+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: Presidential election, 2016 (/thread-24.html)
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Classic-Xer - 11-26-2016
(11-26-2016, 05:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:According to you, they mean the same thing.(11-26-2016, 05:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why not use demagogue or extreme demagogue instead inserting your own terms? Are you afraid to use a common term with a definition that might accurately describe you or others associated with you here. PB isn't an extreme demagogue like Al Sharpton. He's a lesser demagogue who is viewed as annoying/foolish/ignorant but not down right despicable or a major threat to other peoples live in general. As I've told you many times, the current crop of blue cream puffs lack the political will/natural ability/leadership qualities to control it's various groups of ghouls and it's eventually going to hurt you politically. Other than you, I don't see the progressives wising up and changing their views. I see them sticking to their piss poor way reasoning and their reliance on demagogues and their various groups of bigots.
I just find partisan has a little less emotional baggage than demagogue. I'm trying to tone down the dialogue just a bit.
Futile, I know.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Classic-Xer - 11-26-2016
(11-26-2016, 04:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:Pyrrhic victory? She didn't have a Pyrrhic victory. Trump didn't have one either. She lost Super Bowl XLII.(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.
I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.
I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.
Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.
Thank you. Yes, I am very partisan, but I can see some gradation within the Other Side. I would have far less trouble with Mitt Romney as president even if he would be more successful in pushing a conservative agenda on economics, education, and defense. We know what he believes in because he made it very clear. He could have won an election to the Presidency against anyone not a strong and effective incumbent. The only black marks on the Obama Presidency are that he failed to grow partisan support during his Presidency -- and that Donald Trump follows him. The latter may not be his fault.
I see Donald Trump as reckless, cruel, dishonest, and dictatorial. Such would utterly discredit a politician on the Left. Besides, who can now excuse the introduction of religious or ethnic bigotry into national politics?
We liberals did not complain so much about George W. Bush getting elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. We would not look at a "President Romney" with so much foreboding. With Trump we have much cause for foreboding. I have cause to believe that he thinks "We won! You're done!" about us liberals.
We aren't done. We will still be here. We will be protesting every destructive policy of this upcoming Administration at least as much as the Tea Party protested the person and policies of Barack Obama. We won't need any FoX News stirring us up. Donald Trump, Republican Governors, and Congressional Republicans will be effective enough to give us cause for protests. Ethnic equity and religious freedom. Women's rights. Quality education. Labor-management relations. Economic performance. Environmental quality. Corruption? Not yet, but that will also work. We will have better, more coherent slogans.
It might not be long before many conservatives wish that Hillary Clinton had instead won the election instead of having a Pyrrhic victory.
Oh! I forget. The sorts of voters who think at a middle-school level who voted for Donald Trump don't know what a Pyrrhic victory is. The next Administration will need to suggest means of shoring up education to make America less vulnerable to the next demagogue, Left or Right. The next demagogue could be as nasty as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A hint: the black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish parts of the American middle class rejected Donald Trump. They respect formal education.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 11-26-2016
She won the popular vote, so by rights, she won the election; but she didn't get the office. Pyrrhic victory.
As of Nov.26, 10:55 PM EST
Hillary Clinton 64,637,503 48.2%
Donald Trump 62,409,389 46.5%
others 7,190,133 5.4%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19
"Be suspicious" of what people like Classic Xer say:
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 11-27-2016
Maybe even I am not as pessimistic about America as Neal Gabler is, but he may be right. For folks like Classic Xer, it may even be what they want.
http://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/#.WDkyRPGI6W0.facebook
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Classic-Xer - 11-27-2016
(11-26-2016, 10:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: She won the popular vote, so by rights, she won the election; but she didn't get the office. Pyrrhic victory.A victory offset by staggering losses doesn't relate to Clinton's loss. I'm not familiar with what goes into piss poor reasoning. Whatever it is, please keep it to yourselves and continue using it. Rachel is such a ditz. If it ain't liberal she's clueless. How does a clueless ditz make as much money as she does?
As of Nov.26, 10:55 PM EST
Hillary Clinton 64,637,503 48.2%
Donald Trump 62,409,389 46.5%
others 7,190,133 5.4%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19
"Be suspicious" of what people like Classic Xer say:
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 11-27-2016
Because she's very articulate, informed, accurate and intelligent, that's how.
I'm thinking that what we have in our history, such a bloody civil war, is not something we can recover from for a long, long time. The South seceded, was forced back into the union, then recreated a defacto slave society by making a deal for a presidential election, and still resent the Yankees to this day. And now this "confederacy" consists of most of the fly-over heartland between the coasts, who have elected, through the electoral college and probable rigging, a president who "says what people were thinking" (this resentment of yankees and the non-whites they try to bring freedom to).
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 11-27-2016
(11-26-2016, 08:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(11-26-2016, 04:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:Pyrrhic victory? She didn't have a Pyrrhic victory. Trump didn't have one either. She lost Super Bowl XLII.(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.
I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.
I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.
Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.
Thank you. Yes, I am very partisan, but I can see some gradation within the Other Side. I would have far less trouble with Mitt Romney as president even if he would be more successful in pushing a conservative agenda on economics, education, and defense. We know what he believes in because he made it very clear. He could have won an election to the Presidency against anyone not a strong and effective incumbent. The only black marks on the Obama Presidency are that he failed to grow partisan support during his Presidency -- and that Donald Trump follows him. The latter may not be his fault.
I see Donald Trump as reckless, cruel, dishonest, and dictatorial. Such would utterly discredit a politician on the Left. Besides, who can now excuse the introduction of religious or ethnic bigotry into national politics?
We liberals did not complain so much about George W. Bush getting elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. We would not look at a "President Romney" with so much foreboding. With Trump we have much cause for foreboding. I have cause to believe that he thinks "We won! You're done!" about us liberals.
We aren't done. We will still be here. We will be protesting every destructive policy of this upcoming Administration at least as much as the Tea Party protested the person and policies of Barack Obama. We won't need any FoX News stirring us up. Donald Trump, Republican Governors, and Congressional Republicans will be effective enough to give us cause for protests. Ethnic equity and religious freedom. Women's rights. Quality education. Labor-management relations. Economic performance. Environmental quality. Corruption? Not yet, but that will also work. We will have better, more coherent slogans.
It might not be long before many conservatives wish that Hillary Clinton had instead won the election instead of having a Pyrrhic victory.
Oh! I forget. The sorts of voters who think at a middle-school level who voted for Donald Trump don't know what a Pyrrhic victory is. The next Administration will need to suggest means of shoring up education to make America less vulnerable to the next demagogue, Left or Right. The next demagogue could be as nasty as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A hint: the black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish parts of the American middle class rejected Donald Trump. They respect formal education.
1. Donald Trump was the real demagogue, goading poor white people against educated people, especially ethnic and religious minorities. In that he imitated George Wallace in 1968, but (1) having even more scapegoats, and (2) having a national appeal.
2. The Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans is in having control of the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the vast majority of State legislators at an inauspicious time for holding them -- the most dangerous time of a Crisis Era -- while being ill-prepared for a Crisis. An economic downturn is always possible after a seven-hear recovery when the leadership casts off the leadership that made it possible. A rise of demagogues in other countries ensures that the steady hand that one might associate with a Sarkozy or an Obama will no longer be the norm, which means that international relations will be much shakier.
2a. Donald Trump has neither the temperament nor the training to be the #1 Diplomat. Sure, Barack Obama was not trained in international relations, but he could learn the job from people suitable to teach him. We got eight years of a steady hand in foreign policy. That is over on January 21 because nobody can tell Donald Trump that he might want to consider some other course of action. The incoming President's idea is to cut deals as if they were business transactions. He might take over Cuba in return for giving Vladimir Putin something that the President of the US has no right to deal -- let us say "Finland" or "Pakistan". That level of competence in diplomacy is what I associate with Joachim von Ribbentrop, a foreign minister unable to cut deals with honest people but quite able to do so with political gangsters. Ribbentrop always had difficulty dealing with Britain, France, and America.... but he could deal with fellow fascists and even with Stalin. Donald Trump will have more trouble dealing with a New Margaret Thatcher than dealing with a fellow fascist.In view of his dictatorial style, his ethnic and religious bigotry, and his selection of the most reactionary figures possible for Cabinet posts, he will likely make many possible enemies among the nations because he will show contempt for democracies. He praised strong leaders during the campaign, but somehow he chose murderous dictators over the sorts (Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher) that one would expect an American conservative to suggest as models of strong leaders.
The transformation of America into an Evil Empire will shatter NATO, many of whose Member States will need to arm to the teeth against America as well as Russia. Until recently I thought Europe safe from World War III due to NATO and the European Union. I suddenly no longer believe that.
2b. Anyone who bets on a continuation of a long recovery that began under a previous President is betting against luck, especially when the new President chooses to renounce the economic principles of his predecessor. The only way in which President Trump will be able to get more economic growth is to ensure that working people get better pay and working conditions -- when the Congress and most state legislatures want to cut wages. If he does what the Corporate Wing of the GOP wants him to do, then the consumer economy goers into the toilet. A speculative boom? It will fizzle fast. Americans may have short memories, but not so short that they don't remember the corrupt boom in real estate under Dubya or the dot.com bubble.
2c. There will be much civil unrest. President Trump will set race relations back 50 years because he ran a campaign heavily upon religious and ethnic bigotry. The only promise that he has made to the white working class that I can expect him to keep is to stick it to the educated middle class of America... and the educated middle class is the perfect group of people for staging peaceful protests and demonstrations. Should President Trump stick it to the working class by going along with the reactionary of Corporate America to abolish the minimum wage, make collective bargaining optional for Big Business, and gut occupational health and safety laws, then expect strikes as well. Donald Trump has been calling upon abrasive reactionaries... what's next? Will he appoint Joe Arpaio as the director of the Bureau of Prisons? That's not a good way to get majority support unless one counts only economic assets and bureaucratic power within Corporate America. Government representing economic power instead of the People -- that's Fascism.
2d. He has shown contempt for the intelligence agencies, much unlike his predecessor (who could have never had Osama bin Laden whacked without a smooth relationship with the CIA). Donald Trump is more likely to have a 9/11-like disaster happen on his watch than to resolve one. He's also likely to react inappropriately. So here's where the military comes in. Senior officers are unlikely to issue orders for crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, or conventional war crimes that might get them haled before the Hague Tribunal. The Joint Chiefs could conceivably overthrow him on grounds of (mental) health and then try to find a President by going down the list of succession until someone promises not to start an aggressive, illegal war. Military coup? There's no precedent in American history. Donald Trump? That is even more unprecedented.
2e.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Warren Dew - 11-27-2016
(11-26-2016, 06:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous. Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43. The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.
Trump doesn't have any choice about taking the debt past Bush since it has already been doubled by Obama.
I notice you left out that part, though. I guess you like demagogues as long as they're on your side.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Warren Dew - 11-27-2016
(11-26-2016, 03:35 PM)taramarie Wrote:(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:There should be a "like" button here. Well said.(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.
I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.
I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.
Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.
Taking sides in the mud slinging now? I guess that's more realistic than expecting us all to get along.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Classic-Xer - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 01:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Because she's very articulate, informed and intelligent, that's how.What did you get from that piece? Anything of true value other than some interesting historical facts relating to life during post Civil War America?
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Classic-Xer - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 01:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:It used to be meaner with bullying and psychological intimidation. Today, everyone's whining about typical mud slinging.(11-26-2016, 03:35 PM)taramarie Wrote:(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:There should be a "like" button here. Well said.(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.
I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.
I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.
Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.
Taking sides in the mud slinging now? I guess that's more realistic than expecting us all to get along.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Warren Dew - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 03:00 AM)taramarie Wrote:(11-27-2016, 01:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:Bob is similar to me in the fact he sees the hypocrisy on both sides so I am not sure I understand why you think I am taking sides in this. I am agreeing with his observation which is what I also see. Btw you all should know I am very much a lefty but I do have disagreements with the hypocrisy and the strategy I see some of them are taking. Varies of course but some most certainly go overboard and have become what they apparently hate. I have been very clear where I stand. But hell shoot me for listening.....(11-26-2016, 03:35 PM)taramarie Wrote:(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:There should be a "like" button here. Well said.(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.
I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.
I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.
Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.
Taking sides in the mud slinging now? I guess that's more realistic than expecting us all to get along.
To the contrary: you see fault on both sides and point it out on both sides. No one can accuse you of going easy on Eric just because he's on the same side as you.
Bob on the other hand may give lip service to the "both sides are problematic" meme, but in fact, he never criticizes his own side. In this case, both PBrower and Classic Xer are engaging in similar levels of invective, but Bob criticizes only Classic Xer, implying agreement with PBrower's level of invective. Of the three, Bob's posting pattern is if anything the most hypocritical; the other two are at least honest about their partisanship.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Classic-Xer - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 01:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 2. The Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans is in having control of the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the vast majority of State legislators at an inauspicious time for holding them -- the most dangerous time of a Crisis Era -- while being ill-prepared for a Crisis. An economic downturn is always possible after a seven-hear recovery when the leadership casts off the leadership that made it possible. A rise of demagogues in other countries ensures that the steady hand that one might associate with a Sarkozy or an Obama will no longer be the norm, which means that international relations will be much shakier.The Republican victory wasn't achieved by accepting staggering losses. You made a bad choice and underestimated my intelligence. Are you sure you want to continue mess with a heating and air guy who has no reservations or moral qualms about making a teacher like you look like an idiot who has never taught? Wise up!
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 02:01 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(11-27-2016, 01:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Because she's very articulate, informed and intelligent, that's how.What did you get from that piece? Anything of true value other than some interesting historical facts relating to life during post Civil War America?
Well, but that was of value, and clearly and articulately presented. And she made a clear and compelling case for how the result of the 2016 election stands out as something to not take for granted and support, given its parallel to the one 140 years ago. And my adjective describes all her pieces as well as that one. It certainly provoked my thinking about how the civil war has never entirely ended. We usually don't think of things that way, although the idea has gained traction in recent years.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 01:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(11-26-2016, 06:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous. Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43. The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.
Trump doesn't have any choice about taking the debt past Bush since it has already been doubled by Obama.
I notice you left out that part, though. I guess you like demagogues as long as they're on your side.
Woah there! Trump is proposing unnecessary and wasteful spending and huge and useless tax cuts. In no way is this reckless policy something that is not a choice, and in no way does it relate to anything that happened under Obama.
What Obama spent, however, was directly related to the outcome of Bush 43's policies, namely the great recession and the stimulus which was the only thing that got us out of it, or could have gotten us out of it.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Classic-Xer - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 03:15 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:I have never claimed to be a non-partisan. I've informed Bob that I'm not a rural partisan or a religious partisan and informed that I'm a suburban partisan. The suburban partisan view is different and can be more critical because we actually see how the Democrats run things. Plus, we the ones who are expected to help them pay their bills. Bob should learn to incorporate some respect when speaking to a partisan of equal or greater financial stature who has already paid his fair share of taxes. Bob has been making some progress. He no longer supports the extremist views associated with control.(11-27-2016, 03:00 AM)taramarie Wrote:(11-27-2016, 01:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:Bob is similar to me in the fact he sees the hypocrisy on both sides so I am not sure I understand why you think I am taking sides in this. I am agreeing with his observation which is what I also see. Btw you all should know I am very much a lefty but I do have disagreements with the hypocrisy and the strategy I see some of them are taking. Varies of course but some most certainly go overboard and have become what they apparently hate. I have been very clear where I stand. But hell shoot me for listening.....(11-26-2016, 03:35 PM)taramarie Wrote:(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.There should be a "like" button here. Well said.
I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.
Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.
Taking sides in the mud slinging now? I guess that's more realistic than expecting us all to get along.
To the contrary: you see fault on both sides and point it out on both sides. No one can accuse you of going easy on Eric just because he's on the same side as you.
Bob on the other hand may give lip service to the "both sides are problematic" meme, but in fact, he never criticizes his own side. In this case, both PBrower and Classic Xer are engaging in similar levels of invective, but Bob criticizes only Classic Xer, implying agreement with PBrower's level of invective. Of the three, Bob's posting pattern is if anything the most hypocritical; the other two are at least honest about their partisanship.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Bob Butler 54 - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 04:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(11-27-2016, 03:15 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Bob on the other hand may give lip service to the "both sides are problematic" meme, but in fact, he never criticizes his own side. In this case, both PBrower and Classic Xer are engaging in similar levels of invective, but Bob criticizes only Classic Xer, implying agreement with PBrower's level of invective. Of the three, Bob's posting pattern is if anything the most hypocritical; the other two are at least honest about their partisanship.I have never claimed to be a non-partisan. I've informed Bob that I'm not a rural partisan or a religious partisan and informed that I'm a suburban partisan. The suburban partisan view is different and can be more critical because we actually see how the Democrats run things. Plus, we the ones who are expected to help them pay their bills. Bob should learn to incorporate some respect when speaking to a partisan of equal or greater financial stature who has already paid his fair share of taxes. Bob has been making some progress. He no longer supports the extremist views associated with control.
At this point, I'm seeing the partisanship as the greater issue than the specific issues. I see both partisan positions being justified by history, culture and different environments, but understanding where two groups of people are coming from doesn't make the problem go away.
The thing I'm caring most about is extreme partisanship and vile stereotyping, where both groups will cling to bad parodies of the other guy's motivations, spend a lot of time explaining the other side's motivations to the other side, which is seldom enlightening and causes neither side to listen.
There are issues where I'm firmly aligned one way or another and will take a firm stand. Borrow and spend trickle down was a disaster for both Bush administrations, especially 43's. Global warming is real. Historically, the recent individual rights interpretations and the rest of the 'Standard Model' position on the 2nd Amendment has a ton more merit than a lot of Democrats are willing to acknowledge. Of these three, the global warming and 2nd Amendment questions are receiving a lots less attention here than they did on the old board several years or decades past.
On a lot of other issues, the two factions are going at each other with enough vigor that I often don't feel jumping in helps a lot. Neither group needs a lot of help from me in articulating the partisan positions. Yes, I'd like to push the progressives away from their attempts to force their culture on the conservatives, but with the Trump victory I'm seeing conservatives pushing to expand their culture in a similar enough way. Each faction will take a narrow victory, interpret it as a mandate, and try to destroy everything the other has built.
I've been thinking a bit on American crises. They all resulted in progressive transformation. Democracy triumphed over the king. The slaves were freed. The boom and bust disastrous Gilded Age economic policies were tamed somewhat by the New Deal's emphasis on the working classes. Fascism was defeated. From this angle, one might understand Eric's progressives good, conservatives bad, conservatives won't change thus conservatives must be suppressed by whatever means necessary perspective.
But why haven't we had a regeneracy this time around? Why isn't the country uniting behind obvious and grave problems and crushing those who don't want to solve the problem?
Are any of today's problems as severe as colonial imperialism, slavery, the Great Depression or Fascism?
The Revolution was to a great degree an external conflict. The bulk of the conservative fighting troops and political control came from overseas. Fighting for democracy and against colonial imperialism, it was possible to build a unifying progressive movement. There were royalist loyalists in the colonies, but they were few enough that they couldn't stop dominance by the rebels in the Continental Congress.
The Civil War cleanly divided the country. There were two governments, each having a strong decisive majority, each creating a unifying movement out to defeat the other unifying movement.
The Great Depression presented a clear failure of the old system. Early on, labor, management and both political parties all agreed that something radically different had to be done. Clear and present problems can create a unifying movement.
Fascism also created a clear unifying threat, an external one.
Today, I propose, there is no clear unifying threat. The country is divided enough that modern interpretations and uses of the filibuster prevent transforming change. Attempts to pretend one has a majority capable of transforming change only enrage the opposition base into turning control over to the other party.
I have long suspected that the S&H notion of periodic crisis, that from time to time the country can be changed big time, will attract to these forum partisans who want to see the country changed big time. A lot of us see large problems and are encouraged by the notion that roughly every four score and seven years one can ride a major movement that will address such problems.
But if there is no hope of a sustainable filibuster proof control of congress, if none of the spirals of violence are building towards a military resolution, should any of us expect a regeneracy and culture transforming unifying movement?
And if we can't expect it, should we be looking for it, working for it?
I just don't believe enough in The Theory to assume a successful likely progressive crisis transformation is inevitable. Yes, in the United States we saw three of them appear at regular intervals, and you can trace that further back on the other side of the pond. However, while this pattern works well enough for the Industrial Age and Anglo-American civilization, you have to squint and go cockeyed to apply it elsewhere. With the Agricultural Age elites and patterns that drove most of the early crises long gone, have we any reason to be dead set sure another crisis transformation is inevitable?
I would like to see a political party trying to make the whole country happy, striving keep the bulk of their current base happy without going out of the way to tick off the other half. I don't see the Republicans abandoning borrow and spend trickle down or climate science denial. One might hope, but one certainly should not hold one's breath. Thus, this hypothetical party for all of the United States seems more likely to grow out of the Democrats.
But whichever side abandons a crisis transformation that bashes the other half of the country into submission would have to stop demonizing the other half of the country and attempting to beat them into submission. The problem might be less about economics, climate, guns or cultural arm twisting, more about a country paralyzed by extreme partisanship.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 11-27-2016
(11-26-2016, 05:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Why not use demagogue or extreme demagogue instead inserting your own terms? Are you afraid to use a common term with a definition that might accurately describe you or others associated with you here. PB isn't an extreme demagogue like Al Sharpton. He's a lesser demagogue who is viewed as annoying/foolish/ignorant but not down right despicable or a major threat to other peoples live in general. As I've told you many times, the current crop of blue cream puffs lack the political will/natural ability/leadership qualities to control it's various groups of ghouls and it's eventually going to hurt you politically. Other than you, I don't see the progressives wising up and changing their views. I see them sticking to their piss poor way reasoning and their reliance on demagogues and their various groups of bigots.(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.
I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here. He has that much in common with you. The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.
I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with. The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype. It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.
Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.
We need to define our terms. Wikipedia is reasonably neutral.
Quote:A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.[1][2][3][4] Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, violent action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so. Most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of dictatorship.
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
I fail to see how the word demagogue applies to me: I dread mob rule, I dislike prejudice and ignorance, I prefer that people insist upon deliberation in politics, and I expect the rule of law. I may be intensely partisan, but I recognize the need for due process and legal precedent. Pure democracy is untenable; functioning democracies have some constraints upon majority rule. A lynch mob may make its decisions by majority vote, but the lynch mob itself violates the liberal concept of rule of law.
Quote:Throughout its history, people have often used the word demagogue carelessly, to disparage any leader whom the speaker thinks manipulative, pernicious, or bigoted.[3] While there can be no precise delineation between demagogues and non-demagogues, since democratic leaders exist on a continuum from less to more demagogic, what distinguishes a demagogue can be defined independently of whether the speaker favors or opposes a certain political leader.[3] What distinguishes a demagogue is how he or she gains or holds democratic power: by exciting the passions of the lower classes and less-educated people in a democracy toward rash or violent action, breaking established democratic institutions such as the rule of law.[3] James Fenimore Cooper in 1838 identified four fundamental characteristics of demagogues:[3][5][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#cite_note-LarsonDefn-4][/url]
The central feature of the practice of demagoguery is persuasion by means of passion, shutting down reasoned deliberation and consideration of alternatives. Demagogues "pander to passion, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance, rather than reason."[4]
- They fashion themselves as a man or woman of the common people, opposed to the elites.
- Their politics depends on a visceral connection with the people which greatly exceeds ordinary political popularity.
- They manipulate this connection, and the raging popularity it affords, for their own benefit and ambition.
- They threaten or outright break established rules of conduct, institutions, and even the law.
That sounds familiar. I expect that as unpleasant as it is for me to hear or see Donald Trump already, it will only get worse. Obama is getting boring, but at least he doesn't intrude on every aspect of life. I wonder whether life will shut down so that we can hear the speeches of the Great and Glorious Leader. After all, his pronouncements are more profound than Turandot or the Seventh Symphony of Anton Bruckner, works that only un-American people can appreciate. Think at the level of the writing of the National Inquirer if you want to be a real member of the American People.
No. I am a rootless cosmopolitan in contrast to you, Classic X'er. I outgrew the mass low culture when I was a teenager. To be sure, mass culture (think of Mark Twain, Big Band music, George Gershwin, ragtime, the three great ballets associated with Tchaikovsky, maybe some animated films that anyone can watch and enjoy... Shakespeare and Mozart, of course, in their times) can have an omnibus appeal which suggests genuine mastery in achievement. I don't have a problem with folk culture; it has its validity through its purity. If some American wants to write some structured music with some widespread appeal, then maybe he might want to start by taking a good listening to some old-fashioned fiddling and banjo playing so that his works can have some melodic coherence and some national character. Bach's Art of Fugue and Beethoven's late quartets are incredibly rich, but they are decidedly not for everyone.
I may not be an intellectual (I only play one on the Web). That play looks as if it could become very dangerous very fast in America, where survival may soon depend on how satisfied one can be with a 'dumb' culture. I'm guessing that Donald Trump's America will be one in which one works and is expected to accept either religion or mass low culture (most people will be far poorer, so forget consumerism as America rushes headlong into the social realities of the Gilded Age; forget anything 'intellectual, for thought will be understood as the highest form of treachery). I expect to thoroughly hate life in Trump's America. I am not sure that I can survive it. I am beginning to regret that I took care of myself as I did instead of chain-smoking, drinking myself into cirrhosis, or having reckless sex.
All that I expect to live for during the Trump Presidency is resisting it by participating in demonstrations and protests... and outlasting it. Maybe I will have some wisdom to impart. Education? it's back to the liberal arts, and expand it to at least K-14 as a norm so that youth can learn how to judge what is offered as information. We need to ensure that those who graduate from college and become leaders and creators have some values that allow one to make humane choices instead of thinking of sex, bureaucratic power, and material indulgence. We need to recognize that if one is alienated from the detritus of mas low culture that a high culture (no, not LSD!) has much to offer. Politics? Shore up the existing Constitution to remove the seams that allow ruthless people to consolidate dictatorial power or replace it with something still workable. Economics? Probably tax the super-rich heavily to support an economy in which people can work and still live comfortably (volunteering, creative activity not for swift gain, imparting culture to youth even if one is not a formal teacher) without having an obvious employer. If we are stuck with robotic production that cuts into the need for a paid workforce, then maybe those who profit from the robot workforce can share the bounties with us -- let they be unable to sell what those robots produce to people too destitute to buy the stuff.
We cannot put the technological genie back in the lamp. We will be unable to go back to the electronics of even twenty years ago. We cannot undo the wealth of information (and disinformation) on the Internet. We simply are handling it badly, and Donald Trump is a symptom of people who can fall for anything in a culture that offers everything and no means of sorting it out.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Bob Butler 54 - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 08:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We need to define our terms.
Quote:A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.[1][2][3][4] Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, violent action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so. Most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of dictatorship.
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
While I didn't go to a dictionary, yes, I see the word 'demagog' as more applicable to a politician than a poster on the internet. There are a lot of negative aspects to 'demagog' as compared to 'partisan'. I prefer partisan. Others might want to emphasize and apply the negative aspects.
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Warren Dew - 11-27-2016
(11-27-2016, 03:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(11-27-2016, 01:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(11-26-2016, 06:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Louise XIV and Bush 43 went past moderation to ruinous. Trump's campaign rhetoric suggested he was going to go past Bush 43. The way Trump is disregarding his campaign rhetoric, though, I don't know yet how far he is really willing to take the debt.
Trump doesn't have any choice about taking the debt past Bush since it has already been doubled by Obama.
I notice you left out that part, though. I guess you like demagogues as long as they're on your side.
Woah there! Trump is proposing unnecessary and wasteful spending and huge and useless tax cuts. In no way is this reckless policy something that is not a choice, and in no way does it relate to anything that happened under Obama.
What Obama spent, however, was directly related to the outcome of Bush 43's policies, namely the great recession and the stimulus which was the only thing that got us out of it, or could have gotten us out of it.
The stimulus spending that Obama actually did was as wasteful and counterproductive as anything Trump might be proposing. Obama managed to delay the recovery by his entire two terms, keeping our growth rate well below trend.
But whatever you think of Obama's spending, it clearly took us beyond the Bush deficit, and clearly was not Trump's doing. For Bob's statement to be correct, you'd have to believe that Trump could magically roll back all of Obama's deficit spending, returning the deficit to where it was at the end of the Bush administration, when it stood at half it's current level. That's clearly ridiculous.