Presidential election, 2016

[Warren Dew]

(12-03-2016, 11:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

The Electoral College isn’t just undemocratic, as watching the second-place candidate in the popular vote become president-elect has reminded us. It’s also racially biased. Not just in the historical sense that it was founded on slavery, but concretely in the present day, as the graph above shows. Lara Merling and Dean Baker lay it out: The Electoral College, like the Senate, is biased toward small states. And guess what?

The states that are overrepresented in the Electoral College also happen to be less diverse than the country as a whole. Wyoming is 84 percent white, North Dakota is 86 percent white, and Rhode Island is 74 percent white, while in California only 38 percent of the population is white, in Florida 55 percent, and in Texas 43 percent. [...]

African American votes on average have a weight that is 95 percent as much as white votes, Hispanic votes are on average 91 percent, and Asian American votes, 93 percent as much of a white vote. In the Electoral College, white votes matter more.

And that’s one more reason for Republicans to defend the Electoral College.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/25...hite-power

We understand that the American system that's in place does not favor the blues politically. We understand that blues want to remove the American system that is in place. We understand it and understand why blues want do it and have a fairly good grasp of what types of systems they'd be replacing it with and so on. Why not, you ask... What's wrong, you ask...The answers are pretty simple once you understand that we understand and are aware of your sides political motives and intents relevant to the future of America.

The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda. You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office. I shouldn't need to reprise that? Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man. He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style. His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite. I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them. That's real enough and has cause enough. Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples. Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 11:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

The Electoral College isn’t just undemocratic, as watching the second-place candidate in the popular vote become president-elect has reminded us. It’s also racially biased. Not just in the historical sense that it was founded on slavery, but concretely in the present day, as the graph above shows. Lara Merling and Dean Baker lay it out: The Electoral College, like the Senate, is biased toward small states. And guess what?

The states that are overrepresented in the Electoral College also happen to be less diverse than the country as a whole. Wyoming is 84 percent white, North Dakota is 86 percent white, and Rhode Island is 74 percent white, while in California only 38 percent of the population is white, in Florida 55 percent, and in Texas 43 percent. [...]

African American votes on average have a weight that is 95 percent as much as white votes, Hispanic votes are on average 91 percent, and Asian American votes, 93 percent as much of a white vote. In the Electoral College, white votes matter more.

And that’s one more reason for Republicans to defend the Electoral College.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/25...hite-power

We understand that the American system that's in place does not favor the blues politically. We understand that blues want to remove the American system that is in place. We understand it and understand why blues want do it and have a fairly good grasp of what types of systems they'd be replacing it with and so on. Why not, you ask... What's wrong, you ask...The answers are pretty simple once you understand that we understand and are aware of your sides political motives and intents relevant to the future of America.

The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

I know. What's up with that? Are they clueless or do they actually believe that we can't read and have no comprehension what so ever? BTW, most of them here are heavy into the propaganda. Lots of money in delivering propaganda.

[Odin]

(12-03-2016, 07:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What's that?  More counties in Philly have filled out more votes to turn in, you say?

Oh look, more right-wing conspiracy theories.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

He was talking to me about the blue side. Unless you've a significant change, you are on the blue side. You may make some moves and try to relate but your still on that side sticking to your scientific values and dreams of saving the world with a group who see's more value in welfare and expanding welfare then they do in work and saving jobs or opening our market via lowering corporate tax rate and creating new jobs naturally with the money/jobs that will flow in. He's a Libertarian. You may want to consider listening to him considering that he wasn't on on either one of our sides and he chose my side for his own reasons in this election just like I chose the Republican party for my own reasons in 2000'. Why are you loosing us and what are the reasons?

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-04-2016, 12:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: He was talking to me about the blue side. Unless you've a significant change, you are on the blue side. You may make some moves and try to relate but your still on that side sticking to your scientific values and dreams of saving the world with a group who see's more value in welfare and expanding welfare then they do in work and saving jobs or opening our market via lowering corporate tax rate and creating new jobs naturally with the money/jobs that will flow in. He's a Libertarian. You may want to consider listening to him considering that he wasn't on  on either one of our sides and he chose my side for his own reasons in this election just like I chose the Republican party for my own reasons in 2000'. Why are you loosing us and what are the reasons?

I'll try for some serious answers.

I live in an urban area, and for me a lot of the blue solutions are appropriate, but I'm not interested in shoving them down the throats of folk that don't find them appropriate.

Enlightenment values endorse freedom, that individuals should make their own decisions.  However, governments make laws to punish and prohibit the unacceptable, starting with murder and theft.  Some cultural issues like reproductive heath and the right to own and carry weapons put these two valid functions of government in conflict.  In general, I lean in the direction of freedom and the Enlightenment, but can quite understand perspectives that see some freedoms as unacceptable.  Alas, those who see freedoms as unacceptable will feel it natural to try to force their values and culture on others, using the government as a big club.  I don't think either side should be doing so using the government as a big culture altering club.

While I see my scientific values as dominant, science cannot solve moral and political problems.  I thus lean on Jefferson and Jesus when Newton isn't speaking on a given subject.  I can quite respect the teaching of Jesus, and there is much wisdom in many religious systems from all over the world.  As implied above, I do put Jefferson above Jesus.  While I can respect devout Christians living in His spirit, they should not be using the government as a big club to force their values on others.  Using the government as a big club to force values is in my opinion a big problem, no matter whether it is the blue faction or the red that is doing it.

While you are pegging me as blue and treating me as a blue partisan, surely you know how I post on gun policy issues?  Might you consider that freedom and rule of law can be more important to me that blue ideology?

Finance ought to involve as much science as politics.  Alas, many forum contributors of all stripes seem committed to certain policies as ideologies, as political doctrines.  From my perspective, simplified so this post doesn't get absurdly long, supply side can be beneficial when investors haven't the funds to make necessary healthy investments.  Demand side can be beneficial when there is high unemployment.  Paying down the debt is a good thing whenever the economy is healthy enough to do so.  It is not a question of which policy is most beneficial as a full time always on rigid doctrine.  It is a question of what is the current state of the economy.  What needs to be nudged at this given moment?  As the division of wealth is high, as there is more risk of a bubble than a lack of investment funds, and as unemployment is low, I am not enthused about either supply side or demand side stimulus at this time.  Hey, I am in favor of money being spent to fix bridges, but more because there are a lot of bridges that could really use the repair, not for ideological reasons.

So, yes, your aforementioned posts feature red folk bashing blue folk because blue folk don't listen, are stuck in immobile thought patterns which are unacceptable to half the country.  The country is apt to be a mess until the blue folk begin to listen.  Great.  Fine.  True.  I can endorse the message.  It's just that I feel you could switch the words 'red' and 'blue' in the above and end up with just as good a message.  The red folk are riding high at the moment.  The blue are smarting, are more aware of the need to change, and [wishful thinking] might possibly have marginally open minds.  [/wishful thinking].  This is a hard time to convince red folk to listen and not try to remake the nation in their own image.  They have a president with a minority popular vote.  Should be treated as a clear mandate?   Is it time to stick it to the other half of the nation?

Now, I've touched on guns, women's issues and finance as three important and representative issues.  On one I'm red, on another I'm blue, and on the third I'd cry pox on both houses.  There are any number of other issues.  Let's talk individual issues.  We're not going to get a heck of a lot far rejecting one another and not listening because of color codes.

[Warren Dew]

(12-04-2016, 11:26 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 11:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: We understand that the American system that's in place does not favor the blues politically. We understand that blues want to remove the American system that is in place. We understand it and understand why blues want do it and have a fairly good grasp of what types of systems they'd be replacing it with and so on. Why not, you ask... What's wrong, you ask...The answers are pretty simple once you understand that we understand and are aware of your sides political motives and intents relevant to the future of America.

The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

I know. What's up with that? Are they clueless or do they actually believe that we can't read and have no comprehension what so ever? BTW, most of them here are heavy into the propaganda. Lots of money in delivering propaganda.

Clueless.  They actually think propaganda sources like The New York Times are reliable sources, despite their history of making up the news.

[Warren Dew]

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

You say I'm pushing red propaganda, but then you say my point is "real enough and has cause enough".  Which is it?

There's a difference between genuine issues and propaganda.  I push the genuine issues, not the propaganda.  And in fact even the right doesn't push this particular idea very much, because it would involve the admission that some urban oriented issues are actually appropriate for urban locations.

Quote:I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

Guns aren't a culture war issue, they're an elites issue.  Who benefits from having guns be heavily regulated?  People who can afford to hire heavily regulated bodyguards, rather than having to defend themselves, that's who.

Abortion is a culture war issue, because it stems from moral judgements that aren't really amenable to rational analysis.

[Eric the Green]

(12-04-2016, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

You say I'm pushing red propaganda, but then you say my point is "real enough and has cause enough".  Which is it?

There's a difference between genuine issues and propaganda.  I push the genuine issues, not the propaganda.  And in fact even the right doesn't push this particular idea very much, because it would involve the admission that some urban oriented issues are actually appropriate for urban locations.

Quote:I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

Guns aren't a culture war issue, they're an elites issue.  Who benefits from having guns be heavily regulated?  People who can afford to hire heavily regulated bodyguards, rather than having to defend themselves, that's who.

Abortion is a culture war issue, because it stems from moral judgements that aren't really amenable to rational analysis.

Guns are a public safety issue. Thousands of people get murdered in needless gun massacres and other crimes and suicides because there are too many guns and too many insane people have easy access to them.

Heck, one of them even almost killed your hero in 1981.

That's all there is to the gun issue. What your side raises are red herrings that prey on fear.

But for those who can be rational, compromises can be found on both the cultural and gun issues. I suspect that if the Left offers those compromises, the Right will say no. That's how it always works.

You Warren and Classic Xer seem to be carrying on a private conversation. You speak the same language, but you shouldn't expect us blue folks to understand it. That's called living in your echo chamber. As far as I can tell, everything you two said in those posts above applies precisely to yourselves.

[pbrower2a]

(12-04-2016, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

You say I'm pushing red propaganda, but then you say my point is "real enough and has cause enough".  Which is it?

There's a difference between genuine issues and propaganda.  I push the genuine issues, not the propaganda.  And in fact even the right doesn't push this particular idea very much, because it would involve the admission that some urban oriented issues are actually appropriate for urban locations.

Donald Trump barks out orders as does a dictator. He used a debased, elementary-level, language  to express his ideas of public policy. He tells simpletons what they want to hear -- never mind that reality invariably proves far more complicated. What Barack Obama could never get away with out, Donald Trump gets away with for now. 

Quote:

Quote:I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

Guns aren't a culture war issue, they're an elites issue.  Who benefits from having guns be heavily regulated?  People who can afford to hire heavily regulated bodyguards, rather than having to defend themselves, that's who.

Abortion is a culture war issue, because it stems from moral judgements that aren't really amenable to rational analysis.

 Who benefits from strict regulation of firearms? The people who would not be killed by

(1) criminals using firearms
(2) incompetent and reckless use of firearms
(3) people who don't have a ready firearm as a tool of committing suicide
(4) people who misjudge the efficacy of firearms in preventing arrest by resisting the police with firearms
(5) people that the cops deem wrongly to be acting aggressively with firearms

...and loved ones of such people.

Of course this reflects a society awash in privately-held firearms. We have a firearm-friendly culture, and that has its consequences. We are not Japan and cannot become Japan.

Abortion? It is safe to assume that most abortions are early in the term of a pregnancy. Late-term pregnancies in which a woman has an emotional investment in the pregnancy are rare, and usually involve a non-viable infant or a pregnancy that imposes an extreme danger of death or serious injury to the mother. Giving up a baby to an adoption seems like an easier choice than abortion  except all but boundary conditions, so to speak.

It is far easier to express the black-and-white philosophy of the Religious Right than to deal with the rough edges of boundary conditions. f(x) = 1/x behaves well except around x = 0

[Warren Dew]

(12-04-2016, 10:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You Warren and Classic Xer seem to be carrying on a private conversation. You speak the same language, but you shouldn't expect us blue folks to understand it. That's called living in your echo chamber. As far as I can tell, everything you two said in those posts above applies precisely to yourselves.

Are you talking about my exchanges with Classic Xer or with Bob?  I do assume some shared knowledge in the former.  The latter, not so much.

Neither are directed at you, of course.  You can be a fun jousting opponent, but I don't expect ever to change the mind of anyone who believes in astrology.

[Warren Dew]

(12-04-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (1) criminals using firearms
(2) incompetent and reckless use of firearms
(3) people who don't have a ready firearm as a tool of committing suicide
(4) people who misjudge the efficacy of firearms in preventing arrest by resisting the police with firearms
(5) people that the cops deem wrongly to be acting aggressively with firearms

...and loved ones of such people.

Of course this reflects a society awash in privately-held firearms. We have a firearm-friendly culture, and that has its consequences. We are not Japan and cannot become Japan.

Interesting that you mention both  suicide and Japan.  Were you aware that the suicide rate in Japan, about 20 per 100,000, was higher than the total of the U.S. homicide rate, about 4 per 100,000, the U.S. suicide rate, about 13 per 100,000, and the U.S. accidental gun death rate, about 0.2 per 100,000, combined?  And the numbers on the U.S. side would be even lower if we restricted ourselves to looking only at gun deaths.

The actual evidence is that guns do not increase the murder rate or suicide rate, and the increases to accidental deaths or justifiable homicides are inconsequentially low, and arguably beneficial in the case of justifiable homicides.  When people really want to kill someone, themselves or others, they find a way with whatever tools or weapons are available.

On the other hand, the evidence is that privately owned firearms prevent about 2.5 million violent crimes per year, about 800 per 100,000, a substantial societal benefit.

[Warren Dew]

(12-04-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Abortion is a culture war issue, because it stems from moral judgements that aren't really amenable to rational analysis.

Abortion? It is safe to assume that most abortions are early in the term of a pregnancy. Late-term pregnancies in which a woman has an emotional investment in the pregnancy are rare, and usually involve a non-viable infant or a pregnancy that imposes an extreme danger of death or serious injury to the mother. Giving up a baby to an adoption seems like an easier choice than abortion  except all but boundary conditions, so to speak.

It is far easier to express the black-and-white philosophy of the Religious Right than to deal with the rough edges of boundary conditions. f(x) = 1/x behaves well except around x = 0

I agree with your facts; the vast majority of abortions are early in pregnancy and late term pregnancies usually involve a nonviable infant or a severe danger to the woman.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, though.  Can you clarify?  What are you disagreeing with me on, if anything?

[pbrower2a]

(12-04-2016, 12:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

He was talking to me about the blue side. Unless you've a significant change, you are on the blue side. You may make some moves and try to relate but your still on that side sticking to your scientific values and dreams of saving the world with a group who see's more value in welfare and expanding welfare then they do in work and saving jobs or opening our market via lowering corporate tax rate and creating new jobs naturally with the money/jobs that will flow in. He's a Libertarian. You may want to consider listening to him considering that he wasn't on  on either one of our sides and he chose my side for his own reasons in this election just like I chose the Republican party for my own reasons in 2000'. Why are you loosing us and what are the reasons?

Wrong. Donald Trump is a big-government right-winger, a racist and a religious bigot, someone delighted to use political power to force an ultra-conservative culture upon people who do not share that culture. Donald Trump might be hostile to welfare for the poor, but he has few qualms about using the Treasure to enrich and enforce the collective will of the economic elites. His stated view is freedom to exact the most from the non-elites by elites while using the government to repress anyone who gets in the way. He is closer to being a fascist than to being a libertarian. In view of the hostility of Donald Trump and the GOP majorities in both Houses of Congress, liberals will need to act as libertarians on economics, trusting the government to do practically nothing for them but having the potential to great harm.

Scientific values? Science and technology have gotten us wonders from reaping equipment to cell phones; they have gotten us vaccines and air conditioning. Science and technology have made food cheap and life longer. Just outside of science, rational thought will offer us choices on how to use the bounties of technological improvements of enhanced productivity and access to enriching culture.

Rational thought tells me to investigate how demagogues have operated in power in countries that they have taken over. Right (Hitler) or Left (Mao), they have always gotten bad results -- a ravaged economy, a brain drain, civil strife, and  repression. Nothing says that demagoguery will work better in America than it does now in Venezuela. We will see our civic institutions and our culture stressed as they have not been since the Civil War. To be sure, reason is not enough; reason without kindness and morals can get the Reign of Terror within the French Revolutionary era.

We have an economic reality with which to contend: productivity outpacing pay. Such is great for profits of owners, bit horrible for workers. This may be a consequence of technology that replaces the human  touch with a computer...  maybe we will need some enforced profit-sharing as heavy taxes on easy income, a solution of Henry George (not Karl Marx). Private ownership of productive capital has its benefits. So get a grant to do something good and make a good living off it. The alternative could be mass poverty.The Right has a solution to productivity outpacing pay: more of the same.

We liberals lost because the Right is so good at appealing to visceral issues like race, guns, and religion. Eventually the Right will have to show that they can make good their promises or resort to a police state to suppress dissent to a brutal order that defines the truth as whatever serves the ruling elite -- or they will go down.

I see productivity outpacing pay as the route to a very nasty depression that results from the absence of buyers for the cornucopia of consumer goods and services. I see the promotion of outright superstition (like creationism) as a gutting of science. I see the anti-intellectualism of Donald Trump as a trend that could cause people to think twice about bringing or even keeping their talents in America. Just think of this: if you like Silicon Valley you will probably like Spain, which has much the same climate and some similarities of culture -- and a language fairly easy to learn. Spain is relatively immune to the Far Right even in a time of great hardships because the Spanish remember Francisco Franco and his mind-numbing, soul-crushing, impoverished order all too well and want nothing resembling it. Such could solve much of the high unemployment in Spain.

The question is now why we liberals are 'losing' the common man... Liberalism requires some intellectual maturity to flourish, and it is more likely to flourish among people of a certain level of intellectual sophistication than among ignoramuses. But 'more likely'. When authoritarian conservatism brings nothing but pain, working people will recognize that liberalism has to offer, like fair play that the authoritarian Right can never offer. We liberals have had solutions to mass poverty in the past, and we may get to offer much the same in the near future as Donald Trump proves a dreadful President. May get, that is -- if we don;t end up in prison camps for dissidents.

[Eric the Green]

(12-05-2016, 12:00 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You Warren and Classic Xer seem to be carrying on a private conversation. You speak the same language, but you shouldn't expect us blue folks to understand it. That's called living in your echo chamber. As far as I can tell, everything you two said in those posts above applies precisely to yourselves.

Are you talking about my exchanges with Classic Xer or with Bob?  I do assume some shared knowledge in the former.  The latter, not so much.

Neither are directed at you, of course.  You can be a fun jousting opponent, but I don't expect ever to change the mind of anyone who believes in astrology.

Well, it's hardly more "superstitious" than someone who believes in economic libertarianism.

No, astrology has nothing to do with it. Except that your comment may show your own closed-mindedness.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-04-2016, 01:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 12:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: He was talking to me about the blue side. Unless you've a significant change, you are on the blue side. You may make some moves and try to relate but your still on that side sticking to your scientific values and dreams of saving the world with a group who see's more value in welfare and expanding welfare then they do in work and saving jobs or opening our market via lowering corporate tax rate and creating new jobs naturally with the money/jobs that will flow in. He's a Libertarian. You may want to consider listening to him considering that he wasn't on  on either one of our sides and he chose my side for his own reasons in this election just like I chose the Republican party for my own reasons in 2000'. Why are you loosing us and what are the reasons?

I'll try for some serious answers.

I live in an urban area, and for me a lot of the blue solutions are appropriate, but I'm not interested in shoving them down the throats of folk that don't find them appropriate.

Enlightenment values endorse freedom, that individuals should make their own decisions.  However, governments make laws to punish and prohibit the unacceptable, starting with murder and theft.  Some cultural issues like reproductive heath and the right to own and carry weapons put these two valid functions of government in conflict.  In general, I lean in the direction of freedom and the Enlightenment, but can quite understand perspectives that see some freedoms as unacceptable.  Alas, those who see freedoms as unacceptable will feel it natural to try to force their values and culture on others, using the government as a big club.  I don't think either side should be doing so using the government as a big culture altering club.

While I see my scientific values as dominant, science cannot solve moral and political problems.  I thus lean on Jefferson and Jesus when Newton isn't speaking on a given subject.  I can quite respect the teaching of Jesus, and there is much wisdom in many religious systems from all over the world.  As implied above, I do put Jefferson above Jesus.  While I can respect devout Christians living in His spirit, they should not be using the government as a big club to force their values on others.  Using the government as a big club to force values is in my opinion a big problem, no matter whether it is the blue faction or the red that is doing it.

While you are pegging me as blue and treating me as a blue partisan, surely you know how I post on gun policy issues?  Might you consider that freedom and rule of law can be more important to me that blue ideology?

Finance ought to involve as much science as politics.  Alas, many forum contributors of all stripes seem committed to certain policies as ideologies, as political doctrines.  From my perspective, simplified so this post doesn't get absurdly long, supply side can be beneficial when investors haven't the funds to make necessary healthy investments.  Demand side can be beneficial when there is high unemployment.  Paying down the debt is a good thing whenever the economy is healthy enough to do so.  It is not a question of which policy is most beneficial as a full time always on rigid doctrine.  It is a question of what is the current state of the economy.  What needs to be nudged at this given moment?  As the division of wealth is high, as there is more risk of a bubble than a lack of investment funds, and as unemployment is low, I am not enthused about either supply side or demand side stimulus at this time.  Hey, I am in favor of money being spent to fix bridges, but more because there are a lot of bridges that could really use the repair, not for ideological reasons.

So, yes, your aforementioned posts feature red folk bashing blue folk because blue folk don't listen, are stuck in immobile thought patterns which are unacceptable to half the country.  The country is apt to be a mess until the blue folk begin to listen.  Great.  Fine.  True.  I can endorse the message.  It's just that I feel you could switch the words 'red' and 'blue' in the above and end up with just as good a message.  The red folk are riding high at the moment.  The blue are smarting, are more aware of the need to change, and [wishful thinking] might possibly have marginally open minds.  [/wishful thinking].  This is a hard time to convince red folk to listen and not try to remake the nation in their own image.  They have a president with a minority popular vote.  Should be treated as a clear mandate?   Is it time to stick it to the other half of the nation?

Now, I've touched on guns, women's issues and finance as three important and representative issues.  On one I'm red, on another I'm blue, and on the third I'd cry pox on both houses.  There are any number of other issues.  Let's talk individual issues.  We're not going to get a heck of a lot far rejecting one another and not listening because of color codes.

My point, we are listening/reading your posts and allowing  information to enter our brains and using the information received to form our opinions and judgements and positions relating to you. The blue side is obviously anti-gun. The blue side doesn't see/recognize a need or feel the necessity to own a firearm in today's world. I have read your personal positions on gun control which appear to align with that common belief. You don't see a reason or feel the necessity to own a firearm yourself and you have claimed that you'd be willing to vote to give up your right to own a gun if the issue were to be placed on a ballet. A negative sign to me. However, you do seem to understand our reasons/concerns/stances associated with our gun rights and the issue of gun control and you seem to be able to recognize our right to have them as well. A positive sign to me. Where do you really stand on the issue with information that's been received as a positive sign and a negative sign?

[Galen]

(12-05-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My point, we are listening/reading your posts and allowing  information to enter our brains and using the information received to form our opinions and judgements and positions relating to you. The blue side is obviously anti-gun. The blue side doesn't see/recognize a need or feel the necessity to own a firearm in today's world. I have read your personal positions on gun control which appear to align with that common belief. You don't see a reason or feel the necessity to own a firearm yourself and you have claimed that you'd be willing to vote to give up your right to own a gun if the issue were to be placed on a ballet. A negative sign to me. However, you do seem to understand our reasons/concerns/stances associated with our gun rights and the issue of gun control and you seem to be able to recognize our right to have them as well. A positive sign to me. Where do you really stand on the issue with information that's been received as a positive sign and a negative sign?

There is the small matter of how prohibitions tend to not work.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-04-2016, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

You say I'm pushing red propaganda, but then you say my point is "real enough and has cause enough".  Which is it?

There's a difference between genuine issues and propaganda.  I push the genuine issues, not the propaganda.  And in fact even the right doesn't push this particular idea very much, because it would involve the admission that some urban oriented issues are actually appropriate for urban locations.

Sometimes, it is hard to tell.  What is the difference between presenting a genuine issue and presenting propaganda?  I see it as motivation.  Depending on the media and the writer, there are different goals that effect presentation and content.  A politician is serving his own interest, often with modest concern about truth.  Thus Trump will regularly tell whoppers.  Media outlets are often out to sell content, or to generate hits, and will say whatever their intended audience wants to hear.  On a forum like this one, some sincerely care about pushing a specific partisan position.  Some few might be interested in learning stuff.  A lot are here for entertainment, are out to score points without admitting they have lost points.

In the above few entries, I was making the point that the blue faction perceives the red faction as no less autocratic dictators than the other way around.  Rather than acknowledge or discuss the point, you pulled a pivot, shifting the conversation to a point of linguistics that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.  This makes me think you are a points score keeper rather than someone who is interested in listening and learning.

But I used 'propaganda' primarily in response to your use of 'propaganda'.  I feel I ought to assume sincerity on the behalf of other posters, even if it often looks very thin.  However, if you are claiming the blue folk are issuing propaganda, I don't see that the argument style and values lock of the red folk is any different.  If the word is appropriate for you to use, you ought to be ready to hear it coming back the other way.

(12-04-2016, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

Guns aren't a culture war issue, they're an elites issue.  Who benefits from having guns be heavily regulated?  People who can afford to hire heavily regulated bodyguards, rather than having to defend themselves, that's who.

I find this argument absurd.  The spiral of violence is still way low.  Black folks and cops are the common targets, not elites.  Very few elites are hiring bodyguards as they are not at this time concerned for their safety.  There are a lot more farmers with varmit problems, hunters, target shooters and folk concerned about personal safety than there are elites with bodyguards.  Many of these ordinary people care about the issue intensely.  

This is the sort of argument that you come up with that makes it difficult to believe you are sincere and open minded.

(12-04-2016, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Abortion is a culture war issue, because it stems from moral judgements that aren't really amenable to rational analysis.

No question on abortion being a moral values issue.

One would think economics and gun policy could be different.  It would seem possible to gather statistics and perform analysis.  

I still see a strong element of values involved in both issues, though.  Does one feel more safe and secure if one is able to defend one's self, or when the people around one aren't allowed to carry?  Does one's financial security depend on there being jobs available, or is one secure enough of holding one's day job that a good return on investment is more important?

On guns and economics, I see gut feel values as dominating statistics and logic.  What is apt to be closer to one's core values than financial and physical security?  There are red and blue arguments on both issues that will absolutely convince those already convinced while seeming like total garbage to the other side.  You've been going at the economic discussion hot and heavy.  Have you gotten anywhere?  I have been similarly involved in the gun policy discussion.  People just don't move off of core values, and the discussions on this forum serve as excellent illustrations of the point.

In short, the guns and finance issues aren't really amenable to rational analysis. 

I'm not entirely sure the phrase 'culture wars' ought to be defined as 'issues not amenable to rational analysis', but in general they are not.  To much of a culture divide involved.  People's minds are already made up.  Facts and logic are essentially irrelevant.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-05-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My point, we are listening/reading your posts and allowing  information to enter our brains and using the information received to form our opinions and judgements and positions relating to you. The blue side is obviously anti-gun. The blue side doesn't see/recognize a need or feel the necessity to own a firearm in today's world. I have read your personal positions on gun control which appear to align with that common belief. You don't see a reason or feel the necessity to own a firearm yourself and you have claimed that you'd be willing to vote to give up your right to own a gun if the issue were to be placed on a ballet. A negative sign to me. However, you do seem to understand our reasons/concerns/stances associated with our gun rights and the issue of gun control and you seem to be able to recognize our right to have them as well. A positive sign to me. Where do you really stand on the issue with information that's been received as a positive sign and a negative sign?

Well, to start with, you obviously are not listening / reading to my posts regarding gun policy.

On the legal and historical side, I favor the 'Standard Model' interpretation, that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.  I was with Scalia on this case and others.  Another sign that I'm not a classic vanilla blue person is that I think Scalia had his merits in favoring rule of law, interpretation of the text as written, and favoring the meaning the authors intended.

On the statistics and consequences side, I see both sides as having studies and opinions of equal and not that great merit.  Other contributors to the forum will throw statistics at each other.  I don't as nothing is conclusive.  Lacking anything conclusive, I would favor rule of law.

I'm not inclined to sign away my right to own and carry, though I'm not feeling a need to exercise it.

I do favor some loophole closing.  The criminals and mentally unstable should be denied the right to carry, though putting it on paper and enforcing it are quite different.  Prohibitions are very difficult to enforce.  I do not favor passing laws that can't be put into effect.

If it were possible to pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention, I could see rewriting the 2nd.  I would remove the justification clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" to make it absolutely clear that the right is an individual right of the people.  While one original intent of the Second was to have militia members own and carry military arms, this might not be prudent and wise given the more potent present day military weapons.  If acceptable wording could be found that clearly protected arms appropriate for self defense, hunting and other civilian uses, I might be open to restrictions on some military features.

Alas, the country is too divided at this time for amendments or conventions.  The above paragraph must remain an intellectual exercise at this time.

I think I have been absolutely clear and consistent in the above over the last decade plus.

I have had problems with many posters confusing my positions with the plain vanilla blue positions as you just did.  I have some sympathy, and I doubt very much I'm the only person with this problem.  There are a lot of people who contribute regularly.  I find it difficult to remember every nuance of every contributor.  Thus, I try to respond to what someone said in the last post or two rather than count on my correctly remembering something said months or years ago.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my position on gun policy.  If your memory tells you I'm pure vanilla blue, consider that you might be reading what you expect to read rather than what is being said.  The inability to accurately read what someone with different values is writing is chronic around here.  Folks find it easier to interact with their own vile stereotypes rather than try to wrap their heads around what others are really trying to say.

[Warren Dew]

(12-05-2016, 09:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Sometimes, it is hard to tell.  What is the difference between presenting a genuine issue and presenting propaganda?  I see it as motivation.  Depending on the media and the writer, there are different goals that effect presentation and content.  A politician is serving his own interest, often with modest concern about truth.  Thus Trump will regularly tell whoppers.  Media outlets are often out to sell content, or to generate hits, and will say whatever their intended audience wants to hear.  On a forum like this one, some sincerely care about pushing a specific partisan position.  Some few might be interested in learning stuff.  A lot are here for entertainment, are out to score points without admitting they have lost points.

In the above few entries, I was making the point that the blue faction perceives the red faction as no less autocratic dictators than the other way around.  Rather than acknowledge or discuss the point, you pulled a pivot, shifting the conversation to a point of linguistics that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.  This makes me think you are a points score keeper rather than someone who is interested in listening and learning.

If you pay attention to how the thread developed, you'll see that my comment was in response to a question from Classic Xer regarding how the blue side tends to argue.  Since he and I are largely on the same side, there could hardly be an intent to deceive.  I did assume some shared knowledge, as Eric noticed, given Classic Xer and I are, again, on the same side.

Far from it being me pivoting, you barged in and started babbling about things that were irrelevant to the conversation between Classic Xer and me, perhaps because you lack the shared knowledge that was a basis for our discussion.  In the process, you did happen to agree with the specific point I made to Classic Xer, confirming that I was merely relaying the truth to him.

Based on your having had this problem with others, I think perhaps you would be well advised to pay a little more attention to the quoting and the thread of conversation.  When I or others quote someone, we're generally responding specifically to the point they made.  When you quote someone, it will be interpreted the same way, because that's how forums work, even if that's not your intent.  If you want to introduce a new point that you'd like to see responses on, don't start with a quote; just start with your point.  If you want to introduce a new point  that you are interested in getting some specific person's view on, ask for that person's view, but be aware that they may not have the time to respond to every post.

Quote:find this argument absurd.  The spiral of violence is still way low.  Black folks and cops are the common targets, not elites.  Very few elites are hiring bodyguards as they are not at this time concerned for their safety.

If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Quote:You've been going at the economic discussion hot and heavy.  Have you gotten anywhere?

Yes.  Not with you, perhaps, but I and some others have learned things.