The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Kinser79]

(05-18-2020, 09:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 08:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: But barring some disaster of epic proportions Trump will be re-elected in 2020

But what if there is such a disaster of epic proportions?  Like the botched handling of a pandemic?

(05-18-2020, 08:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: After 2024 the 1T will have started and we'll be in store for the Mega-Crisis that I predicted.

If the economic result of the pandemic is real, the nomads are likely to push materialism, locking down the culture and building infrastructure again.  The crisis will happen in the crisis, the high in the high.  Just had this discussion with The Nomad.

Not surprising to see people predict what they want to see.  

While I could pretty much agree with your description of the Republicans, you description of the Democrats reads more like a list of demonizations the Republicans have come up with.  I don't recognize myself at all in most of them.

1.  The President's handling of the Pandemic has been pretty much spot on.  Further it has vindicated his economic arguments.

2.  Yes the economy is in the toilet right now.  It will remain there as long as politicians insist on maintaining mass quarantines instead of opening the country back up for business.  Guess which party the governors that want to maintain indefinite lock down are from.  I'll give you a hint they aren't from the GOP.

3.  Mega-Crisis isn't something I want to predict.  It is a historical pattern.  Like the Revolutionary Saeculum was a Mega-Crisis that resulted in the final end of feudalism in Europe and the American split from Europe the next crisis will separate the current Era from the next Era.  There is a reason why Millies are so often compared to the Glorious--they are so so much alike in many important ways, namely being Nomad-Civic hybrids.

4.  The Democrats don't have any real infrastructure programs underway.  So far 500 miles of the Wall have been built.  Granted that is mostly updating and repairing existing border baracades but there are 1500 miles to go.  There are simply too many other interests opposed to high speed rail and other similar types of infrastructure while needed simply won't be built unless one proposes dismantling the automobile-industrial complex.  Try doing that without a depression that would make the 1930s look like a bad day on Wall Street.

5.  I'm not concerned about what you see yourself as being or not.  Those are the factions that make up the Democratic Party.  I should know because I was involved with the Democrats for nearly two decades on an intimate level.  There is also the possibility that you're part of the old coalition that hasn't caught on that you're not wanted or needed in the New Democratic Party.  How many people stuck with the Jackass Party after Bill Clinton and were blue collar?  Quite a lot.  In your case you might just be suffering from inertia.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-18-2020, 05:15 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: 1.  The President's handling of the Pandemic has been pretty much spot on.  Further it has vindicated his economic arguments.

Boy. Your stuff is really wild today. Do you really think the above will win you brownie points away from the cocoon?

[pbrower2a]

(05-18-2020, 05:15 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 09:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 08:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: But barring some disaster of epic proportions Trump will be re-elected in 2020

But what if there is such a disaster of epic proportions?  Like the botched handling of a pandemic?

(05-18-2020, 08:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: After 2024 the 1T will have started and we'll be in store for the Mega-Crisis that I predicted.

If the economic result of the pandemic is real, the nomads are likely to push materialism, locking down the culture and building infrastructure again.  The crisis will happen in the crisis, the high in the high.  Just had this discussion with The Nomad.

Not surprising to see people predict what they want to see.  

While I could pretty much agree with your description of the Republicans, you description of the Democrats reads more like a list of demonizations the Republicans have come up with.  I don't recognize myself at all in most of them.

1.  The President's handling of the Pandemic has been pretty much spot on.  Further it has vindicated his economic arguments.

An unlikely coalition of Big Business and largely-liberal politicians has taken the lead and left President Trump in the dust. Trump isn't so much a follower (which would be tolerable) as a back-biter.

Quote:2.  Yes the economy is in the toilet right now.  It will remain there as long as politicians insist on maintaining mass quarantines instead of opening the country back up for business.  Guess which party the governors that want to maintain indefinite lock down are from.  I'll give you a hint they aren't from the GOP.

Between the entrepreneurial spirit and desires that people can defer but never fully deny, Americans are going to find ways to do what they crave doing. The hazard to business will be the breaking of old habits that after some hiatus many people will not go back to enough. I have some idea of how I will celebrate the re-opening of restaurants -- three non-chain places in one day. I figure that I will also have some desire to go somewhere to satisfy my Wanderlust. 




At my age I have pretty much the stuff that I need, and it is down to replacement. In a life with plenty of hardships I am glad to be a low-maintenance person.  Dog, maybe a girlfriend, to Tahquamenon Falls? 

Quote:3.  Mega-Crisis isn't something I want to predict.  It is a historical pattern.  Like the Revolutionary Saeculum was a Mega-Crisis that resulted in the final end of feudalism in Europe and the American split from Europe the next crisis will separate the current Era from the next Era.  There is a reason why Millies are so often compared to the Glorious--they are so so much alike in many important ways, namely being Nomad-Civic hybrids.

The only Nomad-Civic hybrid that Howe and Strauss recognize as a generation is the Gilded, and I concur with that depiction. The Gilded had a typical Reactive childhood but ended up, at least in the North as a Civic Generation. (The only notable Southern Gilded who did something big to influence America was Asa Pemberton, inventor of Coca-Cola). The Southern Gilded really were wrecked whether by defeat in the Civil War or, if black, having been thwarted in an effort to create an economy based upon commerce and industry by people who successfully brought back race-based subjection if they could not recreate slavery.   

Quote:4.  The Democrats don't have any real infrastructure programs underway.  So far 500 miles of the Wall have been built.  Granted that is mostly updating and repairing existing border baracades but there are 1500 miles to go.  There are simply too many other interests opposed to high speed rail and other similar types of infrastructure while needed simply won't be built unless one proposes dismantling the automobile-industrial complex.  Try doing that without a depression that would make the 1930s look like a bad day on Wall Street.

Interstate 69 is being extended from Indianapolis to the Mexican border, entirely through "Red" states. Now connecting the US/Canadian border at Port Huron through Lansing and Fort Wayne (completed around the early 1990's), it now goes exclusively through states that voted for Donald Judas Iscariot Trump in 2016. It will require expensive bridges across the Ohio and the Mississippi. My own state could wisely upgrade mostly four-lane Interstate 94 (completed in Michigan in 1961) west of Ann Arbor to four lanes in each direction; its traffic is horrific.

The Border Wall is an ecological disaster and an economic boondoggle. It would make more sense to upgrade US 83 from the Canadian border to the Mexican border as an Interstate-quality freeway. At least such a highway would do more to unite than to divide America. 

High-speed rail can work where densities are high and big cities are along the way. Acela is popular. For relatively short trips it can rival air travel for convenience (let us say between Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio; Detroit and Chicago; Los Angeles and San Diego). 

Self-driving vehicles will do much harm to the motel business in waystation areas (let us say, Effingham Illinois) and to the automobile aftermarket for collision repairs. On the other hand, more people will be able to travel and will find it easier. 

    

Quote:5.  I'm not concerned about what you see yourself as being or not.  Those are the factions that make up the Democratic Party.  I should know because I was involved with the Democrats for nearly two decades on an intimate level.  There is also the possibility that you're part of the old coalition that hasn't caught on that you're not wanted or needed in the New Democratic Party.  How many people stuck with the (Democratic) Party after Bill Clinton and were blue collar?  Quite a lot.  In your case you might just be suffering from inertia.

Donald Trump is more likely to serve as the scapegoat for all that will have gone wrong in this Crisis. The death toll from COVID-19 is characteristic of a nasty war. Conservatism will likely revive -- but only if it connects anew to old virtues. Maybe the Democratic Party will go too far in the socialist direction or get taken over by Trump-like grafters, in which the Republicans could win with a conservative version of Barack Obama.

[Kinser79]

PBR whatever you are smoking you really should share it.

[Bob Butler 54]

It seems that the 2020 election is becoming a referendum on whether we need a scientific response to the virus, with lives considered more important than dollars.

It is pretty much recognized that Trump is off.  He’s narcissistic, sexist, selfish, shuns checks and balances, elitist, shuns long term military alliances, swampy, flirts with Russia and is in general off.  

That does not bother the elites or the sexists.  As long as the elites get to keep their big bucks, as long as the sexists can keep some pretense of superiority, they will let the other ‘minor’ flaws go.  These are not the only factors.  It is possible as well to fall into the unravelling dream of small government and lower taxes, of discarding any science that tells you something you don’t like, to ignore something that forces you to spend money if you acknowledge it.  

But these factors are enough to make a difference in a time where the White House swings back and forth between parties.

But the American People do value lives over dollars.  This is why the governors who are following strict scientific isolation policies get high approval ratings, while Trump and the other open-it-up-regardless folk get low approval ratings.  It is why the strategy of making the economy look better is faltering.

All this seems clear enough.  In spite of attempts by those who want to kill grandma to misunderstand the numbers, the People want to keep grandma alive.  The people are not being fooled, and do not like being lied to.

The question becomes if this issue causes people to favor the other side.  Do people want to keep grandma alive in spite of an elite’s losing a few extra millions, or a racist keeping less of his supposed superiority.  Will small government people understand that keeping grandma alive will cost money, and be willing to pay for it.

It looks like enough true Americans are ready to embrace the science.

[pbrower2a]

(05-18-2020, 06:03 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR whatever you are smoking you really should share it.

I am definitely not smoking -- unless metaphorically.

I was on a cross-country train a few years ago, and we were stopped in Denver about midnight. I told people that I was going to do some mile-high smoking. 

It was jumping jacks. Good for getting the cobwebs out of my legs.

[pbrower2a]

(05-18-2020, 07:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems that the 2020 election is becoming a referendum on whether we need a scientific response to the virus, with lives considered more important than dollars.

That, all in all, will be the decision.  Solving COVID-19 will allow a return to normality in economic life as well as much else, at least for survivors that it does not cripple. It will take a cooperative populace that protects itself from contracting and spreading a dangerous disease, excellent work by our medical researchers, sacrifices already underway by people who do necessary work, and the innovative responses of Big Business that allow the economic activity that makes our economy tick -- again. It will take cooperation among people who may be on opposite sides of the political spectrum -- but that is how we defeated the demonic powers intent upon enslaving the world eighty years ago. Can we do this again? The big difference is that Donald Trump is as unfit for the role of President as FDR was perfectly suited to it.  Three out of four is better than what we might have had a few years ago. Maybe it is closer to three and a half, referring to some state and local governments doing their jobs and doing those well.    

Quote:It is pretty much recognized that Trump is off.  He’s narcissistic, sexist, selfish, shuns checks and balances, elitist, shuns long term military alliances, swampy, flirts with Russia and is in general off.

 

Yes, he is Dreadful Donald, Trashy Trump, and a Judas Iscariot to American democracy. He is the sick combination of elitist and vulgar.

Quote:That does not bother the elites or the sexists.  As long as the elites get to keep their big bucks, as long as the sexists can keep some pretense of superiority, they will let the other ‘minor’ flaws go.  These are not the only factors.  It is possible as well to fall into the unraveling dream of small government and lower taxes, of discarding any science that tells you something you don’t like, to ignore something that forces you to spend money if you acknowledge it.

 

Demographic trends suggest that the economic elites will have a difficult time in their effort to buy the political process. The people behind the Tea Party would be wise to tell their supporters to go home rather than risk contracting and spreading COVID-19. Yes, the sentiments are much the same between the "open up!" protesters and the loudmouths who disparaged Barack Obama. Note well that we who despise Trump do our protesting virtually. We might have some courage, but we see nothing heroic in facing a dangerous respiratory disease that can kill us -- and if it doesn't kill us, it can do us lasting harm that can shorten our lives. 

Still -- 

Hey, hey, Donald Trump! How many bodies will we need to dump!
 

Quote:But these factors are enough to make a difference in a time where the White House swings back and forth between parties.

The White House rarely changes possession by a Party after one term by that Party. The last two times that that happened were 1980 and 1932.  It could be that bad for Trump -- but a 270-268 defeat of Trump will be legally adequate for us to get new leadership at the apex of American power. 

Quote:But the American People do value lives over dollars.  This is why the governors who are following strict scientific isolation policies get high approval ratings, while Trump and the other open-it-up-regardless folk get low approval ratings.  It is why the strategy of making the economy look better is faltering.

Exactly. How much money will it take you to get a potentially-lethal case of cancer? Heck, combat seems safer than COVID-19.  Most of us are disgusted at the body count. Yes, we hate the likes of serial killers like Ted Bundy and John Gacy and mass killers like Timothy McVeigh. Some of us were around to be appalled at the assassinations of Jerzy Popielusko and Benigno Aquino. 

Quote:All this seems clear enough.  In spite of attempts by those who want to kill grandma to misunderstand the numbers, the People want to keep grandma alive.  The people are not being fooled, and do not like being lied to. 

Few people want to "kill grandma". Someone else's grandma might be expendable to them... it may be a surprise to you, but just because I am entering old age at 64 does not mean that I am becoming any wiser than I ever was. I am not ready for the role of being the one to give sage advice to people who need it. I have my problems, and I still need such advice!

Quote:The question becomes if this issue causes people to favor the other side.  Do people want to keep grandma alive in spite of an elite’s losing a few extra millions, or a racist keeping less of his supposed superiority.  Will small government people understand that keeping grandma alive will cost money, and be willing to pay for it.

We put life above money lest we be scum. I hate despots, dictators, and gangsters. I have no problem with my state treating armed robbery as if it were attempted murder (Michigan, life with no parole for 25 years) ... well, because every armed robbery involves a potential murder, the penalty fits.  

Quote:It looks like enough true Americans are ready to embrace the science.

That pattern has been the norm except in some subcultures.

[Eric the Green]

(05-18-2020, 11:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The White House rarely changes possession by a Party after one term by that Party. The last two times that that happened were 1980 and 1932.  It could be that bad for Trump -- but a 270-268 defeat of Trump will be legally adequate for us to get new leadership at the apex of American power. 

1980 and 1992 you mean.

[Eric the Green]

The divide today manifests in large measure by attitudes to government. If the blue side or non-partisan officials point out how Trump is dismantling the government agencies that regulate business and commerce, the red side yawns and thinks who needs the government; government is the problem, and only lazy colored people benefit from it. The blue side realizes that government agencies, policies and money are needed to see that people are treated fairly and to get support as and when needed, and so appointing government officials only because they are loyal to Trump, and have no qualifications, does matter, because the agencies they are appointed to do matter. This is also the question whether democracy matters. The red side does not believe in it, and the blue side does.

[pbrower2a]

(05-19-2020, 12:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 11:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The White House rarely changes possession by a Party after one term by that Party. The last two times that that happened were 1980 and 1932.  It could be that bad for Trump -- but a 270-268 defeat of Trump will be legally adequate for us to get new leadership at the apex of American power. 

1980 and 1992 you mean.

Strictly speaking, 1992 was the end of three terms of Republican Presidents in power. The elder Bush wasn't anywhere near as unlucky as Carter, let alone as counterproductive as Hoover.  It took three "Presidentiads" (Ralph Waldo Emerson coined that term) for America to tire of Reaganism. Bill Clinton fully endorsed the foreign policy of  the elder Bush; anything else would have been foolishness.

Had Hillary Clinton won the right votes in 2016 and barely gotten elected, the analogy this year would be to 1992. Of course, Hoover did not reek of corruption and Carter was beyond any doubt (and still is) a good man, American voters got impatient with both after one "Presidentiad".

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-19-2020, 09:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-19-2020, 12:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 11:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The White House rarely changes possession by a Party after one term by that Party. The last two times that that happened were 1980 and 1932.  It could be that bad for Trump -- but a 270-268 defeat of Trump will be legally adequate for us to get new leadership at the apex of American power. 

1980 and 1992 you mean.

Strictly speaking, 1992 was the end of three terms of Republican Presidents in power. The elder Bush wasn't anywhere near as unlucky as Carter, let alone as counterproductive as Hoover.  It took three "Presidentiads" (Ralph Waldo Emerson coined that term) for America to tire of Reaganism. Bill Clinton fully endorsed the foreign policy of  the elder Bush; anything else would have been foolishness.

Had Hillary Clinton won the right votes in 2016 and barely gotten elected, the analogy this year would be to 1992. Of course, Hoover did not reek of corruption and Carter was beyond any doubt (and still is) a good man, American voters got impatient with both after one "Presidentiad".

Not clear that everyone is tired of Reaganism. Part of the country keeps voting to go back to small government, reduced taxes and military preparedness. Bush 43 was a Bush after all. But you have to vote in someone responsible once in a while.

[Eric the Green]

(05-19-2020, 09:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-19-2020, 12:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 11:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The White House rarely changes possession by a Party after one term by that Party. The last two times that that happened were 1980 and 1932.  It could be that bad for Trump -- but a 270-268 defeat of Trump will be legally adequate for us to get new leadership at the apex of American power. 

1980 and 1992 you mean.

Strictly speaking, 1992 was the end of three terms of Republican Presidents in power. The elder Bush wasn't anywhere near as unlucky as Carter, let alone as counterproductive as Hoover.  It took three "Presidentiads" (Ralph Waldo Emerson coined that term) for America to tire of Reaganism. Bill Clinton fully endorsed the foreign policy of  the elder Bush; anything else would have been foolishness.

Had Hillary Clinton won the right votes in 2016 and barely gotten elected, the analogy this year would be to 1992. Of course, Hoover did not reek of corruption and Carter was beyond any doubt (and still is) a good man, American voters got impatient with both after one "Presidentiad".

That's true, 1992 was the end of three terms held by the same party, and so was 1932. Republicans held on for 3 terms in both cases until defeated by very high-scoring Democrats. So, it's a rare thing. Trump has that going for him. Democrat Grover Cleveland lost after one term for his party to Harrison from the other party in 1888, though only in the electoral college, and came back to win in 1892. Then his party lost again in 1896, in the process becoming the Party it is today. The very-high-scoring dark-horse candidate James K Polk overtook the Whigs in 1844 who had come to power in 1840. Then in 1848 Polk's Democratic Party was turned out in favor of his leading general, who signed on with the Whigs. But the Whigs could not ever hold on to the White House for more than 4 years; they lost again in 1852 and then transformed themselves into the Republicans.

[Kinser79]

(05-18-2020, 11:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 06:03 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR whatever you are smoking you really should share it.

I am definitely not smoking -- unless metaphorically.

I was on a cross-country train a few years ago, and we were stopped in Denver about midnight. I told people that I was going to do some mile-high smoking. 

It was jumping jacks. Good for getting the cobwebs out of my legs.

I was referring to refers but whatever.  Hopefully leaving the house did you some good you should do more of it.  Maybe you could also include talking to be people without being an ass.  Might help with your depression shit.

[Kinser79]

(05-19-2020, 10:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-19-2020, 09:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-19-2020, 12:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 11:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The White House rarely changes possession by a Party after one term by that Party. The last two times that that happened were 1980 and 1932.  It could be that bad for Trump -- but a 270-268 defeat of Trump will be legally adequate for us to get new leadership at the apex of American power. 

1980 and 1992 you mean.

Strictly speaking, 1992 was the end of three terms of Republican Presidents in power. The elder Bush wasn't anywhere near as unlucky as Carter, let alone as counterproductive as Hoover.  It took three "Presidentiads" (Ralph Waldo Emerson coined that term) for America to tire of Reaganism. Bill Clinton fully endorsed the foreign policy of  the elder Bush; anything else would have been foolishness.

Had Hillary Clinton won the right votes in 2016 and barely gotten elected, the analogy this year would be to 1992. Of course, Hoover did not reek of corruption and Carter was beyond any doubt (and still is) a good man, American voters got impatient with both after one "Presidentiad".

Not clear that everyone is tired of Reaganism.  Part of the country keeps voting to go back to small government, reduced taxes and military preparedness.  Bush 43 was a Bush after all.  But you have to vote in someone responsible once in a while.

Lets see:  Small government....Reduced taxes....military preparedness.  Sounds like "Reaganism" is just good ole fashioned "Americanism".  Now if we could get that with side of isolationism and a sprinkle of autarky mixed in that would be prefect.  

All that said I'm going to be mining liberal salt come November 3rd I'm sure.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-19-2020, 09:01 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Lets see:  Small government....Reduced taxes....military preparedness.  Sounds like "Reaganism" is just good ole fashioned "Americanism".  Now if we could get that with side of isolationism and a sprinkle of autarky mixed in that would be prefect.  

All that said I'm going to be mining liberal salt come November 3rd I'm sure.

Actually, isolationism used to mean demilitarizing after every conflict.  A minimum skeleton military.  This was part of why crisis wars took typically four years or so.  We had to rebuild our military virtually from scratch, and relearn the business of war.  There was a scramble to rearm as conflicts like the Civil War and World War II came up.  Peacetime preparedness and the world's policeman role really started after World War II.

Of course abandoning preparedness now would be abandoning the field to the autocracies.  And dictators always were un American until recently.  Not surprising that you would endorse that, though. You always have supported the elites over the people.

Someone will be mining salt, certainly.  I think with the polls favoring those supporting a more scientific response to the virus, it will become clear pretty early who that will be.

[Eric the Green]

(05-19-2020, 10:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-19-2020, 09:01 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Lets see:  Small government....Reduced taxes....military preparedness.  Sounds like "Reaganism" is just good ole fashioned "Americanism".  Now if we could get that with side of isolationism and a sprinkle of autarky mixed in that would be prefect.  

All that said I'm going to be mining liberal salt come November 3rd I'm sure.

Actually, isolationism used to mean demilitarizing after every conflict.  A minimum skeleton military.  This was part of why crisis wars took typically four years or so.  We had to rebuild our military virtually from scratch, and relearn the business of war.  There was a scramble to rearm as conflicts like the Civil War and World War II came up.  Peacetime preparedness and the world's policeman role really started after World War II.

Of course abandoning preparedness now would be abandoning the field to the autocracies.  And dictators always were un American until recently.  Not surprising that you would endorse that, though.  You always have supported the elites over the people.

Someone will be mining salt, certainly.  I think with the polls favoring those supporting a more scientific response to the virus, it will become clear pretty early who that will be.

Maybe pretty soon Trump will recommend taking extra doses to salt to fight the virus?

Opinions seem to be firming up a bit. Trump's job approval is up to 46% according to realclearpolitics (which leans more to the right than Silver's outfit), but disapproval is also up to 52%.

Meanwhile Biden is up by 6-7 points over Trump right now in Arizona and Florida. Fingers crossed that it holds! (and that the people there are allowed to vote) One article said Biden's lead has been the longest and steadiest ever recorded.

[pbrower2a]

It may be ironic, but Detroit lies over a huge deposit of salt deposited when the area was a desert with a salt lake that dried out. Nothing is known about the political affiliation of the salt!

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-19-2020, 11:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It may be ironic, but Detroit lies over a huge deposit of salt deposited when the area was a desert with a salt lake that dried out. Nothing is known about the political affiliation of the salt!

That may be a problem.  We may still have been hunter gatherers at the time the salt deposit was laid down.  Did political affiliations exist back then?  

[Kinser79]

(05-19-2020, 10:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-19-2020, 09:01 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Lets see:  Small government....Reduced taxes....military preparedness.  Sounds like "Reaganism" is just good ole fashioned "Americanism".  Now if we could get that with side of isolationism and a sprinkle of autarky mixed in that would be prefect.  

All that said I'm going to be mining liberal salt come November 3rd I'm sure.

Actually, isolationism used to mean demilitarizing after every conflict.  A minimum skeleton military.  This was part of why crisis wars took typically four years or so.  We had to rebuild our military virtually from scratch, and relearn the business of war.  There was a scramble to rearm as conflicts like the Civil War and World War II came up.  Peacetime preparedness and the world's policeman role really started after World War II.

Of course abandoning preparedness now would be abandoning the field to the autocracies.  And dictators always were un American until recently.  Not surprising that you would endorse that, though.  You always have supported the elites over the people.

Someone will be mining salt, certainly.  I think with the polls favoring those supporting a more scientific response to the virus, it will become clear pretty early who that will be.

Remember the polls said Hillary would be President too.  

I personally don't care what this or that poll says outside of it being aggregated which I typically have to do myself anyway, since the legacy media can't be trusted to do it.

I find it amusing that the boomers here seem to be clueless as to what I mean by mining salt.

[pbrower2a]

(05-20-2020, 04:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-19-2020, 11:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It may be ironic, but Detroit lies over a huge deposit of salt deposited when the area was a desert with a salt lake that dried out. Nothing is known about the political affiliation of the salt!

That may be a problem.  We may still have been hunter gatherers at the time the salt deposit was laid down.  Did political affiliations exist back then?  

It has something to do with plate tectonics, but the joke failed.