(02-12-2017, 04:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2017, 02:00 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 10:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I only see one bubble here and a growing number of individuals who are speaking against those who are associated with the bubble.
Well, yes, it is really obvious that you're seeing only one perspective. So many are similarly limited. More important even than the issues is the attitude and closed mind that makes folks unable to open themselves to other perspectives.
I've been seeing the blue's perspective and disagreeing with their perspectives and pointing out the major flaws with their perspective and my issues with their perspective for years. So, you're right, I've only been focused on one (the blue) perspective with all other perspectives being more or less side lined or voluntarily removed. Did you know this?
I'd say you are going at a vile stereotype of the blue perspective and are bad at listening to what actual blue leaning folk are really trying to say. You also blatantly advocate for a variation on the red perspective, what you call the 'American' perspective, often claiming your ideals are shared by a lot of folk... which is to an extent true enough.
I don't see myself a pure blue or the best of all possible representative of the blue community. I approved of Scalia for example, and side with the reds on the history and law aspects of the gun policy discussion. I have definite disagreements with Eric, although that's hardly unusual. I don't see you as any more the platonic ideal of the perfect red person than I am perfect blue. We're all individuals, and labels like blue and red ought to be understood as vague envelopes. This is why I often call myself 'blue leaning' rather than 'blue'.
It is natural and expected for me that an extreme partisan will be angry at a distorted caricature of what the other guys think, while perceiving themselves as common sense reality dwelling virtuous people. Lots of folks are like that. I'd suggest that both the red and blue leaning communities have a solid basis in history, experience and memories of past crises. It is easy for folk coming from either angle to see themselves as common sense virtuous reality dwellers. I have problems with folks that see their own perspective as uniquely true while focusing on the worst aspects of other perspectives.
It's really easy, by picking out a bunch of unfavorable aspects of this age group, that culture, that gender, whatever group someone wants to dislike, to work up a despicable stereotype. I think it far easier to sense when one is being treated as a stereotype than it is to see one's own prejudices.
(02-11-2017, 10:04 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 05:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 05:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It is a question these days of what it would take for Drump to be impeached.
Loyal puppet Republicans are not likely to impeach him if he cooperated with or helped the Russians to hack into the Hillary Clinton campaign computer and publish the emails on wikileaks, in my judgement. It might be at most a nail in his future coffin.
-- Assange has repeatedly denied that his sources are Russian. He has implied (but never came right out & said) that his sources are within the NSA. He has also said that a14 yo could hack into Podesta's email, so who knows.. besides Assange, that is
Believing Assange and other conspiracy weavers is silly, when the CIA and the FBI and news sources have confirmed that Russia was behind all the hacking.
-- the DNC started that alternative fact bcuz a) they were picking a fight with Russia, & b) they were trying to distract the public from the contents of the emails. I've seen stories that go both ways- the CIA/FBI either confirmed or debunked the claim (shrug, whatever) Assange, otoh has been consistent in his denials. Besides, it really don't matter who gave Assange the emails. It's the content of the emails that matter
Quote:Eric Wrote:Nixon was impeached, and senators were ready to oust him, after WH tapes revealed that Nixon ordered the FBI to suppress investigation into Watergate activities. If Trump does something similar regarding an FBI investigation, that might get some attention from some Republicans; maybe not enough.
Trump is now complaining about "so-called judges." Complaining won't get him impeached, but if Trump gets some of his lackeys to actually violate a Court order and enforce a Muslim travel ban, or some other Trump executive order the Courts have found to be illegal, that might get enough Republicans to oust him.
-- why would anybody with 2 brain cells working want to impeach the Donald. Cuz then we get stuck with Pence
Eric Wrote:I've explained that to you too. Pence is a wooden stick. He has about as much charisma as a dead turkey. His horoscope score is mediocre. Pence can be beaten in the next election. A Democrat would be tons better than either of them by 2020. And Trump is worse than Pence because he's a mental case. His appointments dispel any hope that he is in any way better than Pence would be. His cabinet and staff is the worst ever assembled by any leader, EVER. Bunch of billionaire reactionaries, culture warriors, war-mongers and Ayn Rand clones, most of them interested only in destroying the agency they are appointed to run, and taking away everything of value in America. That alone has already long since made Trump a TOTAL failure, and the most absurd ruler ever to walk on the stage of the Western World. Let alone his brazen disregard for the law, which is going to get him in trouble.
-- l thought Pence's score is higher than the Donald's
I think Pence is scarey, & now we got Jordan here talking about a Prez Pence.... yecch
As you have known, Donald has a good score, which is why I predicted he would not fade away as all the pundits thought, and had a chance to win. In my latest version of my scoring system, The Donald comes out 9-4. Pence is only 8-7; quite mediocre. He held his own in the VP debate, but otherwise he does not have the charisma to pull off what Trump did; essentially make people believe a bunch of lies and fear-mongering. Ironically, the lady who might run against him, Elizabeth Warren, also has an 8-7 score. I don't think she is a particularly strong candidate either, even though I usually agree with her views and admire her willingness to stand for what she believes most of the time.
Pence is scary; The Donald is double-scary. The only virtue of Pence from my point of view, is that he can be beaten for re-election. That's it! We're stuck with one or the other monstrosity, unless Pence does something equally stupid as Trump. At this point, I don't think that is likely.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
(02-12-2017, 07:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 10:04 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 05:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 05:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It is a question these days of what it would take for Drump to be impeached.
Loyal puppet Republicans are not likely to impeach him if he cooperated with or helped the Russians to hack into the Hillary Clinton campaign computer and publish the emails on wikileaks, in my judgement. It might be at most a nail in his future coffin.
-- Assange has repeatedly denied that his sources are Russian. He has implied (but never came right out & said) that his sources are within the NSA. He has also said that a14 yo could hack into Podesta's email, so who knows.. besides Assange, that is
Believing Assange and other conspiracy weavers is silly, when the CIA and the FBI and news sources have confirmed that Russia was behind all the hacking.
-- the DNC started that alternative fact bcuz a) they were picking a fight with Russia, & b) they were trying to distract the public from the contents of the emails. I've seen stories that go both ways- the CIA/FBI either confirmed or debunked the claim (shrug, whatever) Assange, otoh has been consistent in his denials. Besides, it really don't matter who gave Assange the emails. It's the content of the emails that matter
Quote:Eric Wrote:Nixon was impeached, and senators were ready to oust him, after WH tapes revealed that Nixon ordered the FBI to suppress investigation into Watergate activities. If Trump does something similar regarding an FBI investigation, that might get some attention from some Republicans; maybe not enough.
Trump is now complaining about "so-called judges." Complaining won't get him impeached, but if Trump gets some of his lackeys to actually violate a Court order and enforce a Muslim travel ban, or some other Trump executive order the Courts have found to be illegal, that might get enough Republicans to oust him.
-- why would anybody with 2 brain cells working want to impeach the Donald. Cuz then we get stuck with Pence
Eric Wrote:I've explained that to you too. Pence is a wooden stick. He has about as much charisma as a dead turkey. His horoscope score is mediocre. Pence can be beaten in the next election. A Democrat would be tons better than either of them by 2020. And Trump is worse than Pence because he's a mental case. His appointments dispel any hope that he is in any way better than Pence would be. His cabinet and staff is the worst ever assembled by any leader, EVER. Bunch of billionaire reactionaries, culture warriors, war-mongers and Ayn Rand clones, most of them interested only in destroying the agency they are appointed to run, and taking away everything of value in America. That alone has already long since made Trump a TOTAL failure, and the most absurd ruler ever to walk on the stage of the Western World. Let alone his brazen disregard for the law, which is going to get him in trouble.
-- l thought Pence's score is higher than the Donald's
I think Pence is scarey, & now we got Jordan here talking about a Prez Pence.... yecch
As you have known, Donald has a good score, which is why I predicted he would not fade away as all the pundits thought, and had a chance to win. In my latest version of my scoring system, The Donald comes out 9-4. Pence is only 8-7; quite mediocre. He held his own in the VP debate, but otherwise he does not have the charisma to pull off what Trump did; essentially make people believe a bunch of lies and fear-mongering. Ironically, the lady who might run against him, Elizabeth Warren, also has an 8-7 score. I don't think she is a particularly strong candidate either, even though I usually agree with her views and admire her willingness to stand for what she believes most of the time.
Pence is scary; The Donald is double-scary. The only virtue of Pence from my point of view, is that he can be beaten for re-election. That's it! We're stuck with one or the other monstrosity, unless Pence does something equally stupid as Trump. At this point, I don't think that is likely.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
-- why do you think Pence is less scarey than the Donald?
(02-10-2017, 04:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
-- l'm going with the alternative reality. Goes nicely with alternative facts
Yup, definitely alternative reality
http://usuncut.com/news/trump-claims-ent...rotesters/
(02-12-2017, 08:05 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2017, 07:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 10:04 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 05:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]-- Assange has repeatedly denied that his sources are Russian. He has implied (but never came right out & said) that his sources are within the NSA. He has also said that a14 yo could hack into Podesta's email, so who knows.. besides Assange, that is
Believing Assange and other conspiracy weavers is silly, when the CIA and the FBI and news sources have confirmed that Russia was behind all the hacking.
-- the DNC started that alternative fact bcuz a) they were picking a fight with Russia, & b) they were trying to distract the public from the contents of the emails. I've seen stories that go both ways- the CIA/FBI either confirmed or debunked the claim (shrug, whatever) Assange, otoh has been consistent in his denials. Besides, it really don't matter who gave Assange the emails. It's the content of the emails that matter
Quote:Eric Wrote:Nixon was impeached, and senators were ready to oust him, after WH tapes revealed that Nixon ordered the FBI to suppress investigation into Watergate activities. If Trump does something similar regarding an FBI investigation, that might get some attention from some Republicans; maybe not enough.
Trump is now complaining about "so-called judges." Complaining won't get him impeached, but if Trump gets some of his lackeys to actually violate a Court order and enforce a Muslim travel ban, or some other Trump executive order the Courts have found to be illegal, that might get enough Republicans to oust him.
-- why would anybody with 2 brain cells working want to impeach the Donald. Cuz then we get stuck with Pence
Eric Wrote:I've explained that to you too. Pence is a wooden stick. He has about as much charisma as a dead turkey. His horoscope score is mediocre. Pence can be beaten in the next election. A Democrat would be tons better than either of them by 2020. And Trump is worse than Pence because he's a mental case. His appointments dispel any hope that he is in any way better than Pence would be. His cabinet and staff is the worst ever assembled by any leader, EVER. Bunch of billionaire reactionaries, culture warriors, war-mongers and Ayn Rand clones, most of them interested only in destroying the agency they are appointed to run, and taking away everything of value in America. That alone has already long since made Trump a TOTAL failure, and the most absurd ruler ever to walk on the stage of the Western World. Let alone his brazen disregard for the law, which is going to get him in trouble.
-- l thought Pence's score is higher than the Donald's
I think Pence is scarey, & now we got Jordan here talking about a Prez Pence.... yecch
As you have known, Donald has a good score, which is why I predicted he would not fade away as all the pundits thought, and had a chance to win. In my latest version of my scoring system, The Donald comes out 9-4. Pence is only 8-7; quite mediocre. He held his own in the VP debate, but otherwise he does not have the charisma to pull off what Trump did; essentially make people believe a bunch of lies and fear-mongering. Ironically, the lady who might run against him, Elizabeth Warren, also has an 8-7 score. I don't think she is a particularly strong candidate either, even though I usually agree with her views and admire her willingness to stand for what she believes most of the time.
Pence is scary; The Donald is double-scary. The only virtue of Pence from my point of view, is that he can be beaten for re-election. That's it! We're stuck with one or the other monstrosity, unless Pence does something equally stupid as Trump. At this point, I don't think that is likely.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
-- why do you think Pence is less scary than the Donald?
It's pretty obvious to anyone who has been following his behavior. The guys around him like Flynn and Bannon are truly dangerous and out to get him involved in the clash of civilizations. His other appointments demonstrate that he is now committed to policies even more right wing than those of Pence. He is a sociopath and a liar and a cheat. Putting someone as temperamentally unstable as Drump into the Oval Office is truly scary. Pence at least is a level-headed jerk.
And btw who was his first horrific appointment that demonstrated just how right-wing he is? Hint: his last name starts with a P.
Once again, his description; his theme song:
Tell me, why do you think Pence is more scary than Drump?
(02-12-2017, 09:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say you are going at a vile stereotype of the blue perspective and are bad at listening to what actual blue leaning folk are really trying to say. You also blatantly advocate for a variation on the red perspective, what you call the 'American' perspective, often claiming your ideals are shared by a lot of folk... which is to an extent true enough.
I don't see myself a pure blue or the best of all possible representative of the blue community. I approved of Scalia for example, and side with the reds on the history and law aspects of the gun policy discussion. I have definite disagreements with Eric, although that's hardly unusual. I don't see you as any more the platonic ideal of the perfect red person than I am perfect blue. We're all individuals, and labels like blue and red ought to be understood as vague envelopes. This is why I often call myself 'blue leaning' rather than 'blue'.
It is natural and expected for me that an extreme partisan will be angry at a distorted caricature of what the other guys think, while perceiving themselves as common sense reality dwelling virtuous people. Lots of folks are like that. I'd suggest that both the red and blue leaning communities have a solid basis in history, experience and memories of past crises. It is easy for folk coming from either angle to see themselves as common sense virtuous reality dwellers. I have problems with folks that see their own perspective as uniquely true while focusing on the worst aspects of other perspectives.
It's really easy, by picking out a bunch of unfavorable aspects of this age group, that culture, that gender, whatever group someone wants to dislike, to work up a despicable stereotype. I think it far easier to sense when one is being treated as a stereotype than it is to see one's own prejudices.
You're right, I've been going at vile blues who promote and participate in the use of vile stereotypes. Eric, PB, Odin, Playwright, and whoever else decides to join them. I think its natural for an extreme partisan to do what they do, say what they say, think what they think, believe what they believe as long as there is no major internal resistance and no worthy challengers around to be concerned about within their own ranks. So, with that said, Eric and others have free reign among the blue ranks which is generally countered by people from other ranks. How many bitch slaps would it take to turn a blue perpetual liar like ERIC into a truth teller? I don't know but I'd welcome the opportunity to try it and find out.
BIG LIES are Drump's main strategy and modus operandi. John Oliver offers a good summary, and a counter-strategy:
https://youtu.be/xecEV4dSAXE
(02-13-2017, 02:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2017, 09:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say you are going at a vile stereotype of the blue perspective and are bad at listening to what actual blue leaning folk are really trying to say. You also blatantly advocate for a variation on the red perspective, what you call the 'American' perspective, often claiming your ideals are shared by a lot of folk... which is to an extent true enough.
I don't see myself a pure blue or the best of all possible representative of the blue community. I approved of Scalia for example, and side with the reds on the history and law aspects of the gun policy discussion. I have definite disagreements with Eric, although that's hardly unusual. I don't see you as any more the platonic ideal of the perfect red person than I am perfect blue. We're all individuals, and labels like blue and red ought to be understood as vague envelopes. This is why I often call myself 'blue leaning' rather than 'blue'.
It is natural and expected for me that an extreme partisan will be angry at a distorted caricature of what the other guys think, while perceiving themselves as common sense reality dwelling virtuous people. Lots of folks are like that. I'd suggest that both the red and blue leaning communities have a solid basis in history, experience and memories of past crises. It is easy for folk coming from either angle to see themselves as common sense virtuous reality dwellers. I have problems with folks that see their own perspective as uniquely true while focusing on the worst aspects of other perspectives.
It's really easy, by picking out a bunch of unfavorable aspects of this age group, that culture, that gender, whatever group someone wants to dislike, to work up a despicable stereotype. I think it far easier to sense when one is being treated as a stereotype than it is to see one's own prejudices.
You're right, I've been going at vile blues who promote and participate in the use of vile stereotypes. Eric, PB, Odin, Playwright, and whoever else decides to join them. I think its natural for an extreme partisan to do what they do, say what they say, think what they think, believe what they believe as long as there is no major internal resistance and no worthy challengers around to be concerned about within their own ranks. So, with that said, Eric and others have free reign among the blue ranks which is generally countered by people from other ranks. How many bitch slaps would it take to turn a blue perpetual liar like ERIC into a truth teller? I don't know but I'd welcome the opportunity to try it and find out.
Reluctant to respond. But, OK.... go ahead, make my day! What lies have I told, Classic Xer?
(02-13-2017, 03:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2017, 02:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2017, 09:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say you are going at a vile stereotype of the blue perspective and are bad at listening to what actual blue leaning folk are really trying to say. You also blatantly advocate for a variation on the red perspective, what you call the 'American' perspective, often claiming your ideals are shared by a lot of folk... which is to an extent true enough.
I don't see myself a pure blue or the best of all possible representative of the blue community. I approved of Scalia for example, and side with the reds on the history and law aspects of the gun policy discussion. I have definite disagreements with Eric, although that's hardly unusual. I don't see you as any more the platonic ideal of the perfect red person than I am perfect blue. We're all individuals, and labels like blue and red ought to be understood as vague envelopes. This is why I often call myself 'blue leaning' rather than 'blue'.
It is natural and expected for me that an extreme partisan will be angry at a distorted caricature of what the other guys think, while perceiving themselves as common sense reality dwelling virtuous people. Lots of folks are like that. I'd suggest that both the red and blue leaning communities have a solid basis in history, experience and memories of past crises. It is easy for folk coming from either angle to see themselves as common sense virtuous reality dwellers. I have problems with folks that see their own perspective as uniquely true while focusing on the worst aspects of other perspectives.
It's really easy, by picking out a bunch of unfavorable aspects of this age group, that culture, that gender, whatever group someone wants to dislike, to work up a despicable stereotype. I think it far easier to sense when one is being treated as a stereotype than it is to see one's own prejudices.
You're right, I've been going at vile blues who promote and participate in the use of vile stereotypes. Eric, PB, Odin, Playwright, and whoever else decides to join them. I think its natural for an extreme partisan to do what they do, say what they say, think what they think, believe what they believe as long as there is no major internal resistance and no worthy challengers around to be concerned about within their own ranks. So, with that said, Eric and others have free reign among the blue ranks which is generally countered by people from other ranks. How many bitch slaps would it take to turn a blue perpetual liar like ERIC into a truth teller? I don't know but I'd welcome the opportunity to try it and find out.
Reluctant to respond. But, OK.... make my day! What lies have I told, Classic Xer?
Classic...
The problem is that just as you perceive yourself to have a reality based common sense perspectives, they will sincerely believe themselves to be reality based common sense people. As you perceive them to be liars, insane, stupid or whatever negative stereotype you'd care to apply, they just as sincerely see you in the same vein.
The worst and the most blind on either side, at the core of their vile stereotype, see real problems in the doctrines and policies of the other side. Neither side is perfect. Both sides could do well listening to the abundant clear descriptions of very real flaws in their doctrines, platforms and policies.
But as long as neither side is willing to respect where the other is coming from, and neither can perceive the other save through ugly distorted prejudices and strong negative emotions, there will be no understanding, compromise or movement out of our current political stagnation.
I have, of course, said essentially the same thing to Eric. I don't expect you to acknowledge the perspective any more than he did. For the moment, I think I've made my point as clear as I possibly can... to both of you. I'll stand back with few expectations and see if either of you can let go of hate and prejudice enough to listen to the other.
I'm thinking that there might be some conservative solutions to problems in liberal programs. It would be reasonable to have some empty-calorie foods like sodas, chips, cookies, snack cakes, and candies removed from food-stamp eligibility (with possible compensation with some essential non-food items like detergents, toiletries, and perhaps pet foods -- keeping a pet dog or cat is a healthy practice). Reform of ACA might include tort reform and heavy taxes on alcoholic beverages and cancerweed products.
Medicaid might have the condition of some requirement of community service or enrollment in job training for able-bodied people.
The problem with the Right and ACA is that the Right wants to kill it altogether.
(02-13-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Classic...
The problem is that just as you perceive yourself to have a reality based common sense perspectives, they will sincerely believe themselves to be reality based common sense people. As you perceive them to be liars, insane, stupid or whatever negative stereotype you'd care to apply, they just as sincerely see you in the same vein.
The worst and the most blind on either side, at the core of their vile stereotype, see real problems in the doctrines and policies of the other side. Neither side is perfect. Both sides could do well listening to the abundant clear descriptions of very real flaws in their doctrines, platforms and policies.
But as long as neither side is willing to respect where the other is coming from, and neither can perceive the other save through ugly distorted prejudices and strong negative emotions, there will be no understanding, compromise or movement out of our current political stagnation.
I have, of course, said essentially the same thing to Eric. I don't expect you to acknowledge the perspective any more than he did. For the moment, I think I've made my point as clear as I possibly can... to both of you. I'll stand back with few expectations and see if either of you can let go of hate and prejudice enough to listen to the other.
Bob, I'm not a Republican. I have nothing to do with the doctrines, platforms and policies associated with the Republican party. Eric isn't dealing/speaking with a Republican. Eric is dealing/speaking with an independent voter. Eric isn't dealing/speaking with a person his age who still views/sees things the way they were viewed during the 1960'. To me, Eric is either a person who can't handle rejection or a persistent marketer who doesn't recognize or respect the word no or not interested. We aren't some country in Europe. We are a more wealthier country than any country in Europe. For whatever reason, Eric does not comprehend that and does not adjust his pitch based on the class and the type of person that he is communicating with.
As I see it, the Democratic party is basically a two two tier party consisting of upper middle class and above voters and minimum wage and below voters. As far as I can see, Eric represents/politically markets/caters to the minimum wage and below voters (low end voters). Well, I'm not one of them which forces him to have to raise his game which he's not able to do with a voter like myself. I've told him that many times but he doesn't listen to me. He doesn't need to listen to me. He has plenty of cozy blues like you and Democrats like Wonk around to listen to him, feel sympathetic/lend support and lean in his direction or use their political affiliation to move their party more in his direction. What is a life long welfare distributor/union federal worker/Democrat like Wonk going to do without welfare recipients who are in need of the services she's paid to manage and provide? What's Eric going to do without her political support? You and I have already determined that we don't need each others support and we have determined that we've been able to live without each others support. So, we don't have the bond that Eric has with someone like Wonk. If I had better writing skills and typing skills and used to writing a lot, I would continue and scare the shit out of everyone with my intellectual capabilities that so many blue posters here are severely lacking. I dunno, maybe I'll have to hire someone to write for me and blow you guys away.
(02-11-2017, 10:04 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm seeing another pattern developing. If the Republicans try to hold a town hall meeting, they find it loaded with hostiles. The main stream media is inclined to report it as the public is angry at the Trump government. The Republicans answer with an accusation that a whole bunch of out of town provocateurs have been hired. As I haven't seen any real evidence of the latter, it's kind of hard to guess which side is creating more false news.
Net result? The acrimony is getting worse.
There is real humor in a situation right of the Tea Party playbook being turned on the first Tea Party President and his Tea Party supporters in Congress. Of course, the Tea Party learned all this from Sal Alinsky, who they have demonized non-stop for the last decade. Cycles within cycles.
(02-13-2017, 08:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I'm thinking that there might be some conservative solutions to problems in liberal programs. It would be reasonable to have some empty-calorie foods like sodas, chips, cookies, snack cakes, and candies removed from food-stamp eligibility (with possible compensation with some essential non-food items like detergents, toiletries, and perhaps pet foods -- keeping a pet dog or cat is a healthy practice). Reform of ACA might include tort reform and heavy taxes on alcoholic beverages and cancerweed products.
Medicaid might have the condition of some requirement of community service or enrollment in job training for able-bodied people.
The problem with the Right and ACA is that the Right wants to kill it altogether.
Would you be OK with Romney care? I hope you're not so emotionally wrapped up and stuck on the name Obama that you'd refuse something similar to Romney care.
They were almost the same to begin with.
(02-13-2017, 11:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2017, 10:04 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm seeing another pattern developing. If the Republicans try to hold a town hall meeting, they find it loaded with hostiles. The main stream media is inclined to report it as the public is angry at the Trump government. The Republicans answer with an accusation that a whole bunch of out of town provocateurs have been hired. As I haven't seen any real evidence of the latter, it's kind of hard to guess which side is creating more false news.
Net result? The acrimony is getting worse.
There is real humor in a situation right of the Tea Party playbook being turned on the first Tea Party President and his Tea Party supporters in Congress. Of course, the Tea Party learned all this from Sal Alinsky, who they have demonized non-stop for the last decade. Cycles within cycles.
Well, it's not like Republicans aren't used to crowds of angry people. The Republican district that I live in has plenty of people who are opposed to Trump's government. No biggie.
(02-13-2017, 12:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]They were almost the same to begin with.
Politically speaking, Obama care was a very one sided bill. Prepare yourself, your probably going to lose a Senator from Minnesota.
(02-13-2017, 10:36 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Classic...
The problem is that just as you perceive yourself to have a reality based common sense perspectives, they will sincerely believe themselves to be reality based common sense people. As you perceive them to be liars, insane, stupid or whatever negative stereotype you'd care to apply, they just as sincerely see you in the same vein.
The worst and the most blind on either side, at the core of their vile stereotype, see real problems in the doctrines and policies of the other side. Neither side is perfect. Both sides could do well listening to the abundant clear descriptions of very real flaws in their doctrines, platforms and policies.
But as long as neither side is willing to respect where the other is coming from, and neither can perceive the other save through ugly distorted prejudices and strong negative emotions, there will be no understanding, compromise or movement out of our current political stagnation.
I have, of course, said essentially the same thing to Eric. I don't expect you to acknowledge the perspective any more than he did. For the moment, I think I've made my point as clear as I possibly can... to both of you. I'll stand back with few expectations and see if either of you can let go of hate and prejudice enough to listen to the other.
Bob, I'm not a Republican. I have nothing to do with the doctrines, platforms and policies associated with the Republican party. Eric isn't dealing/speaking with a Republican. Eric is dealing/speaking with an independent voter. Eric isn't dealing/speaking with a person his age who still views/sees things the way they were viewed during the 1960'. To me, Eric is either a person who can't handle rejection or a persistent marketer who doesn't recognize or respect the word no or not interested. We aren't some country in Europe. We are a more wealthier country than any country in Europe. For whatever reason, Eric does not comprehend that and does not adjust his pitch based on the class and the type of person that he is communicating with.
As I see it, the Democratic party is basically a two two tier party consisting of upper middle class and above voters and minimum wage and below voters. As far as I can see, Eric represents/politically markets/caters to the minimum wage and below voters (low end voters). Well, I'm not one of them which forces him to have to raise his game which he's not able to do with a voter like myself. I've told him that many times but he doesn't listen to me. He doesn't need to listen to me. He has plenty of cozy blues like you and Democrats like Wonk around to listen to him, feel sympathetic/lend support and lean in his direction or use their political affiliation to move their party more in his direction. What is a life long welfare distributor/union federal worker/Democrat like Wonk going to do without welfare recipients who are in need of the services she's paid to manage and provide? What's Eric going to do without her political support? You and I have already determined that we don't need each others support and we have determined that we've been able to live without each others support. So, we don't have the bond that Eric has with someone like Wonk. If I had better writing skills and typing skills and used to writing a lot, I would continue and scare the shit out of everyone with my intellectual capabilities that so many blue posters here are severely lacking. I dunno, maybe I'll have to hire someone to write for me and blow you guys away.
Classic, you are a Republican voter, and your ideas are classic Republican. If you are not registered that way, then perhaps that means you can be independent of those policies if you want to be. I am not a Democrat, so I guess the same applies to me. You can hope!
I hate to tell ya, but these days, Xers have a more Democratic voting record than Boomers. And we are not wealthier than Europe, except perhaps that we have more rich people.
In 2012, the voting trends of the middle class was about average for the nation:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/22/news/eco...-election/
Americans feel that the Republican Party favors the rich:
http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/02/pew-...at/459768/
The economy does better under Democrats:
![[Image: Salon38.1.png]](http://media.salon.com/2015/12/Salon38.1.png)
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_...residents/
What Democrats and liberals like me realize, is the simple principle that we all do better when the government has policies that benefit people and help lift them out of poverty. It's true that those who get benefits, tend to vote Democratic; at least that's true in blue states. But many others simply realize that this approach works better than just leaving people to fend for themselves, as Bill Clinton said. Giving advantages to the rich that they already have anyway, in hopes their wealth will trickle-down to the rest of us, does not work. And voting for this policy is not in anyone's interests.
If you refer to me, that shows your interest in what I say.
(02-13-2017, 01:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2017, 12:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]They were almost the same to begin with.
Politically speaking, Obama care was a very one sided bill. Prepare yourself, your probably going to lose a Senator from Minnesota.
I don't know what "politically speaking" means. In their content, Obamacare and Romneycare were virtually the same. That's the point. The Republicans opposed it for purely political reasons. They do well by opposing Democratic presidents no matter what. The Democrats need to adopt the same policy, it appears. I don't think they'll go that far off the deep end like the GOP does. But I hope they will respond to their base and oppose Trump's bad policies more often.
(02-13-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Classic, you are a Republican voter, and your ideas are classic Republican. If you are not registered that way, then perhaps that means you can be independent of those policies if you want to be. I am not a Democrat, so I guess the same applies to me. You can hope!
I hate to tell ya, but these days, Xers have a more Democratic voting record than Boomers. And we are not wealthier than Europe, except perhaps that we have more rich people.
In 2012, the voting trends of the middle class was about average for the nation:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/22/news/eco...-election/
Americans feel that the Republican Party favors the rich:
http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/02/pew-...at/459768/
The economy does better under Democrats:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_...residents/
What Democrats and liberals like me realize, is the simple principle that we all do better when the government has policies that benefit people and help lift them out of poverty. It's true that those who get benefits, tend to vote Democratic; at least that's true in blue states. But many others simply realize that this approach works better than just leaving people to fend for themselves, as Bill Clinton said. Giving advantages to the rich that they already have anyway, in hopes their wealth will trickle-down to the rest of us, does not work. And voting for this policy is not in anyone's interests.
If you refer to me, that shows your interest in what I say.
I prefer to keep my political options open. Plus, I'm pro choice for now anyway. The Democratic party is like the Catholic Church, it has to many rules and restrictions for me to even consider becoming a member. Let's see, I have to bow down to woman who wear vagina hats. I would have to suck up to black leaders that I don't like personally and I couldn't hang around with the regular black people that I do like personally. I would have to go along with whatever rich people like Al Gore or Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry's wife believes to be most important issues that need to be addressed. I can't offend anyone or say anything that might offend someone unless it's a Republican or a Republican voter. Fuck that! I prefer to keep my freedom.
Why are you complaining to me about a blue issue? There's not enough federal funds trickling down for the rest of us is a blue government issue. Bitching about me, bitching at me, blaming me and calling me names isn't going to resolve the issue that blues are having with blue government and the Democratic party in general. I fend for myself. I've been fending for myself and my family for years. What the problem with the blue folks? Didn't anyone teach them how to fend for themselves or the value of being able to fend for themselves?
Eric, I haven't placed you on ignore or ignored you.
(02-13-2017, 04:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Classic, you are a Republican voter, and your ideas are classic Republican. If you are not registered that way, then perhaps that means you can be independent of those policies if you want to be. I am not a Democrat, so I guess the same applies to me. You can hope!
I hate to tell ya, but these days, Xers have a more Democratic voting record than Boomers. And we are not wealthier than Europe, except perhaps that we have more rich people.
In 2012, the voting trends of the middle class was about average for the nation:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/22/news/eco...-election/
Americans feel that the Republican Party favors the rich:
http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/02/pew-...at/459768/
The economy does better under Democrats:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_...residents/
What Democrats and liberals like me realize, is the simple principle that we all do better when the government has policies that benefit people and help lift them out of poverty. It's true that those who get benefits, tend to vote Democratic; at least that's true in blue states. But many others simply realize that this approach works better than just leaving people to fend for themselves, as Bill Clinton said. Giving advantages to the rich that they already have anyway, in hopes their wealth will trickle-down to the rest of us, does not work. And voting for this policy is not in anyone's interests.
If you refer to me, that shows your interest in what I say.
I prefer to keep my political options open. Plus, I'm pro choice for now anyway. The Democratic party is like the Catholic Church, they have too many rules and restrictions for me to even consider becoming a member. Let see, I have to bow down to woman who wear vagina hats. I would have to suck up to black leaders that I don't like personally and I couldn't hang around with the regular black people that I do like personally. I would have to go along with whatever rich people like Al Gore or Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry's wife believes to be most important issues that need to be addressed. I can't offend anyone or say anything that might offend someone unless it's a Republican or a Republican voter. Fuck that! I prefer to keep my freedom.
No-one here would think you are likely to join the Democratic Party. Independent is a good thing to be. But registering Democrat does not compel you to have any particular opinion or go along with anything. Nice bit of sarcasm there, but if that's your reason to stay independent, more power to you.
Quote:Why are you complaining to me about a blue issue? There's not enough federal funds trickling down for the rest of us is a blue government issue. Bitching about me, bitching at me, blaming me and calling me names isn't going to resolve the issue that blues are having with blue government and the Democratic party in general. I fend for myself. I've been fending for myself and my family for years. What the problem with the blue folks? Didn't anyone teach them how to fend for themselves or the value of being able to fend for themselves?
Eric, I haven't placed you on ignore or ignored you.
The benefits that Republicans say will trickle down are mostly not federal funds; you know that. It's the supposed benefit from the "job creaters" that they are touting. No, giving tax breaks and subsidies and lax regulations to big business
doesn't trickle-down to you and me. But that is the main tenet in the Republican program. The only problem with you and others who vote Republican is your vote. That's the problem; it has kept the Republican Party in power for 40 years now, and our nation is going down the tubes as a result. My only problem with Democratic politicians is that they give in to the Republicans too often. They need to stand firm now and oppose Trump and the GOP.
The Republicans; they're not sending their best. They're bringing greed, they're bringing hate; they're liars-- and
some, I assume, are good people.
It's the worst Republicans that get elected to the state legislatures, the congress and the White House.