybody, and define standard practices to secure militia weapons, to include registration and licenses, to show minimum competency to handle what you owned, but it would be up to the states to implement the federal doctrine.
But using Rule of Law was against the interests of special interests back before the right was defined as individual. No one wanted to admit that the militia existed, thus the right applied to all, or that the state could give orders to most everybody given that an emergency had been declared, or that the federal government had an enumerated power to regulate gun owners.
Trying to work around Rule of Law as written in the constitution and federal code is problematic. I am sometime amused by the thought of trying to use the original intent of the founders. The militia is supposed to be well regulated. Owning weapons is supposed to be a duty as well as a privilege. Going back to something like the original intent seems quite possible.