The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-07-2020, 01:27 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 07:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have yet to figure what Donald Trump does well that is a legitimate achievement. Oh, he got elected? In a fluke.

Not a fluke.  He was willing to tell a bunch of people what they thought they believed.  The Republican Establishment had long had enough affinity to the elites that the Tea Party did not trust them.  Reagan was in touch with his time, but years of ever more extreme policies enough to keep moving the US further in the same direction was not practical.  They had squeezed all the blood out of the stone, but the base wanted more.  Trump gave it to them.  But while ever smaller government, smaller taxes, and thus the less willingness to solve or even perceive of problems is a direction that sounds better than it is, a direction one can only sustain for a finite time.

Isn't it ironic, that the two advanced nations with the worst records on preparedness (for anything) are Reagan's US and Thatcher's UK.  Letting the greed heads run wild may have produced some small benefit to society, but the cost is proving  unacceptably high.  The anti-taxers created the perfect storm, and COVID-19 is riding that storm, until the storm gets tamed.  Any bets on how much of the Reagan/Thatcher meme will survive?

Quite a bit, unfortunately. Think Jim Crow after slavery. Think the robber barons of the gilded age after the autocratic slave owners. Elitism, racism, division of wealth, and tribal thinking are insidiously deep in the culture. With luck we might get another progressive period, but another conservative time is apt to rise come the unraveling.

Alas, not my problem.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-07-2020, 02:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-06-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, that makes sense, she seems as ignorant and as partisan as you and most others like you here. So, what did those planners do to earn their paychecks during their stint under Obama other than flap their gums, fuck around and act important and accomplish little to nothing. BTW, that is what liberals seem to do best these days.

The various guests were in the front lines for AIDS, S1N1 and SARS among others.  As for ‘ignorant and partisan”, what is there in the above posting that says anything?  How can I respond if there is nothing there?

Again, you should try watching a few of Rachel’s shows.  If you are going to criticize something or some group, know something about what they are saying or doing.  If you don’t bother to learn, all you can do in show your ignorance.

Where do you think my opinion of her and her show came from? Hint: I've watched her shows quite a few times. You forget, you are the one who chose the term worse to describe your source. So, what does that tell me? Think about that. I've decided that this site is pretty much a waste of time for the most part. I don't have the temperament that's needed for dealing with irrational liberals and partisan liberal hacks.

[pbrower2a]

(04-07-2020, 02:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-06-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, that makes sense, she seems as ignorant and as partisan as you and most others like you here. So, what did those planners do to earn their paychecks during their stint under Obama other than flap their gums, fuck around and act important and accomplish little to nothing. BTW, that is what liberals seem to do best these days.

The various guests were in the front lines for AIDS, S1N1 and SARS among others.  As for ‘ignorant and partisan”, what is there in the above posting that says anything?  How can I respond if there is nothing there?

Again, you should try watching a few of Rachel’s shows.  If you are going to criticize something or some group, know something about what they are saying or doing.  If you don’t bother to learn, all you can do in show your ignorance.

Where do you think my opinion of her and her show came from? Hint: I've watched her shows quite a few times. You forget, you are the one who chose the term worse to describe your source. So, what does that tell me? Think about that. I've decided that this site is pretty much a waste of time for the most part. I don't have the temperament that's needed for dealing with irrational liberals and partisan liberal hacks.

If that is how you see things, then you might as well leave to do something better with your time.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-07-2020, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 01:27 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 07:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have yet to figure what Donald Trump does well that is a legitimate achievement. Oh, he got elected? In a fluke.

Not a fluke.  He was willing to tell a bunch of people what they thought they believed.  The Republican Establishment had long had enough affinity to the elites that the Tea Party did not trust them.  Reagan was in touch with his time, but years of ever more extreme policies enough to keep moving the US further in the same direction was not practical.  They had squeezed all the blood out of the stone, but the base wanted more.  Trump gave it to them.  But while ever smaller government, smaller taxes, and thus the less willingness to solve or even perceive of problems is a direction that sounds better than it is, a direction one can only sustain for a finite time.

Isn't it ironic, that the two advanced nations with the worst records on preparedness (for anything) are Reagan's US and Thatcher's UK.  Letting the greed heads run wild may have produced some small benefit to society, but the cost is proving  unacceptably high.  The anti-taxers created the perfect storm, and COVID-19 is riding that storm, until the storm gets tamed.  Any bets on how much of the Reagan/Thatcher meme will survive?

Quite a bit, unfortunately.  Think Jim Crow after slavery.  Think the robber barons of the gilded age after the autocratic slave owners.  Elitism, racism, division of wealth, and tribal thinking are insidiously deep in the culture.  With luck we might get another progressive period, but another conservative time is apt to rise come the unraveling.

Alas, not my problem.

So, why wasn't blue America better prepared? Does blue America have way to much on it's plate or something? I think so and have thought so for a long time but my views are pretty much irrelevant to those who subscribe to the liberal belief that liberals know best. It's obvious that New York City wasn't prepared. You'd think it would be the most prepared based on its political leaning and its liberal belief these days. Chicago wasn't prepared. Detroit wasn't prepared. Minneapolis and St Paul weren't prepared either. California wasn't prepared. Hell, New England wasn't prepared.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Regarding Bob Butler's comments....

By the time the USA gets to the next 3T, those who remember the New Gilded Age will have retired, and will start to die off. Younger generations will be naive, and will be conned by new robber barons.

[David Horn]

(04-07-2020, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 01:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: Isn't it ironic, that the two advanced nations with the worst records on preparedness (for anything) are Reagan's US and Thatcher's UK.  Letting the greed heads run wild may have produced some small benefit to society, but the cost is proving  unacceptably high.  The anti-taxers created the perfect storm, and COVID-19 is riding that storm, until the storm gets tamed.  Any bets on how much of the Reagan/Thatcher meme will survive?

Quite a bit, unfortunately.  Think Jim Crow after slavery.  Think the robber barons of the gilded age after the autocratic slave owners.  Elitism, racism, division of wealth, and tribal thinking are insidiously deep in the culture.  With luck we might get another progressive period, but another conservative time is apt to rise come the unraveling.

Alas, not my problem.

The one difference this time is the cost of keeping the old faith: the true believers are playing with their own lives. Of course, some will and they may get away with it -- or not. Not surprising, it's the GOP plan for the elections in the fall: deny absentee/vote-by-mail, scare the sane into staying home to avoid sickness, and count on the Trump faithful to march to the polls regardless. Trump has even admitted it. The follow-on question: how many of his supporters do get sick and how many die.

It's a miserable way to win an argument, if it goes that way. On the other hand, Trump and his GOP may live to rule until 2024. God only knows what that will look like.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-07-2020, 02:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, why wasn't blue America better prepared? Does blue America have way to much on it's plate or something? I think so and have thought so for a long time but my views are pretty much irrelevant to those who subscribe to the liberal belief that liberals know best. It's obvious that   New York City wasn't prepared. You'd think it would be the most prepared based on its political leaning and its liberal belief these days. Chicago wasn't prepared. Detroit wasn't prepared. Minneapolis and St Paul weren't prepared either. California wasn't prepared. Hell, New England wasn't prepared.

They weren’t prepared as the president did nothing.   Problems as big as the Coronavirus are normally handled at the national level, but obviously not this time around.  They were slow to jump in and take charge when the ball was dropped, but it was if they had not heard of a fumble before.

I would give credit to the mayor of LA and the Washington state for fast action.  The west coast did fairly well if you count not overflowing modern medicine’s capacity as ‘fairly well’.  New York responded but was overwhelmed anyway.  New Orleans and Florida did not do enough to check Mardi Gras, spring break, and the do nothing attitude coming from the White House.

I think it is the Reagan mentality.  Problems that it takes a big government to handle supposedly don’t exist.  They become invisible.  [irony] They must be hoaxes or fake news.  Go ahead, fire the people that are supposed to handle pandemics.  The economy is what gets you elected, and is far more important than human lives.  If you have to change your lies later on, go ahead.  No one is listening.  No one is paying attention.

Right?  

Well, almost safe.

[/irony]

[David Horn]

(04-07-2020, 02:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, why wasn't blue America better prepared? Does blue America have way to much on it's plate or something? I think so and have thought so for a long time but my views are pretty much irrelevant to those who subscribe to the liberal belief that liberals know best. It's obvious that   New York City wasn't prepared. You'd think it would be the most prepared based on its political leaning and its liberal belief these days. Chicago wasn't prepared. Detroit wasn't prepared. Minneapolis and St Paul weren't prepared either. California wasn't prepared. Hell, New England wasn't prepared.

The virus came to the high density cosmopolitan centers first, just as it did in Asia and Europe.  When many people are packed together in areas that see many foreign visitors, contagion is almost a given.

[David Horn]

(04-07-2020, 02:56 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Regarding Bob Butler's comments....

By the time the USA gets to the next 3T, those who remember the New Gilded Age will have retired, and will start to die off.  Younger generations will be naive, and will be conned by  new robber barons.

There is only one solution to that: amend the Constitution.  Crises are the only times that's viable, so it needs to be a primary goal.  It probably won't happen, but it should.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-07-2020, 03:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:56 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Regarding Bob Butler's comments....

By the time the USA gets to the next 3T, those who remember the New Gilded Age will have retired, and will start to die off.  Younger generations will be naive, and will be conned by  new robber barons.

There is only one solution to that: amend the Constitution.  Crises are the only times that's viable, so it needs to be a primary goal.  It probably won't happen, but it should.

What did you have in mind?

I know I would want to go after the old slavery compromises which gave the slave states and now rural states artificially extra power.  These would be primarily the Senate, the Electoral College, and the difficulty getting an amendment, which tempts whomever has the power to ignore rule of law.  There is too much legislation from the bench.

I would say late Crisis is the time for amendments, which was after the Crisis war in the Industrial Age, this time around when the virus is solved.  An attempt is made to set the solutions to the Crisis in stone.  The attempt is often bypassed in the High though legislation from the bench.  For example, the Jim Crow court cases undid the Black Republican attempts to give blacks the benefits of human rights.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-07-2020, 02:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-06-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, that makes sense, she seems as ignorant and as partisan as you and most others like you here. So, what did those planners do to earn their paychecks during their stint under Obama other than flap their gums, fuck around and act important and accomplish little to nothing. BTW, that is what liberals seem to do best these days.

The various guests were in the front lines for AIDS, S1N1 and SARS among others.  As for ‘ignorant and partisan”, what is there in the above posting that says anything?  How can I respond if there is nothing there?

Again, you should try watching a few of Rachel’s shows.  If you are going to criticize something or some group, know something about what they are saying or doing.  If you don’t bother to learn, all you can do is to show your ignorance.

A conservative may dislike Rachel Maddow's politics, but as a rule she is a superb journalist. She gets the facts right. The dispute that a conservative has with her is with her interpretation. I'm guessing that she is simply the peak of a pyramid that does what journalists rightly do: reporting and (just as important) fact-checking. She connects undeniable fact with solid logic to get a conclusion that usually satisfies me. Contrast someone like Sean Hannity; he fits the story to his ideology, and if the story falls apart -- so do his conclusions.

As with Rachel Maddow as a journalist, so it was with Obama as an administrator. Neither knows everything, and both well know that. There is someone wiser, but such people are not good at expressing themselves or are too busy with their work to make public statements. Both know that politics and journalism exist to convince people, and someone like either is able to put such in the terms of a competent layman. 

Physicians do not do law or engineering; attorneys do not do medicine or engineering; engineers do not do medicine or law. Jacks-of-all-trades can go from one area of mediocre performance to another wherein training is slight... but develop certain skills to a certain level and one precludes the ability to do other things well for what one gets paid amply. The cellist Yo-Yo Ma does not play piano in some sleazy dive, but the piano player in a sleazy dive could switch to cashiering in a grocery store if the sleazy dives are shut down under stay-at-home orders.

I have yet to figure what Donald Trump does well that is a legitimate achievement. Oh, he got elected? In a fluke.

A superb journalist wouldn't be stuck working for a third rate cable station that's basically surviving on crumbs so to speak. She may be superb to you and her fans and a third tier audience comprised of liberals who spend the bulk of their time with liberals and pumping each other up and telling each other how great they are on a regular basis.

BTW, for your information, Trump was elected because Obama turned out to be hoax (didn't live up to all the hype and fell short as far as expectations) and Clinton didn't seem have the balls to upset the global apple cart. The dude has balls. You keep forgetting we're not France. I keep reminding you who we are and what you have to accept in order to remain America vs just another global citizen that the world will have to support. You already know where you stand with me and you know where you rank as far as my values.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-07-2020, 04:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What did you have in mind?

I know I would want to go after the old slavery compromises which gave the slave states and now rural states artificially extra power.  These would be primarily the Senate, the Electoral College, and the difficulty getting an amendment, which tempts whomever has the power to ignore rule of law.  There is too much legislation from the bench.

I would say late Crisis is the time for amendments, which was after the Crisis war in the Industrial Age, this time around when the virus is solved.  An attempt is made to set the solutions to the Crisis in stone.  The attempt is often bypassed in the High though legislation from the bench.  For example, the Jim Crow court cases undid the Black Republican attempts to give blacks the benefits of human rights.

Easier said than done. Personally, I don't care if you slit your own throats and end up killing lots of your own people as a result. What liberals do themselves and do with their own doesn't matter to me anymore than what the Russians or the Chinese do today.  What you really need to do is file for a divorce from us and then do your own thing and tailor constitution to suit your own needs. I mean, it's going to happen one way or another eventually. I mean, the current financial arrangement that's keeping the country together won't last forever.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-07-2020, 06:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 04:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What did you have in mind?

I know I would want to go after the old slavery compromises which gave the slave states and now rural states artificially extra power.  These would be primarily the Senate, the Electoral College, and the difficulty getting an amendment, which tempts whomever has the power to ignore rule of law.  There is too much legislation from the bench.

I would say late Crisis is the time for amendments, which was after the Crisis war in the Industrial Age, this time around when the virus is solved.  An attempt is made to set the solutions to the Crisis in stone.  The attempt is often bypassed in the High though legislation from the bench.  For example, the Jim Crow court cases undid the Black Republican attempts to give blacks the benefits of human rights.

Easier said than done. Personally, I don't care if you slit your own throats and end up killing lots of your own people as a result. What liberals do themselves and do with their own doesn't matter to me anymore than what the Russians or the Chinese do today.  What you really need to do is file for a divorce from us and then do your own thing and tailor constitution to suit your own needs. I mean, it's going to happen one way or another eventually. I mean, the current financial arrangement that's keeping the country together won't last forever.

The divide is between population dense urban and suburban areas and population sparce rurals.  Both need each other.  Both produce things the other needs.  The problem is that the more population dense urban areas see problems that the rural areas don’t.  The rural folk don’t want to pay for solving problems they have not seen and are not familiar with.  I don’t blame them.  But if you do live in urban areas, if you do encounter these problems in every day life, you come to want to implement the obvious solutions to these solvable problems.  The old anti slavery compromises get in the way of doing this.

I remember traveling to Colorado Springs on business, and driving though the many miles of wide open space that you find there.  Beautiful wild country, and lots of it.  But on my trips, I occasionally ran into abandoned mine areas where the owners had just walked away and left everything to rot as is.  You can get away with that in Colorado.  If one area is blighted, there seems an abundance of areas that are not. 

You just can’t do that in Massachusetts.  There are too many idiots living close together.  If you let them get away with it, they would have quite ruined the state.  I don’t see the problem as being one size fits all, but you can see why (or at least I can see why) urban people apply urban standards to national problems.  Urban folk will try to impose their will on rural people and get resentment as a result.  I don’t see either side as being entirely wrong.

I don’t think a divorce makes sense economically.

But amendments which solidify how the Crisis was solved do come after the Crisis is solved.  You seem to be a more conservative and linear thinker, depreciating the necessary changes.  You seem reluctant to accept the conclusion of the S&H cyclical approach.  If you went through (expletive deleted) solving a Crisis, you don’t want it to repeat.  You try to write laws guaranteeing it will not repeat.  The worst sort of conservatives often find a way around it, the Jim Crows and the like, but you try.

Hopefully, the biggest contribution of S&H will be to suggest trying harder.  Whatever is written down ought to be made resistant to greedy robber barons and tribal thinking bigots.  Make the political judges legislating from the bench blatantly have to discredit themselves.

And the important thing is that even the conservatives are less conservative at the late stages of the Crisis.  The problem has through much blood, sweat and tears been put behind us.  Never Again.  The mood is different.  Other than trying to beef up the World Health Organization, I don’t know what exactly can be done, what lessons we will learn from all this.  If a country has elected poor leadership, the people die.  You can’t prevent that easily.  There will likely be a mood to not let the leaders ignore the science.  There will be an intolerance for lies and fantasies.  But other than getting rid of the slave compromises, I’m not sure how to write that into law.

[pbrower2a]

(04-07-2020, 06:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-06-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, that makes sense, she seems as ignorant and as partisan as you and most others like you here. So, what did those planners do to earn their paychecks during their stint under Obama other than flap their gums, fuck around and act important and accomplish little to nothing. BTW, that is what liberals seem to do best these days.

The various guests were in the front lines for AIDS, S1N1 and SARS among others.  As for ‘ignorant and partisan”, what is there in the above posting that says anything?  How can I respond if there is nothing there?

Again, you should try watching a few of Rachel’s shows.  If you are going to criticize something or some group, know something about what they are saying or doing.  If you don’t bother to learn, all you can do is to show your ignorance.

A conservative may dislike Rachel Maddow's politics, but as a rule she is a superb journalist. She gets the facts right. The dispute that a conservative has with her is with her interpretation. I'm guessing that she is simply the peak of a pyramid that does what journalists rightly do: reporting and (just as important) fact-checking. She connects undeniable fact with solid logic to get a conclusion that usually satisfies me. Contrast someone like Sean Hannity; he fits the story to his ideology, and if the story falls apart -- so do his conclusions.

As with Rachel Maddow as a journalist, so it was with Obama as an administrator. Neither knows everything, and both well know that. There is someone wiser, but such people are not good at expressing themselves or are too busy with their work to make public statements. Both know that politics and journalism exist to convince people, and someone like either is able to put such in the terms of a competent layman. 

Physicians do not do law or engineering; attorneys do not do medicine or engineering; engineers do not do medicine or law. Jacks-of-all-trades can go from one area of mediocre performance to another wherein training is slight... but develop certain skills to a certain level and one precludes the ability to do other things well for what one gets paid amply. The cellist Yo-Yo Ma does not play piano in some sleazy dive, but the piano player in a sleazy dive could switch to cashiering in a grocery store if the sleazy dives are shut down under stay-at-home orders.

I have yet to figure what Donald Trump does well that is a legitimate achievement. Oh, he got elected? In a fluke.

A superb journalist wouldn't be stuck working for a third rate cable station that's basically surviving on crumbs so to speak. She may be superb to you and her fans and a third tier audience comprised of liberals who spend the bulk of their time with liberals and pumping each other up and telling each other how great they are on a regular basis.

Donald Trump has a totalitarian-style personality cult around him. If you want an apolitical analogy, then look at $cientology for doing mind control. Trump supporters have found just the person to appeal to them. Besides, there is a big difference between people who think Donald Trump the most wonderful thing to have ever happened in American politics and the typical Obama supporter who saw clear positives but admit that he isn't in the same league as Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt (either one!) or Jefferson. You know -- Mount Rushmore and FDR. Obama knew his limitations and knew what to do about those limitations -- like consulting someone more specialized instead of looking to flatterers. Obama got the moniker "No Drama Obama" because he does not create trouble that gets him excited. 

Someone with a Trump banner or a MAGA hat generally doesn't have much wit or wisdom to offer.    

Quote:BTW, for your information, Trump was elected because Obama turned out to be hoax (didn't live up to all the hype and fell short as far as expectations) and Clinton didn't seem have the balls to upset the global apple cart. The dude has balls. You keep forgetting we're not France. I keep reminding you who we are and what you have to accept in order to remain America vs just another global citizen that the world will have to support. You already know where you stand with me and you know where you rank as far as my values.

"Trump has balls"? Do you mean that he exudes primitive, crude machismo? Like this fellow?



Nothing is sissy about Mussolini or his greatest American imitator. Reckless, ruthless, deceitful, corrupt, egotistical, fanatical, and megalomaniacal  -- such is il Duce. Regrettably such is also true about Donald Trump.    

We so far have a pattern of two-term Presidents for the last three with a change of Party in the White House after two terms. That pattern of course says that Trump will be re-elected. Obama tried to be a great President, but Corporate America had its own agenda and deep pockets for pushing the most reactionary figures possible (the sorts who concur that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it serves the economic elites).

It could be this simple: in 1933, FDR started backing the banks after three years of economic meltdown after which Big Business lacked the funds for buying the political system In 2009, Obama backed the banks after a year and a half of an economic meltdown that after a year and a half was indistinguishable from the three years following the 1929 Stock Market Crash.  After a year and a half of an economic meltdown, Corporate America was in a good position in which to buy the political process until America became a pure plutocracy as the result of the 2016 Presidential election. Obama did what FDR did, but a year and a half earlier in a dangerous economic meltdown. It is your interpretation to decide which is better and which is worse. Considering what a disaster Donald Trump is, maybe we as a nation are such swine that we would be better off with a replay of the Great Depression than ending up with the Presidential disaster that we now have. 

I can say this: except on racism and male chauvinism, if I had to choose whether Americans were nicer people in 1940 than now, then I would pick 1940. Technology and entertainment are terribly over-rated. Shared danger does far more to improve a People than does anything else. Maybe the fear of pointless death that can kill any adult without association with any vice will make us a far nicer people than we used to be even without ridiculous levels of unemployment.  

Aside from pay cable such as HBO; C-SPAN, Turner Classic Movies, FoX Movie Channels, American Movie Classics,  and channels related to Discovery and National Geographic, most of what is on cable ranges from either utilitarian or mediocre to downright awful. Among the awful are of course reality TV, shopping channels, religious hucksters, and overt propaganda such as FoX  Newspeak Channel and One America Network.  

CNN is OK for straight reporting, but its analysis is horrible.   

Do you want a comparison between Obama and another President?

Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS. 

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. 

The most similar elections involving different Presidents are the overwhelming landslides involving 49 states going to one nominee and one state and Dee Cee going to the other. If you are willing to look at a Party switch from one President to the 49-state landslides, then 46 states out of 48 (when the two states were very small in population) make the first re-election of FDR against a comically-weak opponent look like that involving much the same in 1972 and 1984. But such isn't interesting. In any event, I look at the overlay between Eisenhower and Obama in their electoral wins, and except for the swatches of states from Montana to Arizona and from North Dakota to Texas, Eisenhower and Obama wins look much alike. Both did very well among the best-educated voters, but not so well in the most backward part of America in its political heritage (the Mountain and Deep South). Both were similar in temperament and character, which is exactly what one would expect of mature Reactives (Obama acted much more like someone in his 60's than someone crossing 50) more pragmatic than angry. In 2008 Obama even achieved what a Republican nominee for President usually did, faring better among people as their incomes increased. 

Neither Eisenhower nor Obama quite fits the 'populist' label. Both Eisenhower and Obama were arch-conservatives in style. OK, Eisenhower was a bit more conservative than America as a whole in the 1950's and Obama was a bit more liberal. 

Is there a moral to this story? Sure. The next effective President with a largely-conservative agenda is going to behave much more like Obama, probably down to the wholly-conventional family life, than like Donald Trump. Somehow I prefer caution, charity, probity, modesty, and moderation  to what I associate with Donald Trump.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-06-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, that makes sense, she seems as ignorant and as partisan as you and most others like you here. So, what did those planners do to earn their paychecks during their stint under Obama other than flap their gums, fuck around and act important and accomplish little to nothing. BTW, that is what liberals seem to do best these days.

I see a lot of extremists parroting their extreme and not trying to understand the opposites.  Rachel, less so.  She is loyal to one side of the partisan debate, but she also reports well of the facts.  In response, from a partisan I get only insults and belittlement, not an honest rebuttal of her reporting.  

From my perspective, this does not speak well of the alleged rebuttal.

When a blue extremist makes a claim against the red, I at least try to come up with a rational reason why the red believes that way.  This is usually not that hard.  He lives in a different environment, is presented often with different challenges, and has good reason for his different responses.  Some would rather give an insult than a reason.  Few place themselves with the shoe on the other foot, and try to think though the reason. 

I have heard that the answer is to overwhelm the reason.  X is wrong, therefore Y must defeat them at the polls.  That might still have to be done.  Still, X is stubbornly reluctant to admit that he might be wrong in another environment, reluctant to admit that the other guy has needs too.  He would rather hurl insults than think and understand.  Meanwhile he uses the thing the opposite side produces, is part of the balanced whole.

[David Horn]

(04-07-2020, 04:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 03:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:56 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Regarding Bob Butler's comments....

By the time the USA gets to the next 3T, those who remember the New Gilded Age will have retired, and will start to die off.  Younger generations will be naive, and will be conned by  new robber barons.

There is only one solution to that: amend the Constitution.  Crises are the only times that's viable, so it needs to be a primary goal.  It probably won't happen, but it should.

What did you have in mind?

I know I would want to go after the old slavery compromises which gave the slave states and now rural states artificially extra power.  These would be primarily the Senate, the Electoral College, and the difficulty getting an amendment, which tempts whomever has the power to ignore rule of law.  There is too much legislation from the bench.

I would say late Crisis is the time for amendments, which was after the Crisis war in the Industrial Age, this time around when the virus is solved.  An attempt is made to set the solutions to the Crisis in stone.  The attempt is often bypassed in the High though legislation from the bench.  For example, the Jim Crow court cases undid the Black Republican attempts to give blacks the benefits of human rights.

We need to balance the power of urban areas with that artificially given to rural ones, but not to the point that the rural areas start to rebel (unless splitting the nation in pieces is part of the plan).  We also need a directly elected chief executive.  But none of that will offset the power of money in politics, so that needs to be addressed too.  Of course, the PTB will start working an end-run immediately, so this will not be a permanent fix.  Since we're on the way out, how that gets addressed should be left to the young.  I wish them well.

[David Horn]

(04-07-2020, 06:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: A superb journalist wouldn't be stuck working for a third rate cable station that's basically surviving on crumbs so to speak. She may be superb to you and her fans and a third tier audience comprised of liberals who spend the bulk of their time with liberals and pumping each other up and telling each other how great they are on a regular basis.

Fox is still #1, but both CNN and MSNBC have strong followings, and their followings aren't dying-off. I know that many in Fox World turn the TV on in the morning and watch off and on all day. The fans are loyal, though that doesn't make the network a quality news source.

Classic-Xer Wrote:BTW, for your information, Trump was elected because Obama turned out to be hoax (didn't live up to all the hype and fell short as far as expectations) and Clinton didn't seem have the balls to upset the global apple cart. The dude has balls. You keep forgetting we're not France. I keep reminding you who we are and what you have to accept in order to remain America vs just another global citizen that the world will have to support. You already know where you stand with me and you know where you rank as far as my values.

Trump has balls. He lacks brains and judgement. Trump's in the process of killing many of his followers. I hope you aren't one.

Doing something because it feels good is not the same as doing something because it IS good. If you like the autocratic style, feel free to move to any of the many autocratic countries in the world, and leave us with the democracy we prefer.

[David Horn]

(04-07-2020, 06:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 04:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What did you have in mind?

I know I would want to go after the old slavery compromises which gave the slave states and now rural states artificially extra power.  These would be primarily the Senate, the Electoral College, and the difficulty getting an amendment, which tempts whomever has the power to ignore rule of law.  There is too much legislation from the bench.

I would say late Crisis is the time for amendments, which was after the Crisis war in the Industrial Age, this time around when the virus is solved.  An attempt is made to set the solutions to the Crisis in stone.  The attempt is often bypassed in the High though legislation from the bench.  For example, the Jim Crow court cases undid the Black Republican attempts to give blacks the benefits of human rights.

Easier said than done. Personally, I don't care if you slit your own throats and end up killing lots of your own people as a result. What liberals do themselves and do with their own doesn't matter to me anymore than what the Russians or the Chinese do today.  What you really need to do is file for a divorce from us and then do your own thing and tailor constitution to suit your own needs. I mean, it's going to happen one way or another eventually. I mean, the current financial arrangement that's keeping the country together won't last forever.

You do realize that Red America is highly subsidized by Blue America, right?  Just look as the reddest places and see if you are OK with that option. Start with Mississippi and Alabama.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-08-2020, 12:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: Trump has balls.  He lacks brains and judgement.  Trump's in the process of killing many of his followers.  I hope you aren't one.

Doing something because it feels good is not the same as doing something because it IS good. If you like the autocratic style, feel free to move to any of the many autocratic countries in the world, and leave us with the democracy we prefer.

I dunno, he's pretty much leveled the liberal mass media machine at this point. You need balls and the others to accomplish that task. How does a party end up with a bunch of third tier politicians running for President and so many third tier politicians in the legislative branch? Hint: As liberals were wasting time impeaching for nothing. Trump was out campaigning and drawing large crowds. I don't know if you really want to bring in lack of judgement and brains to with discussion a poster who has been telling you that liberals are suffering from a serious lack off them (balls, judgement and brains) for MANY years. Trump doesn't represent the autocratic style (one size fits all) that liberals obviously prefer these days. How long have you and every other fool been telling me how its going to be once the liberals have control? That's authoritarian buddy. Right now, you are basically under American libertarian rule which grants you all kinds of freedoms whether you think we need them, value or appreciate them yourselves or not. It's so funny that you and the other fools don't seem to realize that's what the so-called liberal side represent these days. Of coarse, you may not be able to see, believe or accept that most Americans are actually smarter and wiser than most liberals these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-08-2020, 12:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: You do realize that Red America is highly subsidized by Blue America, right?  Just look as the reddest places and see if you are OK with that option. Start with Mississippi and Alabama.

Yep. That's what I keep hearing from blues. Of coarse, what you hear coming from blues and what you know about blues doesn't always jive. You see, I know that I'm subsidizing each of you right now and probably Odin too. So, if that's the truth, why are you always bitching at us, calling us racists, threatening us, trying to bully us and trying to do whatever still works or had worked with blue American voters and those who represent. Do you know what your Democratic congress needs, an all white caucus to balance the all black caucus or join force with the all Asian caucus or Hispanic/Latino caucus to defeat the black caucus? Personally, I think the Democratic party is pretty juvenile/petty/playschool but that's just my opinion. This is the reason why, I don't even consider voting Democratic at the national level.