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

(03-10-2018, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.

How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.

The legislature of Florida, and Dick's and other stores, have made the decision about age limits for gun purchases. I and Dave and Nancy P have not had that opportunity yet. I did get to vote for some gun control initiatives in California. I'm glad that one finally passed. And I don't think you are under 21. And I don't think any restrictions on seniors for buying guns would affect me, since I am not buying one. You can support and vote for that if you want; I would happily join you. If you want to exclude seniors you disagree with from voting, that says more about you than about me.

Come to think of it, if we did have a more-general upper age limit for voting, that would help our side a lot! Hey, how about letting those 16-17 year old students saying never again to gun violence be allowed to vote too! They and lots of other older folks are saying how much more mature they are than the "adults"

Now, this one is pretty funny



Breaking News from Newsmax.com


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is investigating a Virginia Beach teacher and political candidate after she sawed off part of an AR-15 rifle as part of an online video she recorded as "a personal stand for gun safety."

Democratic candidate Karen Mallard, who is challenging incumbent Rep. Scott Taylor for his congressional seat, said she destroyed the rifle to take a "personal stand for gun safety" after the same type of rifle was used to shoot and kill 17 people in the Feb 14 school shootings in Parkland, Florida, reports ABC 13 News.

Mallard said she turned in the weapon to the Virginia Beach police after she sawed off its barrel and showed the video through her Facebook account.

The video's critics pointed out that by sawing off the gun's barrel, she may have herself violated state gun laws that do not allow rifles to be modified to be less than 26 inches long.

This decision is a year old, but I had forgotten....

NEWS FEB 22 2017, 10:24 AM ET
Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ass...es-n724106

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."


Image: AR-15 rifles build by DSA Inc.
AR-15 rifles. Scott Olson / Getty Images

"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.

Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, "It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected 'arm' under the Second Amendment." She added that the majority opinion "clearly ignores the Supreme Court's guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are 'in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'"

The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s — one of the weapons banned under Maryland's law — in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes. Asked about an appeal, Baker said the NRA is exploring all options.

But Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, said the decision is "overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional."

"Maryland's law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence," Banach wrote in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld the ban in 2015, but a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that she didn't apply the proper legal standard. The panel sent the case back to Blake and ordered her to apply "strict scrutiny," a more rigorous test of a law's constitutionality. The state appealed to the full appeals court.

Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre that killed 20 children and six educators in Connecticut. King mentioned the massacre at the start of the ruling.

"Both before and after Newtown, similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings in places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there," King wrote. He listed the 2012 shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino, California; and the shootings last year at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, where 49 people were killed and 53 injured.

King also noted that enacting the law is "precisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court."

"Simply put, the State has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the (Firearms Safety Act) and Maryland's interest in protecting public safety," King wrote.

(03-11-2018, 02:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]This decision is a year old, but I had forgotten....

NEWS  FEB 22 2017, 10:24 AM ET
Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ass...es-n724106

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Which directly conflicts what the US Supreme Court said in establishing a litmus test, saying the courts could only limit civilian use weapons.  The courts often rule politically rather than following precedent.

(03-10-2018, 02:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Think about it. I can go into Dick's and purchase an AR-15 ( a legal weapon) right now without any issues or concerns relating to my ability to purchase one legally at Dick's. Do you view all the American adults within the ages of 18-21 ( a classification of adults) as being to immature and as being to irresponsible and as being to irrational or to crazy or to psychopathic to be able to purchase a firearm these days? I don't view all of them that way. I view some of them that way but not all of them.  Why do you and a pet  group of blue minded business decision makers seem to view all of them that way?

Having the benefit of modern diagnostic equipment, we can now verify that emotional responses don't recede until age 25 or so.  Up to that point, people are less responsive to rational thought and more responsive to emotional triggers.  If we're going to use science to dictate how things should be done, then we need to move the bar even farther.

That said, if I was in charge, the AR-15 wouldn't be available to anyone, so I'm not the best person to ask.  I suspect that, teeth gnashing not to the contrary, assault weapons will disappear from private ownership in the long run, but the long run will be just that -- long.  Before we get there, we'll try everything else we can conceive.  Only failure will drive us to the point where being awash in guns needs to be addressed directly.

(03-10-2018, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.

How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.

Actually, voting is one area that youth are actually better prepared than their elders, because it's less emotional to begin with.  That's the point of pushing for the vote for 16 year olds.  Personally, I'm not sold on voting at 16, but I'm not totally opposed either.

Bob Butler 54

(03-11-2018, 02:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]This decision is a year old, but I had forgotten....

... "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Which directly conflicts what the US Supreme Court said in establishing a litmus test, saying the courts could only limit civilian use weapons.  The courts often rule politically rather than following precedent.

So I guess that means I can have a Vulcan cannon.  

(03-11-2018, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.

How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.

Actually, voting is one area that youth are actually better prepared than their elders, because it's less emotional to begin with.  That's the point of pushing for the vote for 16 year olds.  Personally, I'm not sold on voting at 16, but I'm not totally opposed either.

Hmm. Blue voting and blue politics seem to be more driven by emotion and more reliant upon emotion. I see a lot of emotion being used in politics on the left side. I see political gatherings that remind me of pep rally's associated with my youth/ younger days. I've seen airheads and idiots who didn't seem to understand  or recognize the seriousness of the issues at hand or the issues that were at stake at the time.

(03-11-2018, 01:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Bob Butler 54

(03-11-2018, 02:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]This decision is a year old, but I had forgotten....

... "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Which directly conflicts what the US Supreme Court said in establishing a litmus test, saying the courts could only limit civilian use weapons.  The courts often rule politically rather than following precedent.

So I guess that means I can have a Vulcan cannon.  

There is one interpretation, since cannon were owned by the state and not by individuals in the founding father's time, that the state should be free to regulate crew served military weapons.  Some ranking NRA folk have endorsed this.  As the words "crew served" do not appear in the Second, you have to do a lot of legal dancing to interpret to constitution that way.

Though does that make a justice follow the author of a law's intent?  Does that make prohibition work?  Does that make it a good idea to force conflicting survival values on one another using representative democracy?

I suppose you are worried about spree shooters unloading their Vulcan from their pickup truck at an elementary school or hospital?  I'm sure the possibility would worry you into violating the constitution.

(03-10-2018, 11:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.

How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.

The legislature of Florida, and Dick's and other stores, have made the decision about age limits for gun purchases. I and Dave and Nancy P have not had that opportunity yet. I did get to vote for some gun control initiatives in California. I'm glad that one finally passed. And I don't think you are under 21. And I don't think any restrictions on seniors for buying guns would affect me, since I am not buying one. You can support and vote for that if you want; I would happily join you. If you want to exclude seniors you disagree with from voting, that says more about you than about me.

Come to think of it, if we did have a more-general upper age limit for voting, that would help our side a lot! Hey, how about letting those 16-17 year old students saying never again to gun violence be allowed to vote too! They and lots of other older folks are saying how much more mature they are than the "adults"

You and Dave and Nancy will never have the opportunity to rule the United States. I agree that adding more maturity and adding more higher quality people to your side would help your side a lot.

The Second Amendment is about states' rights, and not an absolute right to a firearm.

(03-11-2018, 07:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The Second Amendment is about states' rights, and not an absolute right to a firearm.

The Second Amendment is about state's rights and about individual rights. I assume that you are able to read and comprehend plain old English like everyone else here . If it's very clear me, it should be very clear to you as well. After all, you are supposed to be the more educated one of the two of us. Have you ever READ the Second Amendment?

(03-11-2018, 06:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 11:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.

How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.

The legislature of Florida, and Dick's and other stores, have made the decision about age limits for gun purchases. I and Dave and Nancy P have not had that opportunity yet. I did get to vote for some gun control initiatives in California. I'm glad that one finally passed. And I don't think you are under 21. And I don't think any restrictions on seniors for buying guns would affect me, since I am not buying one. You can support and vote for that if you want; I would happily join you. If you want to exclude seniors you disagree with from voting, that says more about you than about me.

Come to think of it, if we did have a more-general upper age limit for voting, that would help our side a lot! Hey, how about letting those 16-17 year old students saying never again to gun violence be allowed to vote too! They and lots of other older folks are saying how much more mature they are than the "adults"

You and Dave and Nancy will never have the opportunity to rule the United States. I agree that adding more maturity and adding more higher quality people to your side  would help your side a lot.

Well, the point was that if you require upper age limits for voting, so that fewer older people vote, THAT would help our side. Demographics suggest that the more-liberal and more-diverse millennials are becoming a larger share of the electorate, and that might bode well for liberals to rule the United States. Whether that will happen soon enough for the likes of me, Dave and Nancy P to be the rulers, remains to be seen. But white conservatives such as yourself may see their voting power decrease in the years ahead. That may spell the end of unfettered access to military-style weapons like the AR-15.

(03-12-2018, 03:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2018, 06:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 11:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It's that more of them are "that way" when they are younger. That's true with drinking as well, and smoking, and driving, running for office, etc. That's why there are age limits. Some younger people can handle things quite well that they are prohibited from doing, but others can't. It's worth it to set these limits, if it saves lives. That's what this is about, and that's what these Y/Z cuspers are saying after their friends were massacred-- even if it means that they themselves could not buy an AR-15 when they get to be 18. They don't want an AR-15; they'd much rather that more young people didn't die because of them.

How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.

The legislature of Florida, and Dick's and other stores, have made the decision about age limits for gun purchases. I and Dave and Nancy P have not had that opportunity yet. I did get to vote for some gun control initiatives in California. I'm glad that one finally passed. And I don't think you are under 21. And I don't think any restrictions on seniors for buying guns would affect me, since I am not buying one. You can support and vote for that if you want; I would happily join you. If you want to exclude seniors you disagree with from voting, that says more about you than about me.

Come to think of it, if we did have a more-general upper age limit for voting, that would help our side a lot! Hey, how about letting those 16-17 year old students saying never again to gun violence be allowed to vote too! They and lots of other older folks are saying how much more mature they are than the "adults"

You and Dave and Nancy will never have the opportunity to rule the United States. I agree that adding more maturity and adding more higher quality people to your side  would help your side a lot.

Well, the point was that if you require upper age limits for voting, so that fewer older people vote, THAT would help our side. Demographics suggest that the more-liberal and more-diverse millennials are becoming a larger share of the electorate, and that might bode well for liberals to rule the United States. Whether that will happen soon enough for the likes of me, Dave and Nancy P to be the rulers, remains to be seen. But white conservatives such as yourself may see their voting power decrease in the years ahead. That may spell the end of unfettered access to military-style weapons like the AR-15.

I've been hearing and reading about that from uppity liberals for many years. Does the threat of that seem to matter much to me or the conservatives in general? The millenniels are grown up and becoming adults and accepting responsibilities (marriage, home ownership, careers and raising kids) associated with adults and making their own ( adult like) decisions these days. I was pretty impressed on election day. My daughter came home from school and told me about all the Trump kids who showed with their faces painted with Trump, wearing good old American red-white-blue, without any concerns or fears about retaliation from blues because they knew that the had full support from their parents and their more traditional Democratic friends whose parents could not stomach the idea of voting for crooked Hilary and weren't sure if they could trust Trump because Trump was a Republican. Blue America has no core values that bind people together. You have shown me that time and time again during our exchanges. Yet, you don't understand what's wrong, why you're rejected, why you're not being understood, why are we loosing on all major issues and all major fronts, why people aren't buying in the way you (we) feel they should and so forth.

(03-12-2018, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I've been hearing and reading about that from uppity liberals for many years. Does the threat of that seem to matter much to me or the conservatives in general? The millenniels are grown up and becoming adults and accepting responsibilities (marriage, home ownership, careers and raising kids) associated with adults and making their own ( adult like) decisions these days. I was pretty impressed on election day. My daughter came home from school and told me about all the Trump kids who showed with their faces painted with Trump, wearing good old American red-white-blue, without any concerns or fears about retaliation from blues because they knew that the had full support from their parents and their more traditional Democratic friends whose parents could not stomach the idea of voting for crooked Hilary and weren't sure if they could trust Trump because Trump was a Republican. Blue America has no core values that bind people together. You have shown me that time and time again during our exchanges. Yet, you don't understand what's wrong, why you're rejected, why you're not being understood, why are we loosing on all major issues and all major fronts, why people aren't buying in the way you (we) feel they should and so forth.

Now that we know what President Donald Judas Trump is...

Need I show you maps of approval of President Trump? I can easily see him losing at least as badly as the elder Bush in 1992 because his ideas are already stale and irrelevant. It will be very difficult for him to win enough new voters to offset the newly-disappointed people who gave him a chance in 2016 and won't again.

Patriotism is a poor substitute for social justice.

(03-12-2018, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2018, 03:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2018, 06:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 11:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2018, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]How about voting and all other adult activities? How about senior citizens like you and Dave and Nancy P? You and Dave have made a good case for excluding them (yourselves) too. Nancy doesn't seem rational or unbiased enough to be making decisions for me or making decisions that either include me or directly involve me. You don't seem rational enough, educated enough, knowledgeable enough, unbiased enough to be making those kinds of decisions for me either.

The legislature of Florida, and Dick's and other stores, have made the decision about age limits for gun purchases. I and Dave and Nancy P have not had that opportunity yet. I did get to vote for some gun control initiatives in California. I'm glad that one finally passed. And I don't think you are under 21. And I don't think any restrictions on seniors for buying guns would affect me, since I am not buying one. You can support and vote for that if you want; I would happily join you. If you want to exclude seniors you disagree with from voting, that says more about you than about me.

Come to think of it, if we did have a more-general upper age limit for voting, that would help our side a lot! Hey, how about letting those 16-17 year old students saying never again to gun violence be allowed to vote too! They and lots of other older folks are saying how much more mature they are than the "adults"

You and Dave and Nancy will never have the opportunity to rule the United States. I agree that adding more maturity and adding more higher quality people to your side  would help your side a lot.

Well, the point was that if you require upper age limits for voting, so that fewer older people vote, THAT would help our side. Demographics suggest that the more-liberal and more-diverse millennials are becoming a larger share of the electorate, and that might bode well for liberals to rule the United States. Whether that will happen soon enough for the likes of me, Dave and Nancy P to be the rulers, remains to be seen. But white conservatives such as yourself may see their voting power decrease in the years ahead. That may spell the end of unfettered access to military-style weapons like the AR-15.

I've been hearing and reading about that from uppity liberals for many years. Does the threat of that seem to matter much to me or the conservatives in general? The millenniels are grown up and becoming adults and accepting responsibilities (marriage, home ownership, careers and raising kids) associated with adults and making their own ( adult like) decisions these days. I was pretty impressed on election day. My daughter came home from school and told me about all the Trump kids who showed with their faces painted with Trump, wearing good old American red-white-blue, without any concerns or fears about retaliation from blues because they knew that the had full support from their parents and their more traditional Democratic friends whose parents could not stomach the idea of voting for crooked Hillary and weren't sure if they could trust Trump because Trump was a Republican. Blue America has no core values that bind people together. You have shown me that time and time again during our exchanges. Yet, you don't understand what's wrong, why you're rejected, why you're not being understood, why are we loosing on all major issues and all major fronts, why people aren't buying in the way you (we) feel they should and so forth.

I can only hope that those young people, and others who voted for Trump who had voted Democratic before, learn that it was Trump who was (and is) crooked, and not Hillary. "Crooked Hillary" was nothing but one of Trump's clever slogans, and nothing more. Meanwhile, it should have been clear, since it was revealed over and over in the campaign, that Trump cheated his customers and workers, swindled people with his fake university, cheated non-profit organizations, sexually assaulted scores of women, and so on, and now it's clear that he colluded with the Russians to spread fake news and steal online information, paid off a prostitute to keep her quiet about his affair with her, fired people to obstruct justice, and so on. And Trump represents "values?"

Red American people may have values, and may care about their work and their families, but its politics has no values except making money at others' expense, blind loyalty to the government when its lies costs thousands of lives, fear of foreigners and immigrants, having military-style guns to assuage fears and the gun lobby, and fake religion that swindles, oppresses and deceives. The Red America side of today's political divide has nothing of value to offer; it's neo-liberal free-market ideology is a fraud that depends on racism and/or greed. 

Blue American values are the core values of America: democracy, liberty and justice for all, respect for diversity and for immigrants who have always made up the population of this nation of immigrants, reluctance to engage in foreign wars, compassion and generosity to those in need, being involved in your community, and willingness to pay taxes to help support it. 

Young people becoming adults today face the results of Red America rule for the past 40 years: lots of personal and national debt, few opportunities to advance, veteran friends or family dead or physically or psychologically maimed in meaningless wars, the danger of being shot on the street or in a building at any time for no reason, an opioid epidemic to escape the pain of Red America, an environment facing ruin, a health care system that bankrupts them, housing prices that make owning a home impossible, a government that cannot function, and an election system severely compromised.

The nation can bind together when the majority accept diversity, prefer peace, participate in and protect democracy, embrace equality and opportunity, know that the environment matters to them, and support a government that is willing to act for the people; and when those who don't accept these real values and prefer fake propaganda instead are in enough of a minority that they are not needed for this new consensus to operate.

I understand that Red America feels threatened by the new America that is becoming more racially diverse, open to gender and sexual preference, tolerant of non traditional religion, willing to reduce our armaments domestically and internationally, embracing other outdoor activities besides hunting, willing to impose taxes to pay for social needs, and so on. 

But Blue America is really no threat to you. It's tax proposals are fair. Diversity has been American all along. Freedom of religion is in our founding documents. Washington counseled against foreign wars. Guns were not military style semi-automatics and were mainly only used in militias, which we have today. 

A blue America will have some hippies and some folks who don't respect their country, the same as today. But it will still have many responsible adults (including some responsible hippies ), who pay taxes and work for a living, and who help those who can't. A blue America will have a health and safety net system that protects you, and not just people different than you. A blue America will be one where its citizens can advance, and not be stuck or fall into poverty. A blue America will have a restored environment where you can still relax at the beach or go for a hike in nature, and not fear that your home will flood or burn down due to climate change. A blue America will have schools, concert halls, shopping centers and offices where you don't have to lock the door, hire guards or do drills to protect yourself from crazies with semi-automatic weapons with large ammunition magazines. A blue America will have working highways you don't have to pay to drive on, and education that doesn't cost a fortune for your children to attend. A blue America will have a health care system that works and doesn't bankrupt you, and which covers preventive and holistic medicine and mental health. A blue America will have a culture that respects and supports the arts again, beautifies and humanizes its cities, restores a living and life-respecting diet, and is not solely dedicated to commerce at any cost.

(03-12-2018, 07:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2018, 06:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I've been hearing and reading about that from uppity liberals for many years. Does the threat of that seem to matter much to me or the conservatives in general? The millenniels are grown up and becoming adults and accepting responsibilities (marriage, home ownership, careers and raising kids) associated with adults and making their own ( adult like) decisions these days. I was pretty impressed on election day. My daughter came home from school and told me about all the Trump kids who showed with their faces painted with Trump, wearing good old American red-white-blue, without any concerns or fears about retaliation from blues because they knew that the had full support from their parents and their more traditional Democratic friends whose parents could not stomach the idea of voting for crooked Hilary and weren't sure if they could trust Trump because Trump was a Republican. Blue America has no core values that bind people together. You have shown me that time and time again during our exchanges. Yet, you don't understand what's wrong, why you're rejected, why you're not being understood, why are we loosing on all major issues and all major fronts, why people aren't buying in the way you (we) feel they should and so forth.

Now that we know what President Donald Judas Trump is...

Need I show you maps of approval of President Trump? I can easily see him losing at least as badly as the elder Bush in 1992 because his ideas are already stale and irrelevant. It will be very difficult for him to win enough new voters to offset the newly-disappointed people who gave him a chance in 2016 and won't again.

Patriotism is a poor substitute for social justice.

Are the maps of approval about the same as they were before he won election or a bit higher than before he won the election? Let me educate you a bit, there are people who answer phones and agree to take time to answer polls and there are more people who don't waste their time on stupid polls with vague questions about complicated issues with lots of variables to consider prior to giving a straight answer.

Social Justice to me is a politically correct way of taking out revenge on others and politically correct way of promoting taking revenge on others. Social Justice got any interest in you or the white trash that you seem to be more associated with based on your views of the people around you. I don't think you are black enough to fit in or be much of an interest or concern as far as your well being with the Social Justice crowd. I don't see any white members of the BLACK CAUCUS? Why not? Why does the Democratic party have a BLACK CAUCUS? Why doesn't the Democratic party have a BROWN CAUCUS yet? Won't the white and the black Democrats let the browns have one yet? I'm not interested in the Democratic party or interested in what the Democratic party stands for these days. I don't think you or Eric would be able to handle what I have to say about race knowing your feelings and all.. Are blues able to slide all their feelings aside and handle a real life discussion on a touchy subject like race? I haven't met one yet.

That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol

Social justice is "revenge" only according to neo-liberal ideology, which reds have swallowed hook line and sinker and believe in from head to toe. Too bad, it's a total fraud. Why should social justice only be of interest to black people? As one black person said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. But I guess you don't mind if you are treated unjustly. Liberals I think are people who have had a taste of injustice of one kind or another, and thus can empathize. Republican voters such as yourself have not. The Democrats have a Black Caucus because the blacks in congress created it.

(03-12-2018, 08:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I can only hope that those young people, and others who voted for Trump who had voted Democratic before, learn that it was Trump who was (and is) crooked, and not Hillary. "Crooked Hillary" was nothing but one of Trump's clever slogans, and nothing more. Meanwhile, it should have been clear, since it was revealed over and over in the campaign, that Trump cheated his customers and workers, swindled people with his fake university, cheated non-profit organizations, sexually assaulted scores of women, and so on, and now it's clear that he colluded with the Russians to spread fake news and steal online information, paid off a prostitute to keep her quiet about his affair with her, fired people to obstruct justice, and so on. And Trump represents "values?"

Red American people may have values, and may care about their work and their families, but its politics has no values except making money at others' expense, blind loyalty to the government when its lies costs thousands of lives, fear of foreigners and immigrants, having military-style guns to assuage fears and the gun lobby, and fake religion that swindles, oppresses and deceives. The Red America side of today's political divide has nothing of value to offer; it's neo-liberal free-market ideology is a fraud that depends on racism and/or greed. 

Blue American values are the core values of America: democracy, liberty and justice for all, respect for diversity and for immigrants who have always made up the population of this nation of immigrants, reluctance to engage in foreign wars, compassion and generosity to those in need, being involved in your community, and willingness to pay taxes to help support it. 

Young people becoming adults today face the results of Red America rule for the past 40 years: lots of personal and national debt, few opportunities to advance, veteran friends or family dead or physically or psychologically maimed in meaningless wars, the danger of being shot on the street or in a building at any time for no reason, an opioid epidemic to escape the pain of Red America, an environment facing ruin, a health care system that bankrupts them, housing prices that make owning a home impossible, a government that cannot function, and an election system severely compromised.

The nation can bind together when the majority accept diversity, prefer peace, participate in and protect democracy, embrace equality and opportunity, know that the environment matters to them, and support a government that is willing to act for the people; and when those who don't accept these real values and prefer fake propaganda instead are in enough of a minority that they are not needed for this new consensus to operate.

I understand that Red America feels threatened by the new America that is becoming more racially diverse, open to gender and sexual preference, tolerant of non traditional religion, willing to reduce our armaments domestically and internationally, embracing other outdoor activities besides hunting, willing to impose taxes to pay for social needs, and so on. 

But Blue America is really no threat to you. It's tax proposals are fair. Diversity has been American all along. Freedom of religion is in our founding documents. Washington counseled against foreign wars. Guns were not military style semi-automatics and were mainly only used in militias, which we have today. 

A blue America will have some hippies and some folks who don't respect their country, the same as today. But it will still have many responsible adults (including some responsible hippies ), who pay taxes and work for a living, and who help those who can't. A blue America will have a health and safety net system that protects you, and not just people different than you. A blue America will be one where its citizens can advance, and not be stuck or fall into poverty. A blue America will have a restored environment where you can still relax at the beach or go for a hike in nature, and not fear that your home will flood or burn down due to climate change. A blue America will have schools, concert halls, shopping centers and offices where you don't have to lock the door, hire guards or do drills to protect yourself from crazies with semi-automatic weapons with large ammunition magazines. A blue America will have working highways you don't have to pay to drive on, and education that doesn't cost a fortune for your children to attend. A blue America will have a health care system that works and doesn't bankrupt you, and which covers preventive and holistic medicine and mental health. A blue America will have a culture that respects and supports the arts again, beautifies and humanizes its cities, restores a living and life-respecting diet, and is not solely dedicated to commerce at any cost.

I'd say red America represents American values today. How many times have blue values ran into direct conflict with core American values? I'd say several times. Dude, I'm not an uneducated peasant or a turn of the century factory worker who existed at the turn of the last century. I'm not an old turn of the century cowboy who is still clinging to his horse or his horse and buggy. You are going to have to be more believable and realistic with your view and selling points in order to convince me that all that will be true. I see a blue America with lots of issues and problems that reds have nothing to do with because reds don't live in blue areas and aren't directly involved in blue politics. How does a blue blame a blue without upsetting a blue and blues associated with the blue and so forth within blue America? Let me guess, the blue opts to blame the reds instead. Does that sound about right? It sure seems to be right based on what I've seen, what I've heard and what I've read over the years. Blue don't blame blues because that could fuck up their unity. Well, if you payed attention to last election primary, the reds aren't like that at all. The reds aren't that concerned about fucking up Red unity. We ain't 4T yet. The Reds are just warming up. I kinda laugh every time a blue opens his/her mouth spouts out something stupid relating to racism or fascism as if America hasn't seen or experienced something related to racism and fascism.

(03-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol

I doubt you're correct.  He is talking about race, but it's you folks on the left that are the racists.