Election 2018

[Eric the Green]

Well, that was an entertaining video. I could wear dorky business suits and geeky glasses and a fake smile and make a video like that too. I admit I have some work to do before I offer it, since after all Galen says I have no sense of humor, but here's where I would start.

Vote red in November! We Republicans are the party of peace and reason. We maintain the peace by asking our fans to knock the crap out of those who disagree with us, while we punch out reporters and send bombs to our opponents. That way we show that we want to make our country great again.

We Republicans provide jobs to you by giving all the breaks to the big rich fat cats. That way all the job creaters can send your factories overseas, replace you the working people with machines, pay you only slave wages while we hog all the profits, and gamble freely with all your money and ruin your economy. Then we can all sit back and let the resulting prosperity just trickle down to us. It's worked every time it's been tried.

We Republicans want you to be safe in your communities. That's why we militarize the police and shoot unarmed young black men on the streets. We provide terrorists and criminals with AR-15s, because the only answer to a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. That's why you should vote for us to feel safe and secure, knowing that we set up torture chambers abroad, and saw to it that the government could spy on you in case you are a terrorist, just to keep you safe, and make sure America lives up to its ideals.

We believe in making America great again by keeping what made America great in the first place, like the electoral college that was created to keep slave states in the union, and which allows presidents to take office whom the people didn't vote for. We want to preserve the democracy that our original founding fathers had, when only rich old white guys could ever vote. That way, we make our country great again like it was in 1776.

We want to unite our country, reassuring you with appealing words like "constitution and liberty." After all, we have the best words, and the biggest brains. We uphold the "constitution" which says that rights of criminals and terrorists to have guns shall not be infringed, and we protect the "liberty" of free enterprise to abuse and hurt us as much as it wants, and discriminate against gays in the name of religious freedom. We maintain the "freedom" of rich people not to pay their fair share of taxes. That way, we ensure and protect the rights of all, just as Lincoln promised in his emancipation proclamation. We are, after all, the party of compassion for all, and Democrats want to take these precious rights away from you.

We want to bring the country together by accusing the Democrats of things they don't propose, like repealing the 2nd amendment and opening our borders to anyone who wants to come in. We want to denounce people who protest police violence, because after all, the right to protest for right is not what this country is all about, despite what Dr. King said on the night before some racist shot him down. What this country is all about above all is reverence for symbols, rather than realities.

We Republicans believe that when a woman is raped, she should be ignored, and that the man who was bold and confident enough to rape her, should be rewarded by being put on the supreme court. We propose that those who protest against a right-wing court that takes away our right to vote should be called "an angry mob," so we can take away their right to protest.

We believe that the best way to protect our rights against the greedy and powerful, is to tear down the government which our founding document said was set up to protect those rights. We believe that people who stand up for these rights should be called lazy and weak, because people who champion peoples' rights are just victims who want free stuff. Eliminating peoples' rights is the essence of what this country was founded on, after all. It says so right in the Declaration of Independence, doesn't it? 

The courts are doing their duty to America if they uphold the right of politicians to choose their voters, and prevent people without a registered address or an ID card or who have a similar name in another state or who make an inexact signature from voting, so that non-existent fraud can be prevented. After all, the president said 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California, so we really, really need to take as many black and hispanic people off the voting rolls as we can, in any way that we can, so that America can be white, uh, great again! And since illegal immigrants are law abiding, productive citizens, it's better for our country if we call them rapists, criminals and drug dealers so we can send them back to their original country to be killed.

After all, since we Republicans know how turning a nation over to predatory capitalists has worked so well wherever it has been tried, we promise to keep it that way by accusing those who want justice of being "socialists." 

We promise freedom for the rich to make themselves richer at everyone else's expense. That's how we win over so many old farts to our cause. We object to all this "condescension" just because we replace facts with slogans that arouse hate and fear. After all, we don't want Democrats or the press to get away with telling the truth. Truth and facts are dangerous to freedom for rich people, after all, and it's rich people who create all the jobs and make our country great again by constructing tall buildings for tycoons, raising up walls to keep us safe from the world, and creating huge armies to invade other countries with, all by using borrowed funds that put our nation in hawk to rich people and foreigners. We do this because we believe in self-reliance! We want you to win so much you'll get tired of winning. We want you to be happy by being proud of your nation's ability to pounce on others and commit war crimes, instead of being happy as prosperous and fulfilled individuals. Submit to the overwhelming group spirit at our leader's rallies. That's what makes us a great people. 

We object to being called "bullies" just because we pass tax bills that favor the rich without any debate, or even knowing what's in the bill, and force right-wingers onto the supreme court without even hearing from any other candidate. A nation in which we Republicans hog everything is the essence of freedom and democracy!

Vote for us, and we Republicans promise to do all this for you, and more!

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-26-2018, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if the Feds got the creep who mailed bombs with the return address of Representative "Debbie Wasserman Shultz (sic!)", and he was definitely some left-winger trying to blame the Right. He had been at Trump rallies, attired as one would expect.

Did you get your left and right backwards?  CNN at least says otherwise.

CNN Wrote:His social media accounts and the windows of his white van were plastered with messages supporting the President, and provocative photos and memes attacking liberals. Facebook video showed him in a MAGA hat at Trump rally in 2016.

He was also open with a former boss, who says Sayoc called himself a white supremacist. Debra Gureghian said Sayoc told her that lesbians like her and other minorities should be put on an island. And though he liked her, she would be the first person he would burn, Gureghian recalled.

His former lawyer, Ronald S. Lowy, says he has for years shown "a lack of comprehension of reality."

[pbrower2a]

(10-26-2018, 08:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-26-2018, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if the Feds got the creep who mailed bombs with the return address of Representative "Debbie Wasserman Shultz (sic!)", and he was definitely (not) some left-winger trying to blame the Right. He had been at Trump rallies, attired as one would expect. (Correction made --PB).

Did you get your left and right backwards?  CNN at least says otherwise.

CNN Wrote:His social media accounts and the windows of his white van were plastered with messages supporting the President, and provocative photos and memes attacking liberals. Facebook video showed him in a MAGA hat at Trump rally in 2016.

He was also open with a former boss, who says Sayoc called himself a white supremacist. Debra Gureghian said Sayoc told her that lesbians like her and other minorities should be put on an island. And though he liked her, she would be the first person he would burn, Gureghian recalled.

His former lawyer, Ronald S. Lowy, says he has for years shown "a lack of comprehension of reality."

[pbrower2a]

Well, believing Donald Trump alone shows a 'lack of comprehension of reality'.

...It is best that elected officials not speculate publicly about criminal cases before some resolution (typically an arrest) occurs. Law enforcement nailed a suspect within three days of the first mailing of a bomb. I am glad that law enforcement got Sayoc fast, if only to stop him before he could send a deadly parcel that maimed or killed someone. Some right-wing talking heads suggested that it might be a false flag operation in which a Democrat might try to win unwarranted sympathy for his Party. Predicting such was at best a gamble of a guess. What difference would it have made if one of those pundits had been right, in view of the swift arrest of a suspect? Practically nothing. What does it mean now that such a theory is debunked? It looks bad.

[Galen]

(10-26-2018, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if the Feds got the creep who mailed bombs with the return address of Representative "Debbie Wasserman Shultz (sic!)", and he was definitely some left-winger trying to blame the Right. He had been at Trump rallies, attired as one would expect.

No, President Trump is not culpable of this directly, but he has yet to recognize that hostile rhetoric can push people on the margin to do extreme violence.

Actually, Trump has made it pretty clear that he is against this kind of political violence.  There are a number of problems that I have with Trump but whatever you might say about his rhetoric he is most definitely not calling for violence.

Interesting that you say this guy is a left-wing guy trying to blame the right.  I haven't been able to find any reliable information one way or another on this so I am curious as to your source.  It wouldn't surprise me if this were true but I have no evidence to support such a conclusion.  The guy that shot up those House Republicans was a Bernie supporter but so far republicans don't seem to blame Bernie for that even though they dislike his rhetoric.  The republicans simply blaming the perpetrator is consistent with their views on people being responsible for their own actions.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-26-2018, 05:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Republicans are also market fundamentalists. That remains the primary platform of their party.

There are no Whigs in the Republican Party. It is nothing but market fundamentalists, loony nationalists and theocratic idiots.  The only thing America needs for a stable-minded politics is the end of the Republican Party.

Bill Kristol is a market fundamentalist?

[pbrower2a]

[quote pid='39602' dateline='1540625600']

Galen Wrote:

(10-26-2018, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if the Feds got the creep who mailed bombs with the return address of Representative "Debbie Wasserman Shultz (sic!)", and he was definitely some left-winger trying to blame the Right. He had been at Trump rallies, attired as one would expect.

No, President Trump is not culpable of this directly, but he has yet to recognize that hostile rhetoric can push people on the margin to do extreme violence.

Actually, Trump has made it pretty clear that he is against this kind of political violence.  There are a number of problems that I have with Trump but whatever you might say about his rhetoric he is most definitely not calling for violence.

Interesting that you say this guy is a left-wing guy trying to blame the right. 

I made a goof in writing that post, and I have corrected it.

The problem is that people offered this explanation before the law-enforcement agencies found the likely perpetrator, and that explanation has disintegrated. Sayok is apparently a mentally-disturbed fanatic, clearly right-wing. He is involved in a white nationalist movement despite being a Eurasian (Filipino father, presumably white Italian-American mother) and pretending to be a Seminole (the Seminole tribe disowns him for that cultural appropriation). He has a history of violence.



I doubt that anyone could leave less doubt about his political orientation than he could with this collage of expressions of love for Donald Trump and hatred for his rivals -- until he started sending explosive devices in the mail. Putting an image of Hillary Clinton in cross-hairs of a symbolic gun sight demonstrates murderous contempt.

If guilty as charged, then he is a terrorist. Competent terrorists do not call attention to themselves. Consider that Ted Kaczynski got away with his crimes until he published his "Unabom" Manifesto. Kaczynski eventually got the compulsion to express his 'philosophy' and exposed a uniqueness that led to his arrest. What the Feds learned from the investigation of Ted Kaczynski they could use against anyone less brilliant -- in short, practically anyone.

He could have started a civil war.

His kind rarely shows subtlety in political expressions. I hate President Trump, but I have seen someone with Trump stickers on a farm vehicle. To that person I said, "I hope that President Trump's proposed tariffs do not start a trade war that hurts your income and living standards as a farmer".

But there will be more investigation. The Feds tracked him with his fingerprints and even the postage stamps that he used (stamps can be tracked to at the least the region in which the post office that sold them was, so they weren't looking in the wrong part of the country).

...President Trump has been the worst sort of leader that we could have -- a hatemonger. He has culpability for defaming practically everyone on the left side of the political spectrum, and anyone who fails to toe his line as a Republican. Many Trump supporters believed in his economic policies of tax cuts and privatization that would enrich the rich and supercharge the American economy, that he would endorse justices to the Supreme Court who would allow an abortion ban, outlaw affirmative action, repudiate same-sex marital rights, preserve and promote the death penalty, and allow officially-organized prayer and devotions in public schools. Such people may be exactly the ones who believe that President Trump, unlike wishy-washy conservatives like Reagan or the two Bush Presidents, were unwilling to do. But those people who want a theocratic and plutocratic society (a Christian version of Iran?) are mostly sincere about their beliefs even if those would hurt millions of people. Commies and the Klan are often similarly sincere, and that does not make them right.

Quote:I haven't been able to find any reliable information one way or another on this so I am curious as to your source.

A typo that I have since corrected by adding the word "not". I had heard of that explanation and found it weak in credibility, but I suggested that we let law enforcement find the perpetrator and draw conclusions after an arrest. The presumption of innocence remains for any criminal trial or plea bargain. It looks as if the federal, state, and local law authorities got their man.
.

Quote:  It wouldn't surprise me if this were true but I have no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Some right-wing pundits, including the weighty (but intellectually-empty) Rush Limbaugh have made that suggestion before knowing anything.

Quote:  The guy that shot up those House Republicans was a Bernie supporter but so far republicans don't seem to blame Bernie for that even though they dislike his rhetoric.  The republicans simply blaming the perpetrator is consistent with their views on people being responsible for their own actions.

Could that have something to do with liberals condemning the attack on Representative Steve Scalise? Bernie Sanders has made statements more political than those of Donald Trump, but much less personal. With Trump, as it was with Fidel Castro, much of the invective is personal.
[/quote]

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2018, 07:38 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-26-2018, 05:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Republicans are also market fundamentalists. That remains the primary platform of their party.

There are no Whigs in the Republican Party. It is nothing but market fundamentalists, loony nationalists and theocratic idiots.  The only thing America needs for a stable-minded politics is the end of the Republican Party.

Bill Kristol is a market fundamentalist?

All Republicans are market fundamentalists. It is the primary plank in their platform.

 
Preamble
...We believe political freedom and economic freedom are indivisible.When political freedom and economic freedom are separated — both are in peril; when united, they are invincible. We believe that people are the ultimate resource— and that the people, not the government, are the best stewards of our country’s God-given natural resources.....The President and the Democratic party have dismantled Americans’ system of healthcare. They have replaced it with a costly and complicated scheme that limits choices and takes away our freedom..... They refuse to control our borders but try to control our schools, farms, businesses, and even our religious institutions. They have directly attacked the production of American energy and the industry-related jobs that have sustained families.... 


The President has been regulating to death a free market economy that he does not like and does not understand.... many sections of this platform affirm our trust in the people, our faith in their judgment, and our determination to help them take back their country..... This means relieving the burden and expense of punishing government regulations....government cannot create prosperity, though government can limit or destroy it. Prosperity is the product of self-discipline, enterprise, saving and investment by individuals, but it is not an end in itself. Prosperity provides the means by which citizens and their families can maintain their independence from government....Strong growth, more jobs, increasing incomes, and expanding opportunity are all in short supply under President Obama and the Democrats. We repudiate the absurd idea this is the best America can do. The American people rejected that nonsense the last time it was offered, in the historic election of 1980, and we ask them to join us now to again repudiate the false gospel of America’s diminishment and retreat....

Fair and Simple Taxes for Growth
Republicans consider the establishment of a pro-growth tax code a moral imperative. More than any other public policy, the way government raises revenue — how much, at what rates, under what circumstances, from whom, and for whom — has the greatest impact on our economy’s performance. It powerfully influences the level of economic growth and job creation....Competitiveness equals jobs. That equation governs our policies regarding U.S. corporations in the global economy. Private investment is a keydriver of economic growth and job creation. After falling dramatically during the recession, private in-vestment has recovered at a disappointing pace due in part to high corporate tax rates and increasing regulatory burdens and uncertainty. American businesses now face the world’s highest corporate tax rates. That’s like putting lead shoes on your cross-country team. It reduces companies’ ability to compete overseas, encourages them to move abroad, lessens their investment,cripples job creation here at home, lowers American wages, and fosters the avoidance of tax liability— without actually increasing tax revenues. A more damaging policy is hard to imagine. We propose to level the international playing field by lowering the corporate tax rate to be on a par with, or below, the rates of other industrial nations.....

Freeing Financial Markets

The Republican vision for American banking calls for establishing transparent, efficient markets where consumers can obtain loans they need at reasonable rates based on market conditions. Unfortunately, in response to the financial institutions crisisof 2008-2009, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as Dodd-Frank. They did not let the crisis go to waste but used it as an excuse to establish unprecedented government control over the nation’s financial markets. The consequences have been bad for everyone except federal regulators. Rather than address the cause of the crisis —the government’s own housing policies — the new law extended government control over the economy by creating new unaccountable bureaucracies. Predictably, central planning of our financial sector has not created jobs, it has killed them. It has not limited risks, it has created more. It has not encouraged economic growth, it has shackled it.......

Small Business and Entrepreneurship
A central reason why the 20th century came to be called the American Century was the ability of individuals to invent and create in a land of free markets. Back then they were called risk-takers, dreamers, and small business owners. Today they are the entrepreneurs, independent contractors, and small business men and women of our new economy. Their innovation drives improvement and forces long-established institutions to adapt or fade away..... We need to consider the effect of capital gains rates on the availability of venture capital, as well as the positive impact of expensing on start-up firms..... (and on and on, all the free-market fundamentalisms....)  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/201...c3ee513eb9

[Eric the Green]

Kristol: In terms of businesses and others, this is a case where I've gotten, if anything, maybe more of a libertarian. Limited government is really important.

Why has the country done pretty well in surviving the Trump presidency so far? Because the president's limited. It's not Argentina. The dictator can't just destroy all these institutions. He can't take over businesses. He can't even take over the entire federal government because there are civil service rules and military regulations, and the Senate and the House. Whatever their lack of standing up to Trump, they still exist and have some authority. The courts obviously, federal and state government, civil society, businesses.

That's actually been a good reminder of why we believe in limited government in general, and limited federal government, a presidency that's restrained in all kinds of ways, the rule of law. So, I've become, if anything, more of a limited government, rule of law, constitutional-norms type of guy.

It's nice that their businesses got a tax cut and that the stock market's had a good year. But you really don't want to sacrifice what the founders put in place and people have labored to keep and improve for 200 and however many years, 40 years, because of one good year in the stock market.

Harwood: Do business leaders have a role in speaking out?

Kristol: Yes. Now it's hard to ask them, "Don't take this thing from the president, or the president wants to do a photo op at your company and say 'This company's staying here because of me.' It's hard to ask them not to do it.

But I thought it was sort of disgraceful when the tax cut gets passed and they immediately have these bonuses. If the tax cut's good policy, we'll see that it was good policy. And it's perfectly legitimate a year later for corporate leaders to say, 'One of the things that contributed to our excellent returns this year was a more favorable tax structure which allows us to compete around the world. And we're really thrilled that our workers have done better.'


Write $1,000 checks to people? Wasn't the whole point of the tax cut to free up money for investment? I mean, the government can just write checks to people. It doesn't have to go through a middleman, you know. Give 'em to everyone, not just the people who work for certain favored companies.

I found it slightly creepy — sucking up to Trump and to the Trump administration in hope of favors. This is the classic limited government, Hayek, et cetera, argument for why you don't want protectionism. You don't want government meddling and interfering everywhere, picking winners and picking companies.

So, the companies decide, we have to then cozy up to the federal government, and you do go towards a kind of Third World-type system, a kind of crony corporatism, as opposed to free markets with the emphasis on free. You're not going to have perfect free markets and all that.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/conserva...trump.html

He is a member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kristol

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2018, 09:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [quote pid='39602' dateline='1540625600']

Galen Wrote:

(10-26-2018, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if the Feds got the creep who mailed bombs with the return address of Representative "Debbie Wasserman Shultz (sic!)", and he was definitely some left-winger trying to blame the Right. He had been at Trump rallies, attired as one would expect.

No, President Trump is not culpable of this directly, but he has yet to recognize that hostile rhetoric can push people on the margin to do extreme violence.

Actually, Trump has made it pretty clear that he is against this kind of political violence.  There are a number of problems that I have with Trump but whatever you might say about his rhetoric he is most definitely not calling for violence.

Interesting that you say this guy is a left-wing guy trying to blame the right. 

I made a goof in writing that post, and I have corrected it.

The problem is that people offered this explanation before the law-enforcement agencies found the likely perpetrator, and that explanation has disintegrated. Sayok is apparently a mentally-disturbed fanatic, clearly right-wing. He is involved in a white nationalist movement despite being a Eurasian (Filipino father, presumably white Italian-American mother) and pretending to be a Seminole (the Seminole tribe disowns him for that cultural appropriation). He has a history of violence.



I doubt that anyone could leave less doubt about his political orientation than he could with this collage of expressions of love for Donald Trump and hatred for his rivals -- until he started sending explosive devices in the mail. Putting an image of Hillary Clinton in cross-hairs of a symbolic gun sight demonstrates murderous contempt.

If guilty as charged, then he is a terrorist. Competent terrorists do not call attention to themselves. Consider that Ted Kaczynski got away with his crimes until he published his "Unabom" Manifesto. Kaczynski eventually got the compulsion to express his 'philosophy' and exposed a uniqueness that led to his arrest. What the Feds learned from the investigation of Ted Kaczynski they could use against anyone less brilliant -- in short, practically anyone.

He could have started a civil war.

His kind rarely shows subtlety in political expressions. I hate President Trump, but I have seen someone with Trump stickers on a farm vehicle. To that person I said, "I hope that President Trump's proposed tariffs do not start a trade war that hurts your income and living standards as a farmer".

But there will be more investigation. The Feds tracked him with his fingerprints and even the postage stamps that he used (stamps can be tracked to at the least the region in which the post office that sold them was, so they weren't looking in the wrong part of the country).

...President Trump has been the worst sort of leader that we could have -- a hatemonger. He has culpability for defaming practically everyone on the left side of the political spectrum, and anyone who fails to toe his line as a Republican. Many Trump supporters believed in his economic policies of tax cuts and privatization that would enrich the rich and supercharge the American economy, that he would endorse justices to the Supreme Court who would allow an abortion ban, outlaw affirmative action, repudiate same-sex marital rights, preserve and promote the death penalty, and allow officially-organized prayer and devotions in public schools. Such people may be exactly the ones who believe that President Trump, unlike wishy-washy conservatives like Reagan or the two Bush Presidents, were unwilling to do. But those people who want a theocratic and plutocratic society (a Christian version of Iran?) are mostly sincere about their beliefs even if those would hurt millions of people. Commies and the Klan are often similarly sincere, and that does not make them right.

Quote:I haven't been able to find any reliable information one way or another on this so I am curious as to your source.

A typo that I have since corrected by adding the word "not". I had heard of that explanation and found it weak in credibility, but I suggested that we let law enforcement find the perpetrator and draw conclusions after an arrest. The presumption of innocence remains for any criminal trial or plea bargain. It looks as if the federal, state, and local law authorities got their man.  
.

Quote:  It wouldn't surprise me if this were true but I have no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Some right-wing pundits, including the weighty (but intellectually-empty) Rush Limbaugh have made that suggestion before knowing anything.  

Quote:  The guy that shot up those House Republicans was a Bernie supporter but so far republicans don't seem to blame Bernie for that even though they dislike his rhetoric.  The republicans simply blaming the perpetrator is consistent with their views on people being responsible for their own actions.

Could that have something to do with liberals condemning the attack on Representative Steve Scalise? Bernie Sanders has made statements more political than those of Donald Trump, but much less personal. With Trump, as it was with Fidel Castro, much of the invective is personal.

Is it OK to call THIS ONE "deplorable"?

Security assures us there are no bombs in this monologue.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-25-2018, 09:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 07:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 03:29 PM)Galen Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 05:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's a right-wing parody. You just do not get it.

Actually, I do get it.  First, you have no sense of humor.  Second, that parody exists because that is pretty much what the Dims sound like at the present.

A nitpick.  That is what the Democrats sound like when you listen through certain filters, when your world view centers around certain straw man stereotypes.  If you could really listen, the Democrats might sound like...  Democrats?

This observation should not preclude other stereotypes spinning the other way.  See your average late night TV talk show for examples of opposing 'humor'.

Building something real between believers of these stereotypes?  You gotta count on a need to solve very real problems. The stereotypes can not hold up to reality.

The very real solutions to the real problems are dealt with by Democrats, and not by Republicans.

To be clear, I lean blue, and agree far more with the blue agenda.  But I do not agree with how they are going about achieving it.  We do not need more division and not listening.  By pushing negative stereotypes, both sides are just making the other side reject harder the other's thinking and judgement.

It is a question as to whether the greater problem is the fact we are divided than the difference between the perceptions.

Just look at Galen's posts.  His premises are so different from yours that the result should be total rejection of the content.  That is the problem.  It will not be made better by trying to make fun of what he is not saying.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2018, 02:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 09:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 07:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 03:29 PM)Galen Wrote:

(10-25-2018, 05:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's a right-wing parody. You just do not get it.

Actually, I do get it.  First, you have no sense of humor.  Second, that parody exists because that is pretty much what the Dims sound like at the present.

A nitpick.  That is what the Democrats sound like when you listen through certain filters, when your world view centers around certain straw man stereotypes.  If you could really listen, the Democrats might sound like...  Democrats?

This observation should not preclude other stereotypes spinning the other way.  See your average late night TV talk show for examples of opposing 'humor'.

Building something real between believers of these stereotypes?  You gotta count on a need to solve very real problems. The stereotypes can not hold up to reality.

The very real solutions to the real problems are dealt with by Democrats, and not by Republicans.

To be clear, I lean blue, and agree far more with the blue agenda.  But I do not agree with how they are going about achieving it.  We do not need more division and not listening.  By pushing negative stereotypes, both sides are just making the other side reject harder the other's thinking and judgement.

It is a question as to whether the greater problem is the fact we are divided than the difference between the perceptions.

Just look at Galen's posts.  His premises are so different from yours that the result should be total rejection of the content.  That is the problem.  It will not be made better by trying to make fun of what he is not saying.

The approach of no division and listening can only be applied to a relatively few people on the other side who are willing to listen, as I said before. That may be enough, at least as long as some degree of democracy still exists.

That is the question, and I answer you clearly. No, the problem is not that we are divided. The problem is that the wrong side of the divide has too much power. The greater problem is the need for real solutions to real needs and desires. One side has solutions; the other only fears, delusions and prejudices. 

I do not read Galen's posts unless someone else is fool enough to quote them. There is no use trying to change my behavior or Galen's. That is not what the forum is for, nor does it make any difference. Humor is the best way to tell the truth. Those who are open to listening will get it. Humor is always valuable for its own sake. That doesn't mean humor of all kinds is appropriate at all occasions. But it can be disarming, and can go both ways toward both sides. If we are willing to laugh at each other, and ourselves too, then maybe we can disarm our division a bit.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-27-2018, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The approach of no division and listening can only be applied to a relatively few people on the other side who are willing to listen, as I said before. That may be enough, at least as long as some degree of democracy still exists.

Well, a hater just murdered a bunch of people at prayer, following on the heels of another hater going after a bunch of blues.  Pardon if I am against hate and those who preach hate.  

They are still acting like lone nuts.  They are not forming groups or looking to escape cleanly to repeat their acts.  They are not gathering a following of those who applaud, unlike the old spirals of violence of the Industrial Age.

But I still believe we are going to have to unify rather than hate and ridicule.

Granted, it is easy to ridicule people like you and Galen.  You just look so ridiculous to those who buy into the stereotypes.

[David Horn]

(10-27-2018, 09:59 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-27-2018, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The approach of no division and listening can only be applied to a relatively few people on the other side who are willing to listen, as I said before. That may be enough, at least as long as some degree of democracy still exists.

Well, a hater just murdered a bunch of people at prayer, following on the heels of another hater going after a bunch of blues.  Pardon if I am against hate and those who preach hate.  

They are still acting like lone nuts.  They are not forming groups or looking to escape cleanly to repeat their acts.  They are not gathering a following of those who applaud, unlike the old spirals of violence of the Industrial Age.

But I still believe we are going to have to unify rather than hate and ridicule.

Granted, it is easy to ridicule people like you and Galen.  You just look so ridiculous to those who buy into the stereotypes.

We may be on the brink of chaos, if lone nuts continue to reek havoc.  At some point, the structure of society starts to crumble in earnest, and restoring it is nearly impossible -- at least in the short term.  So no.  I don't think it's a case of both-sides-do-it.  Both sides do things that are negative,  but this is almost totally an alt-right problem.  It's not Antifa or radical socialists that's foaming at the mouth.

[pbrower2a]

(10-27-2018, 09:59 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-27-2018, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The approach of no division and listening can only be applied to a relatively few people on the other side who are willing to listen, as I said before. That may be enough, at least as long as some degree of democracy still exists.

Well, a hater just murdered a bunch of people at prayer, following on the heels of another hater going after a bunch of blues.  Pardon if I am against hate and those who preach hate.  

They are still acting like lone nuts.  They are not forming groups or looking to escape cleanly to repeat their acts.  They are not gathering a following of those who applaud, unlike the old spirals of violence of the Industrial Age.

But I still believe we are going to have to unify rather than hate and ridicule.

Granted, it is easy to ridicule people like you and Galen.  You just look so ridiculous to those who buy into the stereotypes.

The next President will have the obligation to teach us some lessons about the minimal civic duty of getting along with people who don't look like us, pray like us, talk like us, or have sex like us. Political violence is the bane of democracy. The Golden Rule still applies, whatever our ideology. Sometimes we will need to defend the old decencies as necessary tradition.

Maybe those people are lone nuts for the simple reason that they could never tell us some of the mad deeds that they intend to do. So if I am a bartender and somebody who has had too many blurts out that someone ought to shoot the President, do I call the Secret Service on him? Yup!

As the would-be multiple bomber in Florida and the butcher of a Pittsburgh synagogue demonstrate, one lone nut can do huge damage to the fabric of our society. One bomb or one machine gun can kill several people at once.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-28-2018, 03:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The next President will have the obligation to teach us some lessons about the minimal civic duty of getting along with people who don't look like us, pray like us, talk like us, or have sex like us. Political violence is the bane of democracy. The Golden Rule still applies, whatever our ideology. Sometimes we will need to defend the old decencies as necessary tradition.

Maybe those people are lone nuts for the simple reason that they could never tell us some of the mad deeds that they intend to do. So if I am a bartender and somebody who has had too many blurts out that someone ought to shoot the President, do I call the Secret Service on him? Yup!

As the would-be multiple bomber in Florida and the butcher of a Pittsburgh synagogue demonstrate, one lone nut can do huge damage to the fabric of our society. One bomb or one machine gun can kill several people at once.

The above is a clear expression of the newer values.  So long as you see the above as an extension of the old idea that all men are created equal, not an idea that has always been held to be American.  Slave holders, Jim Crow, resistance to new immigrant groups, these have long been among us.  I believe the time as come for the new equality, for a new birth of freedom, but this is only an extension of how the Revolution got rid of kings, and the Civil War got rid of slaves.

Conservatives of the time did believed in holding on to privileged patterns.  They always do.  Always there is a resistance to extending ideals to solve problems.

But this is exactly what I mean that some people will attempt to keep the old values alive when many have grown beyond them.  Always we will grow, but always some will want to stay behind.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2018, 09:59 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-27-2018, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The approach of no division and listening can only be applied to a relatively few people on the other side who are willing to listen, as I said before. That may be enough, at least as long as some degree of democracy still exists.

Well, a hater just murdered a bunch of people at prayer, following on the heels of another hater going after a bunch of blues.  Pardon if I am against hate and those who preach hate.  

They are still acting like lone nuts.  They are not forming groups or looking to escape cleanly to repeat their acts.  They are not gathering a following of those who applaud, unlike the old spirals of violence of the Industrial Age.

But I still believe we are going to have to unify rather than hate and ridicule.

Granted, it is easy to ridicule people like you and Galen.  You just look so ridiculous to those who buy into the stereotypes.

I look ridiculous if you decide that I look ridiculous. I am just a realistic guy who sides with the blues and greens politically. It is not a matter of hate. It is a matter of supporting those who are interested in solutions, rather than hate and other delusions.

You still have yet to offer any evidence that 4Ts have ever been resolved by unifying, rather than by one side defeating another. It seems to me you are looking through rose-colored glasses. So who is "ridiculous," and who is calling someone names?

FDR did not offer unity to the Nazis.
Lincoln did not offer unity to the confederates.
Washington did not offer unity to the King.
William did not offer unity to the Stewarts and Louis XIV
Elizabeth I did not offer unity to the Spanish or the Catholics.
Henry VII did not offer unity to Richard III.

One side won, the other lost. After that, a greater degree of unity was able to be created.

[Eric the Green]

This is how FDR offered "unity" in the last 4T:





https://youtu.be/IjSTQwamo8M

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-28-2018, 11:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: FDR did not offer unity to the Nazis.
Lincoln did not offer unity to the confederates.
Washington did not offer unity to the King.
William did not offer unity to the Stewarts and Louis XIV
Elizabeth I did not offer unity to the Spanish or the Catholics.
Henry VII did not offer unity to Richard III.

One side won, the other lost. After that, a greater degree of unity was able to be created.

Most of the above people are clearly Industrial Age.  Thus, using violence as a solution would be expected.  FDR is the cusp figure, who faced a double crisis.  He indeed used violence against Hitler and company, and was likely correct that this was the only solution.  He did not use violence against the pending communist revolution of the Great Depression, but rather presided over a compromise between progressives and conservatives that was settled by Congress.

I have also looked at Europe of Lincoln's time for similar compromises.  Victoria and Bismarck were fairly conservative figures, but even they saw the point of giving the people more of the benefits of the Industrial Revolution to avoid the disruption of a communist revolution.  This was a win, actually, for the lords and robber barons, who got to retain their considerable power.  Slavery was also abandoned in Europe with far less violence.  A great deal of this was an ability to listen to the new morals and compromise.  A good many lives were saved.  A good deal of violence and autocratic rule was avoided.

While you can certainly call the civil rights movement, the way the US government handled the domino theory and the feminist movement not crisis movements as they did nor occur in a crisis, they might be something unusual in that they caused a crisis sized values shift in the 2T and relatively quickly.  None of the classic declaring the new ideals in the 2T, but waiting for the 4T to see the values shifted by violence.  Major civilization changing bills were passed by Congress right away.  I anticipate that this is the wave of the future, that 2Ts will continue to show great changes and 4Ts will not.  Nukes and a faith that democracy can cause large shifts may have changed things.

It is too soon to be sure of the new age.  I have to limit myself to saying maybe my observations will hold for a while.  But at least the old Industrial Age patterns are failing.

And, oh yes, Lincoln did offer unity to the confederates... at gunpoint.  That was a major point, to preserve the Union.  Individual equality was another major point.  The man, and the times, were complicated.  Given time he would have offered unity, the equivalent of the Marshall Plan.  Instead, in the wake of his death, we saw the sort of hatred and intolerance you are advocating.

Hmm.  Come to think of it, FDR and his heirs did offer unity to the former Nazis in the form of the Marshall Plan and NATO.  Pursuing the sort of hatred you advocate would have invited disaster.  How did Churchill put it?

Winston Churchill Wrote:In War: Resolution,
In Defeat: Defiance,
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will.

And Elizabeth I did allow considerable religious freedom, at least much more that occurred in the religiously intolerant immediate past.  Retaining sovereignty was another point.  Then again, the woman, and the times, were complicated.

But maybe Churchill had a point.  Well, we can't all be grey champions.  Maybe a few haters are necessary.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-29-2018, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Most of the above people are clearly Industrial Age.  Thus, using violence as a solution would be expected.  FDR is the cusp figure, who faced a double crisis.  

Sorry to interrupt, but how do you define the Industrial Age? Wikipedia claims it started in 1760 without specifying an end date. 1991 looks plausible, since it marks the end of Bolshevism, an ideology designed for industrial workers above all. Orion's Arm has 1700-2000, which looks way to simplistic for me. My somewhat heretical choice is 2006, when MySpace kicked in and "You" (anonymous Internet user) was chosen as Time's person of the year. This marks a cultural transition to the Information Age, but as our global economy still uses fossils as the main energy source, one could argue we are still in the Industrial Age.