The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(12-29-2019, 01:39 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(12-04-2019, 10:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-04-2019, 01:30 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-03-2019, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 01:32 PM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The overwhelming bulk of support for Donald Trump and the GOP lie in non-rural areas. These include exurbs, suburbs, small and medium sized cities, and even large cities.

Just looking at large cities alone:

• Los Angeles County had more Trump voters than the entire state of Kansas.
  
• Cook County IL had more Trump voters than the entire state of Idaho. 
  
• Brooklyn + The Bronx combined had more Trump voters than Wyoming.
  

This isn’t to say Trump voters don’t have actual legitimate grievances. But in terms of raw numbers, the vast majority of them are not living in rural areas or small towns below the size of 20k people. Most live in metros the size of 50k-100k people or more.

You're comparing pumpkins and grapes.  Sure, there are a lot of Trump voters in highly populated areas, but the percentage is what's important -- not the absolute number.  Likewise, low population areas can only have so many voters, by definition.  I live in the exurbs, and it's Trump, end-to-end.  That's true of low and high education individuals, I might add.  The two closest cities are small-to-medium size, with one being Purple (~80,000) and the other solidly Blue (~110,000).   Their burbs are both very Red.  I think that's typical.

Right, and in our electoral college system, the Trump voters in big blue cities and counties do not matter. The Trump voters, with their overwhelming majority in rural and small-town areas, turn states red that do not have big blue cities in them, and they have far more clout in the electoral college, because it's set up to favor smaller states. So, the source of the power of Trump and Republicans today, in the Senate and in the presidential elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016, is the rural and small town and small city areas that vote Republican by overwhelming margins.

What? Absolute number no longer matters to the liberals anymore. What are the liberals going to do when Trump gets the majority of the vote in 2020, wins  the majority of the electoral college again, regains the majority of the House, strengthens the majority of the Senate and has the majority of the Supreme Court and the right to pick them too? Right now, I'd say that those unpleasant realities for liberals are more likely going to happen at this point. Are you going to support liberal revolts/riots and support liberal movements to secede from the Union at that point?

In that scenario, if the Republicans try to abolish the filibuster in the Senate there will be a Second Civil War - and the left won't care who they have to collaborate with, just like the Irish collaborated with the Germans in 1916, the Slovaks collaborated with the Germans in 1939, the Balts, Ukrainians, Croats, Bosnians, and Kosovars collaborated with the Germans in 1941, and the Sicilians collaborated with the Americans in 1943.  The enemy of their enemy will be their friend.

Where were you when the Democrats changed the rules and bypassed the filibuster? I thought it was pretty dumb (a very short sighted thing to do) at the time.

[David Horn]

(12-30-2019, 11:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2019, 11:36 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: People are not as media-savvy as they need be. They need learn the techniques of manipulation, including logical fallacies.

Amen.  I figure learning how to read liars is one of the natural skills we all well have to have in the Information Age.  It is one of the new values we have to transition to, and the Trump alternate reality is a hard lesson which will drive the values change.

While I agree with this, it's not the entire story.  Ask yourself three questions

1. Which nations with long(ish) histories of democratic values and responsible government are flailing around in this cesspool?
2. Which nations have Murdock media as dominant news providers?
3. How close is the correlation?

We're in a close race here. Brexit may do more damage to the UK than anything short of the world wars, and Australia is burning while both political parties offer total support to the coal industry. It's hard to cite the Murdock's as uniquely at fault, it's impossible to give them a bye.

[David Horn]

(01-02-2020, 06:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-29-2019, 01:39 PM)Anthony Wrote: ... if the Republicans try to abolish the filibuster in the Senate there will be a Second Civil War - and the left won't care who they have to collaborate with, just like the Irish collaborated with the Germans in 1916, the Slovaks collaborated with the Germans in 1939, the Balts, Ukrainians, Croats, Bosnians, and Kosovars collaborated with the Germans in 1941, and the Sicilians collaborated with the Americans in 1943.  The enemy of their enemy will be their friend.

Where were you when the Democrats changed the rules and bypassed the filibuster? I thought it was pretty dumb (a very short sighted thing to do) at the time.

Good question, though a bit cynical. The GOP has a near lock on the Senate, due entirely to their dominance of lower-population states. Once Ted Kennedy died, the Obama landslide was over, and hyper-partisan Mitch McConnell stopped everything in its tracks -- not to belay bad legislation, but to stop anything the Dems could call a win. But while the Dems had control in that period, they had too few votes to pass anything if the filibuster continued. That was especially true for court appointments, so Harry Reid made the move. It may not have been totally wise, but the alternative was even worse, from the Dem perspective.

With comity dead in the political sphere, the fights will get even more brutal and demographics will win in the end. This looks pretty bad for the Republicans long term, but they may do well for the next decade or so. If Trump is reelected, cut that to a few years.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-04-2020, 07:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-30-2019, 11:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2019, 11:36 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: People are not as media-savvy as they need be. They need learn the techniques of manipulation, including logical fallacies.

Amen.  I figure learning how to read liars is one of the natural skills we all well have to have in the Information Age.  It is one of the new values we have to transition to, and the Trump alternate reality is a hard lesson which will drive the values change.

While I agree with this, it's not the entire story.  Ask yourself three questions

1. Which nations with long(ish) histories of democratic values and responsible government are flailing around in this cesspool?
   
2. Which nations have Murdock media as dominant news providers?
   
3. How close is the correlation?
   

We're in a close race here.  Brexit may do more damage to the UK than anything short of the world wars, and Australia is burning while both political parties offer total support to the coal industry.  It's hard to cite the Murdock's as uniquely at fault, it's impossible to give them a bye.

Too much of a coalition, but that only reenforces the need for the skill.

[pbrower2a]

If Trump should be re-elected, then democracy dies in America and will not revive until America endures some catastrophe that destroys the system. If he does not start apocalyptic war, then President Trump initiates a 1T of extreme repression, inequality, and perhaps brutality. America would be at best much like Spain after the Civil War, when the only modernity tolerated would be the techniques of warfare and repression. America would be the sort of country in which stupidity becomes a survival value as a defense of sanity. Americans would be obliged to find silver linings in every bit of economic and personal rottenness.

Let me remind us of how things were at the time in which the barbarians put an end to the Western Roman Empire. The common man, overworked by his feudal lords, overtaxed for the pompous splendor of the Imperial bureaucracy, and having nothing to defend saw the barbarians as liberators. The common man, unaccustomed to experiencing the finer things of life, were delighted to show where the jewels, precious metals, and other fine objects were; the common man did not need those. He was delighted even to betray the oppressive elite to the barbarians who might rape and kill the wives and daughters. The barbarians in return gave land to the peasants and quit taking the crops... and the peasants were happy enough.

Well -- that will happen in some other, subsequent Crisis Era... if this one goes badly.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-30-2019, 11:36 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-29-2019, 03:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One of the 'features' of the partisan divide is alternative facts, of people out and out lying to make sure people will believe and vote up is down, black is white and truth isn't.  A large part of this is the internet.  There are a lot of sources of information, and a tendency to latch onto sources that fit what you tend to believe.  This is exaggerated be groups generating massive amounts of disinformation, that have learned to pull people away from a reality of facts.  Putin's Russia and Trump's Republicans might stand as examples.

There is truth, falsehood, and possibility. One can choose one's opinions, but nobody has the right to determine that something is truth despite it being falsehood. 

Quote:The "Meet the Press" Episode of Dec 29 features the Washington Post and New York Times editors talking about how to tell a modern professional media source which is a source of truth from a group which is throwing out lies.  I quite believe that the modern internet , social media, and disinformation methods can succeed for a time.  However, with not much effort, if one is interested, you can learn to tell the techniques used to speak truth from the methods used to tell lies.

Transcript here, for those who prefer reading to video. The video came back a blank when I tried to upload it. 


https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-december-29-2019-n1106036

Quote:The way the current disinformation sources work is predictable.  Base all disinformation on a kernel of truth.  Repeat you lies often.  Attack the true sources as unreliable to create a bubble.

And the professional media is learning to fight back.  The big boys have to have a fact checking department.  Their reporters have to put their sources on line with links to verification.

The alternative to relying upon media that fact-check is to accept rumors and disinformation -- and to become a fool and a tool.   

Quote:I have left a lot out of the program which is easy enough to find.  Thing is, if you do not want to be bamboozled, it is fairly easy not to be.  The current administration thus becomes a worst case bunch of folks influencing a public which was not familiar with the methods.  I don't know that the people will allow themselves to become that gullible to disinformation in the long term.  It is rapidly possible to recognize the techniques for how it is done.

People are not as media-savvy as they need be. They need learn the techniques of manipulation, including logical fallacies.

I agree with what you're both saying but liberal talk is cheap these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-08-2020, 04:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree with what you're both saying but liberal talk is cheap these days.

Yah.  Some conservatives seem to enjoy being gullible.

It is just that after so many lies, you would think they would wise up.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-04-2020, 08:16 AM)David Horn Wrote: Good question, though a bit cynical.  The GOP has a near lock on the Senate, due entirely to their dominance of lower-population states.  Once Ted Kennedy died, the Obama landslide was over, and hyper-partisan Mitch McConnell stopped everything in its tracks -- not to belay bad legislation, but to stop anything the Dems could call a win.  But while the Dems had control in that period, they had too few votes to pass anything if the filibuster continued.  That was especially true for court appointments, so Harry Reid made the move.  It may not have been totally wise, but the alternative was even worse, from the Dem perspective.

With comity dead in the political sphere, the fights will get even more brutal and demographics will win in the end.  This looks pretty bad for the Republicans long term, but they may do well for the next decade or so.  If Trump is reelected, cut that to a few years.

Yes, the demographics as you are in your favor now and therefore the long term as you say. Of coarse, that will only be a problem if we remain loyal to a government with liberals in charge and liberal policies in place. Hint...I've/we've seem what your side is capable of doing to get what it wants and get even so to speak. I must say its impressive when the liberal system (liberals above) caters to them and allows them the freedom to do it for our education and liberal plublicity. I wonder how much of that stuff that we've seen was coordinated by liberal groups.

Of coarse, our more preferred American system ain't as permissive or as into racial preference as your liberal system and what we see is illegal and reminds us of what quasi socialist groups tend to do to assert and gain power. I wonder how many of them people of yours I would lay out before a liberal up above would respond. Liberals ain't quick. I wonder how of those punks of yours are used to facing gunfire and used to seeing wounded people and a bunch of hand held weapons scattered all around them. You say I couldn't, I say I could because I know I would in that situation and I don't lie. I'm sorry to inform you but I place more value on a deer or a pheasant than I place on the folks wearing masks and using sticks and I shoot them.

Hint...The Devils Advocate had a political association and a personal handicap like Bush II, that I didn't have to contend with and a broad brushing largely unappealing approach that I didn't use initially.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-08-2020, 04:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-08-2020, 04:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree with what you're both saying but liberal talk is cheap these days.

Yah.  Some conservatives seem to enjoy being gullible.

It is just that after so many lies, you would think they would wise up.

Well, I guess they'll just have to learn the hard way. I'm cool with that, are you? So, what do you think about liberals digging their own graves, should we do the right thing, try to intervene to stop/save them or simply ignore and tend to our own business and call it fate.

[pbrower2a]

(01-08-2020, 04:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-30-2019, 11:36 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-29-2019, 03:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One of the 'features' of the partisan divide is alternative facts, of people out and out lying to make sure people will believe and vote up is down, black is white and truth isn't.  A large part of this is the internet.  There are a lot of sources of information, and a tendency to latch onto sources that fit what you tend to believe.  This is exaggerated be groups generating massive amounts of disinformation, that have learned to pull people away from a reality of facts.  Putin's Russia and Trump's Republicans might stand as examples.

There is truth, falsehood, and possibility. One can choose one's opinions, but nobody has the right to determine that something is truth despite it being falsehood. 

Quote:The "Meet the Press" Episode of Dec 29 features the Washington Post and New York Times editors talking about how to tell a modern professional media source which is a source of truth from a group which is throwing out lies.  I quite believe that the modern internet , social media, and disinformation methods can succeed for a time.  However, with not much effort, if one is interested, you can learn to tell the techniques used to speak truth from the methods used to tell lies.

Transcript here, for those who prefer reading to video. The video came back a blank when I tried to upload it. 


https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-december-29-2019-n1106036

Quote:The way the current disinformation sources work is predictable.  Base all disinformation on a kernel of truth.  Repeat you lies often.  Attack the true sources as unreliable to create a bubble.

And the professional media is learning to fight back.  The big boys have to have a fact checking department.  Their reporters have to put their sources on line with links to verification.

The alternative to relying upon media that fact-check is to accept rumors and disinformation -- and to become a fool and a tool.   

Quote:I have left a lot out of the program which is easy enough to find.  Thing is, if you do not want to be bamboozled, it is fairly easy not to be.  The current administration thus becomes a worst case bunch of folks influencing a public which was not familiar with the methods.  I don't know that the people will allow themselves to become that gullible to disinformation in the long term.  It is possible to recognize the techniques for how it is done.

People are not as media-savvy as they need be. They need learn the techniques of manipulation, including logical fallacies.

I agree with what you're both saying but liberal talk is cheap these days.

Talk of any kind is cheap these days. Much of the talk these days is garbage -- stuff that some drunk might as well bawl to the full moon as if it were a listener.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-08-2020, 07:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Talk of any kind is cheap these days. Much of the talk these days is garbage -- stuff that some drunk might as well bawl to the full moon as if it were a listener.

I agree, the bulk of the talk is people flapping their gums for the sake of flapping their gums or because they now have an opportunity or right to flap their gums in front of cameras and audiences that people didn't have available to them twenty years ago. As a general rule, the silent American majority doesn't speak much or write much or become directly involved with politics even though it could because the silent majority pretty much runs everything outside of the government. Hint...I am a member of the silent majority these days.

I watched and listened to your speaker today. Hint...What I saw and heard relating to her and the crowd of reporters questioning her did not impress me very much as a regular guy who knows more about the American system than the average liberal politician, liberal reporter or liberal reader these days. Example, the Iranian general that was recently killed would be equal to George Washington being killed by the British during the revolutionary war a couple hundred years ago or a one star general in charge of covert military operations located some place in the world today. I heard a few major contradictions and conflicts in interests come from her mouth. I saw self incriminating signs and statements as well. I saw a woman flapping her gums in front of group of casual political supporters/friends. I saw signs of a woman being out of her league in a powerful position ( she is third in line to the presidency which she should not be in today). I saw a woman who was unsure if what she was doing/saying to us was right or wrong thing to be doing or saying because she was outside of her comfort zone. In other words, I didn't see confidence, confidence in herself, confidence in her beliefs, confidence in her position or an understanding as to why she and most liberals feel uncomfortable because the internet is loaded with people who hate their guts today.

So, how do you feel about liberals digging their own graves? So, what should America do if she's targeted and killed by the Iranians these days? Should Americans ignore it or look the other way or call it something else or keep it to themselves or deny it occurred like liberals seem to be able to do and be OK with doing when it comes to the killing or harm our troops and our citizens at home and abroad these days? I could do that today. As a matter of fact, I could take that liberal position and do nothing about every liberal politician, liberal judge or liberal citizen of any kind who is killed or harmed by them or anyone else these days.

Now, how many dead liberals would it take for liberals stop viewing and prioritizing in terms of liberals first and Americans second and begin viewing themselves as American citizens who deserve American protection and fall in line with the rest of the Americans these days? How many liberals would have to die before the liberals figured out who their enemy was or is at the time and stop believing that other Americans are their greater enemy? Read this. learn this and take this to heart so that you understand why the liberals are going to be politically decimated and removed from power in the upcoming election. Oh, you may want to take a harder look at the overall poll results because there are some deficiencies/discrepancies with the individual poll results.

[Eric the Green]

Liberals of all stripes want America to do the right thing. Conservatives also want America to do what they want it to do. There's no difference as far as I can see in that respect.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-09-2020, 03:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Liberals of all stripes want America to do the right thing. Conservatives also want America to do what they want it to do. There's no difference as far as I can see in that respect.

Is looking the other way and doing nothing about Iranian aggression and Iranian attacks on our troops and our citizens, the right thing to do in your mind? You tell me what's worse, killing the dude who is directly responsible for them or doing nothing and accepting American casualties in order to appease Iran and allowing him the freedom to continue? You know, if we were to go to war with me, you wouldn't be going to war against a conservative. You would be going to war against an American right libertarian who would be liberal enough to not only destroy you but completely eliminate you if necessary. Btw, you can call me whatever you want as I'm doing it too. The American people ain't going to care or listen to liberals once it starts.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-09-2020, 01:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I watched and listened to your speaker today. Hint...What I saw and heard relating to her and the crowd of reporters questioning her did not impress me very much as a regular guy who knows more about the American system than the average liberal politician, liberal reporter or liberal reader these days. Example, the Iranian general that was recently killed would be equal to George Washington being killed by the British during the revolutionary war a couple hundred years ago or a one star general in charge of covert military operations located some place in the world today. I heard a few major contradictions and conflicts in interests come from her mouth. I saw self incriminating signs and statements as well. I saw a woman flapping her gums in front of group of casual political supporters/friends. I saw signs of a woman being out of her league in a powerful position ( she is third in line to the presidency which she should not be in today). I saw a woman who was unsure if what she was doing/saying to us was right or wrong thing to be doing or saying because she was outside of her comfort zone. In other words, I didn't see confidence, confidence in herself, confidence in her beliefs, confidence in her position or an understanding as to why she and most liberals feel uncomfortable because the internet is loaded with people who hate their guts today.

It depends a lot on how strict one wants to be.  Is ISIS the same as Iran?  If so, Trump did not strictly disregard the War Powers act.  Was use of force approved by Congress for another president, and not desired for this one?  If you think that true, it is appropriate to file for another War Powers authorization.  If a proxy militiamen shoots at you is it OK for you to shoot back?   Probably, so long as there is no significant escalation.

Thing is, it gets risky to exchange acts of war.  Someone might get the idea that a war is on.

Now back in WW II, we did kill Yamamoto, the admiral who planned Pearl Harbor.  I have no trouble with killing people in uniform of an authorized enemy, regardless of rank, even deliberately targeting them.  But this guy was number two guy in Iran.  That would be the equivalent of Pence, compatible with Pelosi.  That would be quite an escalation.  At the same time he has been planning and escalating terrorist activity for quite some time.  He could and should be considered a proper target.

Killing people that high in government is an interesting president, one which is for some odd reason generally not set by people that high in government.  This is one case where the unpredictable Trump by just being Trump made enough people nervous that it more or less worked.  It was fine if you like playing with fire.

Could Pelosi suggest another article of impeachment for violating the war powers act?  If she does not trust Trump to use force appropriately in the Middle East, could she look for legislation to strip that authority from him?  She chose not to do either of these things.  She could.  She perhaps should.  It would get through the house.  It might be more interesting  in the senate.  Still, there is enough else going on.

But if you take rule of law seriously, you would have to take all these questions seriously.  I personally am not going to second guess Pelosi this quickly.  I do know I do not trust Trump enough to let him play king, to use force freely against anyone in the region.  I would be tempted to try to strip authorization, even if this implies bringing all the troops in the region home.  We seem to have reached that point anyway.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-09-2020, 07:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-09-2020, 01:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I watched and listened to your speaker today. Hint...What I saw and heard relating to her and the crowd of reporters questioning her did not impress me very much as a regular guy who knows more about the American system than the average liberal politician, liberal reporter or liberal reader these days. Example, the Iranian general that was recently killed would be equal to George Washington being killed by the British during the revolutionary war a couple hundred years ago or a one star general in charge of covert military operations located some place in the world today. I heard a few major contradictions and conflicts in interests come from her mouth. I saw self incriminating signs and statements as well. I saw a woman flapping her gums in front of group of casual political supporters/friends. I saw signs of a woman being out of her league in a powerful position ( she is third in line to the presidency which she should not be in today). I saw a woman who was unsure if what she was doing/saying to us was right or wrong thing to be doing or saying because she was outside of her comfort zone. In other words, I didn't see confidence, confidence in herself, confidence in her beliefs, confidence in her position or an understanding as to why she and most liberals feel uncomfortable because the internet is loaded with people who hate their guts today.

It depends a lot on how strict one wants to be.  Is ISIS the same as Iran?  If so, Trump did not strictly disregard the War Powers act.  Was use of force approved by Congress for another president, and not desired for this one.  If you think that true, it is appropriate to file for another War Powers authorization.  If a proxy militiamen shoots at you is it OK for you to shoot back?   Probably, so long as there is no significant escalation.

Thing is, it gets risky to exchange acts of war.  Someone might get the idea that a war is on.

Now back in WW II, we did kill Yamamoto, the admiral who planned Pearl Harbor.  I have no trouble with killing people in uniform of an authorized enemy, regardless of rank, even deliberately targeting them.  But this guy was number two guy in Iran.  That would be the equivalent of Pence, compatible with Pelosi.  That would be quite an escalation.  At the same time he has been planning and escalating terrorist activity for quite some time.  He could and should be considered a proper target.

Killing people that high in government is an interesting president, one which is for some odd reason generally not set by people that high in government.  This is one case where the unpredictable Trump by just being Trump made enough people nervous that it more or less worked.  It was fine if you like playing with fire.

Could Pelosi suggest another article of impeachment for violating the war powers act?  If she does not trust Trump to use force appropriately in the Middle East, could she look for legislation to strip that authority from him?  She chose not to do either of these things.  She could.  She perhaps should.  It would get through the house.  It might be more interesting  in the senate.  Still, there is enough else going on.

But if you take rule of law seriously, you would have to take all these questions seriously.  I personally am not going to second guess Pelosi this quickly.  I do know I do not trust Trump enough to let him play king, to use force freely against anyone in the region.  I would be tempted to try to strip authorization, even if this implies bringing all the troops in the region home.  We seem to have reached that point anyway.

He wasn't in the upper tier of the government. He was the supreme leaders right hand man * top general* who was in charge of running covert military operations/wars and protecting the regime. He was Iran's military version of bin Laden or General George Washington. Iran is a much larger, more organized, better funded and more deadly terrorist organization than ISIS. So, I don't view them as equals but very similar. Now that he's gone, we might see a military coup because he was supposedly a very charismatic leader and if his elite troops associated him with god then his loss may have a crippling emotional affect. It's definitely a major set back. I mean, their response was minor and they let us know that their response would be it for now. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave us an advanced notice of their missile strike. Just a guess. At some point, you would think they would figure out that God ain't going to save them from being destroyed by us.

I suppose Nancy could impeach him for saying that she's not playing with a full deck if she wanted to as well. One more farce charge isn't going to hurt her any worse at this point. Personally, I think Nancy had her hand forced by her caucus and she had no other choice but to do it to keep the Democratic coalition together. It's pretty clear and obvious to me, the radical Democrats have control over her and the party. I don't know if that's good thing or bad thing to you. All I know is that it's not not going to be good for the long term.  We have two cultures in this country and I figure we come from the same culture/class. I figure what lays ahead is a classic clash between classes and cultures and were not France. Do you remember the riots during the 60's. Well, you probably want to get ready for a repeat.

[Bob Butler 54]

Hey, if Trump’s war powers were being called into question, if the Iran people are protesting the US again instead of the regime, if the US is being invited to leave, Iran would make sure the messages that allowed the Trumpian plot to continue to get through. Trump from their perspective is doing just fine.

[Anthony '58]

Once upon a time there was a Conservative British Prime Minister. His name was Winston Churchill. When World War II broke out, the opposition Labour Party got 100% behind the war effort, if for no other reason than they loathed what the Nazis stood for even more than the Conservatives did (just like our Democrats should loathe what the misogynistic, homophobic Muslim extremists of Iran stand for even more than the Republicans do). And guess what happened? After the war ended, victoriously for Britain and her allies, Labour was rewarded for its loyalty with a landslide victory in the 1945 election, and the National Health Service was born under the country's new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee.

[Bob Butler 54]

Winston Churchill in his youth had this daydream. Some day, Great Britain was going to stand against an ultimate evil, and he was going to lead his country in the style of King Author and save the day. It was a harmless daydream. It hurt nobody.

Then Hitler and fascism came along and he recognized it from his daydream. He made a few speeches. He set himself up to become what he always pictured himself being.

Fortunately for the West, he did it incomparably well.

[Anthony '58]

(01-11-2020, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Winston Churchill in his youth had this daydream.  Some day, Great Britain was going to stand against an ultimate evil, and he was going to lead his country in the style of King Author and save the day.  It was a harmless daydream.  It hurt nobody.

Then Hitler and fascism came along and he recognized it from his daydream.  He made a few speeches.  He set himself up to become what he always pictured himself being.

Fortunately for the West, he did it incomparably well.

And it still didn't help him in the 1945 election - just like Trump's winning World War III over the Muslims won't help Mike Pence, if the Democrats play the role of loyal opposition during the war.

Then it's single payer, here we come, in 2026.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-11-2020, 04:44 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(01-11-2020, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Winston Churchill in his youth had this daydream.  Some day, Great Britain was going to stand against an ultimate evil, and he was going to lead his country in the style of King Author and save the day.  It was a harmless daydream.  It hurt nobody.

Then Hitler and fascism came along and he recognized it from his daydream.  He made a few speeches.  He set himself up to become what he always pictured himself being.

Fortunately for the West, he did it incomparably well.

And it still didn't help him in the 1945 election - just like Trump's winning World War III over the Muslims won't help Mike Pence, if the Democrats play the role of loyal opposition during the war.

Then it's single payer, here we come, in 2026.

Single payer for blue America maybe if we were to formally split and function as separate nations.