Kill the Electoral College

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-01-2017, 02:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Oh Bob, you keep saying decisions on guns by the Supreme Court were Jim Crow decisions. How quaint and utterly false. But yes the Thurgood Marshall/Earl Warren Court properly restored the federal government's authority to enforce the constitution. Certainly that was the original intent, since the entire constitution came about because of the need for federal authority to control the riots and uprisings of the Articles era.

I also keep saying you should read the old decisions.  The Jim Crow era courts consistently denied the rights of blacks in the south.  They used the same approach with the 2nd Amendment as they did to quash the rest of the Bill of Rights.  The modern cases that repealed the Jim Crow approach are consistent between the Marshall / Warren efforts and the recent cases restoring the original meaning of the 2nd.

[Eric the Green]

Guns are not a "right" that any sane person covets or values. Guns are a technological innovation that allows people to kill other people easily and with little effort. It is not a "right" like the others. It was an 18th century measure that met the needs of that time for a militia and a check on a slave rebellion, and in the days when guns were less efficient. We should restore the original meaning of the Second, and thus go back to the long-held interpretation that "gun rights" were for the purpose of arming a well-regulated militia, and thus allow a community like DC to ban certain weapons if it wants to.

But, it will be up to the people whether they remain brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, as they so easily are today, or return to a progressive agenda. It will have to be the peoples' choice to lay down their arms or not. An armed campaign to take away peoples' guns is a contradiction and won't work.

I've gone over all of that with you before, and read everything. No need to rehash it; my comments will not change your mind.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-02-2017, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Guns are not a "right" that any sane person covets or values. Guns are a technological innovation that allows people to kill other people easily and with little effort. It is not a "right" like the others. It was an 18th century measure that met the needs of that time for a militia and a check on a slave rebellion, and in the days when guns were less efficient. We should restore the original meaning of the Second, and thus go back to the long-held interpretation that "gun rights" were for the purpose of arming a well-regulated militia, and thus allow a community like DC to ban certain weapons if it wants to.

But, it will be up to the people whether they remain brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, as they so easily are today, or return to a progressive agenda. It will have to be the peoples' choice to lay down their arms or not. An armed campaign to take away peoples' guns is a contradiction and won't work.

I've gone over all of that with you before, and read everything. No need to rehash it; my comments will not change your mind.

Again, you are proclaiming those who disagree with you as not sane.  This is not an argument but a vile stereotype.

Again, the right to own and carry weapons did not exist purely for militia duty.  There were no police forces at the time, so the People had to protect themselves.

And, yes, rehashing is futile.  You are immune to fact.

[Eric the Green]

(01-02-2017, 04:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Guns are not a "right" that any sane person covets or values. Guns are a technological innovation that allows people to kill other people easily and with little effort. It is not a "right" like the others. It was an 18th century measure that met the needs of that time for a militia and a check on a slave rebellion, and in the days when guns were less efficient. We should restore the original meaning of the Second, and thus go back to the long-held interpretation that "gun rights" were for the purpose of arming a well-regulated militia, and thus allow a community like DC to ban certain weapons if it wants to.

But, it will be up to the people whether they remain brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, as they so easily are today, or return to a progressive agenda. It will have to be the peoples' choice to lay down their arms or not. An armed campaign to take away peoples' guns is a contradiction and won't work.

I've gone over all of that with you before, and read everything. No need to rehash it; my comments will not change your mind.

Again, you are proclaiming those who disagree with you as not sane.  This is not an argument but a vile stereotype.

Again, the right to own and carry weapons did not exist purely for militia duty.  There were no police forces at the time, so the People had to protect themselves.

And, yes, rehashing is futile.  You are immune to fact.

As are you, then.

I stand by my psychological judgement

I don't mean that as applied those who disagree with me politically as a matter of ideas, but those who value guns per se. Yes, it's insanity.

There's lots of things about this world that's insane, but we still hang on to them. Guns are certainly one of them. War is probably another.

I suppose you're right about lack of police. I think the UK invented them as we know them today in the 1820s. So they've been around a long time.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-02-2017, 06:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As are you, then.

I stand by my psychological judgement

I don't mean that as applied those who disagree with me politically as a matter of ideas, but those who value guns per se. Yes, it's insanity.

There's lots of things about this world that's insane, but we still hang on to them. Guns are certainly one of them. War is probably another.

I suppose you're right about lack of police. I think the UK invented them as we know them today in the 1820s. So they've been around a long time.

Like many pack hunters, humans evolved as territorial.  A breeding group needed so much land to supply food.  The human race evolved to form groups that will take and protect sufficient land.  Thus, we are accustomed to violence, bred for violence, doomed, perhaps, to violence.

I'm a Star Trek fan.  I'd like to believe that someday humans might create a culture like Roddenberry's fictional Federation where the instincts regarding violence, bonding into conflicting groups and territory are subdued, are kept under control by an enlightened culture.  It's a worthy dream.  We shouldn't forget such dreams.  I am very disappointed that the Star Trek franchise and science fiction in general have turned away from such dreams in favor of typical Hollywood action - adventure glorification of violence.

On another thread I've been recommending On Killing.  I'll mention it again here.  What is humankind's violent nature?  What are the checks and balances between when is violence necessary and when it should it be shut down?  What mechanisms have been bred into humans to try to strive for the correct balance?

Man's instincts towards violence, his urge to form groups, to assure said groups have adequate resources, to defend said groups from attack, evolved as they did for good reason.  However, they evolved when hunter gatherer cultures were dominant, when clubs and thrown rocks were state of the art weaponry.  Nukes and assault rifles make for an entirely different situation.  It shouldn't be surprising that what once worked well enough is no longer optimal.

It would be really nice to evolve to Roddenberry's utopian Federation as quickly as we might, but even in Roddenberry's future, the best diplomatic tool was a fully charged phaser bank.  The various starships Enterprise were heavily armed for good reason, and used those arms in many many episodes.  If they weren't so armed, Star Trek episodes would have to be filmed with all starship crew members speaking Klingon.

Thus, as they say here in New England, ya kant get dayah from heah.  As a believer in turning theory and transforming crises, I can see major changes in cultures over a matter of not so many years.  However, you can only do so much in a given crisis.  We're not going to get to Roddenberry's utopia in my lifetime.

Anyway, to form groups, to defend one's group, to protect the group's resources, that's literally in our DNA.  It is in our DNA for good reason.  Groups that didn't protect their territory, resources and neighbors got bred out of the gene pool.  Most modern cultures have police forces and militaries as they are still necessary.

And clinging to deep down instinctive and cultural imperatives about what really has been necessary in the recent past should not be called 'insane'.  Values and cultures do not change lightly.  They change only when the traditions have blatantly and obviously failed.  In large parts of the country, the values held dear by the founding fathers, that are embedded in our Constitution, are not viewed as having blatantly failed.  They are deeply held to be necessary, vibrant and meaningful.

How many times need I say it?  People cling very tightly to their world views and values.  Many are unwilling or incapable of understanding and sympathizing with how other cultures came to exist, how they were shaped by quite valid historical experiences.  Too many are so locked into their own perspectives that any who disagree get labeled as insane, evil, stupid, brainwashed, etc...  

I guess a basic premise of my own world view is that any wide spread culture and values set came into existence for logical reasons that made sense given the environment that begat the culture.  As a rule of thumb, when the environment changes, when what once made sense no longer makes sense, human beings are incredibly slow to adapt.  I tend to lean progressive as technology changes much, thus it is often beneficial to acknowledge that a changing situation requires a changing culture.

But if the environment changes more slowly in rural areas than urban, if the need for change in rural areas is small to nonexistent, if the changes that seem necessary in urban areas bring no benefit in rural areas, the question is convincing people to fix what doesn't seem to be broke.  One might come to expect a very firm no.  This firm no will come at a deep down values driven take no prisoners level.

And if you don't know this already, you haven't been paying attention to the various red posters that contribute here.

I guess my frustration is that few people will assume or perceive that from inside any culture, any culture, that culture always seems to be based on common sense, logic, and valued lessons learned from history at great expense.  Too many folk are stuck thinking that one's own culture is right and true, thus it follows that all other cultures are wrong.  The other guy must of course be insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc...

I'm of course absolutely sure that my own perspective is definitely the correct one.  It follows that the rest of you are wrong.  

[Galen]

(12-31-2016, 09:31 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(12-31-2016, 07:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-31-2016, 04:03 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 08:06 AM)Odin Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 11:20 PM)Galen Wrote: the federal government has been operating well beyond the limits of the Constitution for decades.

The SCOTUS obviously disagrees.

Doesn't mean that they are right.  Having read the Constitution, Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, I can be quite confident about the limits the federal government is supposed to have.  I doubt that you or Eric the Obtuse will bother to do this since reading what the people who wrote the Constitution had to say about won't give you the answer you want.

As one of the few progressives who respected Scalia, I'll agree with Galen and Odin.  My only quibble is that I'd have said 'centuries' rather than Galen's 'decades'.  The founding fathers were much more concerned with limiting powers than subsequent generations.  The Supreme Court has allowed itself to put political motives ahead of the letter of the law throughout history.  While I haven't read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers, I have researched the 2nd Amendment and other question enough to concur with Odin's confidence.

I believe Galen is referring to more than the Second Amendment.  He is also referring to items such as the income tax, if I'm not mistaken.  Do you believe that the income tax is unconstitutional?

I have a rather long list and the people that make that argument believe that the Amendment in question was not properly ratified.  Assuming that the Amendment was properly ratified then that makes the income tax immoral in the same way that armed robbery is.  If you have trouble with this concept then I suggest that you try not paying the IRS and see what happens.  In the end it will involve people with guns taking your stuff much like the armed robber does.

The current surveillance state and sobriety checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.  The Federal Reserve violates the constitution on the grounds that the power to charter banks or give them special privileges was not granted to Congress.  The use of the Commerce Clause to regulate things clearly are not interstate commerce.  The Wickard v. Filburn decision is a classic case of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to grant the federal government more power than it ever should have.

[Odin]

(01-03-2017, 06:20 AM)Galen Wrote: that makes the income tax immoral in the same way that armed robbery is.  If you have trouble with this concept then I suggest that you try not paying the IRS and see what happens.  In the end it will involve people with guns taking your stuff much like the armed robber does.

I guess that means all societies more complex than tribal ones are immoral, then? The notion that a complex civilization is possible without taxation is outright ideological delusion.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-03-2017, 06:55 AM)taramarie Wrote: If it is any consolation one person here is listening to you and agreeing with what you say on this topic. Least you know someone is as it tends to be a lonely position to sit in.

Much appreciated.  

[David Horn]

(01-03-2017, 06:20 AM)Galen Wrote: I have a rather long list and the people that make that argument believe that the Amendment in question was not properly ratified.  Assuming that the Amendment was properly ratified then that makes the income tax immoral in the same way that armed robbery is.  If you have trouble with this concept then I suggest that you try not paying the IRS and see what happens.  In the end it will involve people with guns taking your stuff much like the armed robber does.

The current surveillance state and sobriety checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.  The Federal Reserve violates the constitution on the grounds that the power to charter banks or give them special privileges was not granted to Congress.  The use of the Commerce Clause to regulate things clearly are not interstate commerce.  The Wickard v. Filburn decision is a classic case of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to grant the federal government more power than it ever should have.

This is as nearly a perfect example of the foolish nature of ideological purity as I've seen.  Never mind that no modern nation with a 21st century economy could successfully exist in a world limited by hidebound adherence to Agricultural Age ideals.  judging by how quickly many were dispatched in the early period of the Republic, I'm not sure that even the 19th century would have prevailed.

There is simply a mandate for a commonweal, and that mandate must be enforced somehow.  A totally voluntary state may be possible if your expectations are kept very low, but even well accepted civic virtues, like highways and police departments, are nearly impossible to manage under a fully voluntary system.  Volunteer fire services do not exist outside rural areas for good reason, and they are even withering away there.

[David Horn]

(01-03-2017, 06:55 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 01:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 06:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As are you, then.

I stand by my psychological judgement

I don't mean that as applied those who disagree with me politically as a matter of ideas, but those who value guns per se. Yes, it's insanity.

There's lots of things about this world that's insane, but we still hang on to them. Guns are certainly one of them. War is probably another.

I suppose you're right about lack of police. I think the UK invented them as we know them today in the 1820s. So they've been around a long time.

<<<<< EDTED FOR BREVITTY >>>>>

I guess a basic premise of my own world view is that any wide spread culture and values set came into existence for logical reasons that made sense given the environment that begat the culture.  As a rule of thumb, when the environment changes, when what once made sense no longer makes sense, human beings are incredibly slow to adapt.  I tend to lean progressive as technology changes much, thus it is often beneficial to acknowledge that a changing situation requires a changing culture.

But if the environment changes more slowly in rural areas than urban, if the need for change in rural areas is small to nonexistent, if the changes that seem necessary in urban areas bring no benefit in rural areas, the question is convincing people to fix what doesn't seem to be broke.  One might come to expect a very firm no.  This firm no will come at a deep down values driven take no prisoners level.

And if you don't know this already, you haven't been paying attention to the various red posters that contribute here.

I guess my frustration is that few people will assume or perceive that from inside any culture, any culture, that culture always seems to be based on common sense, logic, and valued lessons learned from history at great expense.  Too many folk are stuck thinking that one's own culture is right and true, thus it follows that all other cultures are wrong.  The other guy must of course be insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc...

I'm of course absolutely sure that my own perspective is definitely the correct one.  It follows that the rest of you are wrong.  

If it is any consolation one person here is listening to you and agreeing with what you say on this topic. Least you know someone is as it tends to be a lonely position to sit in.

... though a bit more brevity would be appreciated, and I offer my humble example. 

[Eric the Green]

(01-03-2017, 04:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Guns are not a "right" that any sane person covets or values. Guns are a technological innovation that allows people to kill other people easily and with little effort. It is not a "right" like the others. It was an 18th century measure that met the needs of that time for a militia and a check on a slave rebellion, and in the days when guns were less efficient. We should restore the original meaning of the Second, and thus go back to the long-held interpretation that "gun rights" were for the purpose of arming a well-regulated militia, and thus allow a community like DC to ban certain weapons if it wants to.

But, it will be up to the people whether they remain brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, as they so easily are today, or return to a progressive agenda. It will have to be the peoples' choice to lay down their arms or not. An armed campaign to take away peoples' guns is a contradiction and won't work.

I've gone over all of that with you before, and read everything. No need to rehash it; my comments will not change your mind.

A gun can:

- Kill a feral hog that is about the injure or kill my wife.

Or more likely, much more likely, kill a deer or antelope that did not deserve to die, for a trophy or unneeded meat available at the store for most people.

Quote:- Put really great "free range" venison on the table.

Which we have no right to. Let the animals live. Let the rangers take care of the ecology. Meat is not healthy for most people anyway. We certainly don't need to eat as much of it.

Quote:- Stop or possibly kill a cougar, bear, or other dangerous apex predator.

Which are nowhere near most of us. And which can be more fairly dealt with by stunning or drugging and removing them. Most predators are criminals who got guns by stealing them, or are their own friends and relatives encouraged by the ease of killing, or themselves when depressed, or their own children by accident. Or insane creeps who find it too easy to get mass killing weapons to mow down innocent people to assuage their anger and lonliness or act out their sick ideology.

Quote:- Discourage or stop a criminal from committing a gun crime against my person or my loved ones.

Except it won't; it will only create gun battles in which the criminal has the advantage. And-- make the gun carrier himself a possible criminal, by having this tech gismo that makes killing so much easier. Or make guns much, much more available to criminals. There are 100 better ways to discourage criminals. Burglar alarms, locks, dogs, moving to a safe neighborhood, neighborhood watch, 9-11, mace and other safer weapons. Too many guns means too many gun deaths and too many crimes. The safest states are the blue states, because they regulate guns. Stats already posted. No need to rehash it. Just beware; Americans' assumptions that we need guns are one of our most serious afflictions and diseases.

Quote:- Make a hostile foreign power or terror organization think twice about any invasion or attack against the US homeland.

That it won't. Guns are no match for tanks, planes and missiles. Ask the under-armed Syrians.

Irrelevant, if interesting discussion. What I will not rehash with Bob is his constitutionalist claims. Nor should my comments be taken as advocating gun prohibition, but only gun control that is accepted and voted for by the people. And thank the Lord I live in California, where we do it.

We need to face the fact that America is a sick society compared to others, and this sickness is in part a belief in unlawful violence, and the instruments inevitably used for it, as the solution to problems.

[Eric the Green]

(01-03-2017, 04:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-31-2016, 09:31 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: I believe Galen is referring to more than the Second Amendment.  He is also referring to items such as the income tax, if I'm not mistaken.  Do you believe that the income tax is unconstitutional?

I'd agree that Galen has any number of concerns, and many to most of them are valid.  I haven't delved deeply enough into the income tax issue to have a firm opinion on it, but Congress was given a list of powers by the Constitution.  They were originally interpreted as the only powers that the states granted the federal government, and properly so.  The Supreme Court has since ruled that as one of these powers was to collect taxes, Congress can spend tax money on anything it wants.  This was not the original intent.  Also, when the Reconstruction efforts to give equal rights to blacks gave way to the Jim Crow era, the Supreme Court put out a series of court cases that collectively prevented the federal government from enforcing the entire Bill of Rights.  The federal government has no police power, thus cannot enforce the Constitution.  That power was reserved to the states.  Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP in the mid 20th Century had modern courts overturn the Jim Crow decisions, except the 2nd Amendment which was allowed to linger until recently.

While I am generally with the progressives on a lot of social issues, I generally sympathize a lot with the conservatives with regard to the Constitution and the value of written rule of law.  We are getting ourselves into trouble with national parties trying to impose one size fits all solutions on the entire country.  I don't believe that the founding fathers intended that degree of control by the federal government over the states.  Returning to the spirit and letter of the original document is worth considering, though the open cans of worms that would result would be many.  A constitutional convention would likely be required to determine what federal powers are truly necessary in the modern world, and what powers only produce strife.  At this point, the country is way too divided for such a convention.  Ratification of anything would be very difficult or worse.  Talking about what was and what ought to be is fine, though.

I approve this message!

I thoroughly disapprove, because of the slur against those victims of gun violence who are earnestly seeking redress of their grave injuries, by having the laws they propose referred to as "Jim Crow laws." That is exceptionally vile.

[Eric the Green]

(01-03-2017, 01:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 06:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As are you, then.

I stand by my psychological judgement

I don't mean that as applied those who disagree with me politically as a matter of ideas, but those who value guns per se. Yes, it's insanity.

There's lots of things about this world that's insane, but we still hang on to them. Guns are certainly one of them. War is probably another.

I suppose you're right about lack of police. I think the UK invented them as we know them today in the 1820s. So they've been around a long time.

<<<<< EDTED FOR BREVITTY >>>>>

I guess a basic premise of my own world view is that any wide spread culture and values set came into existence for logical reasons that made sense given the environment that begat the culture.  As a rule of thumb, when the environment changes, when what once made sense no longer makes sense, human beings are incredibly slow to adapt.  I tend to lean progressive as technology changes much, thus it is often beneficial to acknowledge that a changing situation requires a changing culture.

But if the environment changes more slowly in rural areas than urban, if the need for change in rural areas is small to nonexistent, if the changes that seem necessary in urban areas bring no benefit in rural areas, the question is convincing people to fix what doesn't seem to be broke.  One might come to expect a very firm no.  This firm no will come at a deep down values driven take no prisoners level.

And if you don't know this already, you haven't been paying attention to the various red posters that contribute here.

I guess my frustration is that few people will assume or perceive that from inside any culture, any culture, that culture always seems to be based on common sense, logic, and valued lessons learned from history at great expense.  Too many folk are stuck thinking that one's own culture is right and true, thus it follows that all other cultures are wrong.  The other guy must of course be insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc...

I'm of course absolutely sure that my own perspective is definitely the correct one.  It follows that the rest of you are wrong.  

Brevity is a good thing. But, no. What the red posters reveal to me, uniformly, is resistance to reality. Which you call them on also.

No, the changes the "blue" folks propose are what's right for the rural folks. The problem is not as you say. It is not Democrats imposing unworkable solutions on rural Republicans. NO. The problem is rural Republicans voting against what is in their interests, out of habit or stuck ideology. No, many of these rural folks used to vote in favor of their own interests, and embraced and were massively helped by Democratic programs. But now, when these programs are offered to them, they vote against them.

Something has come over these people. I understand perfectly what the red people are saying, and I know perfectly well what's driving them. And no, it is not something to approve of or tolerate. Because their world IS broke, and needs fixin'. Without a doubt, it's the red states and especially those in the south and Appalachia that are suffering the most today in all kinds of ways. And 35 years of the neo-liberal policies they have voted for have made these problems what they are. They blame northern liberals because they can't look in the mirror.

It's the challenges to the inbred racism in these areas, which has caused people to vote by race, in the mistaken feeling that the old segregation ways were better. They weren't. What is best for the rural and southern folk is to embrace equality and opportunity for all.

It's the challenge to religious prejudice, and their belief that discrimination is religious freedom, and that the fundamentalist Christian God should be imposed on everyone. We can understand their traditional culture, but no, it must be resisted and opposed if it is imposed.

It's the challenge to industries that harm the environment; coal chief among them, but also hunting, fishing and harvesting of timber without proper restraints, oil drilling in dangerous areas, and so on. Yes I understand their fears about losing their jobs that make them sick and send them to an early grave. But no, I think they have to move on from them.

And if they voted for government support, they'd get it. They'd get it from the Democrats, just like they did before. And if they dumped the trickle-down theory that says "taxes are theft for freeloaders," then they'd serve themselves better by getting the services like health care reform that the politicians they vote for are destroying.

Maybe I'm not always polite here toward them, and most of them are not here anyway. But they are the ones holding back progress for all of us, and somehow they must be educated. We can scream out on Wall Street all we want about inequality and the 1%, but these rural folks are the ones who have put them in power, and we have to face that reality. It's not just a question of culture; different culture is fine. It's a question of survival and prosperity for our country and our world.

[Danilynn]

I wish California would leave, just so Eric can have his hippie utopia and the rest of us can see it burn.

January 20 will be the most fabulous birthday I have had in forever watching my President Trump be inaugurated, unlike my birthday in 2009, and 2013. those were awful get drunk sort of birthdays watching that lame duck on his way out, get sworn in.

[Eric the Green]

I would be all in favor of California leaving. I'm sure we'll take a few others with us, at least, and then at least we can be free to move forward.

[Danilynn]

(01-03-2017, 09:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would be all in favor of California leaving. I'm sure we'll take a few others with us, at least, and then at least we can be free to move forward.

ditto here.

[Galen]

(01-03-2017, 09:07 PM)Danilynn Wrote: I wish California would leave, just so Eric can have his hippie utopia and the rest of us can see it burn.

Nothing like watching yet another attempt at utopia implode.  I wonder if they would wise up before ending up like North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela.  Considering Eric the Obtuse and his sporadic contact with reality, probably not.

(01-03-2017, 09:07 PM)Danilynn Wrote: January 20 will be the most fabulous birthday I have had in forever watching my President Trump be inaugurated, unlike my birthday in 2009, and 2013. those were awful get drunk sort of birthdays watching that lame duck on his way out, get sworn in.

Happy Birthday.  Watching the left have a complete meltdown must be one hell of a birthday present.   I find it quite amusing myself.

[Eric the Green]

(01-03-2017, 09:26 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:07 PM)Danilynn Wrote: I wish California would leave, just so Eric can have his hippie utopia and the rest of us can see it burn.

January 20 will be the most fabulous birthday I have had in forever watching my President Trump be inaugurated, unlike my birthday in 2009, and 2013. those were awful get drunk sort of birthdays watching that lame duck on his way out, get sworn in.

The irony is I live probably not more than 30 or 40 miles away from Eric and as you can see I am what he'd deem a vile gun nut.
About Trump - he's not a good Christian man. He's a terrible role model and may be a traitor. The only reason many on the Right are with him is because he (wrongly) claimed Obama was not born in Hawaii, and he had and has the audacity to take up the extreme Alt-Right anti-PC / foul speaking baton. But in truth he's a charlatan, a liar and a thief. As you will find undeniable after some time. From what I deem a saner variety of Rightist perspective, we have gone from the frying pan straight into the fire.

Maybe a bit nutty in that way, for sure; but not "vile." At least you can see straight about Trump. I imagine a good many moderates of various flavors will, sooner or later. I don't know if that will mean he's not re-elected, however. He was elected in spite of the worst campaign anyone has ever seen. No telling what Americans will put up with in order to keep their entertainment and hyperbole.

[Odin]

(01-03-2017, 08:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Which we have no right to. Let the animals live. Let the rangers take care of the ecology. Meat is not healthy for most people anyway. We certainly don't need to eat as much of it.

Your ignorance here is astounding, Eric. A deer can help feed a poor rural family for months. MONTHS OF FOOD for the price of a hunting license. You are so god-damned out of touch with real life. Get the hell out of your Bay Area bubble.

[pbrower2a]

(01-03-2017, 09:07 PM)Danilynn Wrote: I wish California would leave, just so Eric can have his hippie utopia and the rest of us can see it burn.

January 20 will be the most fabulous birthday I have had in forever watching my President Trump be inaugurated, unlike my birthday in 2009, and 2013. those were awful get drunk sort of birthdays watching that lame duck on his way out, get sworn in.

Somebody else had an idea of how to make his country great again. He too was an angry demagogue, and he knew how to appeal to the basest instincts in people while pretending that those instincts were healthy and normal. That is the most dangerous leader possible.

From my favorite horror movie (it's not usually considered a horror movie, but all the elements are there -- freakish characters, bad things happening to good people, and we all know what is likely to happen to the only likeable characters in the movie -- the German Jews -- after Hitler destroys liberty in the Weimar Republic).

I have a love-hate relationship with the German (extending to German-speaking lands in Austria and Switzerland) part of my ancestry because of the Nazis, an indelible part of the German historical tradition. Yes, I love Goethe and Beethoven, but one no more needs be German to love those two than one needs be Japanese to appreciate Hokusai and Kurosawa. I don't have such a love-hate relationship with the British part of my heritage. Sure, they have made some mistakes as colonial rulers, but they have never herded people into fake showers that prove to be gas chambers or mowed people down for their religious origin. Shakespeare and Hitchcock are wonderful, and the British legal system is a solid basis for democracy. Just look at the political (if not economic) success that India is. India will be the world's most powerful democracy as of January 20 because the USA will no longer be a democracy.





I would not have the same misgivings it the President to be inaugurated not so demagogic and bigoted-- like Jeb Bush, John Kasich, or Mitt Romney. I see signs of someone who will act like a dictator. Donald Trump is a shallow, vindictive fellow who would be a career criminal if he were brought up poor (juvenile delinquent who becomes a gangster); had he been middle class he might have become the sort of real-estate hustler who cuts deals that you don't really like (count your fingers after you shake hands with him, for you might have one fewer finger, so to speak). He is the sort of leader that America rejected by choosing to be a republic instead of bringing over a monarch -- the king who can start an inquisition against his own citizens if he dislikes part of them or starts a war if he gets an offensive response from another monarch.

Yes, the Establishment has failed, and when it fails, demagogues readily exploit the one great weakness of a democracy. We will all pay a price for that failure -- that includes you. You will see it later than I do, but you may be hurt far more. I am old and have Asperger's Syndrome, so being poor in an America that values only wealth and the sybaritic indulgence that it allows, death can solve my problems. Your career depends upon regulations that require an elaborate system of dealing with effluents, and if those regulations get gutted, then you might be out of a job with a bad pre-existing condition in a medical system in which people get bled for their money and die when the money runs out. You have more family ties than I do, so you are at risk of great grief should Donald Trump start a war for his glorification or the profit of his cronies should loved ones go off to war and return in body bags. Donald Trump is not a Christian gentleman. He isn't a Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Bahai, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, or atheist gentleman, either.

You are not a bad person. I would probably find you very likeable on a one-to-one basis. But good people fell for Lenin, for Hitler, for Peron, and for Castro, too. I see Donald Trump, and I see someone worse than any leader of America since George III was King and ruled America with an iron fist. If I had a proclivity for making posters, I might have one of George III to which I affix the words "MISS ME YET?"

This is not quite the ending of the whole story; we all know, all too well, what follows. The Emcee represents the depravity that made the rise of the Antichrist possible. I'm sure that you would recognize Michigan Avenue in Detroit as no less vile than the Berlin in which Cabaret takes place.





I see the Emcee as a satanic figure, someone who has debased German cultural life severely -- and he knows enough to leave Germany while the going is good. But I am nearly broke, I am too old to start over, and if I leave I might keep someone who has even more at stake from finding a safe haven. Donald Trump makes me wish that I had chain-smoked my way into an early grave -- he gives me that much foreboding. I wish I had dual citizenship.

Long Live the Queen!