Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Galen]

(11-05-2016, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote: Hmm well I dunno tbh. I hardly know anything of the missionaries except I hear they were far more grounded and stern than boomers which sounds more like kiwi boomers. Ours knew what needed to be patched up and worked with what could be patched up..for example relations with the maori, women's rights and the environment as well as teaching the young that these things are the norm in culture now. I was one of the wee ones experiencing that type of teaching learning European/kiwi culture and Maori too and both languages to build an understanding between the two. Some boomers in America stun me with how strong their unrealistic ideology is and some are so angry about the fact they cannot put that ideology into society. The anger is shocking. I do not know tbh also about how boomers thinks about spiritualism. Personally I would rather hear them out on what it means to them individually. I think they may have just felt stifled in a culture that was not theirs. I am of the opinion as long as it was mutual meh have at it. I do not support non consensual sexual advances.

It takes time and experience to get a feel for an era from the historical record.  It is worth the effort.  What you get in school just isn't going to be enough.

The New Age movement are basically made up of people who are variations of Eric the Obtuse.  That is pretty much what the spiritualism of the sixties evolved into and it is pretty empty.  

That anger is pretty typical but is getting worse.  Probably because they are reaching the end of their lives.

[Galen]

(11-05-2016, 10:29 PM)taramarie Wrote: Yeah because reality is turning out to be not what they wanted. Well we cannot have it all our way and life is unexpected. When trying to change a culture it should be up to the people what happens. Not just individuals who think they know what is best. Same shoe does not fit every foot after all. I tell boomers that (those who are highly idealistic) but they do not listen.

That is it.  The primary lesson Generation X understands instinctively is beyond most Boomers.

[Galen]

(11-05-2016, 10:47 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 10:40 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 10:29 PM)taramarie Wrote: Yeah because reality is turning out to be not what they wanted. Well we cannot have it all our way and life is unexpected. When trying to change a culture it should be up to the people what happens. Not just individuals who think they know what is best. Same shoe does not fit every foot after all. I tell boomers that (those who are highly idealistic) but they do not listen.

That is it.  The primary lesson Generation X understands instinctively is beyond most Boomers.

and some of us millennials too understand that lesson

I meet more sane Millies than not, particularly if they are not on a college campus. The hard part is getting them to think, but they tend to get better as they get older.  It amazing how much of a clue one gets when life kicks the shit out you.  Unfortunately, I think life is going to be harsh for everyone and the Millies simply haven't had the time to prepare.  Xers have had that time and many of us have done so because we knew what was coming.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-05-2016, 10:19 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote: Hmm well I dunno tbh. I hardly know anything of the missionaries except I hear they were far more grounded and stern than boomers which sounds more like kiwi boomers. Ours knew what needed to be patched up and worked with what could be patched up..for example relations with the maori, women's rights and the environment as well as teaching the young that these things are the norm in culture now. I was one of the wee ones experiencing that type of teaching learning European/kiwi culture and Maori too and both languages to build an understanding between the two. Some boomers in America stun me with how strong their unrealistic ideology is and some are so angry about the fact they cannot put that ideology into society. The anger is shocking. I do not know tbh also about how boomers thinks about spiritualism. Personally I would rather hear them out on what it means to them individually. I think they may have just felt stifled in a culture that was not theirs. I am of the opinion as long as it was mutual meh have at it. I do not support non consensual sexual advances.

It takes time and experience to get a feel for an era from the historical record.  It is worth the effort.  What you get in school just isn't going to be enough.

The New Age movement are basically made up of people who are variations of Eric the Obtuse.  That is pretty much what the spiritualism of the sixties evolved into and it is pretty empty.  

That anger is pretty typical but is getting worse.  Probably because they are reaching the end of their lives.

You are having a nice little conversation with Galen, but don't assume he's any more representative of all Americans than Eric.  In my youth I flirted with several variations of New Age and spiritualist practice, from Taoism to Born Again Christian, to Wiccan.  There was a good deal of variety and growth, at least if you accept that the goals of spiritualism can lead to growth.  If your values aren't compatible with spiritualist goals and methods, as Galen's aren't, it is easy to reject spiritualism as 'pretty empty'.  Then again, if one is deeply partisan in any set of values, others pursuing any sort of conflicting values would be perceived of as 'pretty empty' or worse...  Far worse.  Just ask Eric if living one's life without using spiritualist means to seek enlightenment and wisdom would be 'pretty empty'.

Me, I chose science over spiritualism, but I can quite understand others making other choices.

I would note many Red Boomer's pursuit of fundamentalist religion includes using the government to harass and oppress those with conflicting values.  This is in strong conflict much of the Blue Boomer's religious and spiritual diversity.  What you see with Hillary welcoming minorities while Trump flirts with racism is part of the red/blue divide.  It exists in religious perspectives as much as it does in race and gender.  The various flavors of blue tinted spiritualists will be happily doing their own thing, while the red tinted fundamentalists will be trying to use the law to force their religious beliefs on everybody.

And again, anyone who generalizes about all Boomers is going to miss the point.  They don't get it.  The Red Boomers and Blue Boomers are very much different, especially in how they accept diversity.  This is also hardly unique to the Boomers, you can see it in the other generations as well.  One would like to think that the notion that America is a white christian nation is unique to the Ku Klux Klan, but it isn't.  It's a common part of the red perspective.  It's the difference between "If I'm right, and it is beyond question that I'm right, then everyone who disagrees is wrong" and "Let's all do our own thing."  There is a theme, visible in Trump's message, that everyone has their place, and the place of the white christian males is on top.  This is an old element of America, but not part of the values of everyone in America.

Also, stereotyping any group as being just like Eric would stand as example of vile stereotyping.  This isn't to say Eric is necessarily vile, but to say that bunches of people are just like him is vile stereotyping.  Eric is quite unique.  Galen might be deep enough into partisan stereotype thinking that he can't perceive a difference between various flavors of spiritualism and various practitioners of spiritualism.  "They all look alike to me."  No.  Spiritualists are unique and diverse too.  Real people.  They ought to be respected like real people.  (I know.  In Eric's case, this might require more spiritual enlightenment than most people possess...)

And yes, I've got some anger management problems.  Bigots make me angry, whether they are focused on race, gender, religion, culture, or what not.  Well to do people trying to make sure less well off people don't have health care makes me angry.  After Bush 41 and Bush 43 ruined the economy by pushing trickle down economics, those who want to go with trickle down again makes me angry.  Politicians who habitually and casually lie make me angry.

There is much to be angry about.

And that may be one thing that the Boomers did learn in their youth, if a whole bunch of people don't get angry, then nothing will change.

[Galen]

(11-05-2016, 11:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 10:19 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote: Hmm well I dunno tbh. I hardly know anything of the missionaries except I hear they were far more grounded and stern than boomers which sounds more like kiwi boomers. Ours knew what needed to be patched up and worked with what could be patched up..for example relations with the maori, women's rights and the environment as well as teaching the young that these things are the norm in culture now. I was one of the wee ones experiencing that type of teaching learning European/kiwi culture and Maori too and both languages to build an understanding between the two. Some boomers in America stun me with how strong their unrealistic ideology is and some are so angry about the fact they cannot put that ideology into society. The anger is shocking. I do not know tbh also about how boomers thinks about spiritualism. Personally I would rather hear them out on what it means to them individually. I think they may have just felt stifled in a culture that was not theirs. I am of the opinion as long as it was mutual meh have at it. I do not support non consensual sexual advances.

It takes time and experience to get a feel for an era from the historical record.  It is worth the effort.  What you get in school just isn't going to be enough.

The New Age movement are basically made up of people who are variations of Eric the Obtuse.  That is pretty much what the spiritualism of the sixties evolved into and it is pretty empty.  

That anger is pretty typical but is getting worse.  Probably because they are reaching the end of their lives.

And again, anyone who generalizes about all Boomers is going to miss the point.  They don't get it.  The Red Boomers and Blue Boomers are very much different, especially in how they accept diversity.  This is also hardly unique to the Boomers, you can see it in the other generations as well.  One would like to think that the notion that America is a white christian nation is unique to the Ku Klux Klan, but it isn't.  It's a common part of the red perspective.  It's the difference between "If I'm right, and it is beyond question that I'm right, then everyone who disagrees is wrong" and "Let's all do our own thing."  There is a theme, visible in Trump's message, that everyone has their place, and the place of the white christian males is on top.  This is an old element of America, but not part of the values of everyone in America.

There is very little difference in Red or Blue Boomers, they only differ in the goals they choose to pursue. With Boomers it is always: I am right and everyone else is wrong.  Don't have much use for either of them.

I was speaking of a very specific form of spiritualism.  The America of the nineteenth and early twentieth century was very much a Christian nation.  As for what Trump is, she can look up his speeches on Youtube and work that out for herself.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-05-2016, 11:41 PM)Galen Wrote: There is very little difference in Red or Blue Boomers, they only differ in the goals they choose to pursue. With Boomers it is always: I am right and everyone else is wrong.  Don't have much use for either of them.

I was speaking of a very specific form of spiritualism.  The America of the nineteenth and early twentieth century was very much a Christian nation.  As for what Trump is, she can look up his speeches on Youtube and work that out for herself.

So, what you are saying is that you are right and I am wrong?

Again, if you look at a group and say they are all alike, you are stereotyping. You are not going to give much in the way of a meaningful opinion.

Trump is a representative of the red world view, or is pretending to be, I'm not really sure how sincere his act really is. An awful lot of his positions flip flopped as he decided to run as a Republican. He is at least as valid a representative of a group as Eric is a representative of boomer spiritualists... which is not very. Trump, at least, has demonstrated he can gather a following who will agree with him, while Eric... isn't doing as well in the polls.

[pbrower2a]

The Pope disavows Donald Trump in all but name:

If you’ve ever wondered how terrible a person must be to get the pope to condemn them, look no further than GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

At the World Meeting of Popular Movements at the Vatican on Saturday, Pope Francis spoke about the danger of building walls to keep people out and “false prophets that exploit fear and hopelessness to sell magical formulas of hate and cruelty.”

...

rancis never uttered Trump’s name, and, as The Atlantic points out, his comments could generally apply to other leaders. But it’s hard not to think of Trump himself when the pope talks about walls.

“No tyranny can be sustained without exploiting our fears. This is clear,” Francis said at the event, speaking in Spanish. “All tyranny is terrorist. And when that terror, ignited in the peripheries with massacres, looting, oppression and injustice, explodes in the centers in the form of violence, including with hateful and cowardly intent, the citizens who still have some rights are tempted by the false security of walls, physical or social — walls that close some in and banish others.”

In the past, Francis has been a little more blunt with his thoughts:

“A person who only thinks about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis told reporters in February.

In response to the criticism at the time, Trump called the holy man “disgraceful” and accused Mexico of using him as a pawn.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope...ce6fbc78a6

My comment:

One need not be a Catholic to recognize that the Pope is far more an expert on Christian values than Donald Trump, whose behavior is a travesty of Christian values.

The only "pussies" that I have ever grabbed said "Meow!" in response.

[Galen]

(11-06-2016, 12:00 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 11:41 PM)Galen Wrote: There is very little difference in Red or Blue Boomers, they only differ in the goals they choose to pursue. With Boomers it is always: I am right and everyone else is wrong.  Don't have much use for either of them.

I was speaking of a very specific form of spiritualism.  The America of the nineteenth and early twentieth century was very much a Christian nation.  As for what Trump is, she can look up his speeches on Youtube and work that out for herself.

So, what you are saying is that you are right and I am wrong?

Again, if you look at a group and say they are all alike, you are stereotyping.  You are not going to give much in the way of a meaningful opinion.

Trump is a representative of the red world view,  or is pretending to be, I'm not really sure how sincere his act really is.  An awful lot of his positions flip flopped as he decided to run as a Republican.  He is at least as valid a representative of a group as Eric is a representative of boomer spiritualists...  which is not very.  Trump, at least, has demonstrated he can gather a following who will agree with him, while Eric...  isn't doing as well in the polls.

I am simply pointing out that you missed a very important part of what I wrote.  I was referring to something from a very specific time that has evolved over the years that I don't approve of.  If you took the time to notice you would realize I said nothing about Christianity or Buddhism.  What came of the the sixties and evolved into the New Age movement was very selective about what it took from Eastern mysticism.

Red and Blue Boomers suffer from the same problem.  They believe that they are right and everyone else should bow down before them and are equally clueless.  From my point of view they are the same problem with different goals.

Trump is simply a reaction to the status quo as it has existed for some time.  He is simply a big middle finger to the elites in the US.  Given the fact that we appear to be halfway through the current fourth turning I expected someone who was a departure from politics as usual to show up.  The fact that it was Trump was a bit of a surprise to me.  Truth is, he had a good life and is risking it all on his presidential run.  If he loses, the elites will go after him with a vengeance.  I wouldn't have expected him to take that kind of risk since, contrary to popular belief, he isn't idiot and would have to be aware of such consequences.

[pbrower2a]

(11-05-2016, 11:37 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 11:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 10:19 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote: Hmm well I dunno tbh. I hardly know anything of the missionaries except I hear they were far more grounded and stern than boomers which sounds more like kiwi boomers. Ours knew what needed to be patched up and worked with what could be patched up..for example relations with the maori, women's rights and the environment as well as teaching the young that these things are the norm in culture now. I was one of the wee ones experiencing that type of teaching learning European/kiwi culture and Maori too and both languages to build an understanding between the two. Some boomers in America stun me with how strong their unrealistic ideology is and some are so angry about the fact they cannot put that ideology into society. The anger is shocking. I do not know tbh also about how boomers thinks about spiritualism. Personally I would rather hear them out on what it means to them individually. I think they may have just felt stifled in a culture that was not theirs. I am of the opinion as long as it was mutual meh have at it. I do not support non consensual sexual advances.

It takes time and experience to get a feel for an era from the historical record.  It is worth the effort.  What you get in school just isn't going to be enough.

The New Age movement are basically made up of people who are variations of Eric (insult redacted).  That is pretty much what the spiritualism of the sixties evolved into and it is pretty empty.  

That anger is pretty typical but is getting worse.  Probably because they are reaching the end of their lives.

You are having a nice little conversation with Galen, but don't assume he's any more representative of all Americans than Eric.  In my youth I flirted with several variations of New Age and spiritualist practice, from Taoism to Born Again Christian, to Wiccan.  There was a good deal of variety and growth, at least if you accept that the goals of spiritualism can lead to growth.  If your values aren't compatible with spiritualist goals and methods, as Galen's aren't, it is easy to reject spiritualism as 'pretty empty'.  Then again, if one is deeply partisan in any set of values, others pursuing any sort of conflicting values would be perceived of as 'pretty empty' or worse...  Far worse.  Just ask Eric if living one's life without using spiritualist means to seek enlightenment and wisdom would be 'pretty empty'.

Me, I chose science over spiritualism, but I can quite understand others making other choices.

I would note many Red Boomer's pursuit of fundamentalist religion includes using the government to harass and oppress those with conflicting values.  This is in strong conflict much of the Blue Boomer's religious and spiritual diversity.  What you see with Hillary welcoming minorities while Trump flirts with racism is part of the red/blue divide.  It exists in religious perspectives as much as it does in race and gender.  The various flavors of blue tinted spiritualists will be happily doing their own thing, while the red tinted fundamentalists will be trying to use the law to force their religious beliefs on everybody.

And again, anyone who generalizes about all Boomers is going to miss the point.  They don't get it.  The Red Boomers and Blue Boomers are very much different, especially in how they accept diversity.  This is also hardly unique to the Boomers, you can see it in the other generations as well.  One would like to think that the notion that America is a white christian nation is unique to the Ku Klux Klan, but it isn't.  It's a common part of the red perspective.  It's the difference between "If I'm right, and it is beyond question that I'm right, then everyone who disagrees is wrong" and "Let's all do our own thing."  There is a theme, visible in Trump's message, that everyone has their place, and the place of the white christian males is on top.  This is an old element of America, but not part of the values of everyone in America.

Also, stereotyping any group as being just like Eric would stand as example of vile stereotyping.  This isn't to say Eric is necessarily vile, but to say that bunches of people are just like him is vile stereotyping.  Eric is quite unique.  Galen might be deep enough into partisan stereotype thinking that he can't perceive a difference between various flavors of spiritualism and various practitioners of spiritualism.  "They all look alike to me."  No.  Spiritualists are unique and diverse too.  Real people.  They ought to be respected like real people.  (I know.  In Eric's case, this might require more spiritual enlightenment than most people possess...)

And yes, I've got some anger management problems.  Bigots make me angry, whether they are focused on race, gender, religion, culture, or what not.  Well to do people trying to make sure less well off people don't have health care makes me angry.  After Bush 41 and Bush 43 ruined the economy by pushing trickle down economics, those who want to go with trickle down again makes me angry.  Politicians who habitually and casually lie make me angry.

There is much to be angry about.

And that may be one thing that the Boomers did learn in their youth, if a whole bunch of people don't get angry, then nothing will change.

Before I read your comment let me remind you I simply listen to everyone. Why? Because I may learn something. I tend to wait a while before I make a judgement unless something is blatantly obvious. Ok now I will read your comment.

I am a Boomer, but I cannot describe myself as typical. I grew up in a low-brow rural area under authoritarian parents, so my only escape was in rational behavior. I came to reject my parents' authoritarianism and sentimentality.

As the mass culture pushed at Boomers became swill I began to find antiquity in artistic and musical styles attractive. I also recognized the drug scene and the sexual revolution too destructive for my taste. Born too late to be drafted to serve in Vietnam, and likely 4-F, I could never participate in anti-war protests.

So I am self-righteous about many things (does that go with Asperger's?)

...I was raised to be a GI, which was a parental mistake. I could have never competed with them as a young whipper-snapper even if I was rational, bland, and conformist. GIs had that social role to themselves, and they were not looking for people to repeat their pattern of success.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-06-2016, 12:21 AM)Galen Wrote: I am simply pointing out that you missed a very important part of what I wrote.  I was referring to something from a very specific time that has evolved over the years that I don't approve of.  If you took the time to notice you would realize I said nothing about Christianity or Buddhism.  What came of the the sixties and evolved into the New Age movement was very selective about what it took from Eastern mysticism.

We may just have different notions of what the "New Age" movements are.  If I cared to pursue this, I'd strive to establish how I use the phrase, how you use the phrase, but I don't know that it would be worth the effort.  I just figured if you are using Eric as a typical member of the New Age movement, if all New Agers are just like Eric, the New Age movement takes an awful lot from Eastern mysticism.

(11-06-2016, 12:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Red and Blue Boomers suffer from the same problem.  They believe that they are right and everyone else should bow down before them and are equally clueless.  From my point of view they are the same problem with different goals.

I see the problem as being red / blue, not generational.  It's not like we have a generation gap similar to what we had in the awakening.  The election is between two old fogies.  It's not old verses new, not age versus youth.  It's about issues, and there are folk in all generations on both sides of the divide.

I do see the generations as having different styles of communication, different ways to make an argument.  Yes, the boomers have a tendency to argue from ideals.  Xers tend to be cynical.  Most Millenials seem earnest, but to this point are focused more on coping with the way things are than changing the ways things are.  These tendencies are real and make working together difficult, but they are not the core of the problems to be solved.  They are distractions.  Too many folks who hate this generation or that are expending lots of energy to no good purpose.  To me, it should be about the issues, not how the issues are communicated.

In Theory, there should be a synergetic alignment of generations.  The idealistic elders set worthy goals and inspire.  The practical hard edged middle management finds a way to make it work.  The energetic team playing youngsters work to create a better tomorrow.  So far, it isn't happening.  So long as the generations distrust, dislike and skirmish with each other, it isn't apt to happen.

(11-06-2016, 12:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Trump is simply a reaction to the status quo as it has existed for some time.  He is simply a big middle finger to the elites in the US.  Given the fact that we appear to be halfway through the current fourth turning I expected someone who was a departure from politics as usual to show up.  The fact that it was Trump was a bit of a surprise to me.  Truth is, he had a good life and is risking it all on his presidential run.  If he loses, the elites will go after him with a vengeance.  I wouldn't have expected him to take that kind of risk since, contrary to popular belief, he isn't idiot and would have to be aware of such consequences.

Trump's life has been a series of ego trips.  His presidential run seems to be one last grand finale ego trip.  From that point of view, his risk, if he risked anything, has paid off.  He is on center stage with all eyes on him.  If he loses, if the elites go after him, he gets to play martyr, whine triumphantly on Trump TV, and stay in the public view.  This is still a win for a narcissist.  His post election loss life will still be better than hosting a reality TV show.

Yes, in a 4T there ought to be a transforming set of political ideas pushed by transforming politicians.  I wasn't expecting Trump either.  However, I don't see Trump as truly transforming.  He is going after the most archaic faction of the Republican base, pushing Reagan's trickle down economics and Nixon's southern strategy.  There is little new save trying to persuade Mexico to build a wall.  I personally don't like trickle down as it failed badly for both Bushes, nor the southern strategy as I'm not into racism.

Yes.  We need something new, but as long as the Republicans in congress have a filibuster, we're not going to move past the unravelling stalemate.  A lot of people have been sold on low taxes and small government, have been for years.  Borrow and spend trickle down is not change.  That is the way of continuing the unravelling forever.  Bringing racism and sexism out in the open again is change of sorts, but not the sort of change I favor.  Hatred alone won't make for a successful 4T.

I'd have been happier with Bernie than Hillary, but while the Republicans have a filibuster, it doesn't make much of a difference.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-06-2016, 12:38 AM)taramarie Wrote:

Galen Wrote:They believe that they are right and everyone else should bow down before them and are equally clueless.

From what I have observed this is true. Both seeking to change the system and ultimately affect the people economically and culturally, but different agenda. Unless someone tells me otherwise that is what it looks like to me from what I have listened to.

As I said same shoe different foot it will not fit every time. So what to do to be inclusive of everyone? Respect the differences perhaps and if that cannot be done segregation may have to become a thing to protect certain beliefs not affected by others that interfere with others in order for some peace of mind. It does bother me though that they will end up in a bubble with no real understanding of others different from them however. That is merely a quick fix but does not address the issue of understanding others but also not infringing on rights and ultimately pissing people off.

I see this as going way back.  In the Agricultural Age, the Bible, pope and king could determine how everyone ought to live, and use all sorts of coercion to force it.  The Enlightenment proposed there are certain unalienable rights, and that government should not be able to coerce in violation of these right.  Thus, people should be able to establish their own life styles.

I view the series of S&H crises as struggles to move western civilization away from the Agricultural Age pattern towards the new Enlightenment pattern.  The shift from rigid authoritarian government to rights, diversity and limits on the power of government is part of this.  As such, the current red / Republican faction in the US can be viewed as fighting a rear guard action, attempting to preserve the remnants of elite privilege and authority.  On the other hand, the blue / Democratic faction is attempting to extend rights, diversity, equality and democracy.

The above pattern should be painted with a very broad brush.  It is a trend that holds over the centuries, but doesn't fit perfectly into every issue in every crisis.

Understanding other cultures is hard and will remain hard.  Allowing others who are different to be different in peace, not stepping on them so long as they don't step on you, shouldn't be hard.  Some, however, believe stepping on inferior folk is their right.

As such, I believe Galen's simplistic stereotype is inadequate.  Blue boomers and blue folk from other generations as well are much more accepting of diversity, are much less apt to force perceived inferiors to abide by their culture.  Again, the Clinton and Trump campaigns illustrate this reasonably well.

[pbrower2a]

(11-06-2016, 02:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 01:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 12:38 AM)taramarie Wrote:

Galen Wrote:They believe that they are right and everyone else should bow down before them and are equally clueless.

From what I have observed this is true. Both seeking to change the system and ultimately affect the people economically and culturally, but different agenda. Unless someone tells me otherwise that is what it looks like to me from what I have listened to.

As I said same shoe different foot it will not fit every time. So what to do to be inclusive of everyone? Respect the differences perhaps and if that cannot be done segregation may have to become a thing to protect certain beliefs not affected by others that interfere with others in order for some peace of mind. It does bother me though that they will end up in a bubble with no real understanding of others different from them however. That is merely a quick fix but does not address the issue of understanding others but also not infringing on rights and ultimately pissing people off.

I see this as going way back.  In the Agricultural Age, the Bible, pope and king could determine how everyone ought to live, and use all sorts of coercion to force it.  The Enlightenment proposed there are certain unalienable rights, and that government should not be able to coerce in violation of these right.  Thus, people should be able to establish their own life styles.

I view the series of S&H crises as struggles to move western civilization away from the Agricultural Age pattern towards the new Enlightenment pattern.  The shift from rigid authoritarian government to rights, diversity and limits on the power of government is part of this.  As such, the current red / Republican faction in the US can be viewed as fighting a rear guard action, attempting to preserve the remnants of elite privilege and authority.  On the other hand, the blue / Democratic faction is attempting to extend rights, diversity, equality and democracy.

The above pattern should be painted with a very broad brush.  It is a trend that holds over the centuries, but doesn't fit perfectly into every issue in every crisis.

Understanding other cultures is hard and will remain hard.  Allowing others who are different to be different in peace, not stepping on them so long as they don't step on you, shouldn't be hard.  Some, however, believe stepping on inferior folk is their right.

As such, I believe Galen's simplistic stereotype is inadequate.  Blue boomers and blue folk from other generations as well are much more accepting of diversity, are much less apt to force perceived inferiors to abide by their culture.  Again, the Clinton and Trump campaigns illustrate this reasonably well.

I like the blue message but some reds feel it in some ways steps onto their rights. So what is to be done if they feel that way so that they can feel like they can preserve what they enjoy too? What is the solution? Some will not change and if I put myself in their place those changes would sacrifice who I am. Feeling like I am being torn down to the core. It would not make me want to change. In fact I would cling to it even more. Forcing change will not do the trick. But I think the real liberal message should be to accept people as they are rather than changing them to be what you want them to be. The problem though is how this is put into law and how it can infringe on people's rights. Which is why I suggested segregation. But it does create a bubble. Not that people already do not live in one. I feel change is best when it is an open option. Not forced. Education also it a good start too. I tell you guys it is maddening. I am a foreigner but want to try to fix this division. I am an Apollonian by heart. I want law and order and with it peace. Division drives me wild when I cannot fix it. You have no idea how many times I see another form of division over there and I want to fix it, but can't. It seems all hopeless over there. I don't know what to do...

I suspect that the Red view of the world is to endorse severe economic inequality (cheap labor under harsh management), sex solely for procreation, exaggerated nationalism, a culture that exults the Mountain and (white) Deep South over all other regional and 'exotic' alternatives, a brutal system of both law enforcement and 'corrections', and religious faith (ideally Protestant fundamentalism) as a solution for all questions instead of rational inquiry. That Red America has been a hotbed of denial of the 'American' quality of the current President continues even as such approaches the end of any possible relevance. That it could fall for a crony capitalist with personal behavior best described as a travesty of Christian (or for that matter, Jewish, Islamic, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, or Shinto) family values. It is telling that Donald Trump is doing extremely badly for a Republican in Utah; the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), take their family values seriously... and people in Mormon country are wise to heed them even if they do not have to become Mormons.

It would be delightful to see anyone other than Donald Trump win Utah while Republican sweep statewide offices in the Beehive State. I have found little to laugh about in this Presidential election. Regrettably I can imagine some outside the USA laughing at Donald Trump as if he were "Adenoid Hynkel" in Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator -- I will be able to see humor worthy of laughter in American politics only if Donald Trump loses. I hope to get my sense of humor back on Wednesday.

America is becoming so culturally polarized that many Americans would feel more at home in some other part of the English-speaking world (Canada? Ireland? the UK? New Zealand? Australia?) then in certain parts of their own country.

The only good that I can see about a Trump Presidency is that American youth will start taking civics and foreign languages seriously.

Red America is going to learn its lesson only if its chosen politicians win and bring the full harshness of right-wing politics upon them. That means an internal passport as in the Soviet Union or a passbook as in Apartheid-era South Africa (what wonderful models!) to be presented at any time. You would have to keep it in a watertight container attached to yourself even more rigidly than the swimsuit, for being without such a tool of control would make one more naked before the law than nudity itself before shocked eyes. That means a huge reduction in income due to wage cuts and further degradation of buying power due to taxes that get shoved onto the non-rich as the rich are exempted from them in the name of prosperity. That means that ideology determines whether one gets educational opportunities or is denied them.... or that remaining a teacher, preacher, or cop depends upon following the Party Line. In return, white privilege would be back as in the Jim Crow South. That means wars for profits in which the "Basket of Deplorables" that Hillary Clinton calls them find their kids coming back to America in body bags having been cannon fodder in wars for profit.

Red America may need to hit bottom in an economic meltdown or overt tyranny before it realizes what harm its politics and culture do to itself. Yes, that is an analogy to drugs and alcohol... and the druggie must be busted for crimes to support a habit or the alcoholic must find that heavy boozing denies anything precious other than the alcoholic high to the heavy drinker.

Face it -- we liberals in "Blue Country" are more rational and empathetic than the leaders that Red Country has. We want Red Country to have good jobs and good educational opportunities. We want fair pay for fair wages. We want economic security for all.

[playwrite]

(11-06-2016, 01:59 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 08:58 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 02:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 01:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 12:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: From what I have observed this is true. Both seeking to change the system and ultimately affect the people economically and culturally, but different agenda. Unless someone tells me otherwise that is what it looks like to me from what I have listened to.

As I said same shoe different foot it will not fit every time. So what to do to be inclusive of everyone? Respect the differences perhaps and if that cannot be done segregation may have to become a thing to protect certain beliefs not affected by others that interfere with others in order for some peace of mind. It does bother me though that they will end up in a bubble with no real understanding of others different from them however. That is merely a quick fix but does not address the issue of understanding others but also not infringing on rights and ultimately pissing people off.

I see this as going way back.  In the Agricultural Age, the Bible, pope and king could determine how everyone ought to live, and use all sorts of coercion to force it.  The Enlightenment proposed there are certain unalienable rights, and that government should not be able to coerce in violation of these right.  Thus, people should be able to establish their own life styles.

I view the series of S&H crises as struggles to move western civilization away from the Agricultural Age pattern towards the new Enlightenment pattern.  The shift from rigid authoritarian government to rights, diversity and limits on the power of government is part of this.  As such, the current red / Republican faction in the US can be viewed as fighting a rear guard action, attempting to preserve the remnants of elite privilege and authority.  On the other hand, the blue / Democratic faction is attempting to extend rights, diversity, equality and democracy.

The above pattern should be painted with a very broad brush.  It is a trend that holds over the centuries, but doesn't fit perfectly into every issue in every crisis.

Understanding other cultures is hard and will remain hard.  Allowing others who are different to be different in peace, not stepping on them so long as they don't step on you, shouldn't be hard.  Some, however, believe stepping on inferior folk is their right.

As such, I believe Galen's simplistic stereotype is inadequate.  Blue boomers and blue folk from other generations as well are much more accepting of diversity, are much less apt to force perceived inferiors to abide by their culture.  Again, the Clinton and Trump campaigns illustrate this reasonably well.

I like the blue message but some reds feel it in some ways steps onto their rights. So what is to be done if they feel that way so that they can feel like they can preserve what they enjoy too? What is the solution? Some will not change and if I put myself in their place those changes would sacrifice who I am. Feeling like I am being torn down to the core. It would not make me want to change. In fact I would cling to it even more. Forcing change will not do the trick. But I think the real liberal message should be to accept people as they are rather than changing them to be what you want them to be. The problem though is how this is put into law and how it can infringe on people's rights. Which is why I suggested segregation. But it does create a bubble. Not that people already do not live in one. I feel change is best when it is an open option. Not forced. Education also it a good start too. I tell you guys it is maddening. I am a foreigner but want to try to fix this division. I am an Apollonian by heart. I want law and order and with it peace. Division drives me wild when I cannot fix it. You have no idea how many times I see another form of division over there and I want to fix it, but can't. It seems all hopeless over there. I don't know what to do...

I suspect that the Red view of the world is to endorse severe economic inequality (cheap labor under harsh management), sex solely for procreation, exaggerated nationalism, a culture that exults the Mountain and (white) Deep South over all other regional and 'exotic' alternatives, a brutal system of both law enforcement and 'corrections', and religious faith (ideally Protestant fundamentalism) as a solution for all questions instead of rational inquiry. That Red America has been a hotbed of denial of the 'American' quality of the current President continues even as such approaches the end of any possible relevance. That it could fall for a crony capitalist with personal behavior best described as a travesty of Christian (or for that matter, Jewish, Islamic, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, or Shinto) family values. It is telling that Donald Trump is doing extremely badly for a Republican in Utah; the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), take their family values seriously... and people in Mormon country are wise to heed them even if they do not have to become Mormons.

It would be delightful to see anyone other than Donald Trump win Utah while Republican sweep statewide offices in the Beehive State. I have found little to laugh about in this Presidential election. Regrettably I can imagine some outside the USA laughing at Donald Trump as if he were "Adenoid Hynkel" in Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator -- I will be able to see humor worthy of laughter in American politics only if Donald Trump loses. I hope to get my sense of humor back on Wednesday.

America is becoming so culturally polarized that many Americans would feel more at home in some other part of the English-speaking world (Canada? Ireland? the UK? New Zealand? Australia?) then in certain parts of their own country.

The only good that I can see about a Trump Presidency is that American youth will start taking civics and foreign languages seriously.

Red America is going to learn its lesson only if its chosen politicians win and bring the full harshness of right-wing politics upon them. That means an internal passport as in the Soviet Union or a passbook as in Apartheid-era South Africa (what wonderful models!) to be presented at any time. You would have to keep it in a watertight container attached to yourself even more rigidly than the swimsuit, for being without such a tool of control would make one more naked before the law than nudity itself before shocked eyes. That means a huge reduction in income due to wage cuts and further degradation of buying power due to taxes that get shoved onto the non-rich as the rich are exempted from them in the name of prosperity. That means that ideology determines whether one gets educational opportunities or is denied them.... or that remaining a teacher, preacher, or cop depends upon following the Party Line. In return, white privilege would be back as in the Jim Crow South. That means wars for profits in which the "Basket of Deplorables" that Hillary Clinton calls them find their kids coming back to America in body bags having been cannon fodder in wars for profit.

Red America may need to hit bottom in an economic meltdown or overt tyranny before it realizes what harm its politics and culture do to itself. Yes, that is an analogy to drugs and alcohol... and the druggie must be busted for crimes to support a habit or the alcoholic must find that heavy boozing denies  anything precious other than the alcoholic high to the heavy drinker.

Face it -- we liberals in "Blue Country" are more rational and empathetic than the leaders that Red Country has. We want Red Country to have good jobs and good educational opportunities. We want fair pay for fair wages. We want economic security for all.

"Face it -- we liberals in "Blue Country" are more rational and empathetic than the leaders that Red Country has. We want Red Country to have good jobs and good educational opportunities. We want fair pay for fair wages. We want economic security for all."
Rational when it comes to the right of others...to a certain degree. I think the frustration that they cannot change people to be more tolerant has radicalized some and now whenever people are not entirely for their message they start to tear them down, slander them and ultimately turn them away. You cannot force people to support a message if people on your side are acting that way however true it may be for some. It is hurting an otherwise lovely message and policies. As such because people are different and the cause is self destructing some do want to live their own life the way they want it. I may not agree with them but as long as they are not hurting others go for it. But this may mean they live separately from those they do not agree with (if laws head in one direction or another). America would not have to do this if it were one nation, not divided, did not have propaganda sensationalist media separating further, legal bribes, politicians doing the same thing as the media and did not involve idealism that is severely divided between the two main parties which is influenced by religion. This makes people emotionally involved with their side. I say good luck to you all for you are going to need it to sort out all of the corruption that has lead to this division.

But they are hurting others, 10s of millions of others, and they will continue to do so.  The fact that the majority of them are also hurting themselves doesn't make it okay.
Anyone still wasting their time and energy trying to convince them or compromise with them is living in an alternative universe.  They cannot be helped until they are completely and unequivocally defeated. It's no different than 1860.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-06-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote: But they are hurting others, 10s of millions of others, and they will continue to do so.  The fact that the majority of them are also hurting themselves doesn't make it okay.

Anyone still wasting their time and energy trying to convince them or compromise with them is living in an alternative universe.  They cannot be helped until they are completely and unequivocally defeated. It's no different than 1860.

By 1860, the country was pretty much on the path to all out Civil War.  To me, it is not at all clear this is the case now.

There are disconnects of alternate realities.  Abe Lincon said he did not want to see slavery expand would allow it to continue where it exists, but the southern politicians said he was out to destroy slavery.  Hillary is saying she is in favor of closing gun show loopholes, but Trump says she is out to destroy the 2nd Amendment.  These are just blatant examples of the common practice of totally distorting the other side's position and misleading one's base.  As long as this continues, we're going to be divided and dysfunctional.

If Trump wins, trickle down borrow and spend is going to destroy the economy again, resulting in the Democrats taking over in 4 to 8 years to put the nation back on its feet again.  Eventually, will the middle of the country figure it out?

If Hillary wins, I don't know what becomes of the Republicans.  I can see Faux News and Trump TV selling different sets of excuses, playing the blame game to the hilt, and fighting a battle to establish what the primary conservative platform will be.  Did they lose because of tepid backing of Trump by the Republican establishment, because the system is rigged, or because Trump is a flawed candidate?  Other?  All of the above?  What is the vision going forward?  Does the party need to move beyond trickle down borrow and spend?  Should the southern strategy be played subtly, blatantly or abandoned?

Supposing Trump wins and is as bad at running the country as he is at running businesses, are there enough relatively sane Republicans in Congress to join the Democrats to institute a system of damage control?  How many congressional Republicans will put the good of the country ahead of the success of a Trump presidency that will redefine the meaning of what it is to be conservative and Republican?

However the election turns out, at least one month following the election will involve radical transformation of one or both parties.  I'm not at all sure how it will settle out.

As I said in another recent post, I don't see Trump as a transforming Grey Champion sort who will lead our culture into a new age.  Trump is pushing trickle down borrow and spend plus the southern strategy.  That won't transform anything.  That's the unravelling continued.  

Should Hillary get in, I don't know how far she can get if the Republicans have enough people in Congress to filibuster.  I know she is persistent and able to propose solid policy, but she has been so poisoned by decades of vile propaganda that I anticipate as stubborn an obstruction of the first female president as we had with the first minority president.  The deplorable aspect of the Republican base won't reelect anyone who doesn't go all out obstructionist, and the deplorable wing seems to control the primaries.

The cleanest path to a true transformation might be a damage control alliance of most congressional Democrats and any hypothetical Republicans that care more for their country than they care for Trump.  Whomever makes that alliance work might write the transforming policies and be nominated for president and Grey Champion.

Or if there are not enough sane Republicans, the Democrats have been taught over the last eight years how to filibuster and frustrate a president.  If the Republicans can filibuster and frustrate Hillary, could and would the Democrats filibuster and frustrate The Donald?

Or none of the above.  I don't pretend to be dead sure of what comes next.  I just don't see 1860 as the only possible template.

[JonLaw]

(11-06-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 01:59 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 08:58 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 02:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 01:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I see this as going way back.  In the Agricultural Age, the Bible, pope and king could determine how everyone ought to live, and use all sorts of coercion to force it.  The Enlightenment proposed there are certain unalienable rights, and that government should not be able to coerce in violation of these right.  Thus, people should be able to establish their own life styles.

I view the series of S&H crises as struggles to move western civilization away from the Agricultural Age pattern towards the new Enlightenment pattern.  The shift from rigid authoritarian government to rights, diversity and limits on the power of government is part of this.  As such, the current red / Republican faction in the US can be viewed as fighting a rear guard action, attempting to preserve the remnants of elite privilege and authority.  On the other hand, the blue / Democratic faction is attempting to extend rights, diversity, equality and democracy.

The above pattern should be painted with a very broad brush.  It is a trend that holds over the centuries, but doesn't fit perfectly into every issue in every crisis.

Understanding other cultures is hard and will remain hard.  Allowing others who are different to be different in peace, not stepping on them so long as they don't step on you, shouldn't be hard.  Some, however, believe stepping on inferior folk is their right.

As such, I believe Galen's simplistic stereotype is inadequate.  Blue boomers and blue folk from other generations as well are much more accepting of diversity, are much less apt to force perceived inferiors to abide by their culture.  Again, the Clinton and Trump campaigns illustrate this reasonably well.

I like the blue message but some reds feel it in some ways steps onto their rights. So what is to be done if they feel that way so that they can feel like they can preserve what they enjoy too? What is the solution? Some will not change and if I put myself in their place those changes would sacrifice who I am. Feeling like I am being torn down to the core. It would not make me want to change. In fact I would cling to it even more. Forcing change will not do the trick. But I think the real liberal message should be to accept people as they are rather than changing them to be what you want them to be. The problem though is how this is put into law and how it can infringe on people's rights. Which is why I suggested segregation. But it does create a bubble. Not that people already do not live in one. I feel change is best when it is an open option. Not forced. Education also it a good start too. I tell you guys it is maddening. I am a foreigner but want to try to fix this division. I am an Apollonian by heart. I want law and order and with it peace. Division drives me wild when I cannot fix it. You have no idea how many times I see another form of division over there and I want to fix it, but can't. It seems all hopeless over there. I don't know what to do...

I suspect that the Red view of the world is to endorse severe economic inequality (cheap labor under harsh management), sex solely for procreation, exaggerated nationalism, a culture that exults the Mountain and (white) Deep South over all other regional and 'exotic' alternatives, a brutal system of both law enforcement and 'corrections', and religious faith (ideally Protestant fundamentalism) as a solution for all questions instead of rational inquiry. That Red America has been a hotbed of denial of the 'American' quality of the current President continues even as such approaches the end of any possible relevance. That it could fall for a crony capitalist with personal behavior best described as a travesty of Christian (or for that matter, Jewish, Islamic, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, or Shinto) family values. It is telling that Donald Trump is doing extremely badly for a Republican in Utah; the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), take their family values seriously... and people in Mormon country are wise to heed them even if they do not have to become Mormons.

It would be delightful to see anyone other than Donald Trump win Utah while Republican sweep statewide offices in the Beehive State. I have found little to laugh about in this Presidential election. Regrettably I can imagine some outside the USA laughing at Donald Trump as if he were "Adenoid Hynkel" in Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator -- I will be able to see humor worthy of laughter in American politics only if Donald Trump loses. I hope to get my sense of humor back on Wednesday.

America is becoming so culturally polarized that many Americans would feel more at home in some other part of the English-speaking world (Canada? Ireland? the UK? New Zealand? Australia?) then in certain parts of their own country.

The only good that I can see about a Trump Presidency is that American youth will start taking civics and foreign languages seriously.

Red America is going to learn its lesson only if its chosen politicians win and bring the full harshness of right-wing politics upon them. That means an internal passport as in the Soviet Union or a passbook as in Apartheid-era South Africa (what wonderful models!) to be presented at any time. You would have to keep it in a watertight container attached to yourself even more rigidly than the swimsuit, for being without such a tool of control would make one more naked before the law than nudity itself before shocked eyes. That means a huge reduction in income due to wage cuts and further degradation of buying power due to taxes that get shoved onto the non-rich as the rich are exempted from them in the name of prosperity. That means that ideology determines whether one gets educational opportunities or is denied them.... or that remaining a teacher, preacher, or cop depends upon following the Party Line. In return, white privilege would be back as in the Jim Crow South. That means wars for profits in which the "Basket of Deplorables" that Hillary Clinton calls them find their kids coming back to America in body bags having been cannon fodder in wars for profit.

Red America may need to hit bottom in an economic meltdown or overt tyranny before it realizes what harm its politics and culture do to itself. Yes, that is an analogy to drugs and alcohol... and the druggie must be busted for crimes to support a habit or the alcoholic must find that heavy boozing denies  anything precious other than the alcoholic high to the heavy drinker.

Face it -- we liberals in "Blue Country" are more rational and empathetic than the leaders that Red Country has. We want Red Country to have good jobs and good educational opportunities. We want fair pay for fair wages. We want economic security for all.

"Face it -- we liberals in "Blue Country" are more rational and empathetic than the leaders that Red Country has. We want Red Country to have good jobs and good educational opportunities. We want fair pay for fair wages. We want economic security for all."
Rational when it comes to the right of others...to a certain degree. I think the frustration that they cannot change people to be more tolerant has radicalized some and now whenever people are not entirely for their message they start to tear them down, slander them and ultimately turn them away. You cannot force people to support a message if people on your side are acting that way however true it may be for some. It is hurting an otherwise lovely message and policies. As such because people are different and the cause is self destructing some do want to live their own life the way they want it. I may not agree with them but as long as they are not hurting others go for it. But this may mean they live separately from those they do not agree with (if laws head in one direction or another). America would not have to do this if it were one nation, not divided, did not have propaganda sensationalist media separating further, legal bribes, politicians doing the same thing as the media and did not involve idealism that is severely divided between the two main parties which is influenced by religion. This makes people emotionally involved with their side. I say good luck to you all for you are going to need it to sort out all of the corruption that has lead to this division.

But they are hurting others, 10s of millions of others, and they will continue to do so.  The fact that the majority of them are also hurting themselves doesn't make it okay.
Anyone still wasting their time and energy trying to convince them or compromise with them is living in an alternative universe.  They cannot be helped until they are completely and unequivocally defeated. It's no different than 1860.

I'm pretty sure that the rural areas are already being economically defeated by the urban areas.

Their choice seems to be that they can get hurt by "Team Blue," who also essentially makes fun of them, or they can get hurt by "Team Red," who at least pretends to not make fun of them.

Now all the elites are apparently joining the Democratic party, which will leave the Republican party as the populist party.

[gabrielle]

[pbrower2a]

(11-06-2016, 10:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote: But they are hurting others, 10s of millions of others, and they will continue to do so.  The fact that the majority of them are also hurting themselves doesn't make it okay.

Anyone still wasting their time and energy trying to convince them or compromise with them is living in an alternative universe.  They cannot be helped until they are completely and unequivocally defeated. It's no different than 1860.

By 1860, the country was pretty much on the path to all out Civil War.  To me, it is not at all clear this is the case now.

There are disconnects of alternate realities.  Abe Lincoln said he did not want to see slavery expand would allow it to continue where it exists, but the southern politicians said he was out to destroy slavery.  Hillary is saying she is in favor of closing gun show loopholes, but Trump says she is out to destroy the 2nd Amendment.  These are just blatant examples of the common practice of totally distorting the other side's position and misleading one's base.  As long as this continues, we're going to be divided and dysfunctional.

That is how extremist or totalitarian dysfunction works: whoever is not 100% with the leadership of a cause is the Enemy -- either an obstruction to be removed or destroyed, or a backslider who has betrayed the Cause.  The pro-slavery side did not see slavery as a necessary evil but instead as a great virtue, a defining characteristic of civilization at its best.

Never mind that the British Empire had recently abolished slavery by buying freedom for slaves, and without having to begin any wars (aside from some colonial adventures to abolish the slave trade where it still existed. I am tempted to believe that that was how Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery in America. People formerly bonded in servitude would be freed in exchange for government bonds.

Quote:If Trump wins, trickle down borrow and spend is going to destroy the economy again, resulting in the Democrats taking over in 4 to 8 years to put the nation back on its feet again.  Eventually, will the middle of the country figure it out?

We would likely get a replay of the Great Depression -- and not only the first year and a half as from the autumn of 2007 to the spring of 2009, but instead of some equivalent of the autumn of 1929 to the autumn of 1932.  Republicans who would have the Senate majority through the end of 2018 if Donald Trump is elected President would have little chance of losing it because there would be so few Republican Senate seats up for Democratic wins in 2018. The House of Corporate Lobbies -- excuse me, House of Representatives -- is so gerrymandered that Democrats would have no chance of winning it except in a calamity. In 2020 even Southern white people would recognize that they have been cheated. Then America would turn to some leaders wise enough to turn things around. 'More of the same' would be out of the question because it comes with mass hunger.

Another alternative is that Donald Trump would so mishandle his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief that the Armed Forces would be obliged to choose between overthrowing him and becoming complicit in war crimes in a war that America has no chance of winning.

"I know more about ISIS than the generals -- believe me!"

NO! I certainly don't believe him. I am going to guess that Barack Obama says nothing of the sort, recognizing that anything that he knows about ISIS is what the military and the intelligence services have told him.

 

Quote:If Hillary wins, I don't know what becomes of the Republicans.  I can see Faux News and Trump TV selling different sets of excuses, playing the blame game to the hilt, and fighting a battle to establish what the primary conservative platform will be.  Did they lose because of tepid backing of Trump by the Republican establishment, because the system is rigged, or because Trump is a flawed candidate?  Other?  All of the above?  What is the vision going forward?  Does the party need to move beyond trickle down borrow and spend?  Should the southern strategy be played subtly, blatantly or abandoned?

At this point... they can turn their rhetorical knives against each other without interference from Hillary Clinton or other Democratic leaders until or unless the knives become more figurative, or at least symbolic of lethal violence, and deadly, in which case leading Democrats will turn to law enforcement to keep the rest of us safe. Maybe Republicans might resort to the type of violence that one now associates with rival gangs of drug traffickers... but that would be the end of any credibility that they have. Without credibility they will have no chance of participating in the questions of public policy.

Quote:Supposing Trump wins and is as bad at running the country as he is at running businesses, are there enough relatively sane Republicans in Congress to join the Democrats to institute a system of damage control?  How many congressional Republicans will put the good of the country ahead of the success of a Trump presidency that will redefine the meaning of what it is to be conservative and Republican?

I have my idea of where the conservative wing can emerge within the Democratic Party -- well-educated people who have a stake in ordinary decency but who might have no use for the economics of the Far Left. I can also imagine the rump of the Republican Party that rejects the stilettos-out invective of recent leaders, to find the Democratic Party a suitable place for people who take Christian principles seriously for lack of an alternative.

An Era of Good Feeling in a Crisis Era? It would create a bloated Big Tent unwieldy in electoral politics, electoral politics decided in primary elections and not in the general election.

In the 1930s the Republican Party became a default for dissident Democrats and for people who could not make their way through the machine politics of the existing Democratic party.

Quote:However the election turns out, at least one month following the election will involve radical transformation of one or both parties.  I'm not at all sure how it will settle out.

As I said in another recent post, I don't see Trump as a transforming Grey Champion sort who will lead our culture into a new age.  Trump is pushing trickle down borrow and spend plus the southern strategy.  That won't transform anything.  That's the unravelling continued.  

A Clinton win shoves Donald Trump into political irrelevance. Maybe Republicans learn something from defeat... something other than 'be more ruthless', 'be more careful in the use of deceitful rhetoric', and 'abandon all scruples'. If they don't, then they could face a political calamity even worse in 2020.

Quote:Should Hillary get in, I don't know how far she can get if the Republicans have enough people in Congress to filibuster.  I know she is persistent and able to propose solid policy, but she has been so poisoned by decades of vile propaganda that I anticipate as stubborn an obstruction of the first female president as we had with the first minority president.  The deplorable aspect of the Republican base won't reelect anyone who doesn't go all out obstructionist, and the deplorable wing seems to control the primaries.

I expect a Clinton Presidency with Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress to be a near-replay of the first two years of the Obama Administration.  I expect a Clinton Presidency with Democrats in control of the Senate but not the House to be a replay of the second four years of the Obama Presidency to the extent that such lasts. A Clinton Presidency with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress will be a near-replay of the last two years of the Obama Presidency.

The 'deplorable' wing of the Republican party may control the Republican primaries, but it will not control the general election unless Donald Trump as President establishes a dominant-Party system with the aid of both Houses of Congress  -- in which case, we would have the governmental system similar to that of the People's Republic of China except with iconic images of our Founding Fathers gutted of any democratic character instead of Marxist figures stripped of Marxist character.

Given a choice between having a government in which iconic images of Washington, Jefferson, Adams (both), Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, and Lincoln are gutted of their democratic qualities and one in which the iconic images of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are gutted of their Marxist character... I would prefer the latter.

Quote:The cleanest path to a true transformation might be a damage control alliance of most congressional Democrats and any hypothetical Republicans that care more for their country than they care for Trump.  Whomever makes that alliance work might write the transforming policies and be nominated for president and Grey Champion.

...and who would those dissident Republicans be?

Quote:Or if there are not enough sane Republicans, the Democrats have been taught over the last eight years how to filibuster and frustrate a president.  If the Republicans can filibuster and frustrate Hillary, could and would the Democrats filibuster and frustrate The Donald?

[/quote]


Democrats would have every reason to frustrate The Donald when he evade the Constitutional constraints against despotic or dictatorial government.  If Democrats must filibuster to prevent some federal legislation that makes a mockery of the right to vote (as in allowing employers to control their employees' votes) or outlaws labor unions, nominates fanatics or cronies in the Supreme Court, or to prevent some unjustifiable war by someone who knows more about (insert the implicit Menace of the Hour) then the generals and admirals... then so be it. The filibuster has a sordid history in America, but it remains in existence for good reason.

Much will be decided on Tuesday should Hillary Clinton win the Presidency because she shows no signs of any break with the overall policy of the Obama Administration. Should Donald Trump be elected with stooge majorities in both Houses of Congress, then I will change my signature to a movie quote from All About Eve:

"Fasten your seatbelts. We're in for a bumpy ride."

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

(11-06-2016, 11:02 PM)JonLaw Wrote: Their choice seems to be that they can get hurt by "Team Blue," who also essentially makes fun of them, or they can get hurt by "Team Red," who at least pretends to not make fun of them.

Now all the elites are apparently joining the Democratic party, which will leave the Republican party as the populist party.

It's not happening. If team red doesn't want to be made fun of, they should stop being so stupid and harmful to themselves by voting for the ones who don't care a fig about them or the country.

The Republican Party is not and can never be the populist party. Populism is not what's popular. It's what helps the people. It's up to rural folks to remember which party helps them, and it's not the one they are voting for.

[Eric the Green]

(11-05-2016, 11:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You are having a nice little conversation with Galen, but don't assume he's any more representative of all Americans than Eric.  In my youth I flirted with several variations of New Age and spiritualist practice, from Taoism to Born Again Christian, to Wiccan.  There was a good deal of variety and growth, at least if you accept that the goals of spiritualism can lead to growth.  If your values aren't compatible with spiritualist goals and methods, as Galen's aren't, it is easy to reject spiritualism as 'pretty empty'.  Then again, if one is deeply partisan in any set of values, others pursuing any sort of conflicting values would be perceived of as 'pretty empty' or worse...  Far worse.  Just ask Eric if living one's life without using spiritualist means to seek enlightenment and wisdom would be 'pretty empty'.

Me, I chose science over spiritualism, but I can quite understand others making other choices.

Living one's life without spirituality of some kind (what means is beside the point) I would call "pretty empty." I also value science and do not consider spiritualism and science to be mutually exclusive. So that's a different choice than Bob makes, apparently.

Quote:I would note many Red Boomer's pursuit of fundamentalist religion includes using the government to harass and oppress those with conflicting values.  This is in strong conflict much of the Blue Boomer's religious and spiritual diversity.  What you see with Hillary welcoming minorities while Trump flirts with racism is part of the red/blue divide.  It exists in religious perspectives as much as it does in race and gender.  The various flavors of blue tinted spiritualists will be happily doing their own thing, while the red tinted fundamentalists will be trying to use the law to force their religious beliefs on everybody.

And again, anyone who generalizes about all Boomers is going to miss the point.  They don't get it.  The Red Boomers and Blue Boomers are very much different, especially in how they accept diversity.  This is also hardly unique to the Boomers, you can see it in the other generations as well.  One would like to think that the notion that America is a white christian nation is unique to the Ku Klux Klan, but it isn't.  It's a common part of the red perspective.  It's the difference between "If I'm right, and it is beyond question that I'm right, then everyone who disagrees is wrong" and "Let's all do our own thing."  There is a theme, visible in Trump's message, that everyone has their place, and the place of the white christian males is on top.  This is an old element of America, but not part of the values of everyone in America.

Quite right.

Quote:Also, stereotyping any group as being just like Eric would stand as example of vile stereotyping.  This isn't to say Eric is necessarily vile, but to say that bunches of people are just like him is vile stereotyping.  Eric is quite unique.  Galen might be deep enough into partisan stereotype thinking that he can't perceive a difference between various flavors of spiritualism and various practitioners of spiritualism.  "They all look alike to me."  No.  Spiritualists are unique and diverse too.  Real people.  They ought to be respected like real people.  (I know.  In Eric's case, this might require more spiritual enlightenment than most people possess...)

I would disagree with Bob that it takes more enlightenment to respect me than it takes to respect other folks. But that's just me.