Will a nationalist/cosmopolitan divide be the political axis of the coming saeculum?

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-02-2016, 05:14 AM)taramarie Wrote: NZ is Christian majority but secular. We separate politics and religion. So to try to imagine my reaction to this religion/politics mesh would include a foreigner who is unimpressed. The two should not mix. I hear many kiwi's who are religious yet confused as to why America cannot separate the two. I  believe places like Iraq behave in the same manner when it comes to mixing religion and politics so see why i am not impressed at all.

" Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin." <--- how disgusting.

I of course am in sympathy.  I did however stumble across an expression of the other point of view.

Ku Klux Klan Wrote:"Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Robb wrote. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally ... But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"

He continued: "While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?' The short answer to that is simple: America was great not because of what our forefathers did -- but because of who our forefathers were. America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."

[Warren Dew]

(11-02-2016, 05:14 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 03:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-01-2016, 04:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why the heck does America mix politics and religion ffs?

It's a values thing, of course.  As such, if one has a deep involvement in one value set, that value set is fixed and deeply imbedded.  The US is a large immigrant nation with remnants of a wide variety of cultures and values, so there are conflicts.

Some identify America as a religious nation.  Morality is viewed as ultimately coming from God and/or the Bible.  If the majority of a region shares a given belief that certain acts are immoral sins, it seems entirely proper for them to elect representatives and pass laws that enforce moral behavior.

Others have values based more on the Enlightenment, and thus place more moral emphasis on rights and freedom.  The government should not be able to force individuals to do certain things.  Many such put an emphasis on Freedom of Religion, that the government cannot be used to force the religious practices of one sect or cult on all.

That's the basic tension.  There are of course many variations on the theme.  For much of US history various protestant religions have been in the majority.  Believers are used to religious doctrine and secular laws being quite compatible.  That is how it ought to be in their minds.  As the population becomes more diverse and the secular individuals push for rights and equality trumping religious doctrine, the more religious individuals are feeling a loss of control and a failure of morality.

It is possible to know God's will.  It is proper to do God's will.  Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin.

You might extrapolate from there.

OK.  When I start trying to think like the other guy, I sometimes get caught up in their way of seeing things.  Does New Zealand not care about God and the morality he attempts to teach?

NZ is Christian majority but secular. We separate politics and religion. So to try to imagine my reaction to this religion/politics mesh would include a foreigner who is unimpressed. The two should not mix. I hear many kiwi's who are religious yet confused as to why America cannot separate the two. I  believe places like Iraq behave in the same manner when it comes to mixing religion and politics so see why i am not impressed at all.
" Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin." <--- how disgusting.

I wonder if you are more religiously uniform than we are.  If most people don't have differing points of view on religion, it's unlikely to become a political issue.

Here we have lots of differences, so weird issues like ritual animal sacrifice become political issues (see for example Church of the lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah).

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-02-2016, 12:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: LOL @ "White Christian Republic" when in reality, early immigrants, having a way higher male than female population, naturally procreated with the native population, immediately bringing into existence the North American version of Los Mestizos. Meanwhile, over at the Plantation, you had the small groups of Whites (or were they already a type of Mestizo, especially after a couple of generations?) with many Black African slaves. And of course, the procreation on that front was also destined to occur. Any White Nationalists found guilty of crimes should be forced to do 23-and-me as part of their rehabilitation.

Not Sure I'm laughing.  Somebody just burned a predominately black church and spray painted "Vote Trump".

[pbrower2a]

(11-02-2016, 12:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 09:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 05:14 AM)taramarie Wrote: NZ is Christian majority but secular. We separate politics and religion. So to try to imagine my reaction to this religion/politics mesh would include a foreigner who is unimpressed. The two should not mix. I hear many kiwi's who are religious yet confused as to why America cannot separate the two. I  believe places like Iraq behave in the same manner when it comes to mixing religion and politics so see why i am not impressed at all.

" Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin." <--- how disgusting.

I of course am in sympathy.  I did however stumble across an expression of the other point of view.

Ku Klux Klan Wrote:"Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Robb wrote. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally ... But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"

He continued: "While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?' The short answer to that is simple: America was great not because of what our forefathers did -- but because of who our forefathers were. America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."

LOL @ "White Christian Republic" when in reality, early immigrants, having a way higher male than female population, naturally procreated with the native population, immediately bringing into existence the North American version of Los Mestizos. Meanwhile, over at the Plantation, you had the small groups of Whites (or were they already a type of Mestizo, especially after a couple of generations?) with many Black African slaves. And of course, the procreation on that front was also destined to occur. Any White Nationalists found guilty of crimes should be forced to do 23-and-me as part of their rehabilitation.

...more specifically, a white Protestant, pre-industrial republic. America didn't even have a large Catholic minority while it worked out and ratified the Constitution. The large Catholic population did not appear in America until the 1840s with the annexation of what had been the northern part of Mexico and with the mass immigration of Irish and German Catholics.

America was also pre-industrial, a land of yeoman farmers in the North and slave-owning planters in the South. The Christian part of the American political heritage is suspect. Except that they accepted chattel slavery, the Founding Fathers might as well have been Jewish.

Although having some obscure First Peoples origin was rarely a big problem for anyone, African ancestry had to be diluted heavily to be harmless to one's image. Of course, now that there is a large and successful black middle class...

White racists love to call attention to the violent black criminal element, but that element does little miscegenation. The black middle class and working class do. That is the real threat to white 'purity' in America. A few generations of dilution can hide Asian and Mestizo ancestry. African ancestry takes more dilution.

...How do I know that I have no sub-Saharan ancestry? I don't.  I do genealogy, and I find that while all lines are unambiguously white and connect to Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, France, or Scandinavia, at least two are suspect for not being traceable beyond the 1820s; the surnames are "Gibson" and "Leonard", both of which are known to have had some possibility of African lineage.  It's not that I have some ancestor with a very common surname like "Jones" or "Smith" that can get confusing; it's that there is much secrecy about the Leonard and Gibson lines.

I will own up to it should I ever do one of those genetic tests. I have ancestors with dark curly hair, and sepia photos are good for concealing sepia skin tones. I'm not saying that such happened.

Oh, yes -- to Hell with the Klan. We have plenty of non-white people around to refute racist stereotypes. Also to people who have much the same bigotry as Nazis --

LONG LIVE THE JEWS!!!

[Eric the Green]

(11-02-2016, 01:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 12:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: LOL @ "White Christian Republic" when in reality, early immigrants, having a way higher male than female population, naturally procreated with the native population, immediately bringing into existence the North American version of Los Mestizos. Meanwhile, over at the Plantation, you had the small groups of Whites (or were they already a type of Mestizo, especially after a couple of generations?) with many Black African slaves. And of course, the procreation on that front was also destined to occur. Any White Nationalists found guilty of crimes should be forced to do 23-and-me as part of their rehabilitation.

Not Sure I'm laughing.  Somebody just burned a predominately black church and spray painted "Vote Trump".

Boy, that's a good way to win some votes! ..........

I knew Trumpies were dumb, but that dumb? And yet, these dummies now are within reach of the Big House. What does that say about our country?

[Copperfield]

(11-02-2016, 01:45 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-01-2016, 08:01 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-01-2016, 04:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why the heck does America mix politics and religion ffs?

Why is Elizabeth the Second queen of New Zealand?

That has nothing to do with my question and seeing as America is supposed to be a "secular" nation this is why I ask this question. Your counter question is nothing but a diversion question and quite frankly is idiotic. If you will not answer my question bugger off.

Actually it has quite a bit to do with it. It seems both of our countries have existing power structures based upon archaic traditions and superstitions. America has always mixed politics with religion, just like New Zealand has always had an English queen (with apologies to any aboriginals before British colonization). Silly? Sure. But these are some of the most basic ways governments attempt to legitimize their sovereignty.

Sorry to expect you to think a little deeper about the world you live in. You may now continue with your usual curmudgeonly personality.

[Einzige]

You know, most polls show that Republican voters (who skew elderly and poor) favor New Deal-Great Society social programmes at nearly the same level as Democratic voters, who are connected to those programmes through an aging political tradition.

I can easily envision the GOP becoming the Party of selective economic interventionism, American liberal policies directed towards illiberal ends: expanding Affirmative Action to encompass the white working class, for example, or heavy spending on jobs programmes in poor Red States like Oklahoma and West Virginia.

They'd have to ditch their libertarian wing, but it's not as though libertarians have ever won an election for the Republican Party anyway.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is increasingly resembling a high-tech version of last century's GOP.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinio...ngine&_r=0

Quote: For decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been making steady gains among upper income whites and whites with college and postgraduate degrees. This year, however, is the first time in at least six decades that the Democratic nominee is positioned to win a majority of these upscale voters.

According to the Oct. 20 Reuters-IPSOS tracking survey, Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 5.6 points among all whites earning $75,000 or more. This is a substantial improvement on the previous Democratic record of support among upscale white voters, set in 2008 when Barack Obama lost to John McCain among such voters by 11 points.

According to an Oct. 23 ABC News poll, Clinton also leads among all white college graduates, 52-36. She has an unprecedented gender gap among these voters, leading 62-30 among college-educated white women and tying among college educated white men, 42-42.

What these figures suggest is that the 2016 election will represent a complete inversion of the New Deal order among white voters. From the 1930s into the 1980s and early 1990s, majorities of downscale whites voted Democratic and upscale whites voted Republican. Now, looking at combined male and female vote totals, the opposite is true.

As recently as 2012, Mitt Romney won among well-educated whites by 14 points. In 2008, McCain won college-educated whites by four points.

The data reflects an ongoing evolution in the composition of the two parties.

[Eric the Green]

(11-02-2016, 08:33 PM)Einzige Wrote: You know, most polls show that Republican voters (who skew elderly and poor) favor New Deal-Great Society social programmes at nearly the same level as Democratic voters, who are connected to those programmes through an aging political tradition.

I can easily envision the GOP becoming the Party of selective economic interventionism, American liberal policies directed towards illiberal ends: expanding Affirmative Action to encompass the white working class, for example, or heavy spending on jobs programmes in poor Red States like Oklahoma and West Virginia.

They'd have to ditch their libertarian wing, but it's not as though libertarians have ever won an election for the Republican Party anyway.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is increasingly resembling a high-tech version of last century's GOP.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinio...ngine&_r=0

Quote: For decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been making steady gains among upper income whites and whites with college and postgraduate degrees. This year, however, is the first time in at least six decades that the Democratic nominee is positioned to win a majority of these upscale voters.

According to the Oct. 20 Reuters-IPSOS tracking survey, Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 5.6 points among all whites earning $75,000 or more. This is a substantial improvement on the previous Democratic record of support among upscale white voters, set in 2008 when Barack Obama lost to John McCain among such voters by 11 points.

According to an Oct. 23 ABC News poll, Clinton also leads among all white college graduates, 52-36. She has an unprecedented gender gap among these voters, leading 62-30 among college-educated white women and tying among college educated white men, 42-42.

What these figures suggest is that the 2016 election will represent a complete inversion of the New Deal order among white voters. From the 1930s into the 1980s and early 1990s, majorities of downscale whites voted Democratic and upscale whites voted Republican. Now, looking at combined male and female vote totals, the opposite is true.

As recently as 2012, Mitt Romney won among well-educated whites by 14 points. In 2008, McCain won college-educated whites by four points.

The data reflects an ongoing evolution in the composition of the two parties.

This situation, to the extent that it exists (and it does to some extent) seems to have no connection to the actual policies pursued by the two parties. The Republicans are still dedicated heart and soul, lock stock and barrel, to libertarian economics, and have now brought the racist dog whistle associated with it more into the open. The Democrats are still dedicated to policies that help the poor and middle class rise economically through government action. Nothing has changed. It's still 1964.

So why the switch among some white people?

As Bob Dylan said, they have become pawns in the game. Quite a profound song, it turns out.




https://youtu.be/KY2lQV3ADfc

In the long run, lack of education promotes ignorance, which means poor and lower middle-class whites can be more easily swayed by the clever propaganda of libertarian economic dog whistles. They have been trained, literally, to blame their status on other ethnic groups (and men on women) who are competing with them for the diminishing pie, rather than the bosses that feed them the propaganda. They use appeals to values too, the religious right values, which have a larger appeal to less-educated voters. Trump has added various kinds of resentment against feriners, especially the trade issue on which he has a solid argument. But ironically, the crony capitalist Mr. Trump is using it to further advance libertarian economics in all other respects. And since his voters are more easily convinced by emotion and sloganeering, he can talk a game of "change" when he actually represents more of the same thing that has kept the middle class and poor down for 35 years: libertarian economics.

Earlier populists like Bryan and FDR and LBJ were able to convince many poor and middle class, less-educated whites to support them, because these leaders really had the country's and the peoples' interests at heart, and the labor movements had prepared the way for decades. But today's populists are deceivers, paid for by the cronies and greedy libertarian capitalists who have fought back for 40 years against the movements for real change that began in the 1960s. They have used their superior education over folks like WJ Bryan or Father Caughlin and so on to scheme and plot their way to deceive the people, and they have new weapons given to them by the 60s movements-- resentment against the new welfare programs that provide opportunities for non-whites to compete with the poorer whites, and resentment over the challenges to their traditional values like national military greatness and traditional religion and traditional lifestyles and cultures.

[Warren Dew]

Ah yes, the differences between talking to different generations.  For civics, you have to lay out the entire argument - data, logic, conclusion.  Reactives, on the other hand, can get offended if you don't let them figure out the conclusion on their own once you've laid out the relevant data.

Boomers want to figure out all the steps on their own, making them largely impervious to argument of any sort.

[pbrower2a]

(11-03-2016, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 08:33 PM)Einzige Wrote: You know, most polls show that Republican voters (who skew elderly and poor) favor New Deal-Great Society social programmes at nearly the same level as Democratic voters, who are connected to those programmes through an aging political tradition.

I can easily envision the GOP becoming the Party of selective economic interventionism, American liberal policies directed towards illiberal ends: expanding Affirmative Action to encompass the white working class, for example, or heavy spending on jobs programmes in poor Red States like Oklahoma and West Virginia.

They'd have to ditch their libertarian wing, but it's not as though libertarians have ever won an election for the Republican Party anyway.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is increasingly resembling a high-tech version of last century's GOP.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinio...ngine&_r=0

Quote: For decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been making steady gains among upper income whites and whites with college and postgraduate degrees. This year, however, is the first time in at least six decades that the Democratic nominee is positioned to win a majority of these upscale voters.

According to the Oct. 20 Reuters-IPSOS tracking survey, Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 5.6 points among all whites earning $75,000 or more. This is a substantial improvement on the previous Democratic record of support among upscale white voters, set in 2008 when Barack Obama lost to John McCain among such voters by 11 points.

According to an Oct. 23 ABC News poll, Clinton also leads among all white college graduates, 52-36. She has an unprecedented gender gap among these voters, leading 62-30 among college-educated white women and tying among college educated white men, 42-42.

What these figures suggest is that the 2016 election will represent a complete inversion of the New Deal order among white voters. From the 1930s into the 1980s and early 1990s, majorities of downscale whites voted Democratic and upscale whites voted Republican. Now, looking at combined male and female vote totals, the opposite is true.

As recently as 2012, Mitt Romney won among well-educated whites by 14 points. In 2008, McCain won college-educated whites by four points.

The data reflects an ongoing evolution in the composition of the two parties.

This situation, to the extent that it exists (and it does to some extent) seems to have no connection to the actual policies pursued by the two parties. The Republicans are still dedicated heart and soul, lock stock and barrel, to libertarian economics, and have now brought the racist dog whistle associated with it more into the open. The Democrats are still dedicated to policies that help the poor and middle class rise economically through government action. Nothing has changed. It's still 1964.

So why the switch among some white people?

As Bob Dylan said, they have become pawns in the game. Quite a profound song, it turns out.




https://youtu.be/KY2lQV3ADfc

In the long run, lack of education promotes ignorance, which means poor and lower middle-class whites can be more easily swayed by the clever propaganda of libertarian economic dog whistles. They have been trained, literally, to blame their status on other ethnic groups (and men on women) who are competing with them for the diminishing pie, rather than the bosses that feed them the propaganda. They use appeals to values too, the religious right values, which have a larger appeal to less-educated voters. Trump has added various kinds of resentment against feriners, especially the trade issue on which he has a solid argument. But ironically, the crony capitalist Mr. Trump is using it to further advance libertarian economics in all other respects. And since his voters are more easily convinced by emotion and sloganeering, he can talk a game of "change" when he actually represents more of the same thing that has kept the middle class and poor down for 35 years: libertarian economics.

Earlier populists like Bryan and FDR and LBJ were able to convince many poor and middle class, less-educated whites to support them, because these leaders really had the country's and the peoples' interests at heart, and the labor movements had prepared the way for decades. But today's populists are deceivers, paid for by the cronies and greedy libertarian capitalists who have fought back for 40 years against the movements for real change that began in the 1960s. They have used their superior education over folks like WJ Bryan or Father Caughlin and so on to scheme and plot their way to deceive the people, and they have new weapons given to them by the 60s movements-- resentment against the new welfare programs that provide opportunities for non-whites to compete with the poorer whites, and resentment over the challenges to their traditional values like national military greatness and traditional religion and traditional lifestyles and cultures.

Maintaining the old New Deal and Great Society programs for the elderly is good policy for keeping the votes of elderly people -- even as the Republicans seek to privatize everything to the detriment of all but the super-rich. Of course others are to find that instead of getting Social Security they get to make mandatory investments, most likely in life insurance policies -- low yield, long term, illiquid assets for the holders that must then be exchanged for annuities that are a very poor compensation to poor people who ordinarily live short lives after retirement. Of course the cash invested in insurance policies becomes a slush fund for economic elites. That's the Chilean solution promoted by the fascistic military junta of the ultra-reactionary Agosto Pinochet who believed much that the American Right believes -- that no human suffering is in excess so long as it churns a profit for economic elites who happen only economic actors who have legitimate interests in prosperity.

Well-educated people might be better off investing in brokerage assets... but that assumes that they get such a chance. The non-rich will be obliged to pay about 15% of their income into schemes with a return on investment of about 2% while building the annuity while those who get custody of the funds get to invest for perhaps 7% on private toll roads (many of them built as freeways and practically given away to profiteering investors) to 30% on licit loan-sharking. Count on the System keeping pay abysmal and in need of 'supplements' by predatory lenders, as there will be no welfare for people not already rich.

So the New Deal and Great Society programs wither away while the plutocratic dream of a New Serfdom takes hold. Think again if you think that unions can help -- Big Business wants them eviscerated, if not outlawed in the Corporate State that the new Benito Mussolini wants. (Do I avoid Godwin's Law by referring to Mussolini instead of his deplorable stooge in Italy?) Government will represent economic power instead of the People, a trend that began when lobbyists became the real power in the legislative process in Congress and most State legislatures.

Make no mistake -- Donald Trump will be a break from the American political tradition. He already has shown much anger toward those who oppose his ideas, and I can imagine him seeking to turn the FBI and other government agencies (including the IRS and the BATF) against his more clever opponents -- people who have some principles and learning. Like other politicians of the past he will seek to expand his base -- but he will do so by making more people poor, ignorant, gullible, and helpless. Those are his supporters -- if white. While other politicians seeking to expand their base have sought to improve the lot of their voters and align themselves with those who want to improve the lot of their constituents (thus liberal blacks aligning with liberal Hispanics and white organized labor), Donald Trump seeks policies that will make his voters worse off and make more people poor. To expand his base he must make more people poor, ignorant, helpless, and destitute.

Model minorities? They will be in deep trouble, as usually happens in 'nationalist' dictatorships. A group that he has yet to attack rhetorically, Chinese-Americans, distrusts him enough to be for Hillary Clinton even if its demographics largely fit those of upper-income white people. But we need remember that any middle-class people not fitting the pattern of "white, Anglo, Christian, and straight" have good cause to distrust a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot on religion and crony capitalist who can do them no good. It is practically impossible to be part of the large black middle class without being well educated. Even small business owners are beginning to recognize that customers' revenue matters more than taxes... and such a black or Hispanic physician or dentist may recognize that much of his income comes from the welfare system -- and is not going to butcher the goose that delivers the golden eggs.

American Jews, arguably the oldest model minority in America, surely recognize that however precarious the situation of their kin in Israel, bigotry against Muslims in America bodes ill. Would you prefer that Palestinians move to America and succeed here or fester in refugee camps in Arab countries? Add to this -- the same base material for the counterfeit coin of old-fashioned anti-Jewish bigotry is the same being used against Islam today. Pam Geller, who expresses hysterical fear against Islam, is very unpopular in most Jewish circles. Islamophobia can easily metastasize into the antisemitism that murdered six million Jews in Europe. After all, German Jews were also a model minority before 1933.

Donald Trump may not be the brightest mind in American politics, but he certainly has some cunning, cynical people behind him. His campaign is all platitude "Make America Great Again"... "Believe me!" ("Believe me!" suggests to me much the same as the words "Trust me!" which indicate that the person asking for trust has done nothing to earn trust). Those cunning, cynical people want to reshape America into an economic order of ruthless efficiency and abysmal wages, perhaps the sort of America that was indeed great -- if one was a plutocrat of the Gilded Age. High technology will allow American plutocrats to reap maximal profits off workers who might as well be in China or Mexico as in the Corporate States of America.

There's nothing libertarian about Donald Trump unless it is to allow the super-rich to follow the dictum of the demonic mystic Aleister Crowley: "Do what thou wilt". For everyone else, the Corporate States of America will be a nightmare of abysmal pay, horrible working conditions, brutal management, surveillance, internal passports, and quite possibly a secret police.

I look at the Tea Party that the "Establishment" Republicans created to weaken the influence of what could have easily been one of the greatest Presidents in American history and create a new base of support for the GOP. The Tea Party cost the GOP "Establishment" practically nothing in 2010 and gave it great rewards. Now the sorts of people who war 18th-century costumes while failing to understand what the American Revolution was about and putting up signs that read "The Zoo has an African Lion -- the White House has a Lyin' African" (really, Barack Obama is one of the more scrupulously honest figures of high office in a very long time) now have a bill to collect upon. That bill is a cynical, unscrupulous demagogue named Donald Trump.

If Donald Trump is defeated on Tuesday, then we are still in the "dark woods" with "lions and tigers and bears -- oh, my!"... he will not be the last ignorance-pushing, anger-wielding, morally-depraved demagogue to challenge the System. If he does win.... it is too bad for me that I am too old to start over somewhere else. A slum in Calcutta is far preferable to a labor camp for political prisoners in America. And that's before I mention Berlin or Montevideo.

So "Truck Fump" on Election Day... and prepare yourself for the necessary struggle to maintain the freedom that people from Samuel Adams to Martin Luther King have risked everything to achieve. We are entering times as definitive for America as 1776, and this time the enemy is not a distant king trying to tighten control on loyal subjects in the Colonies as it is economic royalists who want us to be their serfs. Remember the immortal words of the doomed Nathan Hale:

"I regret that I have but one life to give for my country".

On Tuesday most of us have only one vote to give for this country... ideally so that nobody will ever be put in the same position as Nathan Hale against a vile, oppressive, unjust tyranny. Demagogues have an unsettling record of becoming tyrants, and Donald Trump does nothing to give me hope for anything else.

[Eric the Green]

(11-03-2016, 10:51 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Eric most execs and owners at large US corporations are now Dems. The "bosses" who feed their workers with dog whistled BS in order to cause the low paid to fight each other are the bosses of small businesses plus maybe a few dying, old school larger firms (like that asshole at the coal company who ended up in prison). A classic example of this is right here on our forum, what's-his-name in Wisconsin who always gets in flame wars with you and talks a lot about fighting everyone. Classic-Xer, or something.

According to the stats I've seen, no, they are still overwhelmingly Repugs. Classic Xer I think is from Minnesota, and I regard him as just another one of those less-educated white pawns, and it makes no difference if they are small business "bosses," or workers in larger businesses; they are not the wealthy high-tech execs that supposedly are now Democrats. But I'm sure some of them here in Silicon Valley and other liberal, well-educated high-tech hubs are Democrats (at least centrist "new" Democrats), and many of those high-tech execs here are immigrants, not white alt-right down-home red-neck Trumpsters.

Whether down-home small-time business owners, are larger big time execs, bosses benefit from low taxes and less regulations, and so they are enthusiastic trickle-downers. And the small-time ones tend to be willing pawns as well for the big time players.

[Copperfield]

(11-03-2016, 12:28 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 08:25 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 01:45 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-01-2016, 08:01 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-01-2016, 04:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why the heck does America mix politics and religion ffs?

Why is Elizabeth the Second queen of New Zealand?

That has nothing to do with my question and seeing as America is supposed to be a "secular" nation this is why I ask this question. Your counter question is nothing but a diversion question and quite frankly is idiotic. If you will not answer my question bugger off.

Actually it has quite a bit to do with it. It seems both of our countries have existing power structures based upon archaic traditions and superstitions. America has always mixed politics with religion, just like New Zealand has always had an English queen (with apologies to any aboriginals before British colonization). Silly? Sure. But these are some of the most basic ways governments attempt to legitimize their sovereignty.

Sorry to expect you to think a little deeper about the world you live in. You may now continue with your usual curmudgeonly personality.

Spit it out in future. I do not play guessing games. You may now continue with YOUR juvenile antics.

The difference between ignorance and knowledge is asking questions. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is asking questions about the questions. Don't worry though Snowflake, you're young. You still have plenty of time to learn.

[playwrite]

(11-01-2016, 01:46 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-29-2016, 04:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-29-2016, 04:29 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(10-29-2016, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Many of the vulgarians are proud of Hillary Clinton's label "deplorable", even wearing the word as a badge of pride. Such people would never think of deciding why Hillary Clinton labels them 'deplorable'.

It goes both ways. At the last debate, Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a nasty woman. Clinton supporters are wearing that word "nasty" as a badge of pride, too. I have seen this on Twitter.

Which to me isn't a change for the better on either side.

Apparently we are no longer a nation of thinking adults.  We have regressed to middle school and should be ashamed, but we aren't ... at least not enough of us to stop the lunacy.  Are we talking about issues?  Not really.  Both candidates have made statements, but I'm not sure either is serious.  Hillary knows she won't be allowed to do anything and Trump won't want to do anything that might require thinking and hard work.

We have four years of vacuous posturing ahead of us.  Will that aid or retard the transformation of the parties?  2020 is a critical election, much more so than this one, and I don't see anything in the works that will move use in a better direction.  It's obvious that the old structure is dead, and this poisonous election is doing nothing to help.

That is penultimate example of the false equivalency derived from the very non-thinking that you critique.

A stalemate with Clinton in the WH and a GOP Congress will look pretty much like it does today, and that means not rolling back the ACA, immigration executive orders, and a host of other Progressive milestones that Obama was able to squeeze out.  Moreover, our foreign policy will look like it at least has someone trying to understand the issues.

Moreover, if the Dems actually take the Senate, or just even it out with Kaine as the tiebreaker, then at some point Schumer is going to nuke the SCOTUS nomination obstruction at least once and perhaps as many as 3-4 times in the next 4 years... and that will start the long-haul process of rolling back the voter suppression, the Citizen United corporate takeovers, the vulgar gerrymandering and a host of the rear-guard actions of a dying GOP.

Compare that to Trump in the WH and a GOP Congress.  The ACA will be repealed before they even clean up the liter left over on the Mall from the inauguration - 20 million people will be thrown off insurance plans and several million more kids under 24 years old will be taken off their parents' insurance immediately.  There will be no replacement other than having the insurance companies, just like the credit card companies, all headquartered in Delaware - why do you think credit card interest rates never dip below double digits even when 10-year Treasuries hold below 2%?

There will be massive efforts at deportations; any GOP critter standing in the way of that will be un-elected in 2018.  Janet Yellen will be replaced with a deficit hawk and interest rates will shoot up overnight.  Tariffs will be imposed just like Smoot-Hawley.  And that's just in the first month of President Trump.  There will be an economic  depression to rival the 1930s - why do you think the stock market has gotten so very nervous in the last week?

That economic despair and public backlash, along with Trump's anger management problems, will set the stage for some foreign striking out that will make Bush's invasion of Iraq look honorable and reasonable in comparison.  Choose your favorite - Iran, N. Korea, China Sea, Russia - and none of those are wars where you will get to sit back and watch on TV in the comfort of your living room.

Such false equivalency of the two choices we face is the epitome of the problems we have, and the sheer stupidity.

[Copperfield]

(11-03-2016, 02:22 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 02:03 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 12:28 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 08:25 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 01:45 AM)taramarie Wrote: That has nothing to do with my question and seeing as America is supposed to be a "secular" nation this is why I ask this question. Your counter question is nothing but a diversion question and quite frankly is idiotic. If you will not answer my question bugger off.

Actually it has quite a bit to do with it. It seems both of our countries have existing power structures based upon archaic traditions and superstitions. America has always mixed politics with religion, just like New Zealand has always had an English queen (with apologies to any aboriginals before British colonization). Silly? Sure. But these are some of the most basic ways governments attempt to legitimize their sovereignty.

Sorry to expect you to think a little deeper about the world you live in. You may now continue with your usual curmudgeonly personality.

Spit it out in future. I do not play guessing games. You may now continue with YOUR juvenile antics.

The difference between ignorance and knowledge is asking questions. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is asking questions about the questions. Don't worry though Snowflake, you're young. You still have plenty of time to learn.

If you have ever been paying attention I ask a lot of questions. But I do prefer an answer that does not beat round the bush.

Your lack of patience is your own issue to deal with, not mine. You might want to unwind a bit. You are going to give yourself an ulcer at the rate you are going.

[Copperfield]

(11-03-2016, 07:18 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 06:41 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 02:22 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 02:03 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 12:28 AM)taramarie Wrote: Spit it out in future. I do not play guessing games. You may now continue with YOUR juvenile antics.

The difference between ignorance and knowledge is asking questions. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is asking questions about the questions. Don't worry though Snowflake, you're young. You still have plenty of time to learn.

If you have ever been paying attention I ask a lot of questions. But I do prefer an answer that does not beat round the bush.

Your lack of patience is your own issue to deal with, not mine. You might want to unwind a bit. You are going to give yourself an ulcer at the rate you are going.

Check out Warren's post above and you will see what our problem is. If you actually are here to learn about generations you are not doing a very good job of it.

Actually Snowflake, you and I are from different generations. So what would you like to know about mine?

[pbrower2a]

(11-03-2016, 07:53 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 07:27 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 07:18 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 06:41 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 02:22 PM)taramarie Wrote: If you have ever been paying attention I ask a lot of questions. But I do prefer an answer that does not beat round the bush.

Your lack of patience is your own issue to deal with, not mine. You might want to unwind a bit. You are going to give yourself an ulcer at the rate you are going.

Check out Warren's post above and you will see what our problem is. If you actually are here to learn about generations you are not doing a very good job of it.

Actually Snowflake, you and I are from different generations. So what would you like to know about mine?

That is what reading and listening is for.

Bingo.

The etymology of the word intelligence implies "reading between (the lines)", recognizing that anything written or said may be uttered with intent to deceive. Someone minimally learned can read and write, but being able to recognize propaganda in official statements or those of well-connected people takes some more learning. Tyrants like Lenin, Mao, and Satan Hussein may promote basic literacy to make people able to obey orders; a tyrant like Hitler prefers to debase education so that people cannot think for themselves.

Contrast the reality of New England under the Puritans -- however authoritarian their religion might be they wanted people to be able to read the Bible and understand its full meaning. They found that there were some different possibilities in interpreting the ancient texts on theology -- but not on basic morality. But Massachusetts would have the first university in the American colonies (Harvard) even while Boston was a rough frontier town. Massachusetts would have the first freely-elected legislature in the world extant to this day.

The pattern would fit others who had similar attitudes toward the life of the mind. The Irish and other Catholic immigrants who supplanted the WASP element in New England as it moved west to better farmland or opportunities on a frontier that moved in turn to Cleveland, Chicago, Omaha, and San Francisco found the Puritan institutions intact and took them over. If one was educated in a yeshiva one fit the intellectual pattern that fits some of the most rigorous universities in the world. One would also be well prepared for liberal democracy because one would know how subtle the realities of human existence are... and how dangerous tyranny is. So one acknowledges the authority of the Pope or rejects Jesus -- big deal!

Marxism-Leninism and fascism both have simple, crude appeals to people -- get economic growth fast, or salve one's perceived slights with anger. Liberal democracy is more subtle in its results and its demands. Recognize differences as richness instead of enmity? That takes
maturity that raw hatred denies.

[Mikebert]

(11-02-2016, 09:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 05:14 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 03:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-01-2016, 04:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why the heck does America mix politics and religion ffs?

It's a values thing, of course.  As such, if one has a deep involvement in one value set, that value set is fixed and deeply imbedded.  The US is a large immigrant nation with remnants of a wide variety of cultures and values, so there are conflicts.

Some identify America as a religious nation.  Morality is viewed as ultimately coming from God and/or the Bible.  If the majority of a region shares a given belief that certain acts are immoral sins, it seems entirely proper for them to elect representatives and pass laws that enforce moral behavior.

Others have values based more on the Enlightenment, and thus place more moral emphasis on rights and freedom.  The government should not be able to force individuals to do certain things.  Many such put an emphasis on Freedom of Religion, that the government cannot be used to force the religious practices of one sect or cult on all.

That's the basic tension.  There are of course many variations on the theme.  For much of US history various protestant religions have been in the majority.  Believers are used to religious doctrine and secular laws being quite compatible.  That is how it ought to be in their minds.  As the population becomes more diverse and the secular individuals push for rights and equality trumping religious doctrine, the more religious individuals are feeling a loss of control and a failure of morality.

It is possible to know God's will.  It is proper to do God's will.  Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin.

You might extrapolate from there.

OK.  When I start trying to think like the other guy, I sometimes get caught up in their way of seeing things.  Does New Zealand not care about God and the morality he attempts to teach?

NZ is Christian majority but secular. We separate politics and religion. So to try to imagine my reaction to this religion/politics mesh would include a foreigner who is unimpressed. The two should not mix. I hear many kiwi's who are religious yet confused as to why America cannot separate the two. I  believe places like Iraq behave in the same manner when it comes to mixing religion and politics so see why i am not impressed at all.
" Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin." <--- how disgusting.

I wonder if you are more religiously uniform than we are.  If most people don't have differing points of view on religion, it's unlikely to become a political issue.

Here we have lots of differences, so weird issues like ritual animal sacrifice become political issues (see for example Church of the lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah).

Warren, could it be that you are a secular conservative?  They exist, I know of a number of them.

[Mikebert]

(11-02-2016, 03:45 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 09:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 05:14 AM)taramarie Wrote: NZ is Christian majority but secular. We separate politics and religion. So to try to imagine my reaction to this religion/politics mesh would include a foreigner who is unimpressed. The two should not mix. I hear many kiwi's who are religious yet confused as to why America cannot separate the two. I  believe places like Iraq behave in the same manner when it comes to mixing religion and politics so see why i am not impressed at all.

" Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin." <--- how disgusting.

I of course am in sympathy.  I did however stumble across an expression of the other point of view.

Ku Klux Klan Wrote:"Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Robb wrote. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally ... But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"

He continued: "While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?' The short answer to that is simple: America was great not because of what our forefathers did -- but because of who our forefathers were. America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."

That pretty much explains itself as to why religion and politics should not mix. One set of laws applied to all and not favouring one religion over another. Religion should stay personal. It explains some of the cultural shit fest that is America.

Tara, New Zealand is a secular country, like most of Europe and Canada.  Iran and Saudi Arabia are religious countries. America is sort of in the middle. Some parts of America are just like Canada, Europe or NZ in this regard.  Other parts are different, superficially no different, but if you scratch below the surface, kinda more like the sophisticated sections of Muslim countries, i.e. perfectly safe, good people all around--but not secular.

In flyover country we still have a fair number of true Christians.  Folks who live their Christianity. Salt of the Earth.  They are foster parents, staff food pantries, minister to prisoners.  And plenty of other folks who are not Christians are also Salt of the Earth, serve as foster parents (like we did), staff privately-run free food distribution sites (like my wife who works with folks from the Kazoo Islamic Center at Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes).

She also volunteers at the East Side Neighborhood Food Distribution operation (where she is in the only white person there). I suppose they are Black Christians, but they don't wear their religion on their sleeve. It's just different here.

[pbrower2a]

(11-04-2016, 01:52 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-04-2016, 09:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 07:53 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 07:27 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-03-2016, 07:18 PM)taramarie Wrote: Check out Warren's post above and you will see what our problem is. If you actually are here to learn about generations you are not doing a very good job of it.

Actually Snowflake, you and I are from different generations. So what would you like to know about mine?

That is what reading and listening is for.

Bingo.

The etymology of the word intelligence implies "reading between (the lines)", recognizing that anything written or said may be uttered with intent to deceive. Someone minimally learned can read and write, but being able to recognize propaganda in official statements or those of well-connected people takes some more learning. Tyrants like Lenin, Mao, and Satan Hussein may promote basic literacy to make people able to obey orders; a tyrant like Hitler prefers to debase education so that people cannot think for themselves.

For me I tend to be suspicious of anyone who is not an open book and when they beat round the bush with a clear honest answer I find myself "reading between the lines" even more so. The good thing (or bad for others) of being an ISFJ is that we do analyze what is said.

When people are or seem either dishonest or foolish, then if one can't fully brush off the apparent nonsense one must 'read between the lines' after opening 'the book'. Some hallmarks? Contradictions should be obvious enough warnings. Others include violations of common sense and body language inconsistent with what one says, as in nodding "yes" while saying "no".

Is some reality counterintuitive? Of course. The idea that light might move at a different speed off a moving object than off a stationary object seems to violate common sense. Thus toss a 100-mph fastball forward from the top of a locomotive traveling at 80 miles per hour, and one has a 180-mph fastball. But light has the same speed no matter what the frame of reference.

I am not sure of what an ISFJ personality is... but whatever my personality, Donald Trump and I do not get along. I see him as a fake and poseur.

[Warren Dew]

(11-04-2016, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 09:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 05:14 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-02-2016, 03:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-01-2016, 04:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why the heck does America mix politics and religion ffs?

It's a values thing, of course.  As such, if one has a deep involvement in one value set, that value set is fixed and deeply imbedded.  The US is a large immigrant nation with remnants of a wide variety of cultures and values, so there are conflicts.

Some identify America as a religious nation.  Morality is viewed as ultimately coming from God and/or the Bible.  If the majority of a region shares a given belief that certain acts are immoral sins, it seems entirely proper for them to elect representatives and pass laws that enforce moral behavior.

Others have values based more on the Enlightenment, and thus place more moral emphasis on rights and freedom.  The government should not be able to force individuals to do certain things.  Many such put an emphasis on Freedom of Religion, that the government cannot be used to force the religious practices of one sect or cult on all.

That's the basic tension.  There are of course many variations on the theme.  For much of US history various protestant religions have been in the majority.  Believers are used to religious doctrine and secular laws being quite compatible.  That is how it ought to be in their minds.  As the population becomes more diverse and the secular individuals push for rights and equality trumping religious doctrine, the more religious individuals are feeling a loss of control and a failure of morality.

It is possible to know God's will.  It is proper to do God's will.  Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin.

You might extrapolate from there.

OK.  When I start trying to think like the other guy, I sometimes get caught up in their way of seeing things.  Does New Zealand not care about God and the morality he attempts to teach?

NZ is Christian majority but secular. We separate politics and religion. So to try to imagine my reaction to this religion/politics mesh would include a foreigner who is unimpressed. The two should not mix. I hear many kiwi's who are religious yet confused as to why America cannot separate the two. I  believe places like Iraq behave in the same manner when it comes to mixing religion and politics so see why i am not impressed at all.
" Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin." <--- how disgusting.

I wonder if you are more religiously uniform than we are.  If most people don't have differing points of view on religion, it's unlikely to become a political issue.

Here we have lots of differences, so weird issues like ritual animal sacrifice become political issues (see for example Church of the lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah).

Warren, could it be that you are a secular conservative?  They exist, I know of a number of them.

What, you don't think I'm Santerian?

If by "secular" you mean "atheist", yes.  I'm not one of those New Atheist types who feels the need to replace their religion with worship of political correctness, though; I guess that's where the "conservative" comes in.