Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!
(02-23-2021, 03:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 09:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-21-2021, 08:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm a loyal American who supported Trump who will support Trump again if decides to run again in 2024. You're a loyal Democrat who will be stuck voting for Harris and stuck with a party on the brink of imploding by then. We got a rough and challenging  road ahead of us with an old dude who forgets where he's at, who loses his train of thought and sounds like an imbecile who can't answer hard questions or hop on a plane at anytime. I told you that this wasn't the time to elect a weak leader like you did any way. So, I hope you'll be ready to accept the consequences of doing that in or within the next four years depending on how bad things get before then. You f---ed up and you and every other (offensive cat-call) are going to pay the price for doing it at the wrong time in history. You talk a lot but you don't pay attention to what you say or what you say you believe or the obvious signs associated with the kinds of government that you fear the most and claim that you would never support.

I do not deny that you are loyal to America in the sense that you would never serve in an occupying army or in a puppet government by an occupier, and that you would never divulge state secrets to a foreign power or make propaganda broadcasts -- even if you ever got the opportunity. 

I hope you are right, but at this point I am not so sanguine about Classic's loyalty. I rather see him as more likely to join the Jan.6th crowd, who must be considered traitors.


He is more dangerous in the context of a civil war, perhaps what Ben Klassen (a founder of the fascist Church of the Creator) described as RaHoWa, or "RAcial HOly WAr" in which white Christians wage war against everyone else who does not submit to extreme subordination. As his business fails he would find opportunity as a harsh enforcer of the "Aryan" struggle. 

Maybe he either could not believe that the January 6 insurrection would work or something (family members?) talked him out of attending it.
Lets pretend the nasty racism of old directly associated with the Democratic party was reversed and imposed on white people by the Democratic party of today, what would you do about it? I know what I would do about it but what would you do about it? Would you place your social benefits at risk and switch parties or ignore it and continue voting Democratic? You don't see what we see or hear what we hear or use your logic or common sense to read in between the lines and connect the dots either.

What percentage of the Democratic party is white today? What percentage of New York or LA is white today? I think its pretty obvious that the Democratic party is anti-white and anti-male and anti-American these days. I will also say that the Democratic party is becoming more anti-American worker too these days. The American MLK believers (the minorities who believe in the American way) have already begun switching sides and joining forces with the American (Republican) side. Dude, we are on the cusp of a nation splitting and another Civil War being fought with the Democratic party.
Reply
(02-22-2021, 03:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 03:03 PM)Einzige Wrote: The anti-racism narratives now prevailing- YAAASSSSSS KWEEEEEEN neoliberal identity politics - makes things worse because it serves the class interest of the prodessional-manageeial class within capitalism as well as the minority bourgeoisie. The narrative that works is proletarian revolution.

Show me one case where it has been applied successfully ... just one.  Success, by the way, includes happy citizens.
So, how do you make unhappy and violent citizens that the Left has been perpetuating and indoctrinating for several years happy these days? How do you undo the damage that has already has been done and change the trajectory at this point? Can the Democratic party put on the brakes without causing a lot damage to themselves and their property and investments and their image at this point.
Reply
(02-22-2021, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 11:12 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-21-2021, 08:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm a loyal American who supported Trump who will support Trump again if decides to run again in 2024. You're a loyal Democrat who will be stuck voting for Harris and stuck with a party on the brink of imploding by then. We got a rough and challenging  road ahead of us with an old dude who forgets where he's at, who loses his train of thought and sounds like an imbecile who can't answer hard questions or hop on a plane at anytime. I told you that this wasn't the time to elect a weak leader like you did any way. So, I hope you'll be ready to accept the consequences of doing that in or within the next four years depending on how bad things get before then. You fucked up and you and every other dip shit here are going to pay the price for doing it at the wrong time in history. You talk a lot but you don't pay attention to what you say or what you say you believe or the obvious signs associated with the kinds of government that you fear the most and claim that you would never support.

Thanks for making my previous point.  Nevermind the degree of his incompetence, Trump is still marketable.

That's right. And this mythical Biden figure that Classic describes is marketable as an alternative fact to the same folks. But if the Democrats are stuck with Harris in 2024, Trump will win if he is nominated and legally allowed to run. But I don't think even he or anyone will find it so easy to beat Harris if he runs from a jail cell. Maybe he can, but that's an extra challenge that my system does not account for. I think historically only one socialist candidate has tried that, about 100 years ago, and he wasn't going to win anyway.
Biden isn't a mythical figure, we see him muddling his way through questions and interviews every now and then when he or his handlers feel its necessary for him to come out of his bunker and make it seem like he's in charge and make it seem like he's a President who is knowledgeable and seems to care about Americans and plans to work for them and so forth. So, what time is his nap time? What time is a good time to talk to him and what time isn't a good time and what time can't you talk to him these days?
Reply
(02-23-2021, 04:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lets pretend the nasty racism of old directly associated with the Democratic party was reversed and imposed on white people by the Democratic party of today, what would you do about it? I know what I would do about it but what would you do about it? Would you place your social benefits at risk and switch parties or ignore it and continue voting Democratic? You don't see what we see or hear what we hear or use your logic or common sense to read in between the lines and connect the dots either.

What percentage of the Democratic party is white today? What percentage of New York or LA is white today? I think its pretty obvious that the Democratic party is anti-white and anti-male and anti-American these days. I will also say that the Democratic party is becoming more anti-American worker too these days. The American MLK believers (the minorities who believe in the American way) have already begun switching sides and joining forces with the American (Republican) side. Dude, we are on the cusp of a nation splitting and another Civil War being fought with the Democratic party.

Boy, are you confused.  The US Civil War had the cavalier, confederate, southern, rural, agricultural faction against the roundhead, union, northern, urban, industrial faction.  The north won.  

In the Gilded Age, the Democrats remained tied to Jim Crow, but became the party of the white European immigrants in the north.  The strongest example was the Tammany Hall machine in New York, with the the Republicans staying with the Robber Barons and the Democrats supporting (corruptly) the immigrant workers.

While both parties had progressive and conservative wings through the Gilded Age period, with FDR and the New Deal the Democrats became distinctly a progressive party.  This solidified with LBJ’s allegiance with MLK in the awakening, and was countered with the Republican Southern Strategy.  The Republicans had always favored the Robber Barons.  They then took in the racists too.  This alliance of elite money and racist votes dominated through the unraveling.  Small government, not helping the workers, sending jobs overseas, maintaining the existing power structure without change, not solving problems…. All worked just fine for a time.

Then the turnings turned.

Trump overdid racism and Black Lives Matter countered.  It is no longer cost effective to play the race card.  That is one big difference come the George Floyd trigger in the current crisis.  Racism has become one of the crisis issues.  It is no longer a win for the Republicans to play the race card.  Trump would lose if he tried, will try, and may drag the Republicans with him, giving them no choice but to run with the old now losing option.  As usual in the crisis, one element of the Agricultural Age is being severely dented and the old values are fading.

Now you in order to defend your perspective have redefined a bunch of things backwards.  You have redefined words like ‘American’ and ‘racist’ to have the oppose meaning of how most people who live in the United States use the words.  This reflects how you perceive things differently than most people who live in the United States perceive it.  Sometimes you really do have to be different to be better, but this isn’t one of those times.  Compare Trump’s late cabinet with Biden’s and you will be easily able to tell which party is racist and sexist, and which party distributes power reflecting the population of the country.

Now you can continue with your delusion.  You can continue to live in a fact free reality.  I can continue to debunk your perverted backwards way of looking at things.

But you are not particularly racist, sexist or elitist.  You do not spend a lot of time repeating stereotypes or pushing trickle down as an economic strategy. The largest question I have is why you stick with the Republicans as providing any sort of answer.  They are the party of stay the same, which is the wrong party to be when the crisis heart hits.

Few if any agree with you?  Your value to this site is primarily as an easy target?  I’m not sure why I bother anymore?
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
(02-23-2021, 05:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Boy, are you confused.  The US Civil War had the cavalier, confederate, southern, rural, agricultural faction against the roundhead, union, northern, urban, industrial faction.  The north won.  

In the Gilded Age, the Democrats remained tied to Jim Crow, but became the party of the white European immigrants in the north.  The strongest example was the Tammany Hall machine in New York, with the the Republicans staying with the Robber Barons and the Democrats supporting (corruptly) the immigrant workers.

While both parties had progressive and conservative wings through the Gilded Age period, with FDR and the New Deal the Democrats became distinctly a progressive party.  This solidified with LBJ’s allegiance with MLK in the awakening, and was countered with the Republican Southern Strategy.  The Republicans had always favored the Robber Barons.  They then took in the racists too.  This alliance of elite money and racist votes dominated through the unraveling.  Small government, not helping the workers, sending jobs overseas, maintaining the existing power structure without change, not solving problems…. All worked just fine for a time.

Then the turnings turned.

Trump overdid racism and Black Lives Matter countered.  It is no longer cost effective to play the race card.  That is one big difference come the George Floyd trigger in the current crisis.  Racism has become one of the crisis issues.  It is no longer a win for the Republicans to play the race card.  Trump would lose if he tried, will try, and may drag the Republicans with him, giving them no choice but to run with the old now losing option.  As usual in the crisis, one element of the Agricultural Age is being severely dented and the old values are fading.

Now you in order to defend your perspective have redefined a bunch of things backwards.  You have redefined words like ‘American’ and ‘racist’ to have the oppose meaning of how most people who live in the United States use the words.  This reflects how you perceive things differently than most people who live in the United States perceive it.  Sometimes you really do have to be different to be better, but this isn’t one of those times.  Compare Trump’s late cabinet with Biden’s and you will be easily able to tell which party is racist and sexist, and which party distributes power reflecting the population of the country.

Now you can continue with your delusion.  You can continue to live in a fact free reality.  I can continue to debunk your perverted backwards way of looking at things.

But you are not particularly racist, sexist or elitist.  You do not spend a lot of time repeating stereotypes or pushing trickle down as an economic strategy. The largest question I have is why you stick with the Republicans as providing any sort of answer.  They are the party of stay the same, which is the wrong party to be when the crisis heart hits.

Few if any agree with you?  Your value to this site is primarily as an easy target?  I’m not sure why I bother anymore?
Trumps knee wasn't on the back of George Floyd's neck. The knee of a white cop was on the back of a George Floyd's neck. An unfortunate situation that a group of white huber elites pounced on and exploited by directly associating it with racism. You seem about as smart as a person drawn to third world politics these days. I'm sure you'll adjust and learn to live in a world that's governed and controlled by third world politics and a racist political system and you will do whatever it takes to appease them and the growing third world population these days. I mean, your racist anti-white views are way more appealing to them and reinforces their racist beliefs pertaining to whites than an American who is better educated and more knowledgeable of people of different races like me.

Are you sure about the over all validity of your personal interpretations and your understanding of where the country is at these days? Are you sure that you're not an easy/easier target? So, what are you trying to change about me? What makes you think that you have a right to change me? What make you think that I don't have a right to kill a person acting like a Nazi these days or a cult like group of religious heretics?
Reply
(02-23-2021, 05:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 11:12 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-21-2021, 08:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm a loyal American who supported Trump who will support Trump again if decides to run again in 2024. You're a loyal Democrat who will be stuck voting for Harris and stuck with a party on the brink of imploding by then. We got a rough and challenging  road ahead of us with an old dude who forgets where he's at, who loses his train of thought and sounds like an imbecile who can't answer hard questions or hop on a plane at anytime. I told you that this wasn't the time to elect a weak leader like you did any way. So, I hope you'll be ready to accept the consequences of doing that in or within the next four years depending on how bad things get before then. You fucked up and you and every other dip shit here are going to pay the price for doing it at the wrong time in history. You talk a lot but you don't pay attention to what you say or what you say you believe or the obvious signs associated with the kinds of government that you fear the most and claim that you would never support.

Thanks for making my previous point.  Nevermind the degree of his incompetence, Trump is still marketable.

That's right. And this mythical Biden figure that Classic describes is marketable as an alternative fact to the same folks. But if the Democrats are stuck with Harris in 2024, Trump will win if he is nominated and legally allowed to run. But I don't think even he or anyone will find it so easy to beat Harris if he runs from a jail cell. Maybe he can, but that's an extra challenge that my system does not account for. I think historically only one socialist candidate has tried that, about 100 years ago, and he wasn't going to win anyway.
Biden isn't a mythical figure, we see him muddling his way through questions and interviews every now and then when he or his handlers feel its necessary for him to come out of his bunker and make it seem like he's in charge and make it seem like he's a President who is knowledgeable and seems to care about Americans and plans to work for them and so forth. So, what time is his nap time? What time is a good time to talk to him and what time isn't a good time and what time can't you talk to him these days?

Your version of Biden is a mythical figure, with traits which you and your fellow cult members assign to him. Just like everything else you say or believe in, it has not the slightest connection to reality.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(02-23-2021, 04:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 03:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 09:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-21-2021, 08:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm a loyal American who supported Trump who will support Trump again if decides to run again in 2024. You're a loyal Democrat who will be stuck voting for Harris and stuck with a party on the brink of imploding by then. We got a rough and challenging  road ahead of us with an old dude who forgets where he's at, who loses his train of thought and sounds like an imbecile who can't answer hard questions or hop on a plane at anytime. I told you that this wasn't the time to elect a weak leader like you did any way. So, I hope you'll be ready to accept the consequences of doing that in or within the next four years depending on how bad things get before then. You f---ed up and you and every other (offensive cat-call) are going to pay the price for doing it at the wrong time in history. You talk a lot but you don't pay attention to what you say or what you say you believe or the obvious signs associated with the kinds of government that you fear the most and claim that you would never support.

I do not deny that you are loyal to America in the sense that you would never serve in an occupying army or in a puppet government by an occupier, and that you would never divulge state secrets to a foreign power or make propaganda broadcasts -- even if you ever got the opportunity. 

I hope you are right, but at this point I am not so sanguine about Classic's loyalty. I rather see him as more likely to join the Jan.6th crowd, who must be considered traitors.


He is more dangerous in the context of a civil war, perhaps what Ben Klassen (a founder of the fascist Church of the Creator) described as RaHoWa, or "RAcial HOly WAr" in which white Christians wage war against everyone else who does not submit to extreme subordination. As his business fails he would find opportunity as a harsh enforcer of the "Aryan" struggle. 

Maybe he either could not believe that the January 6 insurrection would work or something (family members?) talked him out of attending it.
Lets pretend the nasty racism of old directly associated with the Democratic party was reversed and imposed on white people by the Democratic party of today, what would you do about it? I know what I would do about it but what would you do about it? Would you place your social benefits at risk and switch parties or ignore it and continue voting Democratic? You don't see what we see or hear what we hear or use your logic or common sense to read in between the lines and connect the dots either.

What percentage of the Democratic party is white today? What percentage of New York or LA is white today? I think its pretty obvious that the Democratic party is anti-white and anti-male and anti-American these days. I will also say that the Democratic party is becoming more anti-American worker too these days. The American MLK believers (the minorities who believe in the American way) have already begun switching sides and joining forces with the American (Republican) side. Dude, we are on the cusp of a nation splitting and another Civil War being fought with the Democratic party.

If the Democratic Party is against white people like you, who are concerned about a Party that is "anti-white," and "anti-male," then as a white male I am a proud member.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(02-23-2021, 04:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 03:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-22-2021, 09:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-21-2021, 08:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm a loyal American who supported Trump who will support Trump again if decides to run again in 2024. You're a loyal Democrat who will be stuck voting for Harris and stuck with a party on the brink of imploding by then. We got a rough and challenging  road ahead of us with an old dude who forgets where he's at, who loses his train of thought and sounds like an imbecile who can't answer hard questions or hop on a plane at anytime. I told you that this wasn't the time to elect a weak leader like you did any way. So, I hope you'll be ready to accept the consequences of doing that in or within the next four years depending on how bad things get before then. You f---ed up and you and every other (offensive cat-call) are going to pay the price for doing it at the wrong time in history. You talk a lot but you don't pay attention to what you say or what you say you believe or the obvious signs associated with the kinds of government that you fear the most and claim that you would never support.

I do not deny that you are loyal to America in the sense that you would never serve in an occupying army or in a puppet government by an occupier, and that you would never divulge state secrets to a foreign power or make propaganda broadcasts -- even if you ever got the opportunity. 

I hope you are right, but at this point I am not so sanguine about Classic's loyalty. I rather see him as more likely to join the Jan.6th crowd, who must be considered traitors.


He is more dangerous in the context of a civil war, perhaps what Ben Klassen (a founder of the fascist Church of the Creator) described as RaHoWa, or "RAcial HOly WAr" in which white Christians wage war against everyone else who does not submit to extreme subordination. As his business fails he would find opportunity as a harsh enforcer of the "Aryan" struggle. 

Maybe he either could not believe that the January 6 insurrection would work or something (family members?) talked him out of attending it.

Lets pretend the nasty racism of old directly associated with the Democratic party was reversed and imposed on white people by the Democratic party of today, what would you do about it? I know what I would do about it but what would you do about it? Would you place your social benefits at risk and switch parties or ignore it and continue voting Democratic? You don't see what we see or hear what we hear or use your logic or common sense to read in between the lines and connect the dots either.

No, let us instead look at the realities of political life in the elections involving Eisenhower and Obama. Although political orientations of the two main Parties almost inverted completely over roughly sixty years, it is more likely that the political cultures of the states did not change that much. The only big change in American demographics between Eisenhower's time and Obama's time is the rapid growth of the Hispanic population, especially in the American Southwest (Mexican-Americans, largely), Florida (Cuban-Americans, largely), and some large Northeastern cities (Hispanics other than Cubans and Puerto Ricans). Asian-Americans are not a large enough block of voters to decide any state except in elections with very narrow margins.  (OK, Georgia was close enough that just about any group that is significantly more D than R could decide the 2020 Presidential election, and I saw the statement that American First Peoples -- I like the Canadian term -- made the difference in Arizona. 

One of the more interesting general histories of the United States is Albion's Seed (David Hackett Fischer), which relates much that is true about the institutions and public attitudes was established by the first large wave of European settlers or their descendants in an area, and this is true even if another group of settlers supplanted the ones who originally settled. As an example of that, southern New England was settled largely by people from southeastern England who in many ways had more in common with the Dutch and the peoples of northwestern Germany than with people from other parts of England. They established institutions, including the first university in the English-speaking part of the New World (Harvard... in 1636, only fifteen years after the Pilgrims settling in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These people valued learning, and they insisted upon an orderly society complete with the oldest freely-elected legislature (originally the Massachusetts General Court) in the world... and an expectation of people solving their disputes in courts of law instead of in fist-fights and duels. They quickly established commerce and banking. To be sure, people of New England moved west (if you wonder about the Dutch colony in the Hudson Valley, it was similar and it was never even majority-Dutch) for better land in the west (basically anywhere north of what is about today's Interstate 80) to better land (New England had thin, rocky soils). Replacing the early Puritan settlers of New England were the large wave of Irish Catholics who adopted the institutions of the Puritans except for the Congregational Church (they remained Catholics)... later immigrant groups did much the same, keeping their religion and cuisine. 

I could go into details about other  groups -- Quakers from the English Midlands and much of Wales and Mennonites (practically identical in values, except that the Mennonites were German-speaking Swiss) in southeastern Pennsylvania, Cavaliers settling from Virginia to Georgia with nearly a fendal tradition intact , and the backwoods people from the wild English North and southern Scotland (as opposed to Highland Scots who are undeniable Celts). If one is from one or these cultures one might expect one to bring disputes to a court of law and in another one, one might be fully understood if one fought it out...  but take a dispute to the street in places under Puritan cultural influence and you will likely end up in a court of law -- a criminal court.

Parties can change their political constituencies, but the political culture of states are much more stable.  How is this for an unlikely situation?

100 years apart, overlay between William Howard Taft and Barack Obama, 1908/2008. 

Taft ® 51.6/321 - Bryan (D) 43.0/162 - Debs (S) 2.8/0
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain ® 45.6/173 

Similar percentages of the electoral vote for the winners.

[Image: genusmap.php?year=1908&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...NE3=0;99;6]

Taft/ McCain blue
Taft/Obama yellow
Bryan/Obama red
Bryan/McCain green

Bryan won all of the former secessionist states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Nevada.  Bryan won seven states by 9% or less; Taft won six states by 9% or less.  Other states were blow-outs.

....It is simply weird. Obama, a Democrat, did well in the states that Taft (a Republican) won but badly in the states that Bryan (a Democrat) won on the whole. Obviously Taft and Obama did well with somewhat-similar constituencies... well as similar as they could be a century apart. Taft did very badly among the Southern racist agrarians... well, so did Obama with the political heirs of the Southern racist agrarians. (Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, and New Mexico were not yet stats in 1908).  

More recently, but still 52 to 60 years apart...


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

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

[Image: genusmap.php?year=2008&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=2;1;7]
 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

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

What is amazing is not so much what Obama did (in 2012 Obama may not have won nearly all the states that Ike won twice, but aside from the District of Columbia and Hawaii which were not voting in the 1950's... but he still won the Presidency decisively), but what Ike did... winning three states  (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) that Republican nominees since Ike have found difficult to win. Republican nominees have won those three states a total of five times beginning in 1960; Ike won those three states twice. 

Obama is unique among the Presidents, so one can hardly see anyone as a perfect analogue to him. Someone has to be most similar to him in temperament, personal conduct, style, and curriculum vitae. Obama has no experience in the military, so that makes him dissimilar to Ike on that... but otherwise if I am to find the President most similar to Obama I am stuck with Eisenhower. Neither succeeded at strengthening their Party's hold on Congress, neither had a populist bent, both were particularly cautious (which goes with the territory with the better of Reactive leaders) both deferred to expertise, and both recognized the value of precedent and protocol. Except for being a liberal, Obama is a wonderful model of a conservative President. I can say this without hesitation: the next conservative President of the United States will almost certaqinly be more like Obama than like Trump.       


Quote:What percentage of the Democratic party is white today?

Does that even matter? Are "white" votes more precious or legitimate? We need remember that the definition of "whiteness" can change. As an example, Cuban-Americans and Puerto Ricans can be very white. No "one-drop rule" applies to Mexican-Americans, and identity as a Mexican-American in the Southwest is more a matter of cultural identity than anything else. Yes, Mexican-Americans can assimilate white Anglo people. 

The Democratic Party used to be much "whiter" before the Mountain and Deep South went Republican.   


Quote:What percentage of New York or LA is white today?

New York City? It is safe to assume that the Irish-American, Italian-American, and Jewish populations of New York City are predominantly white. There's more ambiguity about Latino populations in Greater NYC. With Greater Los Angeles the Hispanic population is more Mexican-American... go figure. 

If I am to make any guesses on people of East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans) they are on the brink of being considered white.   

One vote means as much as another, and Republicans have every right to kick themselves about doing so badly among black and Hispanic voters. 


Quote:I think its pretty obvious that the Democratic party is anti-white and anti-male and anti-American these days.

Vermont is one of the strongest D states now and it is also one of the whitest. It i snot so much anti-male as it is pro-feminist... and if you want the more successful and engaging women you might as well expect to end up with a feminist. 

Do you know what is really un-American? Not since church bombings in Birmingham and sundry other violence against black people asserting their rights according to the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments  have I seen such an exercise of anti-American activity as the disruption of Congress on January 6. The Democrats there were members of both Houses of Congress, their staffers, maybe some Capitol police, and journalists. The rally outside the Capitol was all pro-Trump. There were no Democratic counter-protesters.  

Quote:I will also say that the Democratic party is becoming more anti-American worker too these days. The American MLK believers (the minorities who believe in the American way) have already begun switching sides and joining forces with the American (Republican) side. Dude, we are on the cusp of a nation splitting and another Civil War being fought with the Democratic party.

No, you cannot speak on behalf of Martin Luther King, Jr. He has been dead far longer than he was alive. I'd like to believe that he would have been on the side of LGBT and handicap rights... but he is mute on those. He was a man of his time, and for that we must recognize his legitimate achievements. 

It is up to all of us to decide what the American way is. Of course the Constitution and statutory law establishes some of the expectations for us all. Mob violence to which you allude as a possibility is not acceptable.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(02-23-2021, 05:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Few if any agree with you?  Your value to this site is primarily as an easy target?  I’m not sure why I bother anymore?
I'm not sure why you bother with me anymore either. I'm not surprised that none of you agree with me either. You haven't agreed with me for over 15 years. Why would you do an about face and begin agreeing with me now? I'd say that you and the others agreeing with me would require a miracle at this point. I probably know more about Democratic supporters and Democratic politics than you do at this point.
Reply
(02-23-2021, 08:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: An unfortunate situation that a group of white huber elites pounced on and  exploited by directly associating it with racism.

I see the summer's protests as bottom up, as the people speaking.  The people protesting were of many cultures, many races.  Some whites have oppressed blacks for centuries.  I am among many who think this should end.  Politicians can listen to voters and act on the voter's opinions if they so choose, and can and should wind up voted out of power if they choose not to listen.  That a party chooses to listen to the people and act according to their will indicates the system is working.

(02-23-2021, 08:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are you sure about the over all validity of your personal interpretations and your understanding of where the country is at  these days?

Pretty sure, yes.  Willing to listen and tweak on occasion, also yes.  For example it has been about a year since somebody recommended WEIRD.  It has become one of my major themes.

(02-23-2021, 08:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What makes you think that you have a right to change me?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution establishes free speech.  Are you familiar with its real meaning?  Apparently not.  Are you questioning it?  Do you oppose the Constitution?

(02-23-2021, 08:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What make you think that I don't have a right to kill a person acting like a Nazi these days or a cult like group of religious heretics?

Do you oppose the Law?  I'm fairly sure there are laws against murder in your jurisdiction.  I'm not a big fan of Nazi, but they ought to be trying to put their beliefs into practice in violation of law before the government acts against them, let alone private citizens.  

There is certainly freedom of religion in your jurisdiction.  If a devout agnostic can be a heretic, I suppose I am a religious heretic, but I don't harass others who don't argue with God in the same way as I do.  If the religious heretics have not violated the law, the government should leave them alone, as should private citizens.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
(02-23-2021, 10:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not sure why you bother with me anymore either. I'm not surprised that none of you agree with me either. You haven't agreed with me for over 15 years. Why would you do an about face and begin  agreeing with me now? I'd say that you and the others  agreeing with me would require  a miracle at this point. I probably know more about Democratic supporters and Democratic politics than you do at this point.

At one point a group of 100 Nazi scientists wrote a letter that claimed that the Jew Einstein was wrong.  Einstein's response?  If they were right it would take only one.

I am extremely dubious you are familiar with Democratic politics.  Familiar with you own fantasies, perhaps, but not Democratic politics.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
(02-23-2021, 10:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Vermont is one of the strongest D states now and it is also one of the whitest. It i snot so much anti-male as it is pro-feminist... and if you want the more successful and engaging women you might as well expect to end up with a feminist. 

Do you know what is really un-American? Not since church bombings in Birmingham and sundry other violence against black people asserting their rights according to the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments  have I seen such an exercise of anti-American activity as the disruption of Congress on January 6. The Democrats there were members of both Houses of Congress, their staffers, maybe some Capitol police, and journalists. The rally outside the Capitol was all pro-Trump. There were no Democratic counter-protesters.  
So, aren't you as guilty of being associated with all the violence and all the destruction and all the deaths that occurred prior to the event that took place on the 6th that got you so upset? So, what's it going to take to sink some common sense reasoning/understanding into that handicapped brain of yours these days? I'm sorry if pointing out an obvious flaw hurts you but it's true. You're a public speaker/political spokesman. Gee, I could do a better job being a Democrat than the morons who are doing it these days.

You better start figuring out where you're going to find some common sense pretty quick because you're going to need it to survive down the road. What's funny is, the majority of the Democratic party is about as sharp as you these days and have no understanding of how violent this country can become if the majority ignores the laws as much as the current batch of morons who currently represent your political interests (lively hood).
Reply
(02-24-2021, 12:00 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 10:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Vermont is one of the strongest D states now and it is also one of the whitest. It i snot so much anti-male as it is pro-feminist... and if you want the more successful and engaging women you might as well expect to end up with a feminist. 

Do you know what is really un-American? Not since church bombings in Birmingham and sundry other violence against black people asserting their rights according to the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments  have I seen such an exercise of anti-American activity as the disruption of Congress on January 6. The Democrats there were members of both Houses of Congress, their staffers, maybe some Capitol police, and journalists. The rally outside the Capitol was all pro-Trump. There were no Democratic counter-protesters.  

So, aren't you as guilty of being associated with all the violence and all the destruction and all the deaths that occurred prior to the event that took place on the 6th that got you so upset?

How am I guilty? By association? What association? I would have never participated in such a horrid event. 



Quote:So, what's it going to take to sink some common sense reasoning/understanding into that handicapped brain of yours these days?

I admit to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

The clumsiness and the poor facial recognition are real. I can end up with a very narrow focus. I can say this: for all that one can have that is listed in the DMS-5 I would rather have Asperger's syndrome than anything else, including narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissists can be highly successful, but they usually hurt people in attaining their achievements and enjoying the fruits of their attainments.   


Quote:I'm sorry if pointing out an obvious flaw hurts you but it's true. You're a public speaker/political spokesman. Gee, I could do a better job being a Democrat than the morons who are doing it these days.

No, you offer nothing more than a strawman. Here's how that goes: you misrepresent the Other Side of an argument and set it up for a fall, allegedly debunking what you dislike. 
  
Quote:You better start figuring out where you're going to find some common sense pretty quick because you're going to need it to survive down the road. What's funny is, the majority of the Democratic party is about as sharp as you these days and have no understanding of how violent this country can become if the majority ignores the laws as much as the current batch of morons  who currently represent your political interests (lively hood).

Maybe your circle is full of barely-restrained violent impulses, but most of us on my side recognize that authoritarian violence discredits the cause that it purports to facilitate.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(02-23-2021, 11:05 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 10:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not sure why you bother with me anymore either. I'm not surprised that none of you agree with me either. You haven't agreed with me for over 15 years. Why would you do an about face and begin  agreeing with me now? I'd say that you and the others  agreeing with me would require  a miracle at this point. I probably know more about Democratic supporters and Democratic politics than you do at this point.

At one point a group of 100 Nazi scientists wrote a letter that claimed that the Jew Einstein was wrong.  Einstein's response?  If they were right it would take only one.

I am extremely dubious you are familiar with Democratic politics.  Familiar with you own fantasies, perhaps, but not Democratic politics.
I'm kind of like Einstein in that way. I'm very familiar with Democratic politics. I've been listening to it, paying attention to it and directly involved/engaged with it personally for many years. You guys spend more time propping each other up and patting each other on the back and telling each other how smart you are than you spend presenting a sound/logical argument these days. Personally, I would have parted ways with the Democrats years ago. But, money talks and a portion of the Republicans are directly tied the money and beliefs associated with the Democratic party these days.
Reply
(02-23-2021, 08:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 05:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Boy, are you confused.  The US Civil War had the cavalier, confederate, southern, rural, agricultural faction against the roundhead, union, northern, urban, industrial faction.  The north won.  

In the Gilded Age, the Democrats remained tied to Jim Crow, but became the party of the white European immigrants in the north.  The strongest example was the Tammany Hall machine in New York, with the the Republicans staying with the Robber Barons and the Democrats supporting (corruptly) the immigrant workers.

While both parties had progressive and conservative wings through the Gilded Age period, with FDR and the New Deal the Democrats became distinctly a progressive party.  This solidified with LBJ’s allegiance with MLK in the awakening, and was countered with the Republican Southern Strategy.  The Republicans had always favored the Robber Barons.  They then took in the racists too.  This alliance of elite money and racist votes dominated through the unraveling.  Small government, not helping the workers, sending jobs overseas, maintaining the existing power structure without change, not solving problems…. All worked just fine for a time.

Then the turnings turned.

Trump overdid racism and Black Lives Matter countered.  It is no longer cost effective to play the race card.  That is one big difference come the George Floyd trigger in the current crisis.  Racism has become one of the crisis issues.  It is no longer a win for the Republicans to play the race card.  Trump would lose if he tried, will try, and may drag the Republicans with him, giving them no choice but to run with the old now losing option.  As usual in the crisis, one element of the Agricultural Age is being severely dented and the old values are fading.

Now you in order to defend your perspective have redefined a bunch of things backwards.  You have redefined words like ‘American’ and ‘racist’ to have the oppose meaning of how most people who live in the United States use the words.  This reflects how you perceive things differently than most people who live in the United States perceive it.  Sometimes you really do have to be different to be better, but this isn’t one of those times.  Compare Trump’s late cabinet with Biden’s and you will be easily able to tell which party is racist and sexist, and which party distributes power reflecting the population of the country.

Now you can continue with your delusion.  You can continue to live in a fact free reality.  I can continue to debunk your perverted backwards way of looking at things.

But you are not particularly racist, sexist or elitist.  You do not spend a lot of time repeating stereotypes or pushing trickle down as an economic strategy. The largest question I have is why you stick with the Republicans as providing any sort of answer.  They are the party of stay the same, which is the wrong party to be when the crisis heart hits.

Few if any agree with you?  Your value to this site is primarily as an easy target?  I’m not sure why I bother anymore?
Trumps knee wasn't on the back of George Floyd's neck. The knee of a white cop was on the back of a George Floyd's neck. An unfortunate situation that a group of white huber elites pounced on and  exploited by directly associating it with racism. You seem about as smart as a person drawn to third world politics these days. I'm sure you'll adjust and learn to live in a world that's governed and controlled by third world politics and a racist political system and you will do whatever it takes to appease them and the growing third world population these days. I mean, your racist anti-white views are way more appealing to them and reinforces their racist beliefs pertaining to whites than an American who is better educated and more knowledgeable of people of different races like me.  

Are you sure about the over all validity of your personal interpretations and your understanding of where the country is at  these days? Are you sure that you're not an easy/easier target? So, what are you trying to change about me? What makes you think that you have a right to change me? What make you think that I don't have a right to kill a person acting like a Nazi these days or a cult like group of religious heretics?

You believe you are superior to the "third world immigrants" who are "not Americans" (but who are citizens of the USA or aspire to be). What makes you so sure that you are superior or even more educated than they are? I would not count on that. And no, you don't have a right to kill. And yes, you ought to change, but I don't expect you will change as a result of what we say.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(02-23-2021, 04:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lets pretend the nasty racism of old directly associated with the Democratic party was reversed and imposed on white people by the Democratic party of today, what would you do about it? I know what I would do about it but what would you do about it? Would you place your social benefits at risk and switch parties or ignore it and continue voting Democratic? You don't see what we see or hear what we hear or use your logic or common sense to read in between the lines and connect the dots either.

Are you arguing about an alternative reality that's the photo-opposite of actual reality? If history was white slavery and a black-imposed Jim Crow, then we should all be out in the streets for White Lives Matter... but, of course, that's not the way it was or is.

Classic Wrote:What percentage of the Democratic party is white today? What percentage of New York or LA is white today? I think its pretty obvious that the Democratic party is anti-white and anti-male and anti-American these days. I will also say that the Democratic party is becoming more anti-American worker too these days. The American MLK believers (the minorities who believe in the American way) have already begun switching sides and joining forces with the American (Republican) side. Dude, we are on the cusp of a nation splitting and another Civil War being fought with the Democratic party.

Oh poor you. Please boo-hoo quietly in the corner, while the rest of us get on with life in our multi-colored world. Note: it's hard to be a victim when you are in the demographic with all the benefits. I guess you're just pissed that you can't lord it over women and people of "lesser" origin anymore.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(02-24-2021, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 11:05 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 10:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not sure why you bother with me anymore either. I'm not surprised that none of you agree with me either. You haven't agreed with me for over 15 years. Why would you do an about face and begin  agreeing with me now? I'd say that you and the others  agreeing with me would require  a miracle at this point. I probably know more about Democratic supporters and Democratic politics than you do at this point.

At one point a group of 100 Nazi scientists wrote a letter that claimed that the Jew Einstein was wrong.  Einstein's response?  If they were right it would take only one.

I am extremely dubious you are familiar with Democratic politics.  Familiar with you own fantasies, perhaps, but not Democratic politics.

I'm kind of like Einstein in that way.

As with Einstein, it would take only one person to prove that you are wrong if you are wrong. Unlike Einstein you really are wrong. By 1933 experimental evidence already showed that gravitational lensing, a consequence of relativity, was true... because during a total eclipse of the sun on a day in which the sun was almost exactly in front of the Pleiades (a star cluster) distorted the direction of light from the star cluster enough to place the star cluster away from behind the sun. Einstein predicted the effect, and something trivial in its seeming consequences proved the most important law of physics then recently postulated true. 

The Nazi physicists had attacked Einstein for being a Jew and a crank. That Albert Einstein was Jewish meant nothing in whether his theory of relativity was true or not. The Nazis held that Einstein, as a Jew, was by that fact alone a horrible person and completely unreliable. The astronomers that proved Einstein right were not all Jews. There is no such thing as "Jewish Physics" or "Negro Physics" or "Asiatic Physics", and any such thing as Deutsche Physik  simply expresses what physics is done in Germany or by Germans. Einstein was German by birth and culture. A decent Germany would have been proud of the achievements of the greatest German theoretical physicist, or at least the most important one, of all time. Whether one liked the person Albert Einstein or hated him did not matter. 

Except of course that the Nazis saw the Jew as an evil character by birth, incapable of any legitimate achievements, and often associated with contradictory horrors of conduct (like being both the most rapacious, amoral capitalist exploiters and the most dangerous and destructive Bolsheviks at the same time). The irony is that the Germans were the gentiles most like the Ashkenazim, the Yiddish-speaking Jews. Yiddish and German translate easily into each other, and Yiddish-speaking Jews assimilated more readily into German culture than into any other gentile culture. Jewish morality is little different from Christian morality, the theological difference between Judaism and Christianity is Jesus. From my experience with Jews, that is a triviality in determining who is moral and who is not. If anything I notice that Jews were a disproportionate part of the non-black people participating in the heroic struggle for the basic dignity of Southern blacks. I also recall that Sir Winston Churchill, who knew plenty of Jews but who hated Bolshevism had his suggestion for the redemption of the Bolshevik of Jewish origin: a return to Judaism. 

I can also say this: there was nothing wrong with the German and Austrian people between 1933 and 1945 that Judaism would not have solved! I have told a Nazi that as a German-American (I thought that I was much more than half German or Swiss by ancestry before I studied my genealogy) that if I had to choose between being a Nazi and a Jew I would convert to Judaism because Judaism would be more compatible with my cultural and ethical values. 

No, Classic X'er, you have far too little in common with Albert Einstein to make any tawdry comparison to him. You are a crank, and you have connected with some vile currents in American political life. Because you attach yourself to some allegedly-noble morality and an idea of "American-ness" that excludes far too many people whose presence is well entrenched, you show yourself a crank.              

Quote:I'm very familiar with Democratic politics.

Maybe through the distorting 'lens' of people like the late Rush Limbaugh, who never had anything good to say about liberals. 


Quote:I've been listening to it, paying attention to it and directly involved/engaged with it personally for many years.

You may neglect that someone like me has some values that are genuinely conservative. I am quite conservative on educational content, law and order, adultery, sexuality involving children, and stupefying drugs. I consider a market and consumer choice a necessity for economic sanity and satisfying results. Need I go into details about those? Much of what we consider core reality has been true since antiquity. Wise people still read Plato, the Torah and Talmud, the Buddha, or Confucius. Maybe the Quran, which isn't quite as ancient. 

There are things that children must learn if they are to become competent workers, and things that youth must learn (the liberal arts) if they are to be competent leaders in commerce, the professions, and much else. Dishonesty in business dealings, let alone violent crime, rend a society. I have come to the conclusion that criminal behavior is a consequence not of oppression and poverty than it is of bad character. There are plenty of good people in the ghettos, barrios, and Reservations. Adultery destroys the emotional security that children need if they are to not be messed up. Adults messing with children mess children up. I hate drugs and drunkenness. The alternative to a market economy is either serfdom, slavery, or despotism.    


Quote:You guys spend more time propping each other up and patting each other on the back and telling each other how smart you are than you spend presenting a sound/logical argument these days.

I have no need to prove how smart I am. I have learned that keeping arguments as simple as possible is the only way in which to communicate with people who have little use for long-winded sermons.

Quote:Personally, I would have parted ways with the Democrats years ago.

I don't care how long you have been on the Dark Side of American history. You are no less wrong either way.  

Quote:But, money talks and a portion of the Republicans are directly tied the money and beliefs associated with the Democratic party these days.

When money talks in American politics, at least in recent years, it has usually shouted from the Right -- especially with the message that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it creates, enforces, enhances, or indulges the excessive desires of the economic elites.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(02-23-2021, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the Democratic Party is against white people like you, who are concerned about a Party that is "anti-white," and "anti-male," then as a white male I am a proud member.
What happens to you, if the anti-white male hate groups don't care about or don't understand the differences between us? You can be proud of not being a white male like me but you could end up being killed or stripped of your rights and protections just for being a white male too. I mean, we've seen angry minorities and emboldened minorities target and attack white people just for being white. I think you're stupid but whatever, it's your life that is at higher risk not mine.
Reply
(02-24-2021, 11:28 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the Democratic Party is against white people like you, who are concerned about a Party that is "anti-white," and "anti-male," then as a white male I am a proud member.
What happens to you, if the anti-white male hate groups don't care about or don't understand the differences between us? You can be proud of not being a white male like me but you could end up being killed or stripped of your rights and protections just for being a white male too. I mean, we've seen angry minorities and emboldened minorities target and attack white people just for being white. I think you're stupid but whatever, it's your life that is at higher risk not mine.

If you violently rebel, as you threaten to do, and are armed to do, your life will be infinitely more at risk than mine. I am proud to be a white male; didn't you know that I am a white male? Can't you read?

I am not concerned about whites being stripped of their rights. Non-whites today just want the rights that we all are supposed to have. It is you who supports mistreatment and torture or death of non-white refugees; you who call non-white immigrants un-American. It is the "minorities" that are attacked for being non-white, and it is they who are those most at risk from police racist violence today. Black Lives Matter is non-violent and antifa only attacks fascists who are violent, but you guys use them to misrepresent what's happening.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(02-24-2021, 11:28 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the Democratic Party is against white people like you, who are concerned about a Party that is "anti-white," and "anti-male," then as a white male I am a proud member.
What happens to you, if the anti-white male hate groups don't care about or don't understand the differences between us? You can be proud of not being a white male like me but you could end up being killed or stripped of your rights and protections just for being a white male too. I mean, we've seen angry minorities and emboldened minorities target and attack white people just for being white. I think you're stupid but whatever, it's your life that is at higher risk not mine.

A reminder:





Classic X'er, you are a sucker.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant. Galen 207 132,408 01-25-2023, 07:45 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Stimulus Bill Would Make Illegal Streaming a Felony LNE 7 2,879 02-02-2021, 04:12 AM
Last Post: random3
  Trump: Bring back torture to make America great nebraska 0 1,703 01-13-2018, 07:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Bill would make New York first state to ban declawing of cats nebraska 0 1,979 01-13-2018, 07:13 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Bill would make it a crime to videotape police in Arizona nebraska 0 1,924 01-11-2018, 04:01 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  High taxes, regulations make NY dead last in freedom nebraska 4 3,470 12-27-2017, 07:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  This result Bundy of trial should be fun. Galen 0 1,767 12-24-2017, 12:40 AM
Last Post: Galen
  Let's make fun of and bash Gary Johnson too! Eric the Green 16 18,816 10-15-2016, 02:50 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 58 Guest(s)