(08-22-2016, 03:16 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 12:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Extreme vetting! Let's deport all the Trump voters!

Who would take them?

Quote:Can we have them pay for their own fence?

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

(08-21-2016, 03:48 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:51 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

Eric's got this right for those niches that are not the elites- you add them all up, let them compromise among themselves, and you got Chomsky's "population" sans the financial elites and the hillbillies.

And the financial elites on the Dem side are either for greater taxation on themselves (Warren Buffet), giving most of it away (Bill Gates; and without the Right's religious strings attached), or lobbying hard for Progressive agendas that do little for themselves (George Clooney, George Soros, Hollywood, Silicon Valley).

Together, that is a pretty solid coalition and well-financed.

On the Right, it is fracturing and collapsing.  Put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with someone like Classic and see who crawls out alive.

Trump is not the only one making the mistake that about 35% of the electorate/population/culture of the Right represents the entire US electorate/population/culture - it just that 35% makes a lot of noise and scares people, and that should be expected from a cornered large dying animal.

You put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with me, he'd end leaving the room broke and empty handed. Whether he's crawling like a liberal frat boy who was unable to convince me who didn't get his way who knows  that he iand others like him are financially doomed or he decides to walk out like a real man should after being rejected because the global ponzi scheme that he and his pals made a fortune in worthless digits has failed because there's no hard money to back them up, depends on what type of man the Hampton truly is at the core.

My money would be on the hedge fund manager.  Not because he pays his trainer $5K/month to keep him in top physical shape and you being a typical Trump support just short of a clogged arteries heart attack.  It's because he already has you eating out of his hand and doing tricks for him.

(08-22-2016, 04:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

Changing the subject here.  Does this seem confusing to you?  Trump changing his immigration position isn't going to be bought by those currently opposed to him it seems to me.  And surely it will turn off those who are with him now.  So he has no upside, only downside.  And I not seeing something here?

(08-22-2016, 05:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 04:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

Changing the subject here.  Does this seem confusing to you?  Trump changing his immigration position isn't going to be bought by those currently opposed to him it seems to me.  And surely it will turn off those who are with him now.  So he has no upside, only downside.  And I not seeing something here?

I'd say its going to have more of an upside than down side at this point. Does the liberal view and its narrative hold up as Trump unveils and lays out his plans for the first time to the American people?

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

(08-22-2016, 06:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

(08-22-2016, 05:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 04:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 10:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick. 

Changing the subject here.  Does this seem confusing to you?  Trump changing his immigration position isn't going to be bought by those currently opposed to him it seems to me.  And surely it will turn off those who are with him now.  So he has no upside, only downside.  And I not seeing something here?

I'd say its going to have more of an upside than down side at this point. Does the liberal view and its narrative hold up as Trump unveils and lays out his plans for the first time to the American people?

I don't see how, when he's bound to change his plans at the drop of a hat.

The liberal view always holds up, even if not sometimes for a majority of voters in every election, because although the arc of history is long, it bends toward justice.

Quote:Plans that have been politically unveiled and formally laid out are harder to change than any idea being tossed out there for the sake of free publicity.

(08-22-2016, 06:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 06:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

But, you judge me you and don't even know my cover! But OK, I get your point. Your image of us is as dependent, weak slobs, or something like that. But on the other hand, most libruls I know are in pretty good shape; in fact, my running club is full of 'em. Most of them even drive electric cars!

Besides, it's not only the image of these Trump supporters I see on the videos, but also what they say. Like attracts like.....

See the first post in this big thread, and the post above about vetting..... http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-158-post-7598.html#pid7598

(08-22-2016, 07:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A new young entry into the bash Trump brigade. This sort of defensive, dissembling Trump behavior is what they accuse Hillary of doing, and yet Trump does it a 100 times more often!





See Classic, all Trump opponents are youthful, fit and good looking

Quote:Plans that have been politically unveiled and formally laid out are harder to change than any idea being tossed out there for the sake of free publicity.

But.... that's ALL that Trumpie offers! There's nothing else in his coffers!

(08-22-2016, 03:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As mikebert said, values don't come unlocked in 4Ts; one set of locked values defeats the other. Only then will you see more consensus.

(08-22-2016, 06:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

(08-22-2016, 03:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... there have been successful big government programs, and unsuccessful ones.  There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so.  Depending on what times and places one focuses on in US history, one can learn very different ideas on how America works, what is wrong with it, what is right, and what could be better.

Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

But you can't doubt that many of the key divides in the current Red / Blue divide are extremely stubborn.  I can find merit and historical cause for both sets of ideas, perhaps because my own values hold that world views that succeed became strong because they worked or seemed to have worked in their time.  I lived through the 60s and remember the notion that big problems ought to be confronted and solved, and this often involved throwing lots of money at problems.  I also saw the National Malaise, with the string of failed US policies and projects that disillusioned many about the effectiveness of the government.

There are two sets of lessons learned.  I think we would be better off if everyone tried to learn both sets of lessons.

But that's sure not what is happening.  Partisans like you and Eric will cling to the lessons and policies of one time and with intense prejudice find ways to reject the lessons and policies of other times.  This is going to the point of demonization, where anyone who holds the other set of values must be stupid, deluded, brainwashed, evil or a clone of Hitler.  Folks from either extreme aren't considering where the other side might be coming from.  They would rather assume that the other side is totally flying mammal excrement out of their minds.

I don't see either side as being more or less evil, deluded, stupid or etc...  I do see a pendulum that ought to be swinging with the cycles.  At the moment we have a large division of wealth and entrepreneurs are having no difficulty raising funds.  There is no current need for supply side stimulus, to take from the poor to give to the rich.  There is a real lack of jobs paying living wages.  This makes it a good time for demand side stimulus.  Money has to be inserted onto Main Street, where it will allow folk to buy and sell stuff, to get goods and services moving freely again.  If we can improve infrastructure, education and health care in the process, it's worth doing.

It's not a matter of one ideology or the other always being better.  It is a matter of honestly looking at what the nation needs and adjusting policy to match the current needs, not what the needs were when last a given party sized power.  Right now, Main Street has a lot more genuine needs than the Robber Barons.  The Robber Barons are riding as high as they ever have.

Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.  This doesn't seem to be happening, though.  (Classic Xer) and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.

I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

If you see all of history, you can see that there's only been one other time besides our own when the supposed "other party" besides the more-progressive one was in-fact too stubborn, deluded, brainwashed, almost Hitler like. That was the 1850s and 1860s. We are in that time again.

"There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so." While I might agree with this, that does not mean that the Reagan-Bush-Tea Party era qualifies as a time when people did OK with less help, or when the government had been ingrown and corrupt before they came along. No, people needed MORE help from government in Reagan's time, and MORE corruption occurred as a result of his election. Corruption in government is a progressives' issue anyway, not a conservative issue. Conservatives don't cure it; progressives cure it. It's not about how big government is, it's about what it does.

As a Goldwater Republican said on a PBS doc, Goldwater in 1964 would not have approved of the Tea Party's ideas today. Just because pendulums swing and cycles occur, does not mean that any ol swing is the right ol thing. It would not do either if the USA swung in a too-radical direction toward communism, isolationism, or violent leftist activities. Or a Green Party candidate who adopts and spreads Republican lies. We don't need to agree with swings that swing too far. That's what has happened in the Reagan-Bush-Tea Party era. The partisan divide will continue until this right-wing swing is defeated. 

As mikebert said, values don't come unlocked in 4Ts; one set of locked values defeats the other. Only then will you see more consensus.

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview.  Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions?  it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago.  It bought the word into common use.

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth.  The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth.  The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment.  One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".

In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science.  The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time.  So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.

Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government). 

Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).

As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue.  This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science.  It is not a values issue.

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law.  This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle  (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome).  Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question.  It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic.  It is a values issue.  Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview.  Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions?  it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago.  It bought the word into common use.

Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth.  The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth.  The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment.  One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".

In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science.  The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time.  So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.

Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government). 

Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).

As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue.  This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science.  It is not a values issue.

Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law.  This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle  (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome).  Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question.  It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic.  It is a values issue.  Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).

(08-23-2016, 12:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Civil War was the result of a political election. World War II was the result of failed diplomacy. The Revolutionary War was a result of a government that did not recognize the rights of Americans. Can history repeat itself, you better believe that it can.

Second Inaugural of Abe Lincoln Wrote:On the occasion corresponding to this, four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war, seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.