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

(12-20-2018, 02:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2018, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I did say I would use reports regardless of political affiliation or whether a post was addressed to me.  Wouldn't want to be called a liar...

Well, as a more honorable and a more objective/pragmatic man, I'll just say that you still have a ways to go to be equal to me so to peak. It is what it is, can't do much to change who we are at this point. I'm sorry that I called you a F-HEAD but in my opinion, you deserved to be called one for obvious reasons to me and anyone decent who may be reading or following me as a poster or some by stander deciding whether or not to participate in political discussions.

I don't really care if the forum resorts back to what it was back in the day. Ain't my forum/business, ain't got my name on it, ain't a reflection of me or my values and so forth. The take over you experienced that you had to adjust to your views and alter your behavior and modify, tweak you're positions and stances to had nothing to do with site ownership or the feeling of taking ownership and controlling a site. What we did was done to prove a point as a matter of principle to show a group of blues how powerless they were against a united front of loyal American citizens who don't view themselves as being anything other than American citizens. Dude, I had minority support and white support. I had Democratic support. I had Libertarian support. I had Evangelical support. I had independent voter support. All of whom, I refer to as being Americans. You're pretty much locked into the blue view but you will adjust for your own good and survival. That my friend, is the truth. I never viewed you as enemy, I viewed you as someone who was exploited and misguided but has been learning and changing and letting go of teachings with the American flow, so to speak.

Under the Myers Briggs system, I view myself as a T, a Thinker. Dealing with ideas such as history or politics is my strength. Dealing with people, relationships, emotion and all that touchy feely stuff is not. This is part of why I am willing to throw away personal attack posts, posts which criticize other people by name. I am not good at it particularly. That is not the purpose of the site. That is not my purpose.

I have learned that people with different world views are not likely to properly understand one another. Their perception will be off, their ideas of the other wrong. That does leave one open, no matter how sincerely one is attempting to pin someone else, with the impression of lying and slander. You mischaracterized me badly and continue to do so.

Even when one sticks with more abstract groups and mentions no names, it is a problem. Blues will badly misunderstand the motives of a red person, and vice versa. You get vile stereotypes more often that any real truth. If some blues will loudly proclaim what reds are driven by, they are often badly mistaken. Reds are little different. Neither group in general attempts to listen.

Anyway, that is were I am at.

(12-19-2018, 10:16 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2018, 02:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I think you and I are on the same page as far as how we are viewing what's going on politically. I see the recent blue victory in the House as loss for the blue side and view it as win for the American side so to speak.

Similar.  As long as power in Congress is switching more blue I see it a to the bluish advantage, but we have not yet seen a regeneracy.  Far to soon to say the see saw has stopped.

(12-19-2018, 02:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]By the way, I do not see the deplorable as you say as being on the American side. I view them as social/political outcasts that Americans on both sides want nothing to do with these day. But, they're people and people have the right to vote in America and how they vote, who they support and for what reasons are largely viewed as personal by Americans these days.

By may own schemes, the deplorables are closer to Agricultural Age tribal thinking, the violent anti fada into equality, so the usual labeling of the two groups as red and blue is about right.  That is also how they vote, and indicates their political affiliation.  That does not mean every red agrees with the deplorables, or every blue with the violent anti fada.  If I were to list out my priorities and allies I would seek, the violent anti fada would not not be among them.  I'm sure you feel the same way about the deplorables.

But if you are going with the red - blue divide rather than some personal wishlist, they unfortunately belong.

Well, I'm not sure what a purple center means to you as far as good or bad but that seems to be where the center is at right now. I think you're seeing a regeneracy that you aren't used to seeing because the bulk of protesting took place during the Bush/Obama years. I accept that they're more likely to vote Republicans and I accept they're more likely to live in red areas. However, I will not accept responsibility for their actions and I will not accept being directly associated or supportive of their views. You are aware that the KKK and the Neo Nazi's don't see eye to eye or share the same goals. I would also not be surprised to see them become more active on the Democratic side and eventually form a white caucus on the Democratic side of congress.

(12-20-2018, 07:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I'm not sure what a purple center means to you as far as good or bad but that seems to be where the center is at right now. I think you're seeing a regeneracy that you aren't used to seeing because the bulk of protesting took place during the Bush/Obama years.

I could go with a purple dominant party, purple blue and green.  We seem to have a two party environment, so that leaves something vaguely red as a weak opposition for a while, with the blue extreme that cannot listen or compromise left out.

But this has not happened yet.  Trump is still dominant.  It is as of yet an unfulfilled daydream.  Someone who leans red could yet emerge and work from the center.  Too soon to call.

(12-20-2018, 07:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I accept that they're more likely to vote Republicans and I accept they're more likely to live in red areas. However, I will not accept responsibility for their actions and I will not accept being directly associated or supportive of their views.

Amen.  Agreed.

(12-20-2018, 07:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You are aware that the KKK and the Neo Nazi's don't see eye to eye or share the same goals. I would also not be surprised to see them become more active on the Democratic side and eventually form a white caucus on the Democratic side of congress.

I see the deplorables and the anti fada as a side show.  Each group is so much in the minority, so much disliked by the major parties, that I would be surprised if they won anything in congress.  You are not the only one to reject them.

(12-20-2018, 07:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Under the Myers Briggs system, I view myself as a T, a Thinker.  Dealing with ideas such as history or politics is my strength.  Dealing with people, relationships, emotion and all that touchy feely stuff is not.  This is part of why I am willing to throw away personal attack posts, posts which criticize other people by name.  I am not good at it particularly.  That is not the purpose of the site.  That is not my purpose.

I have learned that people with different world views are not likely to properly understand one another.  Their perception will be off, their ideas of the other wrong.  That does leave one open, no matter how sincerely one is attempting to pin someone else, with the impression of lying and slander.  You mischaracterized me badly and continue to do so.

Even when one sticks with more abstract groups and mentions no names, it is a problem.  Blues will badly misunderstand the motives of a red person, and vice versa.  You get vile stereotypes more often that any real truth.  If some blues will loudly proclaim what reds are driven by, they are often badly mistaken.  Reds are little different.  Neither group in general attempts to listen.

Anyway, that is were I am at.

I'd say that you're a weak "T" and your personal feelings and attachments get in the of your thinking and judgement at times. As a general rule, reds don't fling or apply false accusations freely with no concern of consequences. We are used to being around reddish people who frown on that stuff, Reds seek truth, red's gather in information and sift through information, learn and decide truth then use truth and stick with truth they've learned or the truth that they know of relating to them which blues don't seem to like or be able to emotionally accept and get upset or angry about reds. Red's aren't stupid people. Reds listen, but agreeing and accepting what blues have to say or believe is another matter.

If you substitute "blues" for "reds" you are nearer the fact, Classic Xer. Reds in general have a very tenuous relationship to reality, and often project their own faults onto the blues. At least when it comes to politics and other society functions. Reds, being often rural or small town/city, can be quite attuned to their own life and work and its practical realities.

But facts are not the only determinant of our views, whether blue or red. We also have different values and worldviews, and different needs; quite opposite ones in many cases.

And yet when thinking about the world, culture and history, and the interplay among peoples and nations, in many cases I don't find too much trouble identifying with the USA, in spite of its many faults. I am glad not to be under the regimes of Russia, China, the Middle East or Africa, where human rights often do not count. When General Mattis referred today to countries and allies that share our values, I knew what he meant.

I would say it's a mistake to say someone is not a T because they have strong "personal feelings and attachments." Attachments are a separate issue from one's T and F preference. Feelings are not things like fear, judgement, prejudice, insecurity, personal desire for attention and approval, or whatever. These are reactive mind elements, and thinking and all the other functions can be subject to such attachments. This is not Feeling, but what the Buddha called craving or attachment, what Jung called emotion, what Jesus called temptation, and they are what take us over rather than what we are or what we prefer.

F - Feeling is described by Jung as a rational function in which we decide what to do based on what we care about. Those who score high F put a high priority on harmony in relationships, and consider themselves tender-hearted, caring and sensitive, according to the MBTI test questions.

One test, which the former MillennialX (Ryen) recently posted elsewhere, has a separate category called Assertive vs. Turbulent, which I assume represents this fifth category. When someone who is a T charges that someone else is an F, in a critical way, I think this category is really what they have in mind. I have to admit, on that test I still lean toward the turbulent side. And their own tendency to criticize may reflect the T critic's own turbulence too.

(12-21-2018, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2018, 07:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Under the Myers Briggs system, I view myself as a T, a Thinker.  Dealing with ideas such as history or politics is my strength.  Dealing with people, relationships, emotion and all that touchy feely stuff is not.  This is part of why I am willing to throw away personal attack posts, posts which criticize other people by name.  I am not good at it particularly.  That is not the purpose of the site.  That is not my purpose.

I have learned that people with different world views are not likely to properly understand one another.  Their perception will be off, their ideas of the other wrong.  That does leave one open, no matter how sincerely one is attempting to pin someone else, with the impression of lying and slander.  You mischaracterized me badly and continue to do so.

Even when one sticks with more abstract groups and mentions no names, it is a problem.  Blues will badly misunderstand the motives of a red person, and vice versa.  You get vile stereotypes more often that any real truth.  If some blues will loudly proclaim what reds are driven by, they are often badly mistaken.  Reds are little different.  Neither group in general attempts to listen.

Anyway, that is were I am at.

I'd say that you're a weak "T" and your personal  feelings and attachments  get in the of your thinking and judgement at times. As a general rule, reds don't fling or apply false accusations freely with no concern of consequences. We are used to being around reddish people who frown on that stuff, Reds seek truth, red's gather in information and sift through information, learn and decide truth then use truth and stick with truth they've learned or the truth that they know of relating to them which blues don't seem to like or be able to emotionally accept and get upset or angry about reds. Red's aren't stupid people. Reds listen, but agreeing and accepting what blues have to say or believe is another matter.

I see both reds and blues as having realistically positive views of themselves and members of their own group, but much weaker views of each other, shallow to the point of being stereotypes.  Understanding the different other is hard.  Most don't try.  These days, the easy vile stereotype is too often made available by various groups.

Note how Eric came in and reversed a lot of what you had to say.  Eric believes in the blue worldview sincerely, and believes what he is saying is true.  This questionable impression of the political opposite group is typical with extremists who have latched onto one view.  Your complaint that most blues don't listen is generally valid.  You have to be aware that this is not a uniquely blue trait, but one that is widely shared, and not just by the red and blue.  As Cynic demonstrated, it is possible to buy into the autocratic way of perceiving things, to see that as uniquely valid in the same way most Americans buy into the red or blue.  I do not agree with the Agricultural Age world view, but I can see that Cynic has bought into it, JPT bought into one possible literal interpretation of the Bible, Mikebert into the scientific world view, etc...

I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.

Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism.  If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness.  I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue.  Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.

Getting back to the original gun policy reasons for this thread, CNN has another place where something could be done without changing the Constitution.  Liars on forms that people have to fill out to buy a legal weapon are generally not prosecuted, but 20% of them go on to commit gun crimes.  Naturally, CNN focused on a mass shooter in their report.  

It will not solve the problem entirely.  One is still trying a prohibition after all.  Still, this is one more place where the ball on prohibition of criminals and the insane is being dropped.

CNN article: Gun form liars may go on to commit gun crimes, internal ATF research suggests

(12-20-2018, 07:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I'm not sure what a purple center means to you as far as good or bad but that seems to be where the center is at right now. I think you're seeing a regeneracy that you aren't used to seeing because the bulk of protesting took place during the Bush/Obama years. I accept that they're more likely to vote Republicans and I accept they're more likely to live in red areas. However, I will not accept responsibility for their actions and I will not accept being directly associated or supportive of their views. You are aware that the KKK and the Neo Nazi's don't see eye to eye or share the same goals. I would also not be surprised to see them become more active on the Democratic side and eventually form a white caucus on the Democratic side of congress.

It is difficult to say what a Regeneracy  will look like. Should it be right-wing, then it will be a recognition of the need for unbridled plutocracy as the means of getting such economic growth as America needs. It would be mass acquiescence in an economic view that the Common Man has responsibilities to entrenched elites who can act out of generosity by the standards of those elites. (Basically, you choose to work for us, and if we like your work we will keep you from starving). With that comes an economic order with no safety net but instead a piked pit for anyone who fails to perform as the elites wish. If someone falters there might be a labor camp in which one quickly comes to learn that poverty in return for being overworked by rapacious elites is not the worst thing possible in life.

That would be Nazi Germany, the definitive worker's Hell, without the racism, genocide, and wars for conquest. Maybe the Jim Crow South, except that far more people are treated as ni--ers, as in the sense that some white fellow in Roots complains that white people are being treated like ni--gers. Alex Haley's father tells the white fellow that it is wrong to treat any9one like a ni--er.

If it is on the Left, it is a recognition that the American economy cannot operate as it used to -- but needs a more generous and more encompassing welfare state. Maybe we end up with a social-market economy that fosters capitalism but without exploitation. Markets are good, their absence demonstrating the folly of either feudal societies or Marxist-Leninist regimes. The social-market economy depends upon a strong capitalist system but not upon people being overworked and underpaid. The welfare system itself fosters a secondary economy that creates opportunity even for capitalists.

As for the KKK and neo-Nazis... there is a group that calls  itself the "Aryan Knights of the Ku Klux Klan", which suggests some melding between the KKK and Nazism which shared much the same objects of hatred, including Jews and blacks. We will  never know what a Klan-dominated America looks like (unless I am to write the novel about a Klan-dominated America). I have no cause to believe that a Klan-dominated America would be any nicer than Nazi Germany. The Klan has done as much violence as it can get away with. Where it disagreed with Nazis was that at one time the Klan had many WWII veterans who hated Germany and as a corollary Nazis. Now that the WWII vets are off the scene, leaders of Klan groups (there are many competing, and not one, Klan groups) often affect nazi symbols and rhetoric. Holocaust denial is commonplace among Klansmen such as David Duke, one of the pioneers of the KKK-Nazi synthesis.

Most white people recognize the folly of any identity of themselves as 'white', which now means not so much what one is than what one isn't. I was amazed back in the 1970s that I, a kid from rural Michigan, found myself having more in  common with Japanese-Americans than with many of the 'Okies' in California. If someone wants to be proud of his Finnish, Irish, Russian, or Greek heritage that is fine because the countries of his ethnic origin have distinctive culture. 

There is no such thing as 'white culture' other than soulless racism.

(12-21-2018, 09:30 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Getting back to the original gun policy reasons for this thread, CNN has another place where something could be done without changing the Constitution.  Liars on forms that people have to fill out to buy a legal weapon are generally not prosecuted, but 20% of them go on to commit gun crimes.  Naturally, CNN focused on a mass shooter in their report.  

It will not solve the problem entirely.  One is still trying a prohibition after all.  Still, this is one more place where the ball on prohibition of criminals and the insane is being dropped.

CNN article: Gun form liars may go on to commit gun crimes, internal ATF research suggests

...and that will be a federal offense. Lying about mental health or marital distress on a gun form will be cause for arrest and imprisonment -- and confiscation of firearms.

(12-21-2018, 09:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2018, 09:30 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Getting back to the original gun policy reasons for this thread, CNN has another place where something could be done without changing the Constitution.  Liars on forms that people have to fill out to buy a legal weapon are generally not prosecuted, but 20% of them go on to commit gun crimes.  Naturally, CNN focused on a mass shooter in their report.  

It will not solve the problem entirely.  One is still trying a prohibition after all.  Still, this is one more place where the ball on prohibition of criminals and the insane is being dropped.

CNN article: Gun form liars may go on to commit gun crimes, internal ATF research suggests

...and that will be a federal offense. Lying about mental health or marital distress on a gun form will be cause for arrest and imprisonment -- and confiscation of firearms.

In theory, yes.  In practice, no.  The federal prosecutors have recently thought they have better things to do than prosecute paperwork crimes, not to mention better use of jail cells.  Or do people end up on probation, making it less likely for them to hold regular work, thus being 'forced' into gun crime?  It is messier than it looks at first glance.

I for one wonder what the statute of limitations on the form crime would run?

(12-21-2018, 09:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2018, 07:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I'm not sure what a purple center means to you as far as good or bad but that seems to be where the center is at right now. I think you're seeing a regeneracy that you aren't used to seeing because the bulk of protesting took place during the Bush/Obama years. I accept that they're more likely to vote Republicans and I accept they're more likely to live in red areas. However, I will not accept responsibility for their actions and I will not accept being directly associated or supportive of their views. You are aware that the KKK and the Neo Nazi's don't see eye to eye or share the same goals. I would also not be surprised to see them become more active on the Democratic side and eventually form a white caucus on the Democratic side of congress.

It is difficult to say what a Regeneracy  will look like. Should it be right-wing, then it will be a recognition of the need for unbridled plutocracy as the means of getting such economic growth as America needs. It would be mass acquiescence in an economic view that the Common Man has responsibilities to entrenched elites who can act out of generosity by the standards of those elites. (Basically, you choose to work for us, and if we like your work we will keep you from starving). With that comes an economic order with no safety net but instead a piked pit for anyone who fails to perform as the elites wish. If someone falters there might be a labor camp in which one quickly comes to learn that poverty in return for being overworked by rapacious elites is not the worst thing possible in life.

That would be Nazi Germany, the definitive worker's Hell, without the racism, genocide, and wars for conquest. Maybe the Jim Crow South, except that far more people are treated as ni--ers, as in the sense that some white fellow in Roots complains that white people are being treated like ni--gers. Alex Haley's father tells the white fellow that it is wrong to treat any9one like a ni--er.

I think you are demonizing.  You are indulging in a vile stereotype.  Some former red guy leaning purple could create a positive America.  I see it more likely that some former blue guy turned purple will create a positive America, but we will see who bubbles to the top of the respective parties.  If some flaming blue extremist proposes governing half of America while some red turned purple has listened and shows an inclination to govern all of America, I would go with the former red.

(12-21-2018, 09:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as 'white culture' other than soulless racism.

I would not say soulless.  I guess it depends on your meaning of the word.  It is hard to say anything good about racists and deplorables.  But I do see them as passionate believers in their bad cause.

(12-21-2018, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2018, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2018, 07:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Under the Myers Briggs system, I view myself as a T, a Thinker.  Dealing with ideas such as history or politics is my strength.  Dealing with people, relationships, emotion and all that touchy feely stuff is not.  This is part of why I am willing to throw away personal attack posts, posts which criticize other people by name.  I am not good at it particularly.  That is not the purpose of the site.  That is not my purpose.

I have learned that people with different world views are not likely to properly understand one another.  Their perception will be off, their ideas of the other wrong.  That does leave one open, no matter how sincerely one is attempting to pin someone else, with the impression of lying and slander.  You mischaracterized me badly and continue to do so.

Even when one sticks with more abstract groups and mentions no names, it is a problem.  Blues will badly misunderstand the motives of a red person, and vice versa.  You get vile stereotypes more often that any real truth.  If some blues will loudly proclaim what reds are driven by, they are often badly mistaken.  Reds are little different.  Neither group in general attempts to listen.

Anyway, that is were I am at.

I'd say that you're a weak "T" and your personal  feelings and attachments  get in the of your thinking and judgement at times. As a general rule, reds don't fling or apply false accusations freely with no concern of consequences. We are used to being around reddish people who frown on that stuff, Reds seek truth, red's gather in information and sift through information, learn and decide truth then use truth and stick with truth they've learned or the truth that they know of relating to them which blues don't seem to like or be able to emotionally accept and get upset or angry about reds. Red's aren't stupid people. Reds listen, but agreeing and accepting what blues have to say or believe is another matter.

I see both reds and blues as having realistically positive views of themselves and members of their own group, but much weaker views of each other, shallow to the point of being stereotypes.  Understanding the different other is hard.  Most don't try.  These days, the easy vile stereotype is too often made available by various groups.

Note how Eric came in and reversed a lot of what you had to say.  Eric believes in the blue worldview sincerely, and believes what he is saying is true.  This questionable impression of the political opposite group is typical with extremists who have latched onto one view.  Your complaint that most blues don't listen is generally valid.  You have to be aware that this is not a uniquely blue trait, but one that is widely shared, and not just by the red and blue.  As Cynic demonstrated, it is possible to buy into the autocratic way of perceiving things, to see that as uniquely valid in the same way most Americans buy into the red or blue.  I do not agree with the Agricultural Age world view, but I can see that Cynic has bought into it, JPT bought into one possible literal interpretation of the Bible, Mikebert into the scientific world view, etc...

I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.

Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism.  If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness.  I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue.  Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.

You said brower was indulging in a vile stereotype, but I think it's more likely that he, like myself, has observed the increasingly extreme, fanatical and unconcerned behavior of a lot of red folks, and their politicians, and is just not as optimistic about the prospects for better behavior these days as you seem to be.

I don't disagree that people we disagree with have positive views of themselves. They have a right to that view and I am in no position to judge them and say they are not positive people, but I can disagree with their views and notice that they are stuck in some political views that appear to be based on prejudice more than reality. Being an INTP as we both are does not imply that we are any better in any way than those of other types, just in case you forgot that tenet of MBTI. Maybe that "turbulent vs. assertive" scale indicates how in control people are of their fears, cravings and reactions. Being a thinking type in no way implies any greater control of those reactive emotions than feeling types have.

It is easy to understand the motivations and concerns that reds tend to have, and also to see where they go wrong in how they deal with those motivations, or focus too narrowly. Many do not vote their interests, but are caught up in politics that is deceptive. A primary problem, as we blues see it, with the reds, is their philosophy that, although they may claim to have concerns for the other guys, who may be poor, black, hispanic, etc., they don't want their tax money going to help them get "free stuff." I understand that point of view just fine. I just don't agree with how dedicated they are to it, how fanatical they are about it these days. I don't agree that this view provides the best solutions for society. I don't agree that individuals acting by themselves and for themselves always provides that "invisible hand" that leads to prosperity for everyone; I think it often means that the wealthy (and the white males) get all the chips. 

So that makes me at least somewhat "socialist" in their eyes, and that's why they vote against the candidates that I prefer. I think it's necessary for the government to provide some basic assistance to people in need, and that I am not so confident in myself and my fortunes that I won't be in that position someday, nor will my friends. Social insurance is prudent. Nor do I have confidence in the bosses that they will always be fair to people, rather than primarily interested in their own success. Having seen bosses be unfair to me and others many times, I don't believe in their willingness to be fair without government oversight in the name of the people. I don't agree that I should have to explain this over and over, without the reds getting these points and yet still voting for candidates who profess this libertarian economics philosophy.

Boy this site is slow today!

I also notice that many reds are themselves bosses or owners of smaller companies, or otherwise own property, and because of this or other reasons they have had experience with government that they thought was unfair to them, or that they are not happy about. That motivates them to be skeptical of government's behavior, and more prey to slogans like the ones Galen posts that if we can't have confidence in bosses or owners to behave, we can't have confidence in government people to behave either. I agree we can't have confidence in them, but that just means it's up to the people to exercize their power over the government to make sure they are not corrupt or inefficient. It is our government and we do have a vote. 

We can vote in the market too with our dollars, but that doesn't seem to work as well as the libertarians think. We don't have control over what alternatives are provided in the market. Some say our choices in elections are limited too. As I see it, today that is largely because the libertarian philosophy does not allow this, because their Republican representatives are fixing the voting process in various ways to favor themselves. We see this most blatantly today in some states like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas, etc. We see a Republican-appointed Supreme Court uphold limiting our voting rights today in the name of libertarian principles (money is speech, for example).

(12-21-2018, 10:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2018, 09:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2018, 07:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I'm not sure what a purple center means to you as far as good or bad but that seems to be where the center is at right now. I think you're seeing a regeneracy that you aren't used to seeing because the bulk of protesting took place during the Bush/Obama years. I accept that they're more likely to vote Republicans and I accept they're more likely to live in red areas. However, I will not accept responsibility for their actions and I will not accept being directly associated or supportive of their views. You are aware that the KKK and the Neo Nazi's don't see eye to eye or share the same goals. I would also not be surprised to see them become more active on the Democratic side and eventually form a white caucus on the Democratic side of congress.

It is difficult to say what a Regeneracy  will look like. Should it be right-wing, then it will be a recognition of the need for unbridled plutocracy as the means of getting such economic growth as America needs. It would be mass acquiescence in an economic view that the Common Man has responsibilities to entrenched elites who can act out of generosity by the standards of those elites. (Basically, you choose to work for us, and if we like your work we will keep you from starving). With that comes an economic order with no safety net but instead a piked pit for anyone who fails to perform as the elites wish. If someone falters there might be a labor camp in which one quickly comes to learn that poverty in return for being overworked by rapacious elites is not the worst thing possible in life.

That would be Nazi Germany, the definitive worker's Hell, without the racism, genocide, and wars for conquest. Maybe the Jim Crow South, except that far more people are treated as ni--ers, as in the sense that some white fellow in Roots complains that white people are being treated like ni--gers. Alex Haley's father tells the white fellow that it is wrong to treat anyone like a ni--er.

I think you are demonizing.  You are indulging in a vile stereotype.  Some former red guy leaning purple could create a positive America.  I see it more likely that some former blue guy turned purple will create a positive America, but we will see who bubbles to the top of the respective parties.  If some flaming blue extremist proposes governing half of America while some red turned purple has listened and shows an inclination to govern all of America, I would go with the former red.

Demonizing? Not really -- simply saying what is possible. That is possible. Our economic elites are often nasty people, and as such they would support something vile as a social order. That would be profit maximization complete with ruin of the middle class (that would be obliged to barter off their desirable stuff cheaply to get the essentials of life) in a profits-first, profits-only social order. I see more hostility between the middle class and the economic elites in political life than in the 'classic' class struggle of Marxism. I try to stretch my imagination to see what can happen.

I hope for something more wholesome. Back to some halcyon era that we cannot recover because our population is too large for such? That is not happening. There will be no cheap housing with a view of San Francisco Bay. If anything, I expect people to end up in giant apartment complexes in which many people don't even have windows. Maybe people will rely upon video screens to see something more attractive than a blank wall. Such a view of the Matterhorn, the sea from the Maine shoreline or the Big Sur, or perhaps an observatory in space will be unreal and out of character with the place, but that will fit a human desire.

Besides, that screen will be wonderful for watching a feature film, live opera, a concert, or a ballet.

Quote:

(12-21-2018, 09:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as 'white culture' other than soulless racism.

I would not say soulless.  I guess it depends on your meaning of the word.  It is hard to say anything good about racists and deplorables.  But I do see them as passionate believers in their bad cause.

Without question, people can be both passionate in their beliefs -- and terribly wrong.

(12-21-2018, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.

Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism.  If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness.  I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue.  Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.

I have no doubt that most blues have a very high opinion of themselves and their views. I don't have an issue with you viewing yourself or identifying yourself as an INTP. I'm sorry but the Whigs disappeared with Teddy Roosevelt. So, I really don't know what being Whggish means these day. Isn't there a modern political term that you can use instead or feel comfortable using around blues? I've got your back. I mean there's only two of them and I can handle both of them myself. Feel free to politically identify.

Me, I'm a solid ISTP. I took a few tests, honestly answered the questions, read the results and information about ISTP's and everything matched. I'm very intuitive but I follow my senses (instincts or follow my gut as they say) Me, I'm a Northern Yankee, A proud supporter of the party of Lincoln in a modern day sense. I'm an American born, American raised, American educated Classical Liberal like FDR, JFK/MLK, Reagan and Trump. You do realize that America has ideology of its own that no other ideology can even come close to matching or defeating.

(12-21-2018, 12:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Boy this site is slow today!

I had to work and maintain our income gap. You make any money that you won't be paying business/corporate or capital gains taxes on and supporting entire welfare systems, welfare subsidy programs with associated with millions of Americans today.

(12-22-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2018, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.

Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism.  If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness.  I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue.  Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.

I have no doubt that most blues have a very high opinion of themselves and their views. I don't have an issue with you viewing yourself or identifying yourself as an INTP. I'm sorry but the Whigs disappeared with Teddy Roosevelt. So, I really don't know what being Whggish means these day. Isn't there a modern political term that you can use instead or feel comfortable using around blues? I've got your back. I mean there's only two of them and I can handle both of them myself. Feel free to politically identify.

I was given the label of Whig by Virgil Sarri, a poster on the old site who was into old perspectives.  I mean, he spent a lot of time advocating for long ignored royal dynasties.  At that time some conservative posters were trying to deny any arrow of progress.  I came to argue that the Agricultural Age to Information Age transition defined such an arrow, and the Enlightenment values of democracy, human rights and equality.  That became identified as Whiggish on the old site, and I felt enough for that to go along.  But basically I am a progressive, a liberal.  Those ideals seem to last longer than political parties.  During the Pre Civil War through Jim Crow eras, the race issue and north vs south were more important than progressive vs liberal.  Both parties had progressive and conservative wings.  Changing names of parties is no big deal.

(12-22-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Me, I'm a solid ISTP. I took a few tests, honestly answered the questions, read the results and information about ISTP's and everything matched. I'm very intuitive but I follow my senses (instincts or follow my gut as they say) Me, I'm a Northern Yankee, A proud supporter of the party of Lincoln in a modern day sense. I'm an American born, American raised, American educated Classical Liberal like FDR, JFK/MLK, Reagan and Trump. You do realize that America has ideology of its own that no other ideology can even come close to matching or defeating.

I see FDR and Reagan as leading during very different times.  Both leaders had their thumbs on the pulse of the country.   Both leaders led the country in directions the country was ready to go.  But the two leaders advocated very different philosophies, led at different times in the S&H cycles.  FDR and Reagan became icons for the blue and red approaches.  Me, I prefer the working together and transformation associated with a crisis better than the selfishness, debate and stagnation of an unravelling.  I can see why unravellings happen.  They have their place in a cyclical perspective.  I took advantage of the culture and the time as much as anyone.  But still, I was then and still am ready to move on.

Many cultures do very well and follow a basic western pattern.  I would include the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan as among those.  Most such counties put more emphasis on economics, less on the military aspects, than the USA.  After World War II, I don't blame them.  Many countries saw the violence, destruction and starvation up close and would as soon avoid it.  Red culture embraces military culture more.  They embrace the conflicts typical of the Agricultural Age to Industrial Age transition more.  Other cultures embrace the military aspects of the culture less.  I don't really blame them, but there are still autocratic cultures out there who might decide to expand by military means.  They have to be contained.  I don't regret the choice of the USA and the red culture to commit to military strength.  I am just not sure militarism is all that hot, so to speak, to be celebrated.

(12-20-2018, 03:38 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-20-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Republicans have been trying their best to steal elections wherever and whenever they can.  I'm not talking about elections; I'm talking about policy.  If you look back at the last 45+ years, when the right has held sway in government, the lack of activism and the degree to which the private sector has been allowed to run wild has given us the worst infrastructure of any advance country (worse than some emerging countries), and degraded the earning power and job security of the lower and middle classes.  Why is that good?

Well, you go to France and see if France has as much infrastructure to maintain as The United State of America. I haven't been there but I know they don't have nearly as much to maintain as us. Dude, you keep comparing an Apple to an Orange and you keep saying the two are or should be viewed as the same. I keep telling you or reminding you that they're not the same and shouldn't be viewed that way.  Do you have anything other than lame brain arguments to approach me with? If you don't, find someone else to approach with them like your friends.

France has 1/5 of the US population, yet has the TGV, a 150 MPH train system, three car companies,  great food and great healthcare ... to name a few things out of many.

C-Xer Wrote:As far as the rich, I don't have an issue with the rich getting richer. As far as the government, the government has to do a better job managing and prioritizing its spending and remembering who there supposed to serve and whose money their using to pay the bills. As far as policy, the policy makers should know the country they're living in and the primary interests of their countrymen and should stay in line with their those of their countrymen and stick to American principle vs stray off on their own endeavors and imposing their own rules and threatening people like we are seeing today.

Point by point:

• The rich are getting rich by taking all the economic gains, also known as capitalism, and shifting taxation to everyone else.  In short, they really are doing what Republicans claim welfare recipients are doing.
• Politicians prioritize everything on who supports them, and your vote isn't much in the support department. In short, bring money ... lots of it!
• Politicians are all self serving to some extent.  Trump has taken that to the greatest extreme ever.  Direct your ire there!

(12-22-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2018, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.

Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism.  If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness.  I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue.  Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.

I have no doubt that most blues have a very high opinion of themselves and their views. I don't have an issue with you viewing yourself or identifying yourself as an INTP. I'm sorry but the Whigs disappeared with Teddy Roosevelt. So, I really don't know what being Whiggish means these day. Isn't there a modern political term that you can use instead or feel comfortable using around blues? I've got your back. I mean there's only two of them and I can handle both of them myself. Feel free to politically identify.

Me, I'm a solid ISTP. I took a few tests, honestly answered the questions, read the results and information about ISTP's and everything matched. I'm very intuitive but I follow my senses (instincts or follow my gut as they say) Me, I'm a Northern Yankee, A proud supporter of the party of Lincoln in a modern day sense. I'm an American born, American raised, American educated Classical Liberal like FDR, JFK/MLK, Reagan and Trump. You do realize that America has ideology of its own that no other ideology can even come close to matching or defeating.

You and some other reds don't seem to realize that FDR, JFK and MLK are very much to the left of you, and FDR and MLK especially are much to the left even of most blues these days. The party of Lincoln in a modern day sense is one Lincoln would not recognize or support. He would be a Democrat today, and the Democrats of his day would be Republicans today. Lincoln supported government subsidies and programs as well as civil rights for all. You need to realize that labels are confusing and not always accurate, and their historical meaning is not today's meaning.

The libertarian Republicans and Libertarians these days are classical liberals, without much of the liberalism. But classical liberal today is not much different from neo-liberal today, which is mostly what conservative is today. It is just opposition to welfare, taxes and regulations. Blues recognize the need for these things, and that's why they are called liberals today in the USA. 

I don't think Whig is a good label for a liberal today. Bob seems mostly a liberal, except on the gun issue, which he has some problems with liberal positions on. He says he's a strict constructionist on the constitution, and liked Judge Scalia, and maybe that's Whiggish, but the libertarians today go much further in that direction than Bob could go if he supports blue positions today.

(12-22-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2018, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.

Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism.  If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness.  I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue.  Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.

I have no doubt that most blues have a very high opinion of themselves and their views. I don't have an issue with you viewing yourself or identifying yourself as an INTP. I'm sorry but the Whigs disappeared with Teddy Roosevelt. So, I really don't know what being Whggish means these day. Isn't there a modern political term that you can use instead or feel comfortable using around blues? I've got your back. I mean there's only two of them and I can handle both of them myself. Feel free to politically identify.

Me, I'm a solid ISTP. I took a few tests, honestly answered the questions, read the results and information about ISTP's and everything matched. I'm very intuitive but I follow my senses (instincts or follow my gut as they say) Me, I'm a Northern Yankee, A proud supporter of the party of Lincoln in a modern day sense. I'm an American born, American raised, American educated Classical Liberal like FDR, JFK/MLK, Reagan and Trump. You do realize that America has ideology of its own that no other ideology can even come close to matching or defeating.

By putting Martin Luther King and Donald Trump in one category other than being masculine, well-known, and American (and both share such with Charles Manson, who was both) you create an absurdity. I see no inherent virtue in being a Northern Yankee, born and raised in American. You have shown the inadequacy of your education, not so much in economic inadequacy but in the apparent emptiness of your life. There are "Northern Yankees" who find other cultures as vehicles of cultural traits clearly contrary to American tastes, yet so rich as to be irresistible.  Is J S Bach American? Is Michelangelo? Is Shakespeare? Is Hokusai? Is Degas? Gershwin is, and he is a son of immigrants. Stravinsky became a US citizen.

What is so good about being an American is that one can pick and choose in culture and philosophical basis and still be an American. My vision of America is much like that of British-born Alaister Cooke. I know about Yankee identity as shown in David Hacker Fischer's Albion's Seed (about half of my British heritage, and ironically some of my German heritage -- Pennsylvania Dutch) comes through the Quaker settlement of southeastern Pennsylvania. The rest, so far as I can tell, is from the multi-ethnic community of the Dutch settlement (which wasn't very Dutch in its composition) of the Hudson Valley and northeastern New Jersey. The English origin that you have does not invariably result in your views.

As far as any comparison between Reagan and Trump -- Reagan  was able to recognize that the Gorbachev-era Soviet Union, were it to fulfill its promises, was no longer a menace to Humanity. Donald Trump has dredged enmities that need not exist. I consider Latin-American culture now a cornerstone of Western  civilization do to the large number of people living in Latin America. The center of Western civilization in the recent past -- around 1900 -- was undeniably in Europe, with America and Canada as 'suburbs' and Australia and New Zealand as outposts. Mexico and Brazil are both huge now.

America does not have an ideology of its own. Donald Trump is not America, and America is not Donald Trump. By analogy, a couple of years ago America would have been Obama, and Obama would have been America. Do you see where that is going? I consider Donald Trump an extreme aberration in American political life, something possible but lamentable. I loathe his immature tweets. I consider his bigotry abhorrent. The rest of the world trusts that America will come back to its senses and oust Trump in the 2020 elections.

"We do again what we used to do right" expresses how I would campaign against Trump were I one of the dozens seeking to be the 46th President of the United States -- or 47th should either the Grim Reaper or Robert Mueller deliver us from this horrible man.

(12-22-2018, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-22-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2018, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.

Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism.  If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness.  I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue.  Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.

I have no doubt that most blues have a very high opinion of themselves and their views. I don't have an issue with you viewing yourself or identifying yourself as an INTP. I'm sorry but the Whigs disappeared with Teddy Roosevelt. So, I really don't know what being Whiggish means these day. Isn't there a modern political term that you can use instead or feel comfortable using around blues? I've got your back. I mean there's only two of them and I can handle both of them myself. Feel free to politically identify.

Me, I'm a solid ISTP. I took a few tests, honestly answered the questions, read the results and information about ISTP's and everything matched. I'm very intuitive but I follow my senses (instincts or follow my gut as they say) Me, I'm a Northern Yankee, A proud supporter of the party of Lincoln in a modern day sense. I'm an American born, American raised, American educated Classical Liberal like FDR, JFK/MLK, Reagan and Trump. You do realize that America has ideology of its own that no other ideology can even come close to matching or defeating.

You and some other reds don't seem to realize that FDR, JFK and MLK are very much to the left of you, and FDR and MLK especially are much to the left even of most blues these days. The party of Lincoln in a modern day sense is one Lincoln would not recognize or support. He would be a Democrat today, and the Democrats of his day would be Republicans today. Lincoln supported government subsidies and programs as well as civil rights for all. You need to realize that labels are confusing and not always accurate, and their historical meaning is not today's meaning.

The libertarian Republicans and Libertarians these days are classical liberals, without much of the liberalism. But classical liberal today is not much different from neo-liberal today, which is mostly what conservative is today. It is just opposition to welfare, taxes and regulations. Blues recognize the need for these things, and that's why they are called liberals today in the USA. 

I don't think Whig is a good label for a liberal today. Bob seems mostly a liberal, except on the gun issue, which he has some problems with liberal positions on. He says he's a strict constructionist on the constitution, and liked Judge Scalia, and maybe that's Whiggish, but the libertarians today go much further in that direction than Bob could go if he supports blue positions today.

The party of Lincoln in a modern sense is still very much alive on the Republican side as well as most of American culture these days. You don't represent the views of American culture. You represent the views of blue culture. Now, as an American who understand that, all I can say is good luck making it through the upcoming years as more and more people come to realize that the blues ain't all that American at the core and their leadership ain't all that interested in American point of views or American beliefs or American laws and so forth. Like I said, you're a dead man as far I'm concerned and what happens to you and your so called liberal ilk makes no difference to me personally. I've never recognized you as an American liberal. Tolerance like everything else only extends so far. As far as American tolerance, you aren't even close to being viewed as borderline. So, you're pretty much screwed at this point. One more American minded judge is all we need to change things for the better as far as Americans go and make things and make matters even worse for blues who view themselves as the rulers of their own domains, so to speak.