Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN reports on John McCain: Trump defamed Khan, does not represent GOP

John McCain Wrote:While our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us...  I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump's statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.

As most everyone here should know, I am not the greatest fan of unravelling era Republican values and disagreed firmly with McCain's 'stay the course' position during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Still, there are certain aspects of recent Republican values that I can applaud and there are places where many Republicans and Democrats are not at odds.  I am pleased to see so many Republicans putting basic American values ahead of partisan politics at this point.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-31-2016, 10:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-31-2016, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?

It was Trump who was using their son for personal political purpose.  The parents of the dead boy had no particular interest in politics until Trump stepped into their lives.  They just wanted him to stop playing political football with their son's grave.

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I'm of the mind that all men are created equal.  A lot of Americans value that principle.  It's traditional in this country.  Now, the French have more responsibility for the people on French soil, and the US has more responsibility for folks on our soil, but I'd kind of hope that the two nations are exchanging intelligence freely and value all equally.

Only a racist, or since Orlando has been mentioned someone with an attitude towards gay people, would start thinking in terms of whether this person is more important than that person.  You don't look at the color of someone's skin, their religion, or their language and decide this person deserves to be valued more or protected more than someone else.  At least, that's what Americans are supposed to believe.  Not everyone in America follows American values.

I'm of the mind that we should all be viewed as equals and treated as equals. I don't believe in social preference or special rules being granted to a particular group or race of people. I'm ok with the fact that Tom Brady was born (blessed) with the skills and personality to be one of the greatest quarterbacks. Who brought them up, so to speak? Was it Trump or The Democratic party that you are associated with? Who voted to invade Iraq and send their son into harms way? Was it Trump or Hillary Clinton? My attitude towards gays is that they are equals who are entitled to the same rights and protections as me. I don't view gays or Muslims in general as people who are some how exempt from criticism and the laws and rules that are applicable to me. I don't view Muslims as being more special than me and more entitled than me or a Jew or a Catholic for that matter. I don't automatically feel bad about blacks because they're black. I don't automatically feel bad about Muslims because they're Muslims. You are free to criticize Catholics about the actions of wayward priests. What's so special about those two Muslims? Are they more special than the mother who lost her son during a terrorist attack in Libya? Certainly they must be intelligent enough to understand the reason Trump wants to reduce the flow of Muslims at this time. I assume they've seen the same attacks as I have lately. I assume the man is pretty smart (well educated) based on his ability to speak and articulate his liberal views to you, me and the person who represents the policies that he obviously doesn't like.

[Eric the Green]

Refugees to the USA are already tightly vetted and restricted. Trump is using a non-issue to get folks like Classic Xer to vote for him.

[Eric the Green]

John Oliver mocks BOTH sides, as only he can.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.

I'm afraid Faux News isn't one of my primary sources.    I hadn't caught the Rove thing.  Still, what you say doesn't surprise.  I for one don't expect to see a lot of Republicans voting a straight Democratic ticket.  I see Trump as a rogue politician who is more crashing the party on a one time basis than permanently changing it.  

Still, a lot of us have been thinking that the United States needs a new political alignment.  This might mean establishment parties changing positions or fading, opposition parties shifting to embrace those fleeing the sinking ship, and new parties rising to fill vacuums.  In Highlander fiction there is the saying that only one immortal can remain.  In American politics, there are generally two political parties that dominate.

Trump could possibly be forcing the split.  He is pulling out the most devout followers of the Nixon southern strategy and Reagan's unravelling small government - low taxes - all the government tries to do fails memes.  Obama has established that the government health care program can work, and that a more nuanced approach to foreign policy is an improvement on the Bush 43 era neo con preemptive serial unilateral nation building.  Democratic stewardship of the economy under Clinton 42 and Obama 44 has recently clearly done better than under Bushes 41 and 43.  

It even plays on the level of tone and feel.  Carter spoke of the national malaise, how the United States was faltering.  It was true, but saying so wasn't the sort of thing that wins popularity contests and votes.  Reagan came in all optimistic and patriotic and kicked butt.  Today Trump is talking about failure and fading, while the Democrats are talking change, hope and waving American flags with enthusiasm.

Yet, the Nixon - Reagan values remain strong in parts of the country.  I don't expect them to lose their position in the big two quite yet. 

Seems to me it's too early to say whether Tump's faction will become dominant over the Establishment Republicans and whether many Republicans who might well choose Hillary over The Donald might stick with the Democrats depending on how well Hillary does in office.  Still, quite a few have been wondering about how the major parties might realign.  We might possibly be seeing the beginnings of it, possibly the core of it.

If so, it might speak to the possibility of regeneracy.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-01-2016, 01:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.

I'm afraid Faux News isn't one of my primary sources.    I hadn't caught the Rove thing.  Still, what you say doesn't surprise.  I for one don't expect to see a lot of Republicans voting a straight Democratic ticket.  I see Trump as a rogue politician who is more crashing the party on a one time basis than permanently changing it.  

Still, a lot of us have been thinking that the United States needs a new political alignment.  This might mean establishment parties changing positions or fading, opposition parties shifting to embrace those fleeing the sinking ship, and new parties rising to fill vacuums.  In Highlander fiction there is the saying that only one immortal can remain.  In American politics, there are generally two political parties that dominate.

Trump could possibly be forcing the split.  He is pulling out the most devout followers of the Nixon southern strategy and Reagan's unravelling small government - low taxes - all the government tries to do fails memes.  Obama has established that the government health care program can work, and that a more nuanced approach to foreign policy is an improvement on the Bush 43 era neo con preemptive serial unilateral nation building.  Democratic stewardship of the economy under Clinton 42 and Obama 44 has recently clearly done better than under Bushes 41 and 43.  

It even plays on the level of tone and feel.  Carter spoke of the national malaise, how the United States was faltering.  It was true, but saying so wasn't the sort of thing that wins popularity contests and votes.  Reagan came in all optimistic and patriotic and kicked butt.  Today Trump is talking about failure and fading, while the Democrats are talking change, hope and waving American flags with enthusiasm.

Yet, the Nixon - Reagan values remain strong in parts of the country.  I don't expect them to lose their position in the big two quite yet. 

Seems to me it's too early to say whether Tump's faction will become dominant over the Establishment Republicans and whether many Republicans who might well choose Hillary over The Donald might stick with the Democrats depending on how well Hillary does in office.  Still, quite a few have been wondering about how the major parties might realign.  We might possibly be seeing the beginnings of it, possibly the core of it.

If so, it might speak to the possibility of regeneracy.

Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-01-2016, 01:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.

Hmmm... Lot's a confidence in a Hillery win, I see.  So... let's get to some nitty gritty shall we?

Herewith are Rag's predicted appointments:

Secretary of Treasury :  Mr. Looten Plunder.   Noted for achieving the appointment by Democratic Party acclamation due to his ownership of the staff of Republican heads.





Secretary of Energy - Duke Nukem  .. As we all know, Mr. Nukem loves the higher end of the electromagnetic spectrum [X-Rays, Gamma Rays] and those assorted particles [alpha,beta, and positrons]


Since we're all PC now , here's the secretary of Education



Mad scientists need love as well.  

Here's her puter, MAL




With all the issues of not enough consumption we have the ultimate expert - Department of Commerce - Hoggish Greedly



Verminous Skumm - Secretary of Defense.  Biowarfare strategiest is his forte . 



Department of the Interior - Sly Sludge.   Just use active volcanoes as trash incinerators. Sheer genius.




Watch this post for updates!  Awaiting more info from:






Edit 1.  Crystal ball is getting clearer.


Press Secretary - Barney :  Obvious has prior experience!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-01-2016, 03:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future  unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.

If one buys into the Reagan memes, that the government is so flawed and corrupt that all it does is failure, that low tax small government is the way to go, you can see how Trump's projections might seem meaningful and potentially accurate.

Those buying into the progressive ideas are echoing the New Deal notions that coming together from the common good is beneficial.  They want a return to the rewarding policies of the 1950s and 1960s when the crisis values of working together for the common man made America great.

I see you locked into the Reagan Memes.  Not surprising.  They've been hammered home for decades now, and voting for tax cuts gives such an immediate return that it's tempting.  Thus, you're going to stick with the Reagan Memes and project the future as if they were true.

But the Reagan Memes have been driven way way beyond the point of diminishing return.  There can be governments that try to do too much, and governments that try to do to little, and we've been pushing way too far in the too little direction during this extended unravelling.  Time to move back to the center.  I expect that if we do start moving back to an effective engaged government, we will move too far.  Any time a party takes control it will push it's memes to far and too long.  While its a concern, it might take us a decade plus to reach that point.  Believe it or not, I half expect to start pushing the Reagan memes myself many years in the future.  Leave any party in power too long and they will take their ideas too far.  If the S&H cycles or something like them continues, another unravelling will eventually come, and Reagan's time may return.  For the moment, though, we have unravelled quite enough, thank you.

Meanwhile, Republican borrow and spend economics has been discredited.  Bush 41's career died with 'It's the economy, stupid', and Bush 43 drove the economy into collapse.  Republican Bush 43 neo-con serial unilateral preemptive nation building has been discredited as a foreign policy.  The troops are home and won't be going abroad in numbers at any time soon.  Nixon's southern strategy's success has been diminishing.  With an ever more diverse electorate and increasing tolerance, playing the race card in Nixon's vicious hateful way has become a more desperate and risky ploy.  Trump is giving it one more go.  We'll see where it takes him.  Obama Care has shown that big government projects can benefit the common man.  The Republican projections that it would fail proved false.  Obama Care has been a positive for Hillary.

If one has one's eyes open, recent history says a lot to suggest Trump is playing to a diminished remnant who are still clinging to the unravelling world view and values.  That diminished remnant is still mighty.  It is not to be ignored.  It is, however, diminished and diminishing.  

We look at the world through different lenses.  To me it seems like you are living in an echo chamber.  You can't see the blatantly obvious.  I suspect you see me exactly the same way.  This is human nature.  It is easy to see what reaffirms one's values and hard to see reality when it conflicts with one's values.  Thus, meaningful conversations between partisans on opposite extremes are rare to impossible.  It seems easier for a human to pull out a gun and a bomb to fight for one's principles than it is to honestly reevaluate one's principles.  Destruction is often embraced sooner than Truth.

In 2008 and 2012 on these forums, as the elections approached, the partisans on both sides got ever more partisan.  Most were projecting victory for their own values and party and heaped scorn on the other guys.  We seem to be falling into that rut again.  In the last few months since the new forums opened I've gotten drawn into pushing the Blue partisan points.  I'm not sure how necessary this is.  There are enough Blue partisans about without one more.  Still, I like to think I put a different if still left handed spin on things.

But I don't know how much more is left to be said this side of November.  November will bring a reality check that even the most partisan can't ignore.

[Bob Butler 54]

Oh dear.  Now Trump is taking on fire marshals.  It seems he is getting into the habit of hiring halls insufficient to handle the number of people one of his events is apt to draw.  Any fire marshal that attempts to enforce the fire codes is presumed to be acting improperly.

Putting his followers at risk so he can save money by hiring smaller halls?  Yep.  Demonizing first responders trying to enforce the law and protect the public?  Sounds like Trump to me.

[Earl and Mooch]

(08-01-2016, 06:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Oh dear.  Now Trump is taking on fire marshals.  It seems he is getting into the habit of hiring halls insufficient to handle the number of people one of his events is apt to draw.  Any fire marshal that attempts to enforce the fire codes is presumed to be acting improperly.

Putting his followers at risk so he can save money by hiring smaller halls?  Yep.  Demonizing first responders trying to enforce the law and protect the public?  Sounds like Trump to me.

He's also handing out more tickets than there are seats in the hall.

[Eric the Green]

Seth takes down Trump during maybe his worst week yet.

[playwrite]

(08-01-2016, 11:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-31-2016, 10:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-31-2016, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?

It was Trump who was using their son for personal political purpose.  The parents of the dead boy had no particular interest in politics until Trump stepped into their lives.  They just wanted him to stop playing political football with their son's grave.

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I'm of the mind that all men are created equal.  A lot of Americans value that principle.  It's traditional in this country.  Now, the French have more responsibility for the people on French soil, and the US has more responsibility for folks on our soil, but I'd kind of hope that the two nations are exchanging intelligence freely and value all equally.

Only a racist, or since Orlando has been mentioned someone with an attitude towards gay people, would start thinking in terms of whether this person is more important than that person.  You don't look at the color of someone's skin, their religion, or their language and decide this person deserves to be valued more or protected more than someone else.  At least, that's what Americans are supposed to believe.  Not everyone in America follows American values.

I'm of the mind that we should all be viewed as equals and treated as equals. I don't believe in social preference or special rules being granted to a particular group or race of people. I'm ok with the fact that Tom Brady was born (blessed) with the skills and personality to be one of the greatest quarterbacks. Who brought them up, so to speak? Was it Trump or The Democratic party that you are associated with? Who voted to invade Iraq and send their son into harms way? Was it Trump or Hillary Clinton? My attitude towards gays is that they are equals who are entitled to the same rights and protections as me. I don't view gays or Muslims in general as people who are some how exempt from criticism and the laws and rules that are applicable to me. I don't view Muslims as being more special than me and more entitled than me  or a Jew or a Catholic for that matter. I don't automatically feel bad about blacks because they're black. I don't automatically feel bad about Muslims because they're Muslims. You are free to criticize Catholics about the actions of wayward priests. What's so special about those two Muslims? Are they more special than the mother who lost her son during a terrorist attack in Libya? Certainly they must be intelligent enough to understand the reason Trump wants to reduce the flow of Muslims at this time. I assume they've seen the same attacks as I have lately. I assume the man is pretty smart (well educated) based on his ability to speak and articulate his liberal views to you, me and the person who represents the policies that he obviously doesn't like.

What sanctimonious horseshXt. 

It begs the question - "but would you let your sister marry one?"

Dude, you are supporting a Presidential candidate that wants to us a religious test to differentiate people in a governing process (i.e immigration policies).  This is not just against one of the founding principles of our Nation, it is against, debatably, THE founding principle of our Nation. 

The fact that you can't grasp that, and instead offer up a mush of horseshXt, lays complete waste to any notion that there needs to be a better understanding of each other's values and coming up with rational compromise.  No, instead, from a political perspective, we need to beat the bloody pulp out of your kin and cripple you forever in having ANY national political power.

I think you all sense that inevitability, and that is the primary reason you clutch so hard to the 2nd Amendment and disregard all the rest.

[playwrite]

(08-01-2016, 03:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-01-2016, 01:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.

I'm afraid Faux News isn't one of my primary sources.    I hadn't caught the Rove thing.  Still, what you say doesn't surprise.  I for one don't expect to see a lot of Republicans voting a straight Democratic ticket.  I see Trump as a rogue politician who is more crashing the party on a one time basis than permanently changing it.  

Still, a lot of us have been thinking that the United States needs a new political alignment.  This might mean establishment parties changing positions or fading, opposition parties shifting to embrace those fleeing the sinking ship, and new parties rising to fill vacuums.  In Highlander fiction there is the saying that only one immortal can remain.  In American politics, there are generally two political parties that dominate.

Trump could possibly be forcing the split.  He is pulling out the most devout followers of the Nixon southern strategy and Reagan's unravelling small government - low taxes - all the government tries to do fails memes.  Obama has established that the government health care program can work, and that a more nuanced approach to foreign policy is an improvement on the Bush 43 era neo con preemptive serial unilateral nation building.  Democratic stewardship of the economy under Clinton 42 and Obama 44 has recently clearly done better than under Bushes 41 and 43.  

It even plays on the level of tone and feel.  Carter spoke of the national malaise, how the United States was faltering.  It was true, but saying so wasn't the sort of thing that wins popularity contests and votes.  Reagan came in all optimistic and patriotic and kicked butt.  Today Trump is talking about failure and fading, while the Democrats are talking change, hope and waving American flags with enthusiasm.

Yet, the Nixon - Reagan values remain strong in parts of the country.  I don't expect them to lose their position in the big two quite yet. 

Seems to me it's too early to say whether Tump's faction will become dominant over the Establishment Republicans and whether many Republicans who might well choose Hillary over The Donald might stick with the Democrats depending on how well Hillary does in office.  Still, quite a few have been wondering about how the major parties might realign.  We might possibly be seeing the beginnings of it, possibly the core of it.

If so, it might speak to the possibility of regeneracy.

Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future  unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.

Your problem is you are confusing your decline in political power with the decline of the Nation.  Yes, there are problems of income inequality on the domestic front and a more complex world on the foreign front.  BUT, not only do the problems not add up to anything close to the USA in decline, those problems can only be made worse by what you all have to offer - that is fundamentally why YOU ALL are in decline, not the rest of us.

Bye-bye, and don't let the screen door hit you in the ass as you leave.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-02-2016, 09:23 AM)playwrite Wrote: The fact that you can't grasp that, and instead offer up a mush of horseshXt, lays complete waste to any notion that there needs to be a better understanding of each other's values and coming up with rational compromise.  No, instead, from a political perspective, we need to beat the bloody pulp out of your kin and cripple you forever in having ANY national political power.

I think you all sense that inevitability, and that is the primary reason you clutch so hard to the 2nd Amendment and disregard all the rest.

Gee, and I thought it was nice that he was talking values instead of going with insults, threats of violence and similar Trump style ways of getting a point across.

When they go low, we're supposed to go high?  Michelle said so.  For a while now I've been trying Michelle's approach and was vaguely pleased to get a response in kind.  This does not imply that when on rare occasions when they go high, that we should go low.  

[playwrite]

(08-02-2016, 09:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 09:23 AM)playwrite Wrote: The fact that you can't grasp that, and instead offer up a mush of horseshXt, lays complete waste to any notion that there needs to be a better understanding of each other's values and coming up with rational compromise.  No, instead, from a political perspective, we need to beat the bloody pulp out of your kin and cripple you forever in having ANY national political power.

I think you all sense that inevitability, and that is the primary reason you clutch so hard to the 2nd Amendment and disregard all the rest.

Gee, and I thought it was nice that he was talking values instead of going with insults, threats of violence and similar Trump style ways of getting a point across.

When they go low, we're supposed to go high?  Michelle said so.  For a while now I've been trying Michelle's approach and was vaguely pleased to get a response in kind.  This does not imply that when on rare occasions when they go high, that we should go low.  

As you know, and I will admit, that's tough for me.  

I will instead just try a test -

Hey, Classic, do you see any problem with this statement -

Quote:“While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things,” Trump said.

I've added a little bold to help you.

[radind]

(08-02-2016, 09:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 09:23 AM)playwrite Wrote: The fact that you can't grasp that, and instead offer up a mush of horseshXt, lays complete waste to any notion that there needs to be a better understanding of each other's values and coming up with rational compromise.  No, instead, from a political perspective, we need to beat the bloody pulp out of your kin and cripple you forever in having ANY national political power.

I think you all sense that inevitability, and that is the primary reason you clutch so hard to the 2nd Amendment and disregard all the rest.

Gee, and I thought it was nice that he was talking values instead of going with insults, threats of violence and similar Trump style ways of getting a point across.

When they go low, we're supposed to go high?  Michelle said so.  For a while now I've been trying Michelle's approach and was vaguely pleased to get a response in kind.  This does not imply that when on rare occasions when they go high, that we should go low.  

I have about given up on any hope for dialogue.

[Eric the Green]

Dialogue is not a prominent feature of fourth turnings. There is some kind of war, and one side wins. Then consensus develops around the winning side. As you say, what you call the "secular side" or the liberal side will win, and a consensus will develop around it. During the consensus time, some dialogue is possible, but it does not go deep. In the second turning, and to some extent in the late first turning, deeper experiences and conversations occur, and new visions for our future are developed. On the other hand, a new polarization also begins.

It is interesting though, that a real deep dialogue is rare in any of the turnings described by Strauss and Howe. I have said that it's a dysfunctional cycle. It is always polarized around the basic Cartesian split of our society between the spiritual and the material. In my opinion, the cycle will continue to be dysfunctional as long as the spiritual revelations of the second turnings do not become the basis of society in all turnings. Only societies that have a spiritual basis are functional and sustainable.

Our society will decline and collapse if this basis does not develop during the next saeculum. However, like the Roman Empire, it will limp along until the next Neptune-Pluto conjunction that indicates the next cycle of civilization, along about 2400 AD. A new spiritual society does seem unlikely, given the fact that Generation X and the Millennials have thrown over the previous Awakening and have not made it the basis of a new culture, leaving this to boomers and silents who are not going to be around much longer. This was supposed to be the time of the golden age; I'm not sure that leaving this to the next artists and prophets will work, because the cycle is already getting past the golden age by then. Although to some extent such golden ages, in more limited ways, have continued during the whole second century of the cycle (which this time, as you know, began around 1892-- NOT 1776).

Oh well; although only societies with a spiritual basis survive, in The West society has always devolved into a cycle of civilization when this has disappeared, and civilization crumbles afterward. This has happened in at least two previous cases. But a new civilization always comes along. At a minimum, if this is to happen, today's society is going to have to learn to live materially in harmony with the Earth, and this will require at least a "semi-spiritual" recognition that other beings besides humans are entitled to the right to life. This too will be decided soon, probably in this turning, and it is largely a political decision. There is some hope that we will make the right decision in time.

I don't know if you call this is a "dialogue;" it is simply that people will need to become informed enough, and willing enough to change the kinds of physical energy technology that we use. The "value" of economic "freedom" for business is the chief one that needs to be questioned and put in the back seat. Libertarians of various stripes need to take note, and learn to modify this "value." The future depends on enough of you doing this.

A continued capitalist and even corporate system is not is disharmony with such a change; it will continue in this cycle of civilization. It's just that a rigid and utopian veneration of business "freedom" and opposition to regulation and state investment will not work. To a large extent, new entreprenuers are the ones pushing forward this change, so that is not in disharmony with libertarian values. Government help and regulation is also needed however.

[Bob Butler 54]

CBS reports: Obama asks when GOP will have had "enough" of Donald Trump

It's familiar ground now.

President Obama Wrote:"There has to be a point in which you say, 'This is not somebody I can support for president of the United States...,'" he said, adding that they have to reach a point where they say that Trump "doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world."

Mr. Obama said this situation is different than Democrats and Republicans having disagreements over policy issues. He said that if McCain or 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney had been elected, he knew they would have abided by certain norms, observed "basic decency," and would have had enough knowledge about economic and foreign policy. "I didn't have a doubt they could function as president," he said.

"That's not the situation here. That's not just my opinion," Mr. Obama added. "There has to come a point in which you say, 'enough.'"

[playwrite]

(08-02-2016, 10:38 AM)radind Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 09:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 09:23 AM)playwrite Wrote: The fact that you can't grasp that, and instead offer up a mush of horseshXt, lays complete waste to any notion that there needs to be a better understanding of each other's values and coming up with rational compromise.  No, instead, from a political perspective, we need to beat the bloody pulp out of your kin and cripple you forever in having ANY national political power.

I think you all sense that inevitability, and that is the primary reason you clutch so hard to the 2nd Amendment and disregard all the rest.

Gee, and I thought it was nice that he was talking values instead of going with insults, threats of violence and similar Trump style ways of getting a point across.

When they go low, we're supposed to go high?  Michelle said so.  For a while now I've been trying Michelle's approach and was vaguely pleased to get a response in kind.  This does not imply that when on rare occasions when they go high, that we should go low.  

I have about given up on any hope for dialogue.

That doesn't mean we can't have fun in the interim!

Back on topic - 

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-02-2016, 12:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dialogue is not a prominent feature of fourth turnings. There is some kind of war, and one side wins. Then consensus develops around the winning side. As you say, what you call the "secular side" or the liberal side will win, and a consensus will develop around it. During the consensus time, some dialogue is possible, but it does not go deep. In the second turning, and to some extent in the late first turning, deeper experiences and conversations occur, and new visions for our future are developed. On the other hand, a new polarization also begins.

Yes and no.  Prior to the regeneracy it is much as you say.  Extreme folk are trying to make the conflict start, to trigger the regeneracy.  You get people like Sam Adams, Thomas Paine and William Lloyd Garrison speaking extreme values with intensity, trying to get things going.

But the crisis is also a time to build a new society, to get things right.  It is a time of trial and error.  You have to do some experiments before you have a new pattern that can be set in cement come the 1T.  Crisis leaders like Lincoln and FDR have to be coalition builders, have to be inclusive, have to bring in as many factions into the consensus as possible.  While they can't forget or relax in their vision of new ideals, they aren't as narrow and extreme as the Sam Adams type of voice crying in the wilderness.

In FDRs Hundred Days, there was dialogue.  Everybody knew they had a disaster, Democrat, Republican, labor leader, robber baron, farmer...  everybody.  The transforming legislation of the Hundred Days didn't pop out of FDR's head whole.  He had many diverse enemies and rivals in and out of the White House trying to find something everyone could respect that would work.  Lincoln's cabinet was famously a team of rivals, with people holding diverse views, pulling in different directions, with Lincoln pulling it all together and making it work somehow.  If the stories of Hillary pushed at the Democratic Convention are true, she might well be good at that sort of thing...  listening to folks with different viewpoints and putting together a workable solution that takes all views into account.  While she doesn't have the presence and charisma one might want in a transforming politician, she just might have other tools just as important in getting things done.

Now, you are correct that we still have to calf the iceberg.  Right now we're still stuck to the glacier.  We're not moving anywhere.  We need to crack the ice and get floating.  We need Sam Adams types, Thomas Paines, and William Lloyd Garrisons.  While none of us are going to be that famous, a lot of us are partisan propagandists in a similar mode.

Trump might provide a wonderful opportunity to calf the iceberg.  We might end up with a bunch of diverse people sitting at the table because they could not stomach Trump.  To take a regeneracy and turn it into a transforming culture you'll have to still listen to and acknowledge valid points from as many people around the table as possible.

We, of course, are a bunch of nobodies, far from the White House, not at all comparable to the Lincoln cabinet or the ad-hoc committees of the Hundred Days.  It might not matter if we are listening to each other or not.

But I for one am more interested in exchanging posts with people who are actually listening and responding civilly with cogent points.  Yes, there are sometimes extreme partisans repeating flawed positions that disregard conflicting viewpoints and reality.  If an obstinate partisan is being particularly blind and stubborn, I'lll rebut.  That's not overly satisfying though.  There is more to be done than that.