The Partisan Divide on Issues

[pbrower2a]

November 2, 2017
Declining Confidence in Trump, Lower Job Ratings for Congressional Leaders
Deficit concerns plummet among members of both parties
Growing numbers of Americans express little or no confidence in Donald Trump to handle an international crisis, manage the executive branch effectively and work effectively with Congress. And today, just 34% approve of Trump’s overall job performance, while 59% disapprove.

(the material above would fit in a poll of the President's approval ratings, but there is much more to see here -- yours truly)

However, Trump’s job approval rating is higher than those of Republican and Democratic congressional leaders. Just 22% approve of the way Republican congressional leaders are doing their jobs, down 12 percentage points since February. Job ratings for Democratic leaders are not quite as negative (29% approve), though also are lower than in February (37%).

The new national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted Oct. 25-30 among 1,504 adults, finds that Trump’s job rating is lower than it was in June and February (39% on each occasion). Most Americans continue to have strong feelings about the president, with about twice as many strongly disapproving of his job performance as strongly approving (51% to 25%).

Trump engenders less confidence in handling various aspects of his job than he did in April. As he prepares for his first presidential visit to Asia, 39% say they are very or somewhat confident in his ability to handle an international crisis, down from 48% six months ago. Six-in-ten say they are not too confident (14%) or not at all confident (45%) in Trump to handle an international crisis. The share expressing no confidence in Trump to handle an overseas crisis has increased seven percentage points (from 38%) since April.

A similar pattern is seen in public confidence in Trump to manage the executive branch effectively and to work well with Congress. And just 39% say they are at least somewhat confident in Trump’s ability to handle the situation with North Korea; 13% not too confident and 46% are not at all confident in Trump in dealing with North Korea.

.......

(differing levels of trust for the two Parties



http://www.people-press.org/2017/11/02/d...l-leaders/

If you are a Republican ... ouch! And look how little confidence Americans have in this President's handling of the menace of North Korea!

[Kinser79]

Again, polls without methodology are meaningless. National polls even more meaningless. I will note that the promised "day of rage" that Antifa and the George Soros groups promised yesterday was an utter flop.

[pbrower2a]

(11-05-2017, 12:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Again, polls without methodology are meaningless.  National polls even more meaningless.  I will note that the promised "day of rage" that Antifa and the George Soros groups promised yesterday was an utter flop.

Toute au contraire. Elections are definitive (unless they are rigged).

Polls are at most estimates of public opinion. One can contrast polls to each other, and one can compare topics in a poll. Thus a Republican governor in Massachusetts or Maryland can be much more popular than Donald Trump may show what a putz President Trump is and how effective the governor is. Polls can show trends, as in politicians losing credibility or incumbents gaining against challengers.

I heard little about any "Day of Rage". I am more interested in issues than in personalities unless the personality is so egregiously awful that the personality becomes an issue. Antifa is not an issue to me.

[gabrielle]

(11-05-2017, 12:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I will note that the promised "day of rage" that Antifa and the George Soros groups promised yesterday was an utter flop.

Why the far right believes a US civil war will start on Saturday (the Guardian, Wed. Nov 1)

Quote:If you are inside the “alt-right” information bubble, you might be preparing yourself for a civil war to commence this Saturday.

Since late September, the idea has been circulating on Facebook groups, subreddit message boards, Twitter, and leading conspiracy media outlets that on 4 November, anti-fascist groups will begin a violent insurrection.

Some websites are telling their readers that antifa groups are “planning to kill every single Trump voter, Conservative and gun owner” this weekend. Hundreds of Facebook posts show how seriously consumers of such media are taking the news, and comments like “One more threat against white people and I swear to God I’m going to take a goddamn car and run over every fucking one of them” are not unrepresentative of the response.

But antifa groups have no plans to protest that day, and the small leftist groups who are planning protests have only dubious connections to the antifa movement. So what gives?

The whole thing rests on some very slender reeds, according to Spencer Sunshine, who recently wrote a report on the theories for the far right-monitoring group Political Research Associates. In the conspiracy underground on YouTube, he explains, there has been talk that “there was going to be a civil war” starting in November for some months.

Beginning in late September, three things kicked it a into higher gear. First, Refuse Fascism, a small group linked to the Revolutionary Communist party, staged a visually spectacular protest in Los Angeles. They blocked the 101 freeway and held up signs that enigmatically spelled out “Nov 4 it begins”. This is the same group that is organizing a series of protests around the country against the “Trump-Pence regime” this weekend.

Second, a video posted on a Facebook page called Vets Before Illegals went viral. The video, entitled “Antifa sets a date for civil war”, claimed that “on their website, they are calling for an open civil war that will start in November”, and set out alleged plans for attacking police officers, then citizens and the government.

Last, but by no means least, the rumor was picked up and amplified by Alex Jones, the radio star with an audience of millions. As Sunshine explains, Jones “is a kind of meta-conspiracy theorist now” who “harvests other people’s theories” and repackages them to fit his narratives and his audience.

Once Jones had mentioned it, Sunshine explains, the rumor mill exploded: “Once Jones says something, even more people pick up on it and put their own spin on it.” Jones’s website was still running the story on Wednesday morning.

An absurd turn

In recent days, the story took an absurd turn, and had its closest brush with more mainstream conservative media, when Gateway Pundit, a longtime conservative blog that has recently expanded into news coverage, published a story by its White House correspondent, Lucian Wintrich, claiming that an “antifa leader” had promised to “behead white parents” on 4 November.

The tweet the story was based on, however, was a joke from an account that had no apparent ties to any antifa groups.

In a telephone interview, Wintrich conceded that the tweet his reporting was based on was not serious, and that it was unlikely that there would be a revolution on Saturday. But he did not back away from the story, presenting it as a critique of leftist rhetoric.

“The radical left is always making jokes about killing white people. What would happen if I made a joke about killing all black parents? That would be a national headline.

“If it’s appropriate for them to demonize [conservatives] over quite innocent jokes, why would we just roll over when they make inappropriate jokes? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

The piece included a detailed account of antifa ideology, which included the claim that the activists “are larpers (‘live action role-play’) attempting to find someone/thing to sexually interact with”.

When asked what sources he drew on in reporting on their ideology, Wintrich said: “I did go to school at Bard College. I received my education around people who I’m sure are on terrorist watchlists as socialist or communist extremists.”

As Sunshine says, Refuse Fascism activists have been supportive of antifa groups in the past, and often show up to the same demonstrations, but there is “no formal connection” between them and antifa. They are also small, he says, and their protest is explicitly nonviolent and specifically directed against the administration, not rightwing activists or police.

Mark Bray, historian and author of Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook, agrees. “Prior to 2017, the far right didn’t really know what antifa was,” he says, adding that the focus on these groups has a number of causes. It is an extension of the demonization of anarchists in general, but it is also a way to smear mainstream liberals who have no links to antifascist groups.

And to some extent, this particular panic has succeeded in energizing a particular slice of the right. As Sunshine puts it: “It motivates the base, it’s part of the apocalyptic narrative they use – there’s always a dangerous event just over the horizon.” Also, he says: “It’s a call for vigilante activity. There are currently tons of threats against leftwing activists.”

And unless there is a confrontation as a result of rightwing counter-protesters turning out to shut down the “revolution”, it’s all likely to come to nothing.

“There is no revolution or civil war planned for 4 November,” says Bray. “You can quote me on that.”

[pbrower2a]

I'm not Radical Left, but I certainly recognize fascism for what it is -- pure evil, an ideology tailor-made for sociopaths. The conservative needs recognize that the fascist appeal to conservative sentiments (like 'family values' and 'patriotism') is itself a gross fraud. The fascist is delighted to break up intact families to break minority groups, and they are delighted to commit the nation to wars against peace-loving peoples who must then militarize just to survive. The fascist loves to steal, which makes him no defender of property rights essential to all modern forms of conservatism. The fascist is also the arch-enemy of conscience that makes religious faith meaningful.

We all know what a Nazi is, and nobody can adopt Nazi symbols and rhetoric without selling one's soul to the Devil. We all know what the Klan is, and nobody can adopt Klan symbols and rhetoric without.. well, you know.

[Kinser79]

I find it amusing that so-called progressives equate valuing families and being patriotic with Nazism.

@Gabrielle

The Guardian is a commie rag that I wouldn't wipe my ass with for fear of getting some sort of disease. That being said, there is clear evidence that Soros was and is funding so-called anti-fa groups which are really anarcho-communists. Problem is anarcho-anything doesn't work. Even the An-caps eventually must admit that a despotism of some form, often a monarchy, will establish itself. Human nature is still animalistic and that unlikely to change in the near future.

[pbrower2a]

(11-12-2017, 12:49 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find it amusing that so-called progressives equate valuing families and being patriotic with Nazism.

Which 'progressives', and called such by whom? Valuing families of people that fascists consider pariahs for ethnicity, religion, or sexual composition  would seem anti-fascist in my book. During World War II, patriotism in much of the world implied an implacable hatred for Nazism. Fascists invariably exploit patriotic symbols and other expressions, but such is fraud.

Quote:The Guardian is a commie rag that I wouldn't wipe my ass with for fear of getting some sort of disease.  That being said, there is clear evidence that Soros was and is funding so-called anti-fa groups which are really anarcho-communists.  Problem is anarcho-anything doesn't work.  Even the An-caps eventually must admit that a despotism of some form, often a monarchy, will establish itself.  Human nature is still animalistic and that unlikely to change in the near future.

This anarcho-syndicalist recognizes the need for police, courts of laws, prisons, and taxing authorities because Humanity has more than its share of people with vile tendencies. I prefer that people drive sober and at civilized speeds and that there not be meth labs or child abuse.

[gabrielle]

(11-12-2017, 12:49 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find it amusing that so-called progressives equate valuing families and being patriotic with Nazism.

@Gabrielle

The Guardian is a commie rag that I wouldn't wipe my ass with for fear of getting some sort of disease.  That being said, there is clear evidence that Soros was and is funding so-called anti-fa groups which are really anarcho-communists.  Problem is anarcho-anything doesn't work.  Even the An-caps eventually must admit that a despotism of some form, often a monarchy, will establish itself.  Human nature is still animalistic and that unlikely to change in the near future.

The Guardian is a center-left, mainstream, established news source.

And anyway, if it really was a commie rag, as you say, why wouldn't you believe them when they report there is no "day of rage" planned for Nov 4, especially after none materializes?

[Classic-Xer]

(11-13-2017, 05:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-12-2017, 12:49 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find it amusing that so-called progressives equate valuing families and being patriotic with Nazism.

Which 'progressives', and called such by whom? Valuing families of people that fascists consider pariahs for ethnicity, religion, or sexual composition  would seem anti-fascist in my book. During World War II, patriotism in much of the world implied an implacable hatred for Nazism. Fascists invariably exploit patriotic symbols and other expressions, but such is fraud.

Quote:The Guardian is a commie rag that I wouldn't wipe my ass with for fear of getting some sort of disease.  That being said, there is clear evidence that Soros was and is funding so-called anti-fa groups which are really anarcho-communists.  Problem is anarcho-anything doesn't work.  Even the An-caps eventually must admit that a despotism of some form, often a monarchy, will establish itself.  Human nature is still animalistic and that unlikely to change in the near future.

This anarcho-syndicalist recognizes the need for police, courts of laws, prisons, and taxing authorities because Humanity has more than its share of people with vile tendencies. I prefer that people drive sober and at civilized speeds and that there not be meth labs or child abuse.

I dunno, Hitler blaming Jews for all of Germany's problems and all the dip shit Germans problems and the dip shit German going a long comes across and sounds pretty liberal to me.

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2017, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-13-2017, 05:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-12-2017, 12:49 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find it amusing that so-called progressives equate valuing families and being patriotic with Nazism.

Which 'progressives', and called such by whom? Valuing families of people that fascists consider pariahs for ethnicity, religion, or sexual composition  would seem anti-fascist in my book. During World War II, patriotism in much of the world implied an implacable hatred for Nazism. Fascists invariably exploit patriotic symbols and other expressions, but such is fraud.

Quote:The Guardian is a commie rag that I wouldn't wipe my ass with for fear of getting some sort of disease.  That being said, there is clear evidence that Soros was and is funding so-called anti-fa groups which are really anarcho-communists.  Problem is anarcho-anything doesn't work.  Even the An-caps eventually must admit that a despotism of some form, often a monarchy, will establish itself.  Human nature is still animalistic and that unlikely to change in the near future.

This anarcho-syndicalist recognizes the need for police, courts of laws, prisons, and taxing authorities because Humanity has more than its share of people with vile tendencies. I prefer that people drive sober and at civilized speeds and that there not be meth labs or child abuse.

I dunno, Hitler blaming Jews for all of Germany's problems and all the dip shit Germans problems and the dip shit German going a long comes across and sounds pretty liberal to me.

Blaming the Jews is commonplace for extremists of the Left (who, like the self-hating Jew Karl Marx, associate Jews with money-grubbing inconsistent with socialism)  and the Far Right, who generally consider Jews a disloyal  and a destructive element within their community. Sensible people recognize the diversity within Judaism and among Jews. Then there are those people who see Israel as a gaping wound in what they think 'their' Arab or Muslim world, which may have little to do with economic ideology.

I am a liberal, and I generally recognize religious Jews as near-Christians who don't need Jesus.

The Austria in which Hitler grew up had plenty of problems. So did the Germany that Hitler took over. (OK, any country susceptible to a demagogue, whether Germany in the 1930s or the USA in the 2010s, has cancer of the soul). The p0roblems that Germany had in the early 1930s had at their core extreme disparities between haves and have-nots (Germany had the lowest industrial wages in Europe, even lower than those in countries with lesser levels of industrialization, monopolistic organization of Big Business, harsh management, rural overpopulation, militarism, racism, and  a heritage of Machiavellian near-despotism in a country with a shaky democracy, an arrogant aristocracy, and multitudes with hurt feelings about a war that went badly. Mysticism and the occult (such as Theosophy and the Thule Society) had badly debased many minds, making them amenable to gross irrationality. Inflation had ravaged middle-class savers, practically ensuring that there would be no large population of small creditors who are the basis of a moderate conservatism. The moderate-conservative Zentrum (Center) Party, analogous to the British Conservatives, was too small to put up an active resistance to Hitler.  Severe inequality fostered a large Communist Party unwilling to cut deals with any bourgeois party even when  such might have saved the Weimar Republic from Hitler and ultimately the German Communists from the concentration camps.  

Anyone with any sense would have recognized that the Jews had nothing to do with any of those problems. OK, so they dressed oddly on Saturdays and High Holy Days and had their religious services in a language that one practically had to be Jewish to understand -- and they had no use for some Jewish fellow named Jesus who somehow became German... go figure. But model minorities are particularly vulnerable to demagogic hatred when the economy melts down.

The old German socialist dictum "Antisemitism is the socialism of the dolt" applied well to Germans whose national pride came with neither a moral compass or legitimate achievement.

Jews were not the problem in Germany, as shown by the great contributions of Jews to the Allied war efforts, if the Jews got the chance. Turn Britain into an antisemitic Hell and Germany into a place congenial to Jews in 1939, and you get a German conquest of Britain.

In any event, there is nothing liberal about any form of fascism, whether 'classical' fascism of Italy, Nazism, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, the Romanian Iron Guard, the Croatian Ustase, the British BUF, or the American KKK, all of which were anti-Jewish. (Japanese fascism and the dictatorships of Franco and Salazar were not antisemitic. Right-wing American fascists shouting "Jews will not replace us" as in Charlottesville are ferociously anti-liberal.

Remember: the antithesis of a raging fascist is not a raging Commie. The antithesis of a raging fascist is a sober liberal.

Enough said.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-15-2017, 02:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-15-2017, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-13-2017, 05:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-12-2017, 12:49 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I find it amusing that so-called progressives equate valuing families and being patriotic with Nazism.

Which 'progressives', and called such by whom? Valuing families of people that fascists consider pariahs for ethnicity, religion, or sexual composition  would seem anti-fascist in my book. During World War II, patriotism in much of the world implied an implacable hatred for Nazism. Fascists invariably exploit patriotic symbols and other expressions, but such is fraud.

Quote:The Guardian is a commie rag that I wouldn't wipe my ass with for fear of getting some sort of disease.  That being said, there is clear evidence that Soros was and is funding so-called anti-fa groups which are really anarcho-communists.  Problem is anarcho-anything doesn't work.  Even the An-caps eventually must admit that a despotism of some form, often a monarchy, will establish itself.  Human nature is still animalistic and that unlikely to change in the near future.

This anarcho-syndicalist recognizes the need for police, courts of laws, prisons, and taxing authorities because Humanity has more than its share of people with vile tendencies. I prefer that people drive sober and at civilized speeds and that there not be meth labs or child abuse.

I dunno, Hitler blaming Jews for all of Germany's problems and all the dip shit Germans problems and the dip shit German going a long comes across and sounds pretty liberal to me.

Blaming the Jews is commonplace for extremists of the Left (who, like the self-hating Jew Karl Marx, associate Jews with money-grubbing inconsistent with socialism)  and the Far Right, who generally consider Jews a disloyal  and a destructive element within their community. Sensible people recognize the diversity within Judaism and among Jews. Then there are those people who see Israel as a gaping wound in what they think 'their' Arab or Muslim world, which may have little to do with economic ideology.  

I am a liberal, and I generally recognize religious Jews as near-Christians who don't need Jesus.

The Austria in which Hitler grew up had plenty of problems. So did the Germany that Hitler took over. (OK, any country susceptible to a demagogue, whether Germany in the 1930s or the USA in the 2010s, has cancer of the soul). The p0roblems that Germany had in the early 1930s had at their core extreme disparities between haves and have-nots (Germany had the lowest industrial wages in Europe, even lower than those in countries with lesser levels of industrialization, monopolistic organization of Big Business,  harsh management, rural overpopulation, militarism, racism, and  a heritage of Machiavellian near-despotism in a country with a shaky democracy, an arrogant aristocracy, and multitudes with hurt feelings about a war that went badly. Mysticism and the occult (such as Theosophy and the Thule Society) had badly debased many minds, making them amenable to gross irrationality.   Inflation had ravaged middle-class savers, practically ensuring that there would be no large population of small creditors who are the basis of a moderate conservatism. The moderate-conservative Zentrum (Center) Party, analogous to the British Conservatives, was too small to put up an active resistance to Hitler.   Severe inequality fostered a large Communist Party unwilling to cut deals with any bourgeois party even when  such might have saved the Weimar Republic from Hitler and ultimately the German Communists from the concentration camps.  

Anyone with any sense would have recognized that the Jews had nothing to do with any of those problems. OK, so they dressed oddly on Saturdays and High Holy Days and had their religious services in a language that one practically had to be Jewish to understand -- and they had no use for some Jewish fellow named Jesus who somehow became German... go figure. But model minorities are particularly vulnerable to demagogic hatred when the economy melts down.

The old German socialist dictum "Antisemitism is the socialism of the dolt" applied well to Germans whose national pride came with neither a moral compass or legitimate achievement.

Jews were not the problem in Germany, as shown by the great contributions of Jews to the Allied war efforts, if the Jews got the chance. Turn Britain into an antisemitic Hell and Germany into a place congenial to Jews in 1939, and you get a German conquest of Britain.

In any event, there is nothing liberal about any form of fascism, whether 'classical' fascism of Italy, Nazism, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, the Romanian Iron Guard, the Croatian Ustase, the British BUF, or the American KKK, all of which were anti-Jewish. (Japanese fascism and the dictatorships of Franco and Salazar were not antisemitic. Right-wing American fascists shouting "Jews will not replace us" as in Charlottesville are ferociously anti-liberal.

Remember: the antithesis of a raging fascist is not a raging Commie. The antithesis of a raging fascist is a sober liberal.

Enough said.

I haven't seen a real liberal on the so-called "liberal" side for a long time. All I see on the so-called "liberal" side is a bunch of conservative, closed minded people who aren't much different/ better than the so-called "Nazi's" that you seem to be so worried about and spend the bulk of your time writing and telling us about them here. What would I do with a Nazi? I would move towards destroying/eliminating a Nazi the same way I'd move toward destroying/ eliminating a Bolshevik or a Venezuelan Socialist. Hint: America ain't Europe. Hint: The America of today isn't the same as the America that existed at the turn of the last century (The America that my great grand parents and my grand parents were born in).

[pbrower2a]

Classic X'er

That's completely incoherent.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-15-2017, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Classic X'er

That's completely incoherent.

I probably didn't communicate to you in writing very well as usual. I don't know where you think using the fascist label as you please and using the fear of the term fascist, is going to get you in America. But, I would wager that it's not going to get you very far in America. Think about it, you've been doing it for years. Have you gotten any further than dumb shits who agree with you? America would crush fascism here. America would crush communism here. America would crush socialism here. Europe on the other hand could go along with any one of them.

BTW, the antithesis of a raging so called liberal like yourself is an American born and raised classical liberal like myself. Why is it that I always have to remind the blues where they live? Why is it, I always have to educate the blues about the Americans. What are the blues going to do when the Americans start pushing them and ratcheting up the rhetoric and begin forcing them to make choices?

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2017, 08:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-15-2017, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Classic X'er

That's completely incoherent.

I probably didn't communicate to you in writing very well as usual. I don't know where you think using the fascist label as you please and using the fear of the term fascist, is going to get you in America. But, I would wager that it's not going to get you very far in America. Think about it, you've been doing it for years. Have you gotten any further than dumb shits who agree with you? America would crush fascism here. America would crush communism here. America would crush socialism here. Europe on the other hand could go along with any one of them.

BTW, the antithesis of a raging so called liberal like yourself is an American born and raised classical liberal like myself. Why is it that I always have to remind the blues where they live? Why is it, I always have to educate the blues about the Americans. What are the blues going to do when the Americans start pushing them and ratcheting up the rhetoric and begin forcing them to make choices?

Nobody has an excuse for word salad. People need to write as simply as necessary for the expression  of their ideas. To be sure, some ideas have a complexity that requires dense prose with big words. Even in academia, attempting to snow experts by writing material of undue difficulty as proof of knowledge and innovative research has lost all acceptability.

If I don't understand something, then one of three things is true:

1. The material is in an area outside of my knowledge
2. The writer is simply incompetent in writing skills
3. The potential of academic fraud is high  (Witness the Sokal Affair!) 
[/url]




[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair]

[pbrower2a]

For the first, you can assume that I write at a college level and can read at a master's or doctoral level. For me, reading such material is something of a treat. Of course there are highly-technical materials

For the second, some people just never learn the basic mechanics of writing. Some people try to add clever touches to their banal writing in an effort to look brilliant; it does not work.

For the third, one needs a powerful justification to write and offer difficult material to others to read. An attempt to convince others of expertise that one does not have by writing incoherent, incomprehensible stuff as evidence that one is smarter than the reviewer suggests academic fraud.

It is telling that for most uses, a junior-high level of communication is adequate. These forums are a prime example.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-16-2017, 09:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: For the first, you can assume that I write at a college level and can read at a master's or doctoral level. For me, reading such material is something of a treat. Of course there are highly-technical materials

For the second, some people just never learn the basic mechanics of writing. Some people try to add clever touches to their banal writing in an effort to look brilliant; it does not work.  

For the third, one needs a powerful justification to write and offer difficult material to others to read. An attempt to convince others of expertise that one does not have by writing incoherent, incomprehensible stuff as evidence that one is smarter than the reviewer suggests academic fraud.

It is telling that for most uses, a junior-high level of communication is adequate. These forums are a prime example.

I assume that you can write at a college level. I assume you can read at a master's level and possibly a doctoral level. I also assume anyone who can read write at those levels should have the intellect to be able to look at what you say about fascism/Nazism and compare what we see today to what people seen/experienced when fascism was at it's height ( which was a long time ago and America played a major roll in defeating) which is also very well documented. Why does a so-called highly educated person like yourself come across to a so-called lowly educated person like myself as being so clueless and so worthless as far as people go? This a million dollar question that you probably can't answer because it's to disturbing. If you could answer that question, the million would already be in your pocket and you wouldn't be here for me to ask you it.

Despite all the years of posting here and the 4T, I have yet to meet a liberal who measured up to the standards that they supposedly claim to represent. Kiff was a piece of shit. Kiff did her best to hide under Jesus's banner. Kiff learned something from old KIA. KIA taught Kiff that her religious association was meaningless to people like him. She also learned that being a woman granted her no special passes or treatment with people like him either. People like him didn't give a shit( take gender/ race into account) about race or gender when judging them as a person. BTW, a true believer in equality doesn't grant special passes or treatment just because they're a woman or have a certain skin tone. BTW, I've yet to meet a blue woman who measures up to my standards. I've met women who do or are viewed as capable, but I've yet to meet a woman who claims to be a blue, so to speak.

[Eric the Green]

(11-17-2017, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2017, 09:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: For the first, you can assume that I write at a college level and can read at a master's or doctoral level. For me, reading such material is something of a treat. Of course there are highly-technical materials

For the second, some people just never learn the basic mechanics of writing. Some people try to add clever touches to their banal writing in an effort to look brilliant; it does not work.  

For the third, one needs a powerful justification to write and offer difficult material to others to read. An attempt to convince others of expertise that one does not have by writing incoherent, incomprehensible stuff as evidence that one is smarter than the reviewer suggests academic fraud.

It is telling that for most uses, a junior-high level of communication is adequate. These forums are a prime example.

I assume that you can write at a college level. I assume you can read at a master's level and possibly a doctoral level. I also assume anyone who can read write at those levels should have the intellect to be able to look at what you say about fascism/Nazism and compare what we see today to what people seen/experienced when fascism was at it's height ( which was a long time ago and America played a major roll in defeating) which is also very well documented. Why does a so-called highly educated person like yourself come across to a so-called lowly educated person like myself as being so clueless and so worthless as far as people go? This a million dollar question that you probably can't answer because it's to disturbing. If you could answer that question, the million would already be in your pocket and you wouldn't be here for me to ask you it.

Despite all the years of posting here and the 4T, I have yet to meet a liberal who measured up to the standards that they supposedly claim to represent. Kiff was a piece of shit. Kiff did her best to hide under Jesus's banner. Kiff learned something from old KIA. KIA taught Kiff that her religious association was meaningless to people like him. She also learned that being a woman granted her no special passes or treatment with people like him either. People like him didn't give a shit( take gender/ race  into account) about race or gender  when judging them  as a person. BTW, a true believer in equality doesn't grant special passes or treatment just because they're a woman or have a certain skin tone. BTW, I've yet to meet a blue woman who measures up to my standards. I've met women who do or are viewed as capable, but I've yet to meet a woman who claims to be a blue, so to speak.

Hello Classic/KIA

From one worthless person to another

First off, Kiff was a wonderful poster and I like her. She is a Christian, and no it doesn't matter unless the subject of religion is being discussed. Her posts on that topic were quite intelligent and I agreed with them. Her notion of what a Christian is, is far superior in my opinion to the notion that many evangelicals and fundamentalists profess. Things have gotten heated in this forum from time to time, and disagreements happen.

I don't know why brower comes across as worthless to you. I don't find him so, but that may just be because brower and I are both of the "blue"persuasion, at least these days, and you are of the "red" persuasion these days. These days, red and blue people have little in common as far as notions of what is valuable and what is worthless are concerned, at least in culture and politics. On more personal levels, I suggest that people of both persuasions and all persuasions have much that is worthwhile in their personal lives, morals and talents.

Brower may be too loose in his current use of the word fascist. But on the other hand, one does not need to be Hitler or an instrument of his rule to be a fascist. Fascist is a much looser term and may refer to tendencies toward authoritarianism and prejudice, and the career of such as Trump and Bannon and those who are their instruments and many of their supporters certainly display much authoritarianism and prejudice. 

On the other hand, red and blue disagree about what freedom and authoritarian mean, and even what prejudice means. This leads into the issue of the views of such red icons as Ayn Rand, whom Brower mentioned above. This issue of trickle-down economics and dog-whistle politics has been gone over and over again here, so no need to rehash it. But it seems a fundamental difference between blue and red, and given the evident failure of trickle-down economics over the years, the Republicans' stubborn adherence to it and their current drive to put it into overdrive again strikes me as religion rather than any interest in facts.

[pbrower2a]

(11-17-2017, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-16-2017, 09:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (snip)

I assume that you can write at a college level. I assume you can read at a master's level and possibly a doctoral level. I also assume anyone who can read write at those levels should have the intellect to be able to look at what you say about fascism/Nazism and compare what we see today to what people seen/experienced when fascism was at it's height ( which was a long time ago and America played a major roll in defeating) which is also very well documented. Why does a so-called highly educated person like yourself come across to a so-called lowly educated person like myself as being so clueless and so worthless as far as people go? This a million dollar question that you probably can't answer because it's to disturbing. If you could answer that question, the million would already be in your pocket and you wouldn't be here for me to ask you it.

I recognize a continuum between conservatism with democratic values to genocidal fascism, just as there is a continuum between liberalism and genocidal Marxism-Leninism. Thus the Right has Sir Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, with such types as Kurt Schuschnigg, Ioannis Metaxas, and Antonio Salazar, authoritarian conservatives. all of whom had poor records on human rights without the racism or mass murder of Adolf Hitler.I do not consider Schuschnigg, Metaxas, or Salazar  totalitarian. Even among Marxist-Leninist regimes, it is quite clear that Poland under Jaruzelski and Hungary under Kadar in the 1980s were far from the totalitarianism of the Stalinist era, let alone the monstrous horror of the Khmer Rouge. 

Even this is incomplete. It is hard to determine whether Ba'athist regimes in Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan under Taliban rule, or areas under control of ISIS are so clearly Right as Left. But in the command system, the controlled economies, the complete absence of political pluralism, and the pervasive propaganda one sees totalitarianism. It is also possible to recognize the absence of such foundations of liberal democracy as civil liberties, security of life and property, due process, and competitive elections that one has the absence of democracy (although I would not consider pre-modern tyrannies like Imperial Russia or ancient Sparta totalitarian, and neither would I consider such mad despotism as that of Idi Amin "totalitarian").

It is hard to cut clear distinctions between democracy and tyranny where there is no such clear distinction.

Quote:Despite all the years of posting here and the 4T, I have yet to meet a liberal who measured up to the standards that they supposedly claim to represent.

Except for perfect evil there is no human perfection. There is not, and never will be a perfect performance of Hamlet or of Beethoven;s Ninth Symphony, either.

Quote:Kiff was a piece of shit.

How sick can one get as with that statement? Very few people are pure evil, and pure evil includes people who use a pretended attractiveness to lure people into doing great horrors or in turning people into pointless victims of monstrous horror.  You are welcome to use that phrase against Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, their operatives, or sundry serial killers...

People are not evil because they disagree with you. People are evil because they do horrible things to other people.

(Note: I ordinarily modify such statements because I have no desire to relay such nastiness. But removing the vileness takes away the offense that I excoriate).

Quote:Kiff did her best to hide under Jesus's banner.

Raising the banner and living up to Christian expectations of pious decency is admirable. Of course people can be very good without Jesus, as I well know from Jews, atheists, and agnostics that I know. When one raises Jesus' banner, one certainly isn't hiding. I happen to like Catholic social teaching, an arguable antithesis of the "I've got mine -- $crew you!" ethos of many of our elites, especially Donald Trump.

Quote:Kiff learned something from old KIA. KIA taught Kiff that her religious association was meaningless to people like him. She also learned that being a woman granted her no special passes or treatment with people like him either. People like him didn't [profanity deleted]( take gender/ race  into account) about race or gender  when judging them  as a person.

Well, well, well! People don't have to interject their ethnicity, social class, gender, national origin, or other such things into chat rooms. Of course, misrepresentations of their intellectual qualifications usually implodes. I have excellent ways of detecting people who make fraudulent claims to technical knowledge. Think of Elena Ceausescu pleading for her life with the claim that as a scientist and engineer she could make great contributions to academic life in Romania -- she could not identify the formula of carbon dioxide. I'm not going to say what question I ask, but it should be as natural to someone with any college-level math and science as falling off a spinning log.

Quote:BTW, a true believer in equality doesn't grant special passes or treatment just because they're a woman or have a certain skin tone. BTW, I've yet to meet a blue woman who measures up to my standards. I've met women who do or are viewed as capable, but I've yet to meet a woman who claims to be a blue, so to speak.

You aren't looking hard enough, and maybe you shouldn't. If you are happily married to some arch-conservative Hausfrau, then stick with her even if she is a five-by-five who can be attractive to you only because you have shared inimitable experiences over the years. Adultery is for schmucks. Marital stability (barring overt abuse) is worth the struggle and self-restraint.

[Eric the Green]

Blue states and Red States:
who acts on the climate change issue, and who doesn't?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/clima...xVekcEz7LY

Blue States Roll Out Aggressive Climate Strategies. Red States Keep to the Sidelines.




Image
Wind turbines near Palm Springs, Calif. Several states, including New York and California, are pushing ambitious green-energy policies to fight global warming. CreditCreditBeth Coller for The New York Times


WASHINGTON — At a time when the country is already deeply fractured along partisan lines, individual states are starting to pursue vastly different policies on climate change with the potential to cement an economic and social divide for years to come.

A growing number of blue states are adopting sweeping new climate laws — such as New York’s bill, passed this week, to zero out net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 — that aim to reorient their entire economies around clean energy, transforming the way people get their electricity, heat their homes and commute to work.

But these laws are passing almost exclusively in states controlled by Democrats, while Republican-led states have largely resisted enacting aggressive new climate policies in recent years. At the same time, the Trump administration is rolling back federal climate regulations, which means many red states now face even less pressure to shift away from coal power or gas-guzzling vehicles.

“What we’re seeing is a tale of two climate nations,” said Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “The split has become much more pronounced in recent years.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Over the past year, Democratic majorities in California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Washington have all passed bills aimed at getting 100 percent of their state’s electricity from carbon-free sources like wind, solar or nuclear power by midcentury, while enacting a raft of measures to install more electric-vehicle charging stations and ratchet up efficiency codes for buildings. In all, these states plan to invest billions of dollars to shift away from fossil fuels, the major driver of global warming.

And in Oregon, Democrats are on the verge of passing a bill that would require companies to pay for the carbon dioxide they emit, mirroring a law California has had in place for a decade. Such carbon-pricing programs, favored by some economists as an efficient tool to curb emissions, once attracted support from Democrats and Republicans alike but have become far more divisive lately.....

[pbrower2a]

(11-17-2017, 05:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote pid='31961' dateline='1510901855']
(snip)

Hello Classic/KIA

From one worthless person to another

First off, Kiff was a wonderful poster and I like her. She is a Christian, and no it doesn't matter unless the subject of religion is being discussed. Her posts on that topic were quite intelligent and I agreed with them. Her notion of what a Christian is, is far superior in my opinion to the notion that many evangelicals and fundamentalists profess. Things have gotten heated in this forum from time to time, and disagreements happen.
[/quote]

Yes, I miss her, too.

I see religion as worthy of the limitations that it puts on individual lives (it is more restrictive than liberating!) when it does one of these things:

(1) it improves personal character. behavior, and morality
(2) it leads people to do good that they otherwise would not do, or restrains them from doing evil
(3) it comforts people when nothing else can work to that effect
(4) it offers a shortcut to profound knowledge available in no other way to that person

If you winder what the limitations are, then consider that if Donald Trump lived up to the Christian morality that he affects, then he would not cheat lenders, subcontractors, or taxing authorities; and he would never grab women by their 'kitty-cats'. None of that is Christian -- but it isn't  Islamic, Jewish, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Shinto, either. It's probably inconsistent with Wicca and other neo-pagan ways, too.

Valid religion obviously eschews cruelty, corruption, and superstition.

Quote:I don't know why brower comes across as worthless to you. I don't find him so, but that may just be because brower and I are both of the "blue"persuasion, at least these days, and you are of the "red" persuasion these days. These days, red and blue people have little in common as far as notions of what is valuable and what is worthless are concerned, at least in culture and politics. On more personal levels, I suggest that people of both persuasions and all persuasions have much that is worthwhile in their personal lives, morals and talents.

But even I can recognize some validity in some conservatism that I used to know. It offered opportunity at the expense of entitlement; it promoted virtue and responsibility across lines of class; it offered accessible tradition as a back-up when things went wrong; it rejected dishonesty and corruption; it recognized the validity of learning and knowledge; it eschewed demagoguery.  The fault with movement conservatives. None of that fits what I see as contemporary conservatism.

In a way I feel sorry for them: they have gotten the shaft in American politics for several years. Some make an uneasy alliance with liberals who might show most of the old conservative virtues (Obama) or in an attempt to redirect the Right in the direction of the old virtuous conservatism, which is even more of a failure.  

Quote:Brower may be too loose in his current use of the word fascist. But on the other hand, one does not need to be Hitler or an instrument of his rule to be a fascist. Fascist is a much looser term and may refer to tendencies toward authoritarianism and prejudice, and the career of such as Trump and Bannon and those who are their instruments and many of their supporters certainly display much authoritarianism and prejudice. 

Fascism and its derivatives are smear words. But so are murderer, thief, rapist, traitor, and fraud. I look at Laurence Britt's
fourteen warning signs of fascism and I see nothing other than pathology, and as I look at Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Fascist by the late Umberto Eco and see much the same, if with different expressions -- and more literary merit.

But most of those traits that either Britt or Eco ascribe to fascist pathology also apply to some Marxist-Leninist regimes -- Stalin's Soviet Union, Hungary under Rakosi, Castro's Cuba, Romania under Ceausescu, and contemporary North Korea. Such also apply to Ba'athist Iraq and Syria, to the madhouse of Uganda under Idi Amurderin', and the repressive world of Iran under the ayatollahs. They may apply much less to Schuschnigg in Austria, Salazar in Portugal, or Metaxas in Greece than to Mussolini, Hitler, Pavelic, and Tojo. They apply better to two Presidents (Dubya and Trump) than to any others.
.

Quote:On the other hand, red and blue disagree about what freedom and authoritarian mean, and even what prejudice means. This leads into the issue of the views of such red icons as Ayn Rand, whom Brower mentioned above. This issue of trickle-down economics and dog-whistle politics has been gone over and over again here, so no need to rehash it. But it seems a fundamental difference between blue and red, and given the evident failure of trickle-down economics over the years, the Republicans' stubborn adherence to it and their current drive to put it into overdrive again strikes me as religion rather than any interest in facts.

Ayn Rand's sort of libertarianism is itself utopian -- which should be scary in itself.