Presidential election, 2016

[Copperfield]

(11-23-2016, 06:02 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 10:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting how the blue areas are the ones who can't  get their counts in on time.  Still marking ballots, no doubt.

Now this is just vile slander of the basest kind.

Now Odin you have to admit, California does appear to have a significant problem with counting check marks on paper. Honestly at this point it should be the story of the election: Why does California struggle so much with what comes after 3.... 4.....?

And after we all kind of mocked the stupidity/confusion of Florida 16 years ago no less. I guess Kindergarten isn't what it used to be.

[Eric the Green]

(11-25-2016, 12:34 AM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 06:02 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 10:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting how the blue areas are the ones who can't  get their counts in on time.  Still marking ballots, no doubt.

Now this is just vile slander of the basest kind.

Now Odin you have to admit, California does appear to have a significant problem with counting check marks on paper. Honestly at this point it should be the story of the election: Why does California struggle so much with what comes after 3.... 4.....?

And after we all kind of mocked the stupidity/confusion of Florida 16 years ago no less. I guess Kindergarten isn't what it used to be.

There is no comparison between CA this year and FL in 2000. Florida counted votes based on ambiguous card punches, and included misleading butterfly ballots. The whole story was amazing, from deliberately forged ballots to falsely-removed voters from rolls to recounts stopped before they were finished in Palm Beach County by the same Sec. Harris who removed voters from the rolls, to the statewide recount stopped by a partisan Supreme Court. The authorities gave us 8 years of war and a great recession. It is not a matter of mocking, but of horror at what the Republican powers-that-be have done to us, and how they have divided us. And the vote-rigging continues, not in CA, but in the red states that deny voting rights.

California is counting just fine. Mail-in ballots are dropped off at polling places (I know, I have to count them at my precinct, and it's almost half the vote), there are provisional ballots, and late mail-ins too. And they all have to be verified, each one at a time. Counting the lines drawn on the paper ballots is a cinch; a machine does it. It is a matter of being accurate, and making sure everyone who want to, gets to vote. It's a difference between a Democratic-run state in 2016 that cares, and a Republican-run state in 2000 that didn't give a flying fuck.

Quite that simple. Well, it seems to be that simple, a whole lot of the time. It's just a matter of whether you prefer facts, or utopian beliefs that serve the wealthy.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-24-2016, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The outlawry of totalitarian movements hardly compromises democracy. Such Parties effectively become crime syndicates beyond any possibility of reform into something benign.  I speak of among others the Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Ba'ath Party of Iraq, Parti Populaire Francais,  Arrow Cross, Iron Guard, Imperial Rule Assistance League, and the Communist Party of Romania. If it is acceptable to outlaw criminal enterprises that exist largely for human trafficking, distribution of dangerous drugs, and financial scams, then why is it not acceptable to outlaw organizations that existed at one time to promote military aggression, slavery, or genocide?

Funny, you don't see/recognize the obvious signs, obvious language, obvious beliefs, the obvious type of people who are more likely to go along and  activities associated with totalitarian minded people, totalitarian group and totalitarian like movements and actions that is obviously more prevalent TODAY on the progressive left than the American right. If the crisis boils down to the American libertarian right vs the totalitarian left in a civil war as you are seeing a prelude and a glimpse of today right here, what you saw happening between people at the Trump rallies and saw happening to regular regular folks in the streets before and after the rallies and so on. Liberals ain't wise people. Liberals ain't very sharp people. Liberals ain't very sensible/practical people. Liberals ain't very instinctual people. Liberals ain't very American minded and pretty clueless when it comes to American nature.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-24-2016, 03:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, we borrowed and spent since the beginning. We borrowed and spent to acquire the bulk of the land that we call home. Trickle down economics has been in place forever. The kings and queens used trickle down. The emperors and the communist regimes of Europe used trickle down. The Democratic party of today uses the big government version of trickle down.

Yes, and there have been economic collapses happening forever as a result.

The best example might be Louis XIV of France, the Sun King, a king of borrow and spend trickle down. Warned that his debts and other economic policies would ruin France, he had what seemed to him to be an entirely adequate response. "It will last my time. After me, the deluge." Well the deluge came in the form of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.

The difference between Louis XIV and Bush 43 is that Louis knew what the consequences of his actions would be, while Bush at least pretended ignorance, presenting borrow and spend trickle down as an approach to a healthy economy. While economic theory has advanced considerably since the days of the kings, they knew full well what ruinous debt was, and they knew full well the consequences.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-25-2016, 06:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 12:34 AM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 06:02 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 10:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting how the blue areas are the ones who can't  get their counts in on time.  Still marking ballots, no doubt.

Now this is just vile slander of the basest kind.

Now Odin you have to admit, California does appear to have a significant problem with counting check marks on paper. Honestly at this point it should be the story of the election: Why does California struggle so much with what comes after 3.... 4.....?

And after we all kind of mocked the stupidity/confusion of Florida 16 years ago no less. I guess Kindergarten isn't what it used to be.

There is no comparison between CA this year and FL in 2000. Florida counted votes based on ambiguous card punches, and included misleading butterfly ballots. The whole story was amazing, from deliberately forged ballots to falsely-removed voters from rolls to recounts stopped before they were finished in Palm Beach County by the same Sec. Harris who removed voters from the rolls, to the statewide recount stopped by a partisan Supreme Court. The authorities gave us 8 years of war and a great recession. It is not a matter of mocking, but of horror at what the Republican powers-that-be have done to us, and how they have divided us. And the vote-rigging continues, not in CA, but in the red states that deny voting rights.

California is counting just fine. Mail-in ballots are dropped off at polling places (I know, I have to count them at my precinct, and it's almost half the vote), there are provisional ballots, and late mail-ins too. And they all have to be verified, each one at a time. Counting the lines drawn on the paper ballots is a cinch; a machine does it. It is a matter of being accurate, and making sure everyone who want to, gets to vote. It's a difference between a Democratic-run state in 2016 that cares, and a Republican-run state in 2000 that didn't give a flying fuck.

Quite that simple. Well, it seems to be that simple, a whole lot of the time. It's just a matter of whether you prefer facts, or utopian beliefs that serve the wealthy.

I watched as partisan blue courts used their legal power to undermine an American value (The American Rule Law as its supposed to be applied to all) and changing the laws to suit their interests. The Democrats turned me off completely and lost whatever support they may have received from me in the future from me forever. I'm not a fan of third world politics or third world politics or third world economic orders or political orders or social orders or the common beliefs associated with them or the folks who come from them who are clueless and unprepared to live here because that's all that they know and believe exists. As I've said, the liberal blue cloak is coming off and revealing how nasty liberals are at the core. Dude, you'd better figure out a way to separate California (yourself) from America. The price is either twenty trillion or the price associated with a nasty war to take it away from America. Your choice, I'm open to either option.

[pbrower2a]

(11-25-2016, 07:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The outlawry of totalitarian movements hardly compromises democracy. Such Parties effectively become crime syndicates beyond any possibility of reform into something benign.  I speak of among others the Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Ba'ath Party of Iraq, Parti Populaire Francais,  Arrow Cross, Iron Guard, Imperial Rule Assistance League, and the Communist Party of Romania. If it is acceptable to outlaw criminal enterprises that exist largely for human trafficking, distribution of dangerous drugs, and financial scams, then why is it not acceptable to outlaw organizations that existed at one time to promote military aggression, slavery, or genocide?

Funny, you don't see/recognize the obvious signs, obvious language, obvious beliefs, the obvious type of people who are more likely to go along and  activities associated with totalitarian minded people, totalitarian group and totalitarian like movements and actions that is obviously more prevalent TODAY on the progressive left than the American right. If the crisis boils down to the American libertarian right vs the totalitarian left in a civil war as you are seeing a prelude and a glimpse of today right here, what you saw happening between people at the Trump rallies and saw happening to regular regular folks in the streets before and after the rallies and so on. Liberals ain't wise people. Liberals ain't very sharp people. Liberals ain't very sensible/practical people. Liberals ain't very instinctual people. Liberals ain't very American minded and pretty clueless when it comes to American nature.

One necessary element of totalitarianism is the criminalization of dissent. If you wish to speak of a 'libertarian' Right, then you do not speak of crony-capitalist, big government Donald Trump, who has shown plenty of desire to squelch dissent with his policies. You can trust that if President Trump thrusts an unpopular, extremist agenda contrary to the values of most Americans ... he has lost liberals permanently, but such moderate conservatives as there are could easily turn against him... then we can expect protests and demonstrations as commonplace and vociferous as those of the Tea Party against Obama.

We liberals aren't wise? We are probably more learned in history, philosophy, political science, and psychology. We are less likely to fall for demagogues. We are better able to use language and logic than you are. We know enough to address issues instead of personalities (unless the personalities become corrupt or despotic, in which case the personalities become the issues).

The Libertarian Right is practically impotent in America. It's not scary, either. The Totalitarian Left is small. Sure, there are devotees of Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and the Kims, and other splinter groups, but even the Communist Party of the USA seems to be going with liberals. The Totalitarian Right? Donald Trump has gone from seeming a right-ting crank to a full-blown fascist. We liberals are rather libertarian on culture and sex -- and we are at a minimum of 45% of the electorate. It wouldn't take much more of a coalition for us to win the Presidency in 2020. Trump looks like the sort who squeezes harder only to lose sympathy and become scary.

So we aren't very instinctive. We prefer reasoning, and if our reasoning doesn't go in your direction, then tough luck. So we aren't very national-minded? We prefer that our nations operate humanely. I have more in common in my politics with an Indonesian liberal than with an American fascist. Liberalism is international because its principles are the same everywhere. But should I ever be in the situation between standing for a liberal enemy of a fascist America and aiding a criminal fascist regime in America... the moral choice will be obvious.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-25-2016, 08:05 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 03:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, we borrowed and spent since the beginning. We borrowed and spent to acquire the bulk of the land that we call home. Trickle down economics has been in place forever. The kings and queens used trickle down. The emperors and the communist regimes of Europe used trickle down. The Democratic party of today uses the big government version of trickle down.

Yes, and there have been economic collapses happening forever as a result.

The best example might be Louis XIV of France, the Sun King, a king of borrow and spend trickle down.  Warned that his debts and other economic policies would ruin France, he had what seemed to him to be an entirely adequate response.  "It will last my time.  After me, the deluge."  Well the deluge came in the form of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.

The difference between Louis XIV and Bush 43 is that Louis knew what the consequences of his actions would be, while Bush at least pretended ignorance, presenting borrow and spend trickle down as an approach to a healthy economy.  While economic theory has advanced considerably since the days of the kings, they knew full well what ruinous debt was, and they knew full well the consequences.

The dude comes across as being highly hypocritical, very self centered and very arrogant. You'd think he had never witnessed a standing king being over thrown by peasants and then tried and convicted in public court of law and sentenced to death and then publicly executed. I don't think he fully grasped the consequences as they related to him and his royal legacy. How does someone respond to a king warning that his debts and economic policies were going to ruin the country? It sounds like he was disconnected and a bit crazy to me.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-26-2016, 03:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The dude comes across as being highly hypocritical, very self centered and very arrogant. You'd think he had never witnessed a standing king being over thrown by peasants and then tried and convicted in public court of law and sentenced to death and then publicly executed. I don't think he fully grasped the consequences as they related to him and his royal legacy. How does someone respond to a king warning that his debts and economic policies were going to ruin the country? It sounds like he was disconnected and a bit crazy to me.

Louise XIV was a piece of work for sure. As I understand it, he cared for his time in office and cared not a whit for his legacy. He fought a lot of wars and ran an opulent court with an extravagance few courts could match, and built up a debt that took it all down after he was safely dead. Still, his legacy is positive in some ways. He built a reputation with his wars and his opulence that has stuck in spite of the disasters that followed. Some still remember him as one of the great kings of old Europe.

You can get away with debt in moderation. The tricky part is distinguishing between debt in moderation and ruinous debt. Using debt to kick a stale economy alive is a modern common practice. There is a disagreement on how the debt should be used, whether the stimulus should go to Main Street or Easy Street, but stimulus spending is practiced by both parties.

Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous. Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43. The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-25-2016, 09:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 07:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The outlawry of totalitarian movements hardly compromises democracy. Such Parties effectively become crime syndicates beyond any possibility of reform into something benign.  I speak of among others the Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Ba'ath Party of Iraq, Parti Populaire Francais,  Arrow Cross, Iron Guard, Imperial Rule Assistance League, and the Communist Party of Romania. If it is acceptable to outlaw criminal enterprises that exist largely for human trafficking, distribution of dangerous drugs, and financial scams, then why is it not acceptable to outlaw organizations that existed at one time to promote military aggression, slavery, or genocide?

Funny, you don't see/recognize the obvious signs, obvious language, obvious beliefs, the obvious type of people who are more likely to go along and  activities associated with totalitarian minded people, totalitarian group and totalitarian like movements and actions that is obviously more prevalent TODAY on the progressive left than the American right. If the crisis boils down to the American libertarian right vs the totalitarian left in a civil war as you are seeing a prelude and a glimpse of today right here, what you saw happening between people at the Trump rallies and saw happening to regular regular folks in the streets before and after the rallies and so on. Liberals ain't wise people. Liberals ain't very sharp people. Liberals ain't very sensible/practical people. Liberals ain't very instinctual people. Liberals ain't very American minded and pretty clueless when it comes to American nature.

One necessary element of totalitarianism is the criminalization of dissent. If you wish to speak of a 'libertarian' Right, then you do not speak of crony-capitalist, big government Donald Trump, who has shown plenty of desire to squelch dissent with his policies. You can trust that if President Trump thrusts an unpopular, extremist agenda contrary to the values of most Americans ... he has lost liberals permanently, but such moderate conservatives as there are could easily turn against him... then we can expect protests and demonstrations as commonplace and vociferous as those of the Tea Party against Obama.

We liberals aren't wise? We are probably more learned in history, philosophy, political science, and psychology. We are less likely to fall for demagogues. We are better able to use language and logic than you are. We know enough to address issues instead of personalities (unless the personalities become corrupt or despotic, in which case the personalities become the issues).

The Libertarian Right is practically impotent in America. It's not scary, either. The Totalitarian Left is small. Sure, there are devotees of Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and the Kims, and other splinter groups, but even the Communist Party of the USA seems to be going with liberals. The Totalitarian Right? Donald Trump has gone from seeming a right-ting crank to a full-blown fascist. We liberals are rather libertarian on culture and sex -- and we are at a minimum of 45% of the electorate. It wouldn't take much more of a coalition for us to win the Presidency in 2020. Trump looks like the sort who squeezes harder only to lose sympathy and become scary.

So we aren't very instinctive. We prefer reasoning, and if our reasoning doesn't go in your direction, then tough luck. So we aren't very national-minded? We prefer that our nations operate humanely. I have more in common in my politics with an Indonesian liberal than with an American fascist.  Liberalism is international because its principles are the same everywhere.  But should I ever be in the situation between standing for a liberal enemy of a fascist America and aiding a criminal fascist regime in America... the moral choice will be obvious.

You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.

I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.

I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.

Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.

[Odin]

(11-25-2016, 07:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Funny, you don't see/recognize the obvious signs, obvious language, obvious beliefs, the obvious type of people who are more likely to go along and  activities associated with totalitarian minded people, totalitarian group and totalitarian like movements and actions that is obviously more prevalent TODAY on the progressive left than the American right. If the crisis boils down to the American libertarian right vs the totalitarian left in a civil war as you are seeing a prelude and a glimpse of today right here, what you saw happening between people at the Trump rallies and saw happening to regular regular folks in the streets before and after the rallies and so on. Liberals ain't wise people. Liberals ain't very sharp people. Liberals ain't very sensible/practical people. Liberals ain't very instinctual people. Liberals ain't very American minded and pretty clueless when it comes to American nature.

This, folks, is a "classic" example of projection! Karl Rove would be proud!

[Odin]

(11-25-2016, 08:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I watched as partisan blue courts used their legal power to undermine an American value (The American Rule Law as its supposed to be applied to all) and changing the laws to suit their interests. The Democrats turned me off completely and lost whatever support they may have received from me in the future from me forever. I'm not a fan of third world politics or third world politics or third world economic orders or political orders or social orders or the common beliefs associated with them or the folks who come from them who are clueless and unprepared to live here because that's all that they know and believe exists. As I've said, the liberal blue cloak is coming off and revealing how nasty liberals are at the core. Dude, you'd better figure out a way to separate California (yourself) from America. The price is either twenty trillion or the price associated with a nasty war to take it away from America. Your choice, I'm open to either option.

More projection!

[Odin]

(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.

Even MORE projection! YOU are the one who voted for the demagogue promising the moon and demonizing Latinos and Muslims as scapegoats.

[pbrower2a]

(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 09:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 07:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The outlawry of totalitarian movements hardly compromises democracy. Such Parties effectively become crime syndicates beyond any possibility of reform into something benign.  I speak of among others the Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Ba'ath Party of Iraq, Parti Populaire Francais,  Arrow Cross, Iron Guard, Imperial Rule Assistance League, and the Communist Party of Romania. If it is acceptable to outlaw criminal enterprises that exist largely for human trafficking, distribution of dangerous drugs, and financial scams, then why is it not acceptable to outlaw organizations that existed at one time to promote military aggression, slavery, or genocide?

Funny, you don't see/recognize the obvious signs, obvious language, obvious beliefs, the obvious type of people who are more likely to go along and  activities associated with totalitarian minded people, totalitarian group and totalitarian like movements and actions that is obviously more prevalent TODAY on the progressive left than the American right. If the crisis boils down to the American libertarian right vs the totalitarian left in a civil war as you are seeing a prelude and a glimpse of today right here, what you saw happening between people at the Trump rallies and saw happening to regular regular folks in the streets before and after the rallies and so on. Liberals ain't wise people. Liberals ain't very sharp people. Liberals ain't very sensible/practical people. Liberals ain't very instinctual people. Liberals ain't very American minded and pretty clueless when it comes to American nature.

One necessary element of totalitarianism is the criminalization of dissent. If you wish to speak of a 'libertarian' Right, then you do not speak of crony-capitalist, big government Donald Trump, who has shown plenty of desire to squelch dissent with his policies. You can trust that if President Trump thrusts an unpopular, extremist agenda contrary to the values of most Americans ... he has lost liberals permanently, but such moderate conservatives as there are could easily turn against him... then we can expect protests and demonstrations as commonplace and vociferous as those of the Tea Party against Obama.

We liberals aren't wise? We are probably more learned in history, philosophy, political science, and psychology. We are less likely to fall for demagogues. We are better able to use language and logic than you are. We know enough to address issues instead of personalities (unless the personalities become corrupt or despotic, in which case the personalities become the issues).

The Libertarian Right is practically impotent in America. It's not scary, either. The Totalitarian Left is small. Sure, there are devotees of Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and the Kims, and other splinter groups, but even the Communist Party of the USA seems to be going with liberals. The Totalitarian Right? Donald Trump has gone from seeming a right-ting crank to a full-blown fascist. We liberals are rather libertarian on culture and sex -- and we are at a minimum of 45% of the electorate. It wouldn't take much more of a coalition for us to win the Presidency in 2020. Trump looks like the sort who squeezes harder only to lose sympathy and become scary.

So we aren't very instinctive. We prefer reasoning, and if our reasoning doesn't go in your direction, then tough luck. So we aren't very national-minded? We prefer that our nations operate humanely. I have more in common in my politics with an Indonesian liberal than with an American fascist.  Liberalism is international because its principles are the same everywhere.  But should I ever be in the situation between standing for a liberal enemy of a fascist America and aiding a criminal fascist regime in America... the moral choice will be obvious.

You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.

Demagogue? Me? NO! I despise left-wing demagogues, too -- including Mugabe, Chavez, and the newly-departed Fidel Castro. They promise to take from the super-rich and invariably end up deciding that as they have custody of what they took from more traditional elites that they want it themselves. You know how it goes -- the great Savior of the Working Class overthrows the aristocratic and plutocratic elite only to live like the aristocratic or plutocratic elite. Orwell got that right in Animal Farm.

I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Barack Obama the last two Presidential elections. I have voted for conventional liberals for House and Senate seats. I have been involved in active campaigning since 2008 when I went to the local Republican headquarters to ask about local politicians  after saying that I was going to vote for Barack Obama -- and the people there tried to brainwash me about abortion, school prayer, and creationism -- and that Barack Obama is a Muslim. On the night that Barack Obama won the Presidency I explained why I became an active campaigner. "See these wrinkles? See this thinning, graying hair? Were these people fools enough to believe that I could change core values that I have had since my twenties in a half hour?"

I may now regret that Barack Obama got re-elected, but only because Mitt Romney would be much less dangerous and less offensive than Donald Trump. If by some unlikely series of events the process of choosing the President of the United States gave us Mitt Romney as a compromise, I would feel great relief. America would be spared a dangerous, divisive demagogue.  

It is more likely that you voted for a demagogue, Donald Trump. You voted for someone who ran on mass resentments of economic losers with white skins against successful members of minority groups. You fell for an anti-intellectualism that goes far beyond disdain of some wayward college professor or writer of pretentious books to a contempt of learning. So far as I can tell, your ideal of learning is the basics (reading, writing, and arithmetic), right-wing propaganda, and preparation for a narrow career. The sort of education in which you believe makes judgment of self-interest, morality including fairness, scientific validity, and the general veracity of people impossible. The sort of limited learning that you want people to have would make them unable to judge anything that has an air of official support. The sort of learning that you want people to have is the sort that the worst tyrants have ever existed have wanted people to have -- the ability to understand simple orders and obey them without judgment of whether they have any moral validity. "Beat that kulak to death". "Herd those Jews into the gas chamber made to look like a mass shower". "Kill the running dogs of American Imperialism!". "Unleash the gas onto the Kurds". At a lower level of power, "Let's not wait for a trial. Just string up that n***er!"

Donald Trump is a demagogue because he has promised bounties from racism and intellectualism, implicitly to white people at the expense of others. He would set race relations back fifty years, with an acrimonious debate in public life on which people are to be subordinate to whom. He would set labor-management relations back ninety years with an attempt to break unions nationwide  -- and make possible a renaissance of Marxist extremism in America. He suggested an Education secretary who thinks that public education for working-class kids might best serve those kids by funneling them as quickly as possible into the under-paid, over-worked proletariat. He wants the rich to see their taxes cut so much that the rest of Americans would feel great increases in their tax burdens. He certainly wants to subordinate Nature to the quick-buck exploitation of resources. He wants Americans to become nothing more than their economic roles -- just work, and don't think or complain. Owners and bosses are the only people who can judge right from wrong.

Registry of Muslims because of their religion?


It is telling that a Jewish-Islamic alliance is appearing in America. Some people don't want others to endure the same experiences that some relatives endured as the result of religious bigotry. Before anyone tries to tell me how horrible Islam is, just recall my story about the difference between Michigan Avenue in the Sodom and Gomorrah that is southwestern Detroit and in family-friendly, heavily-Islamic Dearborn. I may prefer my brand of secularism to Islam, but if I had to choose between the amoral secularism of whorehouses and strip clubs to the Islamic ideal, I'd prefer Islam. My secularism has its predication in some well-honed morality, a morality that precludes abuse and exploitation, a morality that requires some ability to judge right from wrong.

Now here's something for you to contemplate: is Donald Trump a Christian?

I am a liberal. I believe in the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms (If I lived in bear country I would keep a firearm handy!). I believe in checks and balances. I believe in fair play. I believe in equal opportunity. I believe in the cultivation of learning and not simply vocational training just so that life can be rich and that people can make competent choices in life.

[Eric the Green]

(11-25-2016, 08:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 06:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 12:34 AM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 06:02 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 10:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting how the blue areas are the ones who can't  get their counts in on time.  Still marking ballots, no doubt.

Now this is just vile slander of the basest kind.

Now Odin you have to admit, California does appear to have a significant problem with counting check marks on paper. Honestly at this point it should be the story of the election: Why does California struggle so much with what comes after 3.... 4.....?

And after we all kind of mocked the stupidity/confusion of Florida 16 years ago no less. I guess Kindergarten isn't what it used to be.

There is no comparison between CA this year and FL in 2000. Florida counted votes based on ambiguous card punches, and included misleading butterfly ballots. The whole story was amazing, from deliberately forged ballots to falsely-removed voters from rolls to recounts stopped before they were finished in Palm Beach County by the same Sec. Harris who removed voters from the rolls, to the statewide recount stopped by a partisan Supreme Court. The authorities gave us 8 years of war and a great recession. It is not a matter of mocking, but of horror at what the Republican powers-that-be have done to us, and how they have divided us. And the vote-rigging continues, not in CA, but in the red states that deny voting rights.

California is counting just fine. Mail-in ballots are dropped off at polling places (I know, I have to count them at my precinct, and it's almost half the vote), there are provisional ballots, and late mail-ins too. And they all have to be verified, each one at a time. Counting the lines drawn on the paper ballots is a cinch; a machine does it. It is a matter of being accurate, and making sure everyone who want to, gets to vote. It's a difference between a Democratic-run state in 2016 that cares, and a Republican-run state in 2000 that didn't give a flying fuck.

Quite that simple. Well, it seems to be that simple, a whole lot of the time. It's just a matter of whether you prefer facts, or utopian beliefs that serve the wealthy.

I watched as partisan blue courts used their legal power to undermine an American value (The American Rule Law as its supposed to be applied to all) and changing the laws to suit their interests. The Democrats turned me off completely and lost whatever support they may have received from me in the future from me forever. I'm not a fan of third world politics or third world politics or third world economic orders or political orders or social orders or the common beliefs associated with them or the folks who come from them who are clueless and unprepared to live here because that's all that they know and believe exists. As I've said, the liberal blue cloak is coming off and revealing how nasty liberals are at the core. Dude, you'd better figure out a way to separate California (yourself) from America. The price is either twenty trillion or the price associated with a nasty war to take it away from America. Your choice, I'm open to either option.

Well, for now at least, you have your silly, deadly guns and your lower taxes, so you can feel better. You can rely on yourself and let the others hang to your heart's content. Myself, living in a blue state, I like my "nasty" life priorities (like peace, prosperity, opportunity for all, a beautiful environment; you know, those nasty things) and my "nasty woman" I voted for better.

[Eric the Green]

(11-25-2016, 07:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The outlawry of totalitarian movements hardly compromises democracy. Such Parties effectively become crime syndicates beyond any possibility of reform into something benign.  I speak of among others the Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Ba'ath Party of Iraq, Parti Populaire Francais,  Arrow Cross, Iron Guard, Imperial Rule Assistance League, and the Communist Party of Romania. If it is acceptable to outlaw criminal enterprises that exist largely for human trafficking, distribution of dangerous drugs, and financial scams, then why is it not acceptable to outlaw organizations that existed at one time to promote military aggression, slavery, or genocide?

Funny, you don't see/recognize the obvious signs, obvious language, obvious beliefs, the obvious type of people who are more likely to go along and  activities associated with totalitarian minded people, totalitarian group and totalitarian like movements and actions that is obviously more prevalent TODAY on the progressive left than the American right. If the crisis boils down to the American libertarian right vs the totalitarian left in a civil war as you are seeing a prelude and a glimpse of today right here, what you saw happening between people at the Trump rallies and saw happening to regular regular folks in the streets before and after the rallies and so on. Liberals ain't wise people. Liberals ain't very sharp people. Liberals ain't very sensible/practical people. Liberals ain't very instinctual people. Liberals ain't very American minded and pretty clueless when it comes to American nature.

I saw the people at Trump rallies on the videos and such, and boy, you guys are like a different species. Not too bright, all shrivelled up and filled with anger; I won't go any further; suffice to say not people I want to emulate, and Trump could have a field day if he wanted to insult his own people about their looks.

[pbrower2a]

(11-26-2016, 12:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 07:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-24-2016, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The outlawry of totalitarian movements hardly compromises democracy. Such Parties effectively become crime syndicates beyond any possibility of reform into something benign.  I speak of among others the Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Ba'ath Party of Iraq, Parti Populaire Francais,  Arrow Cross, Iron Guard, Imperial Rule Assistance League, and the Communist Party of Romania. If it is acceptable to outlaw criminal enterprises that exist largely for human trafficking, distribution of dangerous drugs, and financial scams, then why is it not acceptable to outlaw organizations that existed at one time to promote military aggression, slavery, or genocide?

Funny, you don't see/recognize the obvious signs, obvious language, obvious beliefs, the obvious type of people who are more likely to go along and  activities associated with totalitarian minded people, totalitarian group and totalitarian like movements and actions that is obviously more prevalent TODAY on the progressive left than the American right. If the crisis boils down to the American libertarian right vs the totalitarian left in a civil war as you are seeing a prelude and a glimpse of today right here, what you saw happening between people at the Trump rallies and saw happening to regular regular folks in the streets before and after the rallies and so on. Liberals ain't wise people. Liberals ain't very sharp people. Liberals ain't very sensible/practical people. Liberals ain't very instinctual people. Liberals ain't very American minded and pretty clueless when it comes to American nature.

I saw the people at Trump rallies on the videos and such, and boy, you guys are like a different species. Not too bright, all shrivelled up and filled with anger; I won't go any further; suffice to say not people I want to emulate, and Trump could have a field day if he wanted to insult his own people about their looks.

My solution to the Trump phenomenon is more formal liberal education, the sort that makes people less gullible, less one-dimensional, more capable of moral judgment, slower to anger, and more capable of finding happiness in life. More education cannot make people much smarter, although it can teach some habits good for putting a mind to use.

The people in charge in the media are even more clever at manipulating minds, and most people haven't caught up. We must catch up with those manipulators or we must abandon the Internet.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As news media become increasingly bent on advocacy (who needs fact-checking?) and less on objective truth we get more partisan and special-interest propaganda. Politicians increasingly tell people what they hear (doesn't just about everyone?) but when personal freedom and prosperity are at stake, isn't it a good idea to be able to catch a liar?

Just so that we can use the Internet and not let its hustlers and hucksters use us, we need to be more knowledgeable about the media, adept at checking out weird claims of truth (if the media don't fact-check, then we must do so ourselves), and use logic and science to the detriment of those who use pseudoscience and irrationality against us.  We need the ability to detect bias and manipulation.

The Internet may have forced as much change in the way we get information as the automobile changed the way that we get around. But like all revolutionary ways that change the way people do basic things, the Internet has its problems. Just think of how cars could make some of the worst tendencies in human nature, including criminality, much more dangerous.

[pbrower2a]

(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.

I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here.  He has that much in common with you.  The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.

I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with.  The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype.  It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.

Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.

Thank you. Yes, I am very partisan, but I can see some gradation  within the Other Side. I would have far less trouble with Mitt Romney as president even if he would be more successful in pushing a conservative agenda on  economics, education, and defense. We know what he believes in because he made it very clear. He could have won an election to the Presidency against anyone not a strong and effective incumbent. The only black marks on the Obama Presidency are that he failed to grow partisan support during his Presidency -- and that Donald Trump follows him. The latter may not be his fault.

I see Donald Trump as reckless, cruel, dishonest, and dictatorial. Such would utterly discredit a politician on the Left. Besides, who can now excuse the introduction of religious or ethnic bigotry into national politics?

We liberals did not complain so much about George W. Bush getting elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. We would not look at a "President Romney" with so much foreboding.  With Trump we have much cause for foreboding. I have cause to believe that he thinks "We won! You're done!" about us liberals.

We aren't done. We will still be here. We will be protesting every destructive policy of this upcoming Administration at least as much as the Tea Party protested the person and policies of Barack Obama. We won't need any FoX News stirring us up. Donald Trump, Republican Governors, and Congressional Republicans will be effective enough to give us cause for protests. Ethnic equity and religious freedom. Women's rights. Quality education. Labor-management relations. Economic performance. Environmental quality. Corruption? Not yet, but that will also work. We will have better, more coherent slogans.

It might not be long before many conservatives wish that Hillary Clinton had instead won the election instead of having a Pyrrhic victory.

Oh! I forget. The sorts of voters  who think at a middle-school level who voted for Donald Trump don't know what a Pyrrhic victory is. The next Administration will need to suggest means of shoring up education to make America less vulnerable to the next demagogue, Left or Right. The next demagogue could be as nasty as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A hint: the black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish parts of the American middle class rejected Donald Trump. They respect formal education.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.

I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here.  He has that much in common with you.  The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.

I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with.  The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype.  It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.

Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.

Why not use demagogue or extreme demagogue instead inserting your own terms? Are you afraid to use a common term with a definition that might accurately describe you or others associated with you here. PB isn't an extreme demagogue like Al Sharpton. He's a lesser demagogue who is viewed as annoying/foolish/ignorant but not down right despicable or a major threat to other peoples live in general. As I've told you many times, the current crop of blue cream puffs lack the political will/natural ability/leadership qualities to control it's various groups of ghouls and it's eventually going to hurt you politically. Other than you, I don't see the progressives wising up and changing their views. I see them sticking to their piss poor way reasoning and their reliance on demagogues and their various groups of bigots.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-26-2016, 05:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why not use demagogue or extreme demagogue instead inserting your own terms? Are you afraid to use a common term with a definition that might accurately describe you or others associated with you here. PB isn't an extreme demagogue like Al Sharpton. He's a lesser demagogue who is viewed as annoying/foolish/ignorant but not  down right despicable or a major threat to other peoples live in general. As I've told you many times, the current crop of  blue cream puffs lack the political will/natural ability/leadership qualities to control it's various groups of ghouls and it's eventually going to hurt you politically. Other than you, I don't see the progressives wising up and changing their views. I see them sticking to their piss poor way reasoning and their reliance on demagogues and their various groups of bigots.

I just find partisan has a little less emotional baggage than demagogue. I'm trying to tone down the dialogue just a bit.

Futile, I know.