The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(08-19-2020, 09:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 07:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One common label is the justification phrase and the implementation phase.  For example in some state constitutions they wrote that as legislators have to have free speech, all shall have free speech.  Rights are granted by God.  They apply to everybody, not just government employees.  The interpreting you are suggesting would take away free speech from the people.

The Founding Fathers had an opinion and wrote it down both in the Constitution and elsewhere.  If the courts honor the text or the intent of the authors, they come to one conclusion.  The alternative is that the Constitution is only a suggestion and that the justices are supposed to legislate from the bench.

Now I tend to agree that the Second is obsolete.  A reasonable compromise would be to allow weapons sufficient for target shooting, hunting and self defense, but to allow state regulation of military weapons.  Assault rifles just didn't exist in the Founding Father's time.

But such a compromise was unthinkable a short time ago.  For years the Jim Crow interpretation that made the entire Bill of Rights go away was applied to the Second.  The Democrats got used to it, and thought the Jim Crow court's interpretation was correct.  Meanwhile, the conservatives were correct.  Both sides clung to their positions with a ferocity that made compromise impossible.

Not sure this will hold true in a 4T.  The Democrats could very well take the congress and White House, but Trump has still appointed a lot of young judges who honor strict construction and intent of the authors.  The amendment process still counts on winning states, which gives an unreasonable advantage to the more rural population.  You will have to wait on the progressives appointing judges willing to legislate from the bench.  That would lead to prying weapons from cold dead fingers.

But a real compromise will have to wait on the election.  That is not apt to be the first thing Biden will want to work on first assuming a win.  Save the hard stuff which might trigger a revival of conservative feeling slide for a while.  You don't want to invite the next replacement for Trump.  You want to give the more reasonable conservatives a chance to consolidate their influence.

Unlike the 1st Amendment (and others), the 2nd is unique in having a justification for the right it espouses.  It's not unreasonable to assume that the right is intended to be limited to certain activities, or why is only that one purpose a justification?  And let's also be honest.  No right is absolute, including the biggies in the 1st.

That's right. And the Constitution gives the job of interpreting it to the courts, not the founding fathers. I was glad to see the Democrats bring up the issue at the convention tonight. I wasn't sure they had the guts. They replayed Joe Biden promising that he would never give up the fight for effective gun regulation. It may not be the first item on their long agenda, but the Democrats will pass something this decade. Trump may have engineered a ruling against it, and gun laws haven't fared too well in the courts in recent years. But laws have been passed requiring that they be taken from people who are not qualified to have them. That's as far as confiscation from the cold dead hands of the gun fanatics will go. They may no longer be able to legally buy those weapons which even Bob says above can at least be regulated. That does not stop the fanatics from crying foul. Many Republicans fear any regulation at all, and they place a much higher value on military weapons than on the first right mentioned in our founding document.

[Bob Butler 54]

No right is unlimited. But, what limits are accepted? I have already said having a right does not imply the right to harm others or restrict their rights. I have already mentioned how the right to avoid prejudice does not exist for churches, private clubs, and I would add on private property. What other limits are there? What other examples?

The Democrats are at the moment the party of the constitution. Trump has trampled on it, so indignation is the proper response? It is a shame they reject honoring the constitution when it inconveniences them. They should at least attempt a reasonable compromise rather than tie themselves to the Jim Crow interpretation that has been rejected already by Thurgood Marshall’s court cases last century and recently the decision that owning and carrying weapons was an individual right.

What is a reasonable compromise?

Congress has a power to regulate the militia. This means to make everyman into a fighting man. The original concept was that when the militias of the several states were summoned by the Congress, that they all had the same training and would be able to act as a united force. This is an enumerated power already, and requires no changes.

The militia is obsolete. Regulating the militia would only be relevant if there were an intent to call up the militia.

Give the states the power to regulate weapons, and forbid the Congress from doing so. Again, this is how it is. While the congress was assigned the ability to regulate the militia, they were not given the power to regulate weapons owned by non called up citizens. In fact, the Second bans congress and the states the power to forbid ownership and carrying.

Give states the ability to regulate weapons. Again, no action is required. The states are sovereign. They may do as they please so long as they do not contradict the powers they have given the federal government and the people in the Constitution. In this case, they cannot prevent the ownership of carrying of weapons to be carried by a reasonable militia. That would unfortunately include assault guns, the most universal weapons carried by the National Guard common infantry soldier. You must allow a well regulated militia under the current system.

The reasonable compromise would be to distinguish between military and civilian arms. Civilian arms would include those used for target shooting, hunting and self defense. A given size of magazine, rate of fire, power of individual shot, could be included in the definition of a civilian weapon. Ownership of the more potent military weapons could be limited to those who belonged to a well regulated militia, who were bound to the orders of a state officer appointed by the state. As this militia would be well regulated, the state could say under what conditions military weapons could be carried. However, there would be a continued right to own and carry civilian weapons.

All are invited to propose other limits. If you can get Classic to agree, your compromise would become real. Assume you need Classic’s support when coming up with your compromise.

[pbrower2a]

(08-19-2020, 01:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 01:03 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I have to say, I have been watching the Democrats mainly talking to heir own supporters this evening.

I am inclined to think that most regular posters at this site have already covered the same ground as the DNC, and has already committed to how they are going to vote.  Most are deeply partisan.  The loosers at both at this site and the conventions will have some big time readjusting to do.

I disagree that the Democrats are presenting only one perspective.  They are hitting Trump from all sorts of angles, but as you tune that out you don't notice it.  It almost makes one wonder if you are watching at all.  Your ideological filter sort of tunes out everything that doesn't match your worldview and values.  That doesn't leave much getting through.

I watched and  listened to them. I noticed that they were hitting Trump from every angle that they could from their Liberal  (perspectives). Personally speaking, I see a political party that knows its on the verge of collapsing and knows that Trumps represents a large segment of American society who won't save them this time around and opt to cut its losses and move forward with the rest of the country without them.

The current GOP is the one in trouble. It has an asset in the distorted distribution of Senate representation by winning a raft of states with three to six electoral votes, but I can see that changing. Iowa and Montana have excellent chances of ousting Republican Senators. 

I see rifts within the Republican Party that few of us foresaw before Trump. One of the factions which connects to more traditional values of the GOP is positioning to survive the collapse of Donald Trump, and it will be relevant again. 

Donald Trump is not a conservative; he is a fascist. He admires despots and dictators. He inflicts Newspeak upon people whom he expects to believe without qualification or dissent. He is a blatant misogynist; he mocks the handicapped. He is corrupt and cruel.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-20-2020, 08:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The reasonable compromise would be to distinguish between military and civilian arms.  Civilian arms would include those used for target shooting, hunting and self defense.  A given size of magazine, rate of fire, power of individual shot, could be included in the definition of a civilian weapon.  Ownership of the more potent military weapons could be limited to those who belonged to a well regulated militia, who were bound to the orders of a state officer appointed by the state.  As this militia would be well regulated, the state could say under what conditions military weapons could be carried.  However, there would be a continued right to own and carry civilian weapons.

All are invited to propose other limits.  If you can get Classic to agree, your compromise would become real.  Assume you need Classic’s support when coming up with your compromise.

We already have a legal distinction between military and civilian arms. Military arms can be fully automatic weapons where as civilian arms are limited to semi-automatic weapons. I don't really care about the look of a semi automatic weapon myself and the hang up/beef seems to be over the look of particular civilian weapons vs the legal distinction and function of those particular weapons.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-20-2020, 11:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-19-2020, 01:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 01:03 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I have to say, I have been watching the Democrats mainly talking to heir own supporters this evening.

I am inclined to think that most regular posters at this site have already covered the same ground as the DNC, and has already committed to how they are going to vote.  Most are deeply partisan.  The loosers at both at this site and the conventions will have some big time readjusting to do.

I disagree that the Democrats are presenting only one perspective.  They are hitting Trump from all sorts of angles, but as you tune that out you don't notice it.  It almost makes one wonder if you are watching at all.  Your ideological filter sort of tunes out everything that doesn't match your worldview and values.  That doesn't leave much getting through.

I watched and  listened to them. I noticed that they were hitting Trump from every angle that they could from their Liberal  (perspectives). Personally speaking, I see a political party that knows its on the verge of collapsing and knows that Trumps represents a large segment of American society who won't save them this time around and opt to cut its losses and move forward with the rest of the country without them.

The current GOP is the one in trouble. It has an asset in the distorted distribution of Senate representation by winning a raft of states with three to six electoral votes, but I can see that changing. Iowa and Montana have excellent chances of ousting Republican Senators. 

I see rifts within the Republican Party that few of us foresaw before Trump. One of the factions which connects to more traditional values of the GOP is positioning to survive the collapse of Donald Trump, and it will be relevant again. 

Donald Trump is not a conservative; he is a fascist. He admires despots and dictators. He inflicts Newspeak upon people whom he expects to believe without qualification or dissent. He is a blatant misogynist; he mocks the handicapped. He is corrupt and cruel.

True. A small portion of the old GOP is in as much trouble as the DNC today. I'd say the entire old Washington establishment is in deep trouble with the American people today. Yes, there is a bit of a rift between the fiscal conservatives and the borrow and spend Republicans (Rhino's) and old Neo Cons these days but that's about it these days. Trump is a libertarian conservative like most everyone else on the American right these days. If Trump was a fascist, he would be doing what you are criticizing him about not doing today.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-20-2020, 03:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-19-2020, 09:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 07:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One common label is the justification phrase and the implementation phase.  For example in some state constitutions they wrote that as legislators have to have free speech, all shall have free speech.  Rights are granted by God.  They apply to everybody, not just government employees.  The interpreting you are suggesting would take away free speech from the people.

The Founding Fathers had an opinion and wrote it down both in the Constitution and elsewhere.  If the courts honor the text or the intent of the authors, they come to one conclusion.  The alternative is that the Constitution is only a suggestion and that the justices are supposed to legislate from the bench.

Now I tend to agree that the Second is obsolete.  A reasonable compromise would be to allow weapons sufficient for target shooting, hunting and self defense, but to allow state regulation of military weapons.  Assault rifles just didn't exist in the Founding Father's time.

But such a compromise was unthinkable a short time ago.  For years the Jim Crow interpretation that made the entire Bill of Rights go away was applied to the Second.  The Democrats got used to it, and thought the Jim Crow court's interpretation was correct.  Meanwhile, the conservatives were correct.  Both sides clung to their positions with a ferocity that made compromise impossible.

Not sure this will hold true in a 4T.  The Democrats could very well take the congress and White House, but Trump has still appointed a lot of young judges who honor strict construction and intent of the authors.  The amendment process still counts on winning states, which gives an unreasonable advantage to the more rural population.  You will have to wait on the progressives appointing judges willing to legislate from the bench.  That would lead to prying weapons from cold dead fingers.

But a real compromise will have to wait on the election.  That is not apt to be the first thing Biden will want to work on first assuming a win.  Save the hard stuff which might trigger a revival of conservative feeling slide for a while.  You don't want to invite the next replacement for Trump.  You want to give the more reasonable conservatives a chance to consolidate their influence.

Unlike the 1st Amendment (and others), the 2nd is unique in having a justification for the right it espouses.  It's not unreasonable to assume that the right is intended to be limited to certain activities, or why is only that one purpose a justification?  And let's also be honest.  No right is absolute, including the biggies in the 1st.

That's right. And the Constitution gives the job of interpreting it to the courts, not the founding fathers. I was glad to see the Democrats bring up the issue at the convention tonight. I wasn't sure they had the guts. They replayed Joe Biden promising that he would never give up the fight for effective gun regulation. It may not be the first item on their long agenda, but the Democrats will pass something this decade. Trump may have engineered a ruling against it, and gun laws haven't fared too well in the courts in recent years. But laws have been passed requiring that they be taken from people who are not qualified to have them. That's as far as confiscation from the cold dead hands of the gun fanatics will go. They may no longer be able to legally buy those weapons which even Bob says above can at least be regulated. That does not stop the fanatics from crying foul. Many Republicans fear any regulation at all, and they place a much higher value on military weapons than on the first right mentioned in our founding document.

Interpretation and changing American laws is not the job of of the lower courts. The job of the lower courts is to enforce and uphold American laws that are in place and maintain the integrity of the American legal system.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2020, 11:39 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-20-2020, 08:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The reasonable compromise would be to distinguish between military and civilian arms.  Civilian arms would include those used for target shooting, hunting and self defense.  A given size of magazine, rate of fire, power of individual shot, could be included in the definition of a civilian weapon.  Ownership of the more potent military weapons could be limited to those who belonged to a well regulated militia, who were bound to the orders of a state officer appointed by the state.  As this militia would be well regulated, the state could say under what conditions military weapons could be carried.  However, there would be a continued right to own and carry civilian weapons.

All are invited to propose other limits.  If you can get Classic to agree, your compromise would become real.  Assume you need Classic’s support when coming up with your compromise.

We already have a legal distinction between military and civilian arms. Military arms can be fully automatic weapons where as civilian arms are limited to semi-automatic weapons. I don't really care about the look of a semi automatic weapon myself and the hang up/beef seems to be over the look of particular civilian weapons vs the legal distinction and function of those particular weapons.

Where is the distinction made? I'd agree the distinction you make is about right, but to my knowledge it is not made in the Constitution.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2020, 12:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: A small portion of the old GOP is in as much trouble as the DNC today. I'd say the entire old Washington establishment is in deep trouble with the American people today. Yes, there is a bit of a rift between the fiscal conservatives and the borrow and spend Republicans (Rhino's) and old Neo Cons these days but that's about it these days. Trump is a libertarian conservative like most everyone else on the American right these days. If Trump was a fascist, he would be doing what you are criticizing him about not doing today.

I'd agree the old Washington Republican Establishment is in deep trouble, except to the extent that they enable Trump.  The base acts much as a personality cult.  The Tea Party objective of ridding themselves of the old establishment has turned into a loyalty for Trump that embraces the establishment if the establishment enables Trump.  If Trump says the establishment enablers are OK, they are OK.  If they cross Trump, he will send a few mean tweets and they are toast.  I'm not sure if Trump is gone how the Establishment would be ranked.

I think the Neo Cons are laying low.  They were right that we could use our superior force to win conventional wars, but very wrong in our ability to confront proxy insurgent wars.  There is such a reluctance since Iraq to put boots on the ground that the Neo Cons are not a major factor.  We could not occupy Iraq let alone change the values of the whole Middle East.

Agreed the Republican base is very much into libertarian conservativism, but Trump is more into Trump.  The question is whether the base will start to look more favorably on domestic spending.  Health care for all?  Fighting global warming?  One large feature of the unravelling mindset was to ignore problems to keep taxes low and government small.  COVID made a dent in that mode of thinking.  We have to see how big a dent.  In a 4T, the problems are addressed decisively and the old way of looking at things virtually disappears.  I am assuming this will happen again, but it has yet to manifest.  The commitment of the Democrats at there convention seems to be there, but it has to pass congress to be real.  We will have to see what happens should Biden win in November and the mid terms come around.

Most everything turns so drastically on the November election that looking beyond it is hard.  The Republicans are pretty much in turmoil just now.  Without knowing how they will reconstitute themselves, things get really murky.  The establishment is into elitism, the base into racism, the true conservatives have a chance to renounce both, but it is hard to see who keeps control of the party.  Thus, my crystal ball gets mighty murky.  My only thought is that whichever of the three factions come out on top, they will not be able to contest against the Democrats.  They will be diminished.

I would not consider Trump a classic fascist.  I have never been into the 'all Republicans are fascist, all Democrats are Communist' games that were played a while back.  I have no trouble distinguishing between the situation in the 1940s and today.  Trump is not into military conquest or alliance.  Still, in being more loyal to himself than the country he becomes bad enough.

But in many ways Trump is making the 4T possible.  He is discrediting the old way of thinking so clearly that wiping out the old values becomes more easy and obvious.

I don't see the Democrats as disunited or in trouble.  They are more united than they have been for some time.  That claim seems to be one extremist's attempt to cling to his ideals.  It used to be a topic if the establishment Democrats and the radical Democrats would become the two dominant political parties, but the radical policies of say Warren and Sanders are now part of the main party platform.  Thus, it seems like one of the three Republican factions will become the main challenger.  I just don't know which one yet.

The establishment faction has been tainted a lot by their forced loyalty to Trump, and no one loves the elite hold on Washington. There are lots of racists, which might hold the base, but Black Lives Matter has shifted their hold on American values. They seem on track to hold the Republican remnants, but they will no longer be dominant enough to challenge the Democrats. I would personally prefer that the true conservatives should reject both the elite and racist influence and become dominant, but that seems to be more wistful thinking than likely. One can hope, but I am foreseeing a weakened racist base as trying vainly to slow the Democrats down, but having trouble in the high fighting for a racist ethic when most Americans no longer thinks the racist tendency acceptable.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2020, 12:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Interpretation and changing American laws is not the job of of the lower courts. The job of the lower courts is to enforce and uphold American laws that are in place and maintain the integrity of the American legal system.

And yet a court case has to go through the lower courts before it reaches the high courts.

Much of the new thinking on gun rights was developed in the colleges.  Various professors created the 'Standard Model' of the Second Amendment creating on paper an individual right in it's entirety before anything happened in the courts.  Many times the Standard Model was included by rote by a defense attorney, but the judge would ignore it and ratify the existing Jim Crow law under a 'stare decisis' basis.  

The start of reinterpretation came when a judge familiar with the academic theory was presented with a case ideally suited for challenging stare decisis.  He included the academic work in his decision and did well enough that the appeals to higher courts kept giving the case to higher courts still.  The government lawyers with a a preference for the Jim Crow interpretation kept appealing, and with each appeal the Standard Model elements of the case became the law of the land in ever larger portions of the country.  The lower courts had the Standard Model as stare decisis.

That is more a glimpse about how to legislate from the bench.  The right case has to be presented before the right judge who has kept up with the academics.  The new ideas have to be presented in such a way that they will be appealed to ever higher courts influencing an ever increasing area.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-20-2020, 02:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'd agree the old Washington Republican Establishment is in deep trouble, except to the extent that they enable Trump.  The base acts much as a personality cult.  The Tea Party objective of ridding themselves of the old establishment has turned into a loyalty for Trump that embraces the establishment if the establishment enables Trump.  If Trump says the establishment enablers are OK, they are OK.  If they cross Trump, he will send a few mean tweets and they are toast.  I'm not sure if Trump is gone how the Establishment would be ranked.

I think the Neo Cons are laying low.  They were right that we could use our superior force to win conventional wars, but very wrong in our ability to confront proxy insurgent wars.  There is such a reluctance since Iraq to put boots on the ground that the Neo Cons are not a major factor.  We could not occupy Iraq let alone change the values of the whole Middle East.

Agreed the Republican base is very much into libertarian conservativism, but Trump is more into Trump.  The question is whether the base will start to look more favorably on domestic spending.  Health care for all?  Fighting global warming?  One large feature of the unravelling mindset was to ignore problems to keep taxes low and government small.  COVID made a dent in that mode of thinking.  We have to see how big a dent.  In a 4T, the problems are addressed decisively and the old way of looking at things virtually disappears.  I am assuming this will happen again, but it has yet to manifest.  The commitment of the Democrats at there convention seems to be there, but it has to pass congress to be real.  We will have to see what happens should Biden win in November and the mid terms come around.

Most everything turns so drastically on the November election that looking beyond it is hard.  The Republicans are pretty much in turmoil just now.  Without knowing how they will reconstitute themselves, things get really murky.  The establishment is into elitism, the base into racism, the true conservatives have a chance to renounce both, but it is hard to see who keeps control of the party.  Thus, my crystal ball gets mighty murky.  My only thought is that whichever of the three factions come out on top, they will not be able to contest against the Democrats.  They will be diminished.

I would not consider Trump a classic fascist.  I have never been into the 'all Republicans are fascist, all Democrats are Communist' games that were played a while back.  I have no trouble distinguishing between the situation in the 1940s and today.  Trump is not into military conquest or alliance.  Still, in being more loyal to himself than the country he becomes bad enough.

But in many ways Trump is making the 4T possible.  He is discrediting the old way of thinking so clearly that wiping out the old vales becomes more easy and obvious.

I don't see the Democrats as disunited or in trouble.  They are more united than they have been for some time.  That claim seems to be one extremis'ts attempt to cling to his ideals.

OK. You know better than me as I pretend to smile and nod my head in agreement for the sake of not extending an argument that's already dead in my opinion. Right now, he's mainly loyal to about half the country due to obvious state the country is in right now. The Democrats are mainly loyal to their own and mainly speaking to their own right now as well. The Neo Cons were into the idea of winning hearts and minds and nation building during on going wars within country's that Americans don't give two shits about these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2020, 09:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: OK. You know better than me as I pretend to smile and nod my head in agreement for the sake of not extending an argument that's already dead in my opinion. Right now, he's mainly loyal to about half the country due to obvious  state the country is in right now. The Democrats are mainly loyal to their own and mainly speaking to their own right now as well.

The way the Democrats are trying to spin it is that Trump is trying to be divisive and govern primarily for half the country, while Biden is trying to be sympathetic and promising to work for the whole country.  Not a bad spin by the Democrats.  We'll have to see how true Biden can make it be.

(08-20-2020, 09:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Neo Cons were  into the idea of winning hearts and minds and nation building during on going wars within country's that Americans don't give two shits about these days.

Not quite right.  The Neo Cons were of the mind that the US had the upper hand in high tech conventional wars and could use violence to make profit in a one superpower time.  Only later did other elements of the military realize that things were different in an insurgent proxy environment and they were fighting for hearts and minds. By that time it was too late, the US had turned many locals off.  If you bombard a village because there is a sniper hiding somewhere in the village, or if you shoot up a wedding party because the wedding party was shooting their weapons in the air to celebrate, you make locals mad.  Two different strategies and approaches.  I wouldn't give the Neo Cons credit for the late war surge strategy.

But that doesn't matter in these days of everybody being reluctant to put boots on the ground.

[pbrower2a]

(08-20-2020, 12:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-20-2020, 11:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-19-2020, 01:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 06:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 01:03 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I have to say, I have been watching the Democrats mainly talking to heir own supporters this evening.

I am inclined to think that most regular posters at this site have already covered the same ground as the DNC, and has already committed to how they are going to vote.  Most are deeply partisan.  The loosers at both at this site and the conventions will have some big time readjusting to do.

I disagree that the Democrats are presenting only one perspective.  They are hitting Trump from all sorts of angles, but as you tune that out you don't notice it.  It almost makes one wonder if you are watching at all.  Your ideological filter sort of tunes out everything that doesn't match your worldview and values.  That doesn't leave much getting through.

I watched and  listened to them. I noticed that they were hitting Trump from every angle that they could from their Liberal  (perspectives). Personally speaking, I see a political party that knows its on the verge of collapsing and knows that Trumps represents a large segment of American society who won't save them this time around and opt to cut its losses and move forward with the rest of the country without them.

The current GOP is the one in trouble. It has an asset in the distorted distribution of Senate representation by winning a raft of states with three to six electoral votes, but I can see that changing. Iowa and Montana have excellent chances of ousting Republican Senators. 

I see rifts within the Republican Party that few of us foresaw before Trump. One of the factions which connects to more traditional values of the GOP is positioning to survive the collapse of Donald Trump, and it will be relevant again. 

Donald Trump is not a conservative; he is a fascist. He admires despots and dictators. He inflicts Newspeak upon people whom he expects to believe without qualification or dissent. He is a blatant misogynist; he mocks the handicapped. He is corrupt and cruel.

True. A small portion of the old GOP is in as much trouble as the DNC today. I'd say the entire old Washington establishment is in deep trouble with the American people today. Yes, there is a bit of a rift between the fiscal conservatives and the borrow and spend Republicans (Rhino's) and old Neo Cons these days but that's about it these days. Trump is a libertarian conservative like most everyone else on the American right these days. If Trump was a fascist, he would be doing what you are criticizing him about not doing today.

The more traditional conservative of the 1970's has no home in the GOP today. Of course the pay-down-the-debt-even-if-it-means-high-taxes set was basically Lost. It is entirely possible that such could be forced upon us by the International Monetary Fund along with privatization that pays off debt without expanding any social programs -- particularly should America lose a war and have to make huge reparations payments. 

Trump is a crony capitalist more than anything else, and that is not conservatism. It is characteristic of dictatorial regimes, and as a rule, the less free a society is the more corrupt it is. Crony capitalism is incompatible with a free market in which people can easily evade cronyism.

Trump has some fascist characteristics; he simply did the dictatorial playbook wrong. First, you eliminate or at least marginalize the opposition by outlawing them, prohibiting their participation in electoral politics, having an arrangement that ensures a predictable and permanent majority for the 'leading force', or regulating the nominal opposition. Then, and only then, do you have the internal purge. 

Trump has been quite ineffective at pushing a Hard Right agenda. He does not understand the system.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN has a piece up showing how the Republicans might reinvent themselves.  Mind you, I don't see the battle taking place on CNN.  They are too coastal mainline.  I don't see it taking place so soon.  We have to see what happens in the election and how Trump responds.  If CNN is too coastal for the main battle to take place there, it might be a good place to get an overview.  The conservative media outlets will each have their various agendas and edit out the better arguments in opposition.

But the big difference is that each of the advocates stays polite.  They don't label factions as elitist, racist, trumpists, or whatever.  They will speak in code and talk around the real issues.

[pbrower2a]

(08-21-2020, 02:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN has a piece up showing how the Republicans might reinvent themselves.  Mind you, I don't see the battle taking place on CNN.  They are too coastal mainline.  I don't see it taking place so soon.  We have to see what happens in the election and how Trump responds.  If CNN is too coastal for the main battle to take place there, it might be a good place to get an overview.  The conservative media outlets will each have their various agendas and edit out the better arguments in opposition.

But the big difference is that each of the advocates stays polite.  They don't label factions as elitist, racist, trumpists, or whatever.  They will speak in code and talk around the real issues.

Realignments happen under the cover of blowout elections. Consider that even if Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were similar ideologically, they won with very different maps:

 These three Democratic wins involve the "New South" -- the South between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the completion of the success of the Southern Strategy.  

1992 is about as clearly a Realignment election as any in the lifetimes of any reader of these forums unless one is very old. Few saw 1992 coming, and the 1992 election looked very different from that of 1976.



It's not a perfect match (there was a third-party nominee getting lots of votes), but I am showing the one Carter win to the two (Bill) Clinton wins: 

Ford, Bush, Dole -- blue
Carter, Clinton once -- pale blue
Carter, Clinton never -- yellow
Ford -- but Clinton twice -- white
Carter, Clinton twice -- red

...putting the states showing white for those that Carter did not win but Clinton won twice says much about subsequent Democratic wins of the Presidency; only one of the states in yellow has voted for any Democratic nominee for President since 1976. If Bill Clinton could not win Texas (Hope, Arkansas is not far from the Texas state line) maybe no Democrat can win it for the next thirty years; the state used to vote Democratic except in Democratic losses and even went for Humphrey in his 1968 loss.

In 1996, five states voted for the last time for a Democratic nominee for President for the foreseeable future.  I distinguish Missouri from these because those five states voted for McCain by double-digit margins (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) in 2008.
Obama did find a way in which to win twice:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2012    



Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

...as long as politicians of one Party see themselves close to winning they keep trying to win with a variant of the previous election, trying to broaden and solidify their bases and working states that were close in recent elections. In a wake of landslide defeats that don't have simply a catastrophically-inept nominee as a goat they cannot simply work the edges as they simply look better losing without winning. Instead they must seek to peel away significant constituencies. For example, agrarian racists and "Eisenhower-Rockefeller" Republicans were unlikely to fit within the same coalition, which may explain why an Obama win is more similar to an Eisenhower win than even those of any preceding Democratic nominee for President. 

In case you don't have that map in your mind, then I can tell you that every state in red or white except Hawaii (not voting in the 1950's) went for both Obama and Eisenhower twice. Every state in medium blue except Alaska (like Hawaii, not voting in the 1950's) voted for Eisenhower twice and against Obama twice. Indiana went for Ike twice and Obama once, and North Carolina went for Stevenson twice but Obama once. 

Biden wins in 2020 only if he puts the Obama coalition back together, and so far that seems to be happening.

[CH86]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyblSSJarDk

Sorry boomer but the progressive/conservative alliance against liberals and sjws will continue to slowly come into existence; and this process will now accelerate now the convention has run its course. Pro-Trump Red Americans want our factories and food production and tech production capacity to be back in America, as do we "bernie"/Tulsi/Yang supporters. By force-feeding Biden and Kamala and letting the radical lunatic KHive to run wild through the democratic party politcal halls as well as through the streets of America, the DNC has made it clear that it does not represent young people or the working class. The DNC has essentially betrayed all the significant principles of the pre-2012 democratic party and now represents only Liberal boomers/Black Boomers/Never-trumper republicans/and free market, open borders fundamentalists/and screeching boomer moralizers and censorship advocates; it is no longer the democratic party that late wave xers and millennials had hereto called their political home. The now represents the worst aspects of both wings of boomerism; it has the political and economic platform of the mid-1990s republicans essentially and it embraced the most lunatic in new form of 1960s/1970s radicalism.

For us Millennials at this point, the choice in November is now such an obvious no brainer. Millennials will vote for Trump even though its is against what their mostly liberal/or free-trader parents want. Coming From a mixed race extended family myself, I can say that both Black and Latino under 50s will also vote for trump in unprecedented numbers for what a republican usually gets in a presidential election. Millennials having been forced to choose between their mostly neglectful and suppressive parents and their Friends who have cared for and helped each other their whole lives will ultimately cut the dead weight of their boomer oppressors (who should have been helping the young but instead betrayed and stunted them) thus resolving a dilemma that many millennial have faced since the 2008 recession, and thus therefore enter the next generational phase of their lives.

As usual, you can feel free to comment, Classic-Xer and Kinser if they are reading this can also comment on these thoughts.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2020, 03:51 PM)CH86 Wrote: Sorry boomer but the progressive/conservative alliance against liberals and sjws will continue to slowly come into existence; and this process will now accelerate now the convention has run its course. Pro-Trump Red Americans want our factories and food production and tech production capacity to be back in America, as do we "bernie"/Tulsi/Yang supporters. By force-feeding Biden and Kamala and letting the radical lunatic KHive to run wild through the democratic party politcal halls as well as through the streets of America, the DNC has made it clear that it does not represent young people or the working class. The DNC has essentially betrayed all the significant principles of the pre-2012 democratic party and now represents only Liberal boomers/Black Boomers/Never-trumper republicans/and free market, open borders fundamentalists/and screeching boomer moralizers and censorship advocates; it is no longer the democratic party that late wave xers and millennials had hereto called their political home. The now represents the worst aspects of both wings of boomerism; it has the political and economic platform of the mid-1990s republicans essentially and it embraced the most lunatic in new form of 1960s/1970s radicalism.

For us Millennials at this point, the choice in November is now such an obvious no brainer. Millennials will vote for Trump even though its is against what their mostly liberal/or free-trader parents want. Coming From a mixed race extended family myself, I can say that both Black and Latino under 50s will also vote for trump in unprecedented numbers for what a republican usually gets in a presidential election. Millennials having been forced to choose between their mostly neglectful and suppressive parents and their Friends who have cared for and helped each other their whole lives will ultimately cut the dead weight of their boomer oppressors (who should have been helping the young but instead betrayed and stunted them) thus resolving a dilemma that many millennial have faced since the 2008 recession, and thus therefore enter the next generational phase of their lives.

As usual, you can feel free to comment, Classic-Xer and Kinser if they are reading this can also comment on these thoughts.

From my perspective, Democrats, progressives, blues and liberals are different names for the same faction.  Republicans, conservatives and reds are the opposite.  Saying the progressives are allying with their opposites to oppose themselves makes no sense.

The sjws were active in the early part of Obama’s presidency.  The side for equality was on the offensive.  When Trump make it all right to be racist again, the KKK and Neo Nazi resurfaced, Antifa responded, but the sjws were no longer on the front burner.  Then Black Lives Matter manifested fully, putting the equality faction back on the offensive, and KKK the Neo Nazi and Antifa got moved off the front burner.  While I do not doubt that many sjws are participating now in the Black Lives Matter movement, reaching back in time to pretend they are now active is absurd.

I count it a big difference between an ideologue and someone with a scientific worst view.  An ideologue will quote partisan opinion pieces rather than news.  Someone leaning scientific will check his thinking often against reality, for example checking any predictions of violence against the spiral of rhetoric and violence.  If there is a conflict between their theory and reality, the scientist will update or abandon his theory.  The ideologue will more and more ignore reality in order to keep his theory and perceptions intact.  The object of a scientist is an ever improving theory.  The object of ideologue is to defend his theory at all costs, including his ability to think clearly or observe reality objectively.

Including logic.  You don’t see it often, but sometimes an ideologue will scramble his thinking to cling to a failing theory.

That seems to be happening now.  With the 4T you expect the old values to collapse and the problems facing the culture will be faced with competency and dedication.  To a great degree the conservatives had dedicated themselves to ignoring problems for the sake of low taxes and small government.  COVID has made this old approach of ignoring the Science obsolete.  As a result, those championing the old values have to stretch their case considerably.  They have more and more difficulty pretending their theories are beneficial in the environment created by the trigger.

Kings powers are ignored.  Slavery is made a thing of the past.  Dictators are defeated.  Problems are attacked, not ignored.

Not that I can force conservatives to think.  They will cling to their dated perspectives irrationally.  Kinser has always been an elitist, whether he aligns himself with the owners of the means of production or the Trump clique.  Classic has always been obsessed with violence that doesn’t exist, avoiding looking at the spiral of violence to keep his obsession alive.  Sure, you could welcome their thoughts.  Just don’t expect them to be rational.

[pbrower2a]

Some conservatives may be starting to see Donald Trump as a Frankenstein monster. Those conservatives have a longer view of history and recognize that a nasty social order is incompatible with their long-term survival. German conservatives who saw Hitler as the defender of property, whether of industry or landed estates, recognized such too late -- and found that the potential allies in protecting markets and formal ownership had been incarcerated in concentration camps, had gone silent in fear of the Gestapo and SS, or had fled. Trump is not Hitler -- he may be similarly malign in intentions, but he is less competent in following the Dictator Play Book... or maybe American political institutions thwart him. Whatever interpretation you take, you may be right.

Mathematical and scientific laws operate with consummate rigidity and no mercy. Those who defy them can get hurt badly, if not die of their folly. People standing on a cliff and walking backward to get a better selfie or standing on unstable ground at the edge of that cliff and falling to death as one steps into thin air or onto earth of questionable stability is stupid. An embezzlement of money that one 'covers' with a pretended mathematical error eventually trips up the embezzler. One heeds mathematical and scientific laws or they hurt or kill one -- or at least make life miserable.

In the long view I recognize the need for the genuine conservative, the person who offers tradition as a fallback when radical reforms either fail or go too far. At one time liberals pooh-poohed the idea that families matter in the success of their children and thought that criminal behavior was a consequence of poverty (including poverty of opportunity). Then came the sexual revolution that led to divorces that hurt children. Add to this -- some very good people live in the nastiest slums, barrios, and reservations... and horrible people have arisen from the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. The difference between aristocratic figures who became Holocaust perpetrators and a low-life brute like (executed) serial-killer Alton Coleman is the opportunity that such people had. Some starry-eyed idealist who assumed that poverty created criminality failed to ask the locals how to avoid the hopeless-but-dangerous pimps, pushers, and muggers often got hurt or killed. Someone not so starry-eyed might first ask the locals who is trustworthy and who isn't... and avoid pimps, pushers, and muggers while being social organizers. Add to this, it is patronizing to assume that people cannot turn out well as people (even if they remained damned to poverty) if poor. Morality has no obvious link to social class.

Trump got away with what he did because of mass irrationality. Many will discover that irrationality kills, cripples, and degrades. If lucky enough, those who recover from the hurt, physical and emotional, will have learned the hard way that irrationality is for losers. It may be harder to fail as a graduate of Harvard than at the informal School of Hard Knocks, but although the School of Hard Knocks is far from the ideal place in which to learn, it does have open admission even if it grants no formal degree. Maybe its lessons aren't as refined as those that one gets from a first-tier professor at Harvard or even "Kegger State", but one can learn those lessons just as effectively... and unlike learning some classical language or art history one at least finds its lessons relevant to real life if one lacks the economic advantages usually necessary for matriculation at Harvard... or even "Kegger State".

If one is too much a blockhead to learn the dear lessons of the School of Hard Locks, then one is in really-bad shape.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-22-2020, 01:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-21-2020, 03:51 PM)CH86 Wrote: Sorry boomer but the progressive/conservative alliance against liberals and sjws will continue to slowly come into existence; and this process will now accelerate now the convention has run its course. Pro-Trump Red Americans want our factories and food production and tech production capacity to be back in America, as do we "bernie"/Tulsi/Yang supporters. By force-feeding Biden and Kamala and letting the radical lunatic KHive to run wild through the democratic party politcal halls as well as through the streets of America, the DNC has made it clear that it does not represent young people or the working class. The DNC has essentially betrayed all the significant principles of the pre-2012 democratic party and now represents only Liberal boomers/Black Boomers/Never-trumper republicans/and free market, open borders fundamentalists/and screeching boomer moralizers and censorship advocates; it is no longer the democratic party that late wave xers and millennials had hereto called their political home. The now represents the worst aspects of both wings of boomerism; it has the political and economic platform of the mid-1990s republicans essentially and it embraced the most lunatic in new form of 1960s/1970s radicalism.

For us Millennials at this point, the choice in November is now such an obvious no brainer. Millennials will vote for Trump even though its is against what their mostly liberal/or free-trader parents want. Coming From a mixed race extended family myself, I can say that both Black and Latino under 50s will also vote for trump in unprecedented numbers for what a republican usually gets in a presidential election. Millennials having been forced to choose between their mostly neglectful and suppressive parents and their Friends who have cared for and helped each other their whole lives will ultimately cut the dead weight of their boomer oppressors (who should have been helping the young but instead betrayed and stunted them) thus resolving a dilemma that many millennial have faced since the 2008 recession, and thus therefore enter the next generational phase of their lives.

As usual, you can feel free to comment, Classic-Xer and Kinser if they are reading this can also comment on these thoughts.

From my perspective, Democrats, progressives, blues and liberals are different names for the same faction.  Republicans, conservatives and reds are the opposite.  Saying the progressives are allying with their opposites to oppose themselves makes no sense.

The sjws were active in the early part of Obama’s presidency.  The side for equality was on the offensive.  When Trump make it all right to be racist again, the KKK and Neo Nazi resurfaced, Antifa responded, but the sjws were no longer on the front burner.  Then Black Lives Matter manifested fully, putting the equality faction back on the offensive, and KKK the Neo Nazi and Antifa got moved off the front burner.  While I do not doubt that many sjws are participating now in the Black Lives Matter movement, reaching back in time to pretend they are now active is absurd.

I count it a big difference between an ideologue and someone with a scientific worst view.  An ideologue will quote partisan opinion pieces rather than news.  Someone leaning scientific will check his thinking often against reality, for example checking any predictions of violence against the spiral of rhetoric and violence.  If there is a conflict between their theory and reality, the scientist will update or abandon his theory.  The ideologue will more and more ignore reality in order to keep his theory and perceptions intact.  The object of a scientist is an ever improving theory.  The object of ideologue is to defend his theory at all costs, including his ability to think clearly or observe reality objectively.

Including logic.  You don’t see it often, but sometimes an ideologue will scramble his thinking to cling to a failing theory.

That seems to be happening now.  With the 4T you expect the old values to collapse and the problems facing the culture will be faced with competency and dedication.  To a great degree the conservatives had dedicated themselves to ignoring problems for the sake of low taxes and small government.  COVID has made this old approach of ignoring the Science obsolete.  As a result, those championing the old values have to stretch their case considerably.  They have more and more difficulty pretending their theories are beneficial in the environment created by the trigger.

Kings powers are ignored.  Slavery is made a thing of the past.  Dictators are defeated.  Problems are attacked, not ignored.

Not that I can force conservatives to think.  They will cling to their dated perspectives irrationally.  Kinser has always been an elitist, whether he aligns himself with the owners of the means of production or the Trump clique.  Classic has always been obsessed with violence that doesn’t exist, avoiding looking at the spiral of violence to keep his obsession alive.  Sure, you could welcome their thoughts.  Just don’t expect them to be rational.

If the old values collapse as you say, I hope you and the entire Democratic side are fully  prepared for the large scale chaos and violence that will follow. Nope. You have no chance at forcing millions of thinkers to not think and go long with your emotions and ignorant silliness.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-22-2020, 02:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: If one is too much a blockhead to learn the dear lessons of the School of Hard Locks, then one is in really-bad shape.

I agree and I will also add that the Democratic side is the side that's in really bad shape.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-26-2020, 04:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If the old values collapse as you say, I hope you and the entire Democratic side are fully  prepared for the large scale chaos and violence that will follow. Nope. You have no chance at forcing millions of thinkers to not think and go long with your emotions and ignorant  silliness.

The big thing is that I check the real world spiral of violence against reality. You are obsessed with violence and will spout rhetoric at the drop of a hat but do nothing. A bit ago we had the racist cops and Trump and his feds against the Boogaloo Bois. Trump has dropped out, leaving the police to hold the field. I think the police have the edge overall, but will have to stop using racist violence or the protests will continue indefinitely. We will see what the nation wide pattern becomes after the elections, but I can guess. This is not going to be settled by violence. In the Information Age, protest, non violence and legislation have led to the cultural change.