Who Can Beat Trump?

[Bob Butler 54]

Just did my daily check in at Brietbert, and saw a headline that some fans are burning Nike gear in protest of their using Kaepernick in their ads.  Well, never say that I don't follow Brietbert.  I immediately bought a blue Nike swoosh T-shirt.

Show your colors?

[Eric the Green]

(08-29-2018, 05:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-28-2018, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote: There is a point where everyone feels put-upon.  The Red culture seems to have reached this point decades ago -- if not longer.  Religion certainly plays a part, but patriarchy is just as important.  There is a reverence for the Red Elites (for lack of a better description), and a rock-rib belief in the sanctity of work (unless you belong to the elite class, of course).  Hence, a man who works two or three jobs, is never home and often dies young is honored, but working smart is considered sloth.  This is one of the bugaboos Red culture has against Blue culture: they're "lazy".  Add atheism (assumed) and communism (they want hand-outs instead of work) and you have a belief system that can't be breached.  

I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

Well, are there bigoted blues who rock down believe that Reds are religious, patriarchic, reverent believers in 3 jobs and opponents of communism and atheism?  Does this describe the reds we see on this board?  Are all blues this rock down bigoted?

Now, I do believe in hating the Agricultural Age premises, in hating elites, greed, in solving problems, in the Enlightenment values of democracy, human rights and equality.  This has noting to do with the Red vision of Blues as communist, atheist, addicts into handouts.  Everybody has their vile stereotypes, dark projections of what the other guys are like.  You just covered a common Red one, and went so far as to say it is nigh on universal in some parts of America.  At the same time, you illustrated a Blue bigotry in not addressing the true reasons that Reds advocate things like small government, reduced regulation and lower taxes.  They have their point.  They should make their point.  You can respect many points.  But in the best of possible worlds, we will still end up with government, regulation and taxes.

I would say these vile stereotypes are often inaccurate, and the problem is a great degree in how hard people cling to the stereotypes.  Blues have to speak clearly about what Blues really stand for and puncture these Red stereotypes, and vice versa.  We ought to be centered on what everyone really believes, not on the garbage stereotypes.  As is, people are into the stereotypes, not the reality.

If we could dump the stereotypes, if we could deal with the real values, we might combine things into something that could be respected by both sides.  I think building that could result in a regeneracy.

Insults and stereotypes fly when tempers fray, on both sides. It's futile to try to stop it. But the Parkland students like David Hogg and his sister Lauren, and their allies like Matt Post, have shown us the way. Keep focused on the issues. We will have to unite together on the blue side, including support for gun control; the second amendment is not going away, most likely, but NRA extremism needs to go away. We will also need to focus on bringing a healthy climate and a society of equity and democracy into being, and keep hammering those issues, and let the stereotypes and insults fly around us and not get distracted by them. These student leaders don't get caught up in the superficial insult wars, and neither should we. Mobilize and act; that's the way through.

All Americans will eventually get on the winning team, if the blue team can win and push through what all will eventually agree was the right course, when the mass Trump hypnosis is broken, by the blue team's courage and faith and dedication to what's right and forward-looking, and by the Red team's leaders' own ineptitude and greedy egoism and fear inevitably on display in politicians like Trump.

[Bob Butler 54]

The following CNN Article on Bob Woodward book about the Trump White House echoes the typical blue perspective which the costal press pushes to portray Trump as a dangerous, inept liar.  Yet, a good portion of the country will still back Trump and his approach.  I note a recent CNN article that echoes David Horn.  There is a large part of the country that will back candidates that Trump endorses, where most follow the red way of looking at things.

I cannot help but thinking that something has got to give.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-04-2018, 12:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Insults and stereotypes fly when tempers fray, on both sides. It's futile to try to stop it. But the Parkland students like David Hogg and his sister Lauren, and their allies like Matt Post, have shown us the way. Keep focused on the issues. We will have to unite together on the blue side, including support for gun control; the second amendment is not going away, most likely, but NRA extremism needs to go away. We will also need to focus on bringing a healthy climate and a society of equity and democracy into being, and keep hammering those issues, and let the stereotypes and insults fly around us and not get distracted by them. These student leaders don't get caught up in the superficial insult wars, and neither should we. Mobilize and act; that's the way through.

All Americans will eventually get on the winning team, if the blue team can win and push through what all will eventually agree was the right course, when the mass Trump hypnosis is broken, by the blue team's courage and faith and dedication to what's right and forward-looking, and by the Red team's leaders' own ineptitude and greedy egoism and fear inevitably on display in politicians like Trump.

One of your saner gun posts. Yes, there are extremists on both side, pushing for a gun culture on one side, or total weapon prohibition on the other. There is much middle ground in closing loopholes, in preventing and enforcing the idea that felons and the mentally incompetent should not have weapons. You would think all would agree on that. That will also be hard enough without the fears of both extremes, however sincere and intense the extremes may be.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-27-2018, 05:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we will be in the Regeneracy  once and for all when quality matters more than identity. We have plenty to solve, beginning with poverty. We have much obsolete infrastructure. If you want to speak of highways, then I can think of plenty of highway projects, including transforming one of the busiest rural expressways in America  from two lanes in both directions to three, and replacing one of its cloverleaf interchanges (horrible accident waiting to happen when a truck jackknives going too fast for conditions, which can result from some fool cutting off an eighteen-wheeler). If I tell you what state and part of the state it is in I will give much away.

We are going to need more water and more energy. Solar power, anyone?



I can think of something far better than some wall resembling the Berlin Wall wall along our border: a freeway along US 83 which would connect a big chunk of America badly served by current highways. Rural freeways stimulate local development along them; urban expressways can wreck urban areas.

Well, you aren't going to solve poverty with more welfare programs and a more generous welfare system.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-04-2018, 12:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 05:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-28-2018, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote: There is a point where everyone feels put-upon.  The Red culture seems to have reached this point decades ago -- if not longer.  Religion certainly plays a part, but patriarchy is just as important.  There is a reverence for the Red Elites (for lack of a better description), and a rock-rib belief in the sanctity of work (unless you belong to the elite class, of course).  Hence, a man who works two or three jobs, is never home and often dies young is honored, but working smart is considered sloth.  This is one of the bugaboos Red culture has against Blue culture: they're "lazy".  Add atheism (assumed) and communism (they want hand-outs instead of work) and you have a belief system that can't be breached.  

I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

Well, are there bigoted blues who rock down believe that Reds are religious, patriarchic, reverent believers in 3 jobs and opponents of communism and atheism?  Does this describe the reds we see on this board?  Are all blues this rock down bigoted?

Now, I do believe in hating the Agricultural Age premises, in hating elites, greed, in solving problems, in the Enlightenment values of democracy, human rights and equality.  This has noting to do with the Red vision of Blues as communist, atheist, addicts into handouts.  Everybody has their vile stereotypes, dark projections of what the other guys are like.  You just covered a common Red one, and went so far as to say it is nigh on universal in some parts of America.  At the same time, you illustrated a Blue bigotry in not addressing the true reasons that Reds advocate things like small government, reduced regulation and lower taxes.  They have their point.  They should make their point.  You can respect many points.  But in the best of possible worlds, we will still end up with government, regulation and taxes.

I would say these vile stereotypes are often inaccurate, and the problem is a great degree in how hard people cling to the stereotypes.  Blues have to speak clearly about what Blues really stand for and puncture these Red stereotypes, and vice versa.  We ought to be centered on what everyone really believes, not on the garbage stereotypes.  As is, people are into the stereotypes, not the reality.

If we could dump the stereotypes, if we could deal with the real values, we might combine things into something that could be respected by both sides.  I think building that could result in a regeneracy.

Insults and stereotypes fly when tempers fray, on both sides. It's futile to try to stop it. But the Parkland students like David Hogg and his sister Lauren, and their allies like Matt Post, have shown us the way. Keep focused on the issues. We will have to unite together on the blue side, including support for gun control; the second amendment is not going away, most likely, but NRA extremism needs to go away. We will also need to focus on bringing a healthy climate and a society of equity and democracy into being, and keep hammering those issues, and let the stereotypes and insults fly around us and not get distracted by them. These student leaders don't get caught up in the superficial insult wars, and neither should we. Mobilize and act; that's the way through.

All Americans will eventually get on the winning team, if the blue team can win and push through what all will eventually agree was the right course, when the mass Trump hypnosis is broken, by the blue team's courage and faith and dedication to what's right and forward-looking, and by the Red team's leaders' own ineptitude and greedy egoism and fear inevitably on display in politicians like Trump.

The day the blues stop looking backwards for solutions relating to the modern day and stop clinging to beliefs and values associated with the past during the height of the old Democratic party.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-04-2018, 10:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The day the blues stop looking backwards for solutions relating to the modern day and stop clinging to beliefs and values associated with the past during the height of the old Democratic party.

?

To me, Conservative means a desire to cling to old values, not change. Progressive means to adapt new values, to change. For example conservative in global warming is to deny the greenhouse effect and continue to release pollutants. To be progressive is to stop releasing them. To be conservative in the late Gilded Age was to continue without workplace safety, child labor or work hour protections, while being Progressive was to enact laws addressing the issues. In war, conservative in one era was to maintain isolationism, to strive not to embroil oneself in European Conflicts. It later meant to cling to being a world power, to cling to FDR's policies of being strong and acting abroad. Too be progressive is to adapt the culture to the future, to recognize that as technology changes it should be recognized and laws change to adapt, while being conservative sees the values of the past, especially old power structures are allowed to keep past ways of making profits.

I think you are confused, have it backwards of the usual understanding. What exactly do you mean here?

[Bob Butler 54]

Both CNN and Breitbart put the win of activist Ayanna Pressley over the establishment Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Democratic primaries on their respective front web pages.  There was a slight difference in how it was reported.  Breitbart emphasized a leftist victory.  CNN emphasized a counter establishment victory.  As usual, the basic facts were the same, but the spin was there.

I would emphasize the counter establishment theme.  One of the things to respect in the red movement is their dislike of establishment figures, one place they are a little ahead of the blue.  The blue are hopefully catching up.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-05-2018, 03:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-04-2018, 10:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The day the blues stop looking backwards for solutions relating to the modern day and stop clinging to beliefs and values associated with the past during the height of the old Democratic party.

?

To me, Conservative means a desire to cling to old values, not change.  Progressive means to adapt new values, to change.  For example conservative in global warming is to deny the greenhouse effect and continue to release pollutants.  To be progressive is to stop releasing them.  To be conservative in the late Gilded Age was to continue without workplace safety, child labor or work hour protections, while being Progressive was to enact laws addressing the issues.  In war, conservative in one era was to maintain isolationism, to strive not to embroil oneself in European Conflicts.  It later meant to cling to being a world power, to cling to FDR's policies of being strong and acting abroad.  Too be progressive is to adapt the culture to the future, to recognize that as technology changes it should be recognized and laws change to adapt, while being conservative sees the values of the past, especially old power structures are allowed to keep past ways of making profits.

I think you are confused, have it backwards of the usual understanding.  What exactly do you mean here?

You and I have had an issue with understanding one another for a LONG time. Where did you get that understanding from? Your understanding of conservatives is primarily based on what? It wasn't based on me, my views, my opinion of the current progressives, my understanding of the progressives or our direct communications with each other.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-05-2018, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Both CNN and Breitbart put the win of activist Ayanna Pressley over the establishment Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Democratic primaries on their respective front web pages.  There was a slight difference in how it was reported.  Breitbart emphasized a leftist victory.  CNN emphasized a counter establishment victory.  As usual, the basic facts were the same, but the spin was there.

I would emphasize the counter establishment theme.  One of the things to respect in the red movement is their dislike of establishment figures, one place they are a little ahead of the blue.  The blue are hopefully catching up.

I'd say they both got it right. The left won and eliminated another more capitalist minded Democrat. As I've said, socialists and capitalists are like oil and water and don't mix well.

[David Horn]

(09-03-2018, 10:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Here is a CNN article saying that in certain red areas, an endorsement by Trump is still a big deal, wins you a lot of votes.  This seems to confirm the allegation that certain areas are big into Trump like politics, very much opposed to the coastal CNN blue image of Trump as inept.

I'm not sure that Trump is the issue, per se, rather than him as Team Captain or coach.  What he says is regularly misinterpreted (or misheard entirely), but it's still Trump-Trump-Trump.

[David Horn]

(09-04-2018, 02:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The following CNN Article on Bob Woodward book about the Trump White House echoes the typical blue perspective which the costal press pushes to portray Trump as a dangerous, inept liar.  Yet, a good portion of the country will still back Trump and his approach.  I note a recent CNN article that echoes David Horn.  There is a large part of the country that will back candidates that Trump endorses, where most follow the red way of looking at things.

I cannot help but thinking that something has got to give.

People rarely change their deeply held opinions unless they're faced with a trauma they caused.  The GD squashed the GOP because it hit people directly in the face.  I'm not sure that will happen this time, but the plutocrats are doing their level best to make it so.

[David Horn]

(09-04-2018, 10:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, you aren't going to solve poverty with more welfare programs and a more generous welfare system.

That's opinion stated as fact.  I can disagree, and do.  It's certainly worked well elsewhere, though it's not a silver bullet by any means.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-07-2018, 08:48 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-04-2018, 10:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, you aren't going to solve poverty with more welfare programs and a more generous welfare system.

That's opinion stated as fact.  I can disagree, and do.  It's certainly worked well elsewhere, though it's not a silver bullet by any means.

Mostly agreed, though the US spends a lot on military capability.  Something does have to give.

[David Horn]

(09-04-2018, 10:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-04-2018, 12:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... All Americans will eventually get on the winning team, if the blue team can win and push through what all will eventually agree was the right course, when the mass Trump hypnosis is broken, by the blue team's courage and faith and dedication to what's right and forward-looking, and by the Red team's leaders' own ineptitude and greedy egoism and fear inevitably on display in politicians like Trump.

The day the blues stop looking backwards for solutions relating to the modern day and stop clinging to beliefs and values associated with the past during the height of the old Democratic party.

Yes, many of the Dems look back to the last 4T and 1T, but the GOP looks backs 1 or 2 cycles further, to the Agricultural and the Industrial Ages. They are an even worse fit.  Looking forward is the correct view, but are you willing to accept that?

[pbrower2a]

(09-04-2018, 10:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-27-2018, 05:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we will be in the Regeneracy  once and for all when quality matters more than identity. We have plenty to solve, beginning with poverty. We have much obsolete infrastructure. If you want to speak of highways, then I can think of plenty of highway projects, including transforming one of the busiest rural expressways in America  from two lanes in both directions to three, and replacing one of its cloverleaf interchanges (horrible accident waiting to happen when a truck jackknives going too fast for conditions, which can result from some fool cutting off an eighteen-wheeler). If I tell you what state and part of the state it is in I will give much away.

We are going to need more water and more energy. Solar power, anyone?



I can think of something far better than some wall resembling the Berlin Wall wall along our border: a freeway along US 83 which would connect a big chunk of America badly served by current highways. Rural freeways stimulate local development along them; urban expressways can wreck urban areas.

Well, you aren't going to solve poverty with more welfare programs and a more generous welfare system.

There will always be people in need due to their infirmity, mental or physical. The Hard Right seems to believe that if the economic elites can demand more and crack the proverbial whip harder, then every one will find a magically better world in which people bask in the glow of the ostentatious indulgence of those elites. Their ideal for Humanity is that people toil or die, as in a fascist labor camp.


God help you if you like that. 
 
Big infrastructure projects create jobs for construction laborers.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-07-2018, 10:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-04-2018, 10:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-27-2018, 05:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we will be in the Regeneracy  once and for all when quality matters more than identity. We have plenty to solve, beginning with poverty. We have much obsolete infrastructure. If you want to speak of highways, then I can think of plenty of highway projects, including transforming one of the busiest rural expressways in America  from two lanes in both directions to three, and replacing one of its cloverleaf interchanges (horrible accident waiting to happen when a truck jackknives going too fast for conditions, which can result from some fool cutting off an eighteen-wheeler). If I tell you what state and part of the state it is in I will give much away.

We are going to need more water and more energy. Solar power, anyone?



I can think of something far better than some wall resembling the Berlin Wall wall along our border: a freeway along US 83 which would connect a big chunk of America badly served by current highways. Rural freeways stimulate local development along them; urban expressways can wreck urban areas.

Well, you aren't going to solve poverty with more welfare programs and a more generous welfare system.

There will always be people in need due to their infirmity, mental or physical. The Hard Right seems to believe that if the economic elites can demand more and crack the proverbial whip harder, then every one will find a magically better world in which people bask in the glow of the ostentatious indulgence of those elites. Their ideal for Humanity is that people toil or die, as in a fascist labor camp.


God help you if you like that.   
 
Big infrastructure projects create jobs for construction laborers.

Big infrastructure projects create some jobs for some construction laborers for a relatively short amount of time these days. The blues seem to forget that we don't do things the way we did things during the past and the things that we do don't nearly take as long to complete as they used to either. I don't view  people like you as being the type of individuals who would be willing or interested in a job that requires the use of a pick and shovel like the good old days when the use of large sums of low tech manual labor was required and expected by those who were in need of a job or interested in working at the time.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-06-2018, 03:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-05-2018, 03:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-04-2018, 10:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The day the blues stop looking backwards for solutions relating to the modern day and stop clinging to beliefs and values associated with the past during the height of the old Democratic party.

?

To me, Conservative means a desire to cling to old values, not change.  Progressive means to adapt new values, to change.  For example conservative in global warming is to deny the greenhouse effect and continue to release pollutants.  To be progressive is to stop releasing them.  To be conservative in the late Gilded Age was to continue without workplace safety, child labor or work hour protections, while being Progressive was to enact laws addressing the issues.  In war, conservative in one era was to maintain isolationism, to strive not to embroil oneself in European Conflicts.  It later meant to cling to being a world power, to cling to FDR's policies of being strong and acting abroad.  Too be progressive is to adapt the culture to the future, to recognize that as technology changes it should be recognized and laws change to adapt, while being conservative sees the values of the past, especially old power structures are allowed to keep past ways of making profits.

I think you are confused, have it backwards of the usual understanding.  What exactly do you mean here?

You and I have had an issue with understanding one another  for a LONG time. Where did you get that understanding from? Your understanding of conservatives is primarily based on what? It wasn't  based on me, my views, my opinion of the current progressives, my understanding of the progressives or our direct communications with each other.

I think my definition is dictionary.  Common.  I can't be much clearer than above.

However, progressives progress.  A progressive of the US Civil War will be different from a progressive of the late Gilded Age, will be different from a New Deal Progressive, who is different from a Consciousness Revolution progressive, etc...  If you assume all progressives share issue and positions across vastly different times, you will be dwelling on a straw man.  The uniting principles have to be very broad for that, such as favoring human rights, equality and democracy.

Establishment conservatives generally drag their feet, advocating slavery around the Civil War, pushing isolationism before WW II, the domino effect around Vietnam, always favoring the way the current ruling elites profit, etc...  They often favor the values the progressives set in stone in the prior set of turnings.  Their clock tends to run slow.

But that often is not a good description of the roots.  The very rich establishment conservatives cannot be the party alone.  There are too few of them.  Many down home people will follow the Establishment with ideas like small government, or what is good for General Motors is good for the country, or taxes are bad.  Often these ideas have merit, are not totally dumb, but they often have to pass though the conservative establishment to get implemented.  I don't see your flavor of conservatism as establishment.  I do see a large gap between the red establishment and, say, the Tea Party.

Mostly, to address a bunch of people, I have to address a main stream.  There are odd ball conservatives, with odd ideas, and taking some of these odd straw men and ad hominims seriously is hard.  When I address ideas that are commonly found in the conservative press, I am not addressing the oddball conservatives with their off ideas here.  This puts off the odd balls for some reason.  They expect me to take them seriously, to ignore the many and address the odd guy.

[pbrower2a]

(09-07-2018, 01:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-07-2018, 10:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-04-2018, 10:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-27-2018, 05:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we will be in the Regeneracy  once and for all when quality matters more than identity. We have plenty to solve, beginning with poverty. We have much obsolete infrastructure. If you want to speak of highways, then I can think of plenty of highway projects, including transforming one of the busiest rural expressways in America  from two lanes in both directions to three, and replacing one of its cloverleaf interchanges (horrible accident waiting to happen when a truck jackknives going too fast for conditions, which can result from some fool cutting off an eighteen-wheeler). If I tell you what state and part of the state it is in I will give much away.

We are going to need more water and more energy. Solar power, anyone?



I can think of something far better than some wall resembling the Berlin Wall wall along our border: a freeway along US 83 which would connect a big chunk of America badly served by current highways. Rural freeways stimulate local development along them; urban expressways can wreck urban areas.

Well, you aren't going to solve poverty with more welfare programs and a more generous welfare system.

There will always be people in need due to their infirmity, mental or physical. The Hard Right seems to believe that if the economic elites can demand more and crack the proverbial whip harder, then every one will find a magically better world in which people bask in the glow of the ostentatious indulgence of those elites. Their ideal for Humanity is that people toil or die, as in a fascist labor camp.


God help you if you like that.   
 
Big infrastructure projects create jobs for construction laborers.

Big infrastructure projects create some jobs for some construction laborers for a relatively short amount of time these days. The blues seem to forget that we don't do things the way we did things during the past and the things that we do don't nearly take as long to complete as they used to either. I don't view  people like you as being the type of individuals who would be willing or interested in a job that requires the use of a pick and shovel like the good old days when the use of large sums of low tech manual labor was required and expected by those who were in need of a job or interested in working at the time.

I'm 62, and I have a bad back, I just had back pain so bad that a physician sent me to the ER to treat a possible coronary. It turns out that the EKG, chest X-ray, and blood tests came back negative on a heart attack. It is likely that I will need back surgery just to prevent another trip to the ER for back pain that mimics a coronary. It is also unlikely that I will ever do hard physical labor again.

We have far less need for unskilled labor than we used to. We also have far fewer high-school drop-outs, the sorts of people who typically filled the great pool of unskilled labor.  It is obviously far less time-consuming (and labor-hiring) to lay out a road-bed by machine than by human labor.

People might be less interested in work requiring the use of pick and shovel, but the pay for operating construction equipment is very attractive. But that takes some formal training.

[David Horn]

(09-05-2018, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Both CNN and Breitbart put the win of activist Ayanna Pressley over the establishment Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Democratic primaries on their respective front web pages.  There was a slight difference in how it was reported.  Breitbart emphasized a leftist victory.  CNN emphasized a counter establishment victory.  As usual, the basic facts were the same, but the spin was there.

I would emphasize the counter establishment theme.  One of the things to respect in the red movement is their dislike of establishment figures, one place they are a little ahead of the blue.  The blue are hopefully catching up.

I agree with this -- especially the part I put in BOLD.