The Partisan Divide on Issues

[David Horn]

(03-15-2021, 09:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: For a while Chuck Schumer has been appearing on various MSNBC shows giving his view of the senate proceedings.  In these he has borrowed a phrase from NASA, first made famous during the Apollo 13 mission.  "Failure is not an option."

For the last few decades, the senate only has two important voices: the majority leader's and the minority leader's.  Senators don't vote on whether a bill is popular with who elected them, but according to partisan policy which is linked to who is in the White House.  I suspect the Democrats are trying to break this, or if they cannot to pick up the voters whose desires are not being met.

Killing or otherwise working around the filibuster are options.  I gather failure is not.

The filibuster lives as long as Joe Manchin is in the Senate. Why he believes that this is an institutional must is beyond me, but he does.  I know that, as a Dem, he's not alone in this.  On the other hand, if he collapses, or is primaried to oblivion, that may change.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-16-2021, 02:50 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-15-2021, 09:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: For a while Chuck Schumer has been appearing on various MSNBC shows giving his view of the senate proceedings.  In these he has borrowed a phrase from NASA, first made famous during the Apollo 13 mission.  "Failure is not an option."

For the last few decades, the senate only has two important voices: the majority leader's and the minority leader's.  Senators don't vote on whether a bill is popular with who elected them, but according to partisan policy which is linked to who is in the White House.  I suspect the Democrats are trying to break this, or if they cannot to pick up the voters whose desires are not being met.

Killing or otherwise working around the filibuster are options.  I gather failure is not.

The filibuster lives as long as Joe Manchin is in the Senate. Why he believes that this is an institutional must is beyond me, but he does.  I know that, as a Dem, he's not alone in this.  On the other hand, if he collapses, or is primaried to oblivion, that may change.

Well, I suppose it remains a matter of personal power.  For as long as he cares more about holding the Democrats hostage than the people of his state, he will hang tight.

[Eric the Green]

(03-16-2021, 03:30 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-16-2021, 02:50 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-15-2021, 09:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: For a while Chuck Schumer has been appearing on various MSNBC shows giving his view of the senate proceedings.  In these he has borrowed a phrase from NASA, first made famous during the Apollo 13 mission.  "Failure is not an option."

For the last few decades, the senate only has two important voices: the majority leader's and the minority leader's.  Senators don't vote on whether a bill is popular with who elected them, but according to partisan policy which is linked to who is in the White House.  I suspect the Democrats are trying to break this, or if they cannot to pick up the voters whose desires are not being met.

Killing or otherwise working around the filibuster are options.  I gather failure is not.

The filibuster lives as long as Joe Manchin is in the Senate. Why he believes that this is an institutional must is beyond me, but he does.  I know that, as a Dem, he's not alone in this.  On the other hand, if he collapses, or is primaried to oblivion, that may change.

Well, I suppose it remains a matter of personal power.  For as long as he cares more about holding the Democrats hostage than the people of his state, he will hang tight.

Joe Manchin seems more reasonable in his interviews on Meet the Press. It may, I have heard, that he might be willing to budge at times on the filibuster. He supports it now since he wants the minority to have a voice, he says. But once the voice is made apparent as little more than fanatical extremism, he may have heard enough. AZ senator Sinema is also a questionable DINO.

There's a group of 10 or so Republican senators, not always the same people, who he feels can be negotiated with. When push comes to shove, the question is what these guys will do. They did not vote for the 1.9 trillion covid American Rescue package. They might be open to a compromise of $11 an hour on the minimum wage, to be raised over several years tbd. Much can be financed through another reconciliation bill, and I suspect the Democrats will resort to that on new taxes and infrastructure/climate change spending, and the question then will be what will Joe support in this.

[Bob Butler 54]

If things keep going as they are, I expect the Democrats to cram as much as they can into the second reconciliation bill.

[David Horn]

(03-16-2021, 04:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-16-2021, 03:30 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-16-2021, 02:50 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-15-2021, 09:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: For a while Chuck Schumer has been appearing on various MSNBC shows giving his view of the senate proceedings.  In these he has borrowed a phrase from NASA, first made famous during the Apollo 13 mission.  "Failure is not an option."

For the last few decades, the senate only has two important voices: the majority leader's and the minority leader's.  Senators don't vote on whether a bill is popular with who elected them, but according to partisan policy which is linked to who is in the White House.  I suspect the Democrats are trying to break this, or if they cannot to pick up the voters whose desires are not being met.

Killing or otherwise working around the filibuster are options.  I gather failure is not.

The filibuster lives as long as Joe Manchin is in the Senate. Why he believes that this is an institutional must is beyond me, but he does.  I know that, as a Dem, he's not alone in this.  On the other hand, if he collapses, or is primaried to oblivion, that may change.

Well, I suppose it remains a matter of personal power.  For as long as he cares more about holding the Democrats hostage than the people of his state, he will hang tight.

Joe Manchin seems more reasonable in his interviews on Meet the Press. It may, I have heard, that he might be willing to budge at times on the filibuster. He supports it now since he wants the minority to have a voice, he says. But once the voice is made apparent as little more than fanatical extremism, he may have heard enough. AZ senator Sinema is also a questionable DINO.

There's a group of 10 or so Republican senators, not always the same people, who he feels can be negotiated with. When push comes to shove, the question is what these guys will do. They did not vote for the 1.9 trillion covid American Rescue package. They might be open to a compromise of $11 an hour on the minimum wage, to be raised over several years tbd. Much can be financed through another reconciliation bill, and I suspect the Democrats will resort to that on new taxes and infrastructure/climate change spending, and the question then will be what will Joe support in this.

Joe Manchin managed to get reelected in one of the most pro-Trump states in the nation.  Don't expect a lot from him.  An $11 and hour minimum wage, with a ramp-up is, frankly, an insult to working people.  $15 is barely adequate.  But Joe is captive to WV business interests, and he willingly admits as much.  He's planning to be the Max Baucus of this time period.  I'm doubt anything good will come of that.
Kirsten Sinema may see a path forward, especially so if Arizona moves in a Bluer direction. That's never going to happen with WV.

[David Horn]

(03-16-2021, 05:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If things keep going as they are, I expect the Democrats to cram as much as they can into the second reconciliation bill.

I agree, but they still have to contend with the limitation of that device. Killing the hyper-generous tax cuts for corporations and the rich should be a no-brainer, but Joe Manchin is still out there being himself.

And let's not forget Steven Breyer, who seems intent on being another RBG.  That's one thing that's fully in his control.  He has to know where he stands in the grand scheme of things, yet nothing so far.

[Bob Butler 54]

Over on the Generation Dynamics forum, one of John’s supposed geniuses proclaimed that he was for freedom.  Blues were not,  I scratched my head a few times and came up with a religious idea that is popular with the Neo pagan crowd.  “Do what you will, but harm none.”  I proposed that in seeking a more perfect union, both parts of that phrase were important.  The government preventing freedom by requiring laws and regulations to be coerced on people can be justified justified if and only to prevent harm.  The more perfect union required that only appropriate laws are written, and those laws would be obeyed.

I gave a few examples.  Laws requiring stopping at red lights reduces freedom, but if everyone obeys the law it reduces confusion and prevents harm.  OSHA writes workplace regulations that are acceptable if they are focused to prevent harm.  Freedom for the factory owner to seek a creative way to profit is fine, so long as he does not cause harm.  This would double down if you are requiring meat packing plants to remain open in a pandemic environment without taking all due protections to protect the worker.

No insurrections?  No murdering people because their skin pigmentation is a bit different?  No preventing people from voting?  Are reds really so much into freedom?  Are they so crazy about their own freedom that they are forgetting the common good?

Anyway, with our having a libertarian over here, I thought I’d repeat the idea that laws are justified when the intent is to reduce harm.  And if anyone is of a mind that that the call of freedom can drown out the need to work together to prevent harm, that freedom justifies murder, I’d give them a chance to say so.

[pbrower2a]

Freedom is rarely absolute. Much of our legal process resolves conflicts of freedom. Ordinarily the decision comes on the side of who is hurt least by the decision, which fits the "harm none" dictate. Competition means that someone will get something and someone else will not. There's plenty of real estate that I would love to own, but real harm comes only if people are priced into homelessness. That I am priced out of lobster as a regular meal and to ramen soup, one of the cheapest foods that I find palatable, because of poverty isn't that bad.

[Bob Butler 54]

With Mondale's death, there has been repetition of a Mondale quote in the Carter library.

“We told the truth.  We obeyed the law.  We kept the peace.”

It seems that in at least the first two sentences, that has become a big difference between the parties today?

[Einzige]

Mondale was an early Democratic adopter of neoliberalism.

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/15/us/mo...-wing.html

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/14/america...from_1984/

Quote: By the time the 1984 cycle began Walter Mondale had already become more of a Jimmy Carter Democrat as Vice President, going from someone more in line with Congressional Democrats and a potential bridge to the member of Carter’s team dispatched to tell Dems what the Administration was doing. Mondale, who still believes his Robert Rubin-flavored deficit pitch was correct on the merits, ran a “new realism” campaign that came down to a noun, a verb and deficits and debt. He went so far as telling people who were more focused on a jobs deficit than a budget deficit that “the only way to get hope” for America was “to get these deficits down.” The Democratic platform underwent a real shift from 1976 and even 1980 under Carter to the bang-up job done in 1984. The convention issue of Congressional Quarterly declared it the “most conservative platform of the last 50 years.” The New Dems should love the national iteration of Mondale. In a number of ways he was their poster candidate.

Robert Rubin, then of Goldman Sachs, worked on the Mondale campaign. It was Rubin’s Wall Street wing that convinced Mondale to say the line that was later portrayed as the height of economic liberalism by the New Dems. This was confirmed by Mondale to Robert Kuttner. At his most visible moment Mondale would embody a caricature of a hair shirt-dispensing neoliberal, giving a speech that wore his deficit obsession as a badge of honor. “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you, I just did.”

> The Wall Street Journal and paragons of Beltway “centrism” David Broder and the New Republic lavished praise on Mondale for this. Note that there is no discretion in whose taxes are going up and the deficit is portrayed as the sum of all economic policy virtue. The latter is a New Dem tick that we see to this day. Voters will mirror elected officials’ stated concern for the budget deficit, especially when leading politicians in both parties constantly talk about it, but voters generally see deficit reduction as shorthand to express their legitimate “I’m falling behind” sentiment. They do not vote on it and definitely don’t monitor CBO reports (note: public opinion of where the deficit is headed does not track with where it is actually headed). Instead they’re rightly focused on good jobs, their income and their overall economic security. No one, except for pundits in DC and big donors on Wall Street, really cares about the deficit.

[David Horn]

(04-19-2021, 09:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: With Mondale's death, there has been repetition of a Mondale quote in the Carter library.

“We told the truth.  We obeyed the law.  We kept the peace.”

It seems that in at least the first two sentences, that has become a big difference between the parties today?

Those times are still far in the past, but may return in the future.  Paul Krugman hit it on the head: the Democrats have finally decided to be proud of their own ideas.  Now, they need to pump up the volume a bit, and we can get back on track.

[Eric the Green]

(03-17-2021, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-16-2021, 05:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If things keep going as they are, I expect the Democrats to cram as much as they can into the second reconciliation bill.

I agree, but they still have to contend with the limitation of that device. Killing the hyper-generous tax cuts for corporations and the rich should be a no-brainer, but Joe Manchin is still out there being himself.

And let's not forget Steven Breyer, who seems intent on being another RBG.  That's one thing that's fully in his control.  He has to know where he stands in the grand scheme of things, yet nothing so far.

With the Democrats in control of the Senate, he has about a year to decide to resign.

[pbrower2a]

Well, there is a divide on whether America is to conduct a serious investigation of the January Putsch. Republicans in Congress seem to think that Black Lives Matters is more trouble. Ahem!  

Republicans don’t want a bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol unless it also looks at unrelated events from the previous year.
This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) modified her original proposal for an 11-member commission with seven Democrats and four Republicans, which Republicans had argued would be too many Democrats. On Monday, Pelosi suggested an evenly split commission to Republican leaders, according to a source familiar with the proposal.
Republicans still don’t like the idea, saying the focus on Jan. 6 is too narrow and that the commission should also examine violence that erupted in response to police brutality in 2020.

“We’ve also had a number of violent disturbances around the country in the last year, and I think we ought to look at this in a broader scope and with a totally balanced 9/11-style commission,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday. “If she were willing to put that forward, I think it would enjoy broad bipartisan support.”
Republicans most likely want to dilute the commission’s focus because former President Donald Trump incited the attack on the Capitol with months of lies about supposed election fraud. Most Republicans in Congress either repeated Trump’s lies or silently abided them.
After the riot, several Republicans who’d amplified Trump’s lies, such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), described the attack on the Capitol as simply a continuation of the violence they’d blamed on Black Lives Matter protests the previous year. “When it comes to violence, it was a terrible year in America this last year,” Hawley said hours after the riot.


In reality, there has been violence at some protests, but the overwhelming majority of demonstrations have been peaceful, according to a systematic review of thousands of protests that were documented last year.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told HuffPost Wednesday that “evenly divided is a good start,” but that a commission should also focus on “the pattern of disruption that led” to the riot. Referring to things that happened before January, Sen Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said “anything that might be relevant to that ought to be looked at.”

Without a bipartisan agreement, there will be no commission, since its establishment would require legislation that needs 60 votes in the Senate, where Democrats control just 50 seats. 

Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues last week that her latest proposal is “modeled on the 9/11 Commission,” which had five Democrats and five Republicans and was created by congressional legislation.  
“Compromise has been necessary; now, we must agree on the scope, composition and resources necessary to seek and find the truth,” Pelosi wrote in her letter. “It is my hope that we can reach agreement very soon.”
A spokesperson for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did not respond to a request for comment. McCarthy has waffled on the question of whether Trump incited the riot. He has sought to remain in the twice-impeached former president’s good graces.

Huffington Post

[Classic-Xer]

(03-27-2021, 08:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Over on the Generation Dynamics forum, one of John’s supposed geniuses proclaimed that he was for freedom.  Blues were not,  I scratched my head a few times and came up with a religious idea that is popular with the Neo pagan crowd.  “Do what you will, but harm none.”  I proposed that in seeking a more perfect union, both parts of that phrase were important.  The government preventing freedom by requiring laws and regulations to be coerced on people can be justified justified if and only to prevent harm.  The more perfect union required that only appropriate laws are written, and those laws would be obeyed.

I gave a few examples.  Laws requiring stopping at red lights reduces freedom, but if everyone obeys the law it reduces confusion and prevents harm.  OSHA writes workplace regulations that are acceptable if they are focused to prevent harm.  Freedom for the factory owner to seek a creative way to profit is fine, so long as he does not cause harm.  This would double down if you are requiring meat packing plants to remain open in a pandemic environment without taking all due protections to protect the worker.

No insurrections?  No murdering people because their skin pigmentation is a bit different?  No preventing people from voting?  Are reds really so much into freedom?  Are they so crazy about their own freedom that they are forgetting the common good?

Anyway, with our having a libertarian over here, I thought I’d repeat the idea that laws are justified when the intent is to reduce harm.  And if anyone is of a mind that that the call of freedom can drown out the need to work together to prevent harm, that freedom justifies murder, I’d give them a chance to say so.

We are for freedom, the blues are not. I keep telling you, we won't be fighting with Democrats over slavery this time around. We are going to be fighting with Democrats over our (American) freedom and national sovereignty this time around. You f-d up. You haven't be listening. You must like cults. Did you like cults? I ask because you are associated with a Marxist cult that is similar to the Marxist Nazi cult? Are you ready to feel what it was like to be associated with them? So, when did the KKK get darker Bob? Are you going to be foolish enough to give them a pass? Why would a free American like yourself go along with their racist views and give them a pass?

[Eric the Green]

(04-22-2021, 04:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Well, there is a divide on whether America is to conduct a serious investigation of the January Putsch. Republicans in Congress seem to think that Black Lives Matters is more trouble. Ahem!  

Republicans don’t want a bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol unless it also looks at unrelated events from the previous year.
This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) modified her original proposal for an 11-member commission with seven Democrats and four Republicans, which Republicans had argued would be too many Democrats. On Monday, Pelosi suggested an evenly split commission to Republican leaders, according to a source familiar with the proposal.
Republicans still don’t like the idea, saying the focus on Jan. 6 is too narrow and that the commission should also examine violence that erupted in response to police brutality in 2020.

“We’ve also had a number of violent disturbances around the country in the last year, and I think we ought to look at this in a broader scope and with a totally balanced 9/11-style commission,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday. “If she were willing to put that forward, I think it would enjoy broad bipartisan support.”
Republicans most likely want to dilute the commission’s focus because former President Donald Trump incited the attack on the Capitol with months of lies about supposed election fraud. Most Republicans in Congress either repeated Trump’s lies or silently abided them.
After the riot, several Republicans who’d amplified Trump’s lies, such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), described the attack on the Capitol as simply a continuation of the violence they’d blamed on Black Lives Matter protests the previous year. “When it comes to violence, it was a terrible year in America this last year,” Hawley said hours after the riot.


In reality, there has been violence at some protests, but the overwhelming majority of demonstrations have been peaceful, according to a systematic review of thousands of protests that were documented last year.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told HuffPost Wednesday that “evenly divided is a good start,” but that a commission should also focus on “the pattern of disruption that led” to the riot. Referring to things that happened before January, Sen Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said “anything that might be relevant to that ought to be looked at.”

Without a bipartisan agreement, there will be no commission, since its establishment would require legislation that needs 60 votes in the Senate, where Democrats control just 50 seats. 

Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues last week that her latest proposal is “modeled on the 9/11 Commission,” which had five Democrats and five Republicans and was created by congressional legislation.  
“Compromise has been necessary; now, we must agree on the scope, composition and resources necessary to seek and find the truth,” Pelosi wrote in her letter. “It is my hope that we can reach agreement very soon.”
A spokesperson for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did not respond to a request for comment. McCarthy has waffled on the question of whether Trump incited the riot. He has sought to remain in the twice-impeached former president’s good graces.

Huffington Post

The violence after police brutality should also examine the violence OF the police brutality.

The House can at least conduct hearings on Jan.6 with full investigative powers, without the Senate.

[David Horn]

(04-20-2021, 10:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-17-2021, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-16-2021, 05:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If things keep going as they are, I expect the Democrats to cram as much as they can into the second reconciliation bill.

I agree, but they still have to contend with the limitation of that device. Killing the hyper-generous tax cuts for corporations and the rich should be a no-brainer, but Joe Manchin is still out there being himself.

And let's not forget Steven Breyer, who seems intent on being another RBG.  That's one thing that's fully in his control.  He has to know where he stands in the grand scheme of things, yet nothing so far.

With the Democrats in control of the Senate, he has about a year to decide to resign.

I'm not sanguine.  Thurgood Marshall should have been a wake-up call to RBG, but she must have believed she was immortal.  Now Breyer is dong the same thing.  It's selfishness at its worst.  

He has already had a great run; time to fold his cards and retire.

[David Horn]

(04-22-2021, 04:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Well, there is a divide on whether America is to conduct a serious investigation of the January Putsch. Republicans in Congress seem to think that Black Lives Matters is more trouble. Ahem!  

Republicans don’t want a bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol unless it also looks at unrelated events from the previous year.

My God Nancy!  Play the long game and say yes -- with two caveats: no meddling until the report is released and absolutely no active politicians.  

Let the Republicans justify the results.  They can't be good for them.

[David Horn]

(04-22-2021, 02:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: We are for freedom, the blues are not. I keep telling you, we won't be fighting with Democrats over slavery this time around. We are going to be fighting with Democrats over our (American) freedom and national sovereignty this time around...

By your twisted definition of freedom, the freedom to own slaves should be right in your wheelhouse.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-22-2021, 02:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: We are for freedom, the blues are not. I keep telling you, we won't be fighting with Democrats over slavery this time around. We are going to be fighting with Democrats over our (American) freedom and national sovereignty this time around. You f-d up. You haven't be listening. You must like cults. Did you like cults? I ask because you are associated with a Marxist cult that is similar to the Marxist Nazi cult? Are you ready to feel what it was like to be associated with them? So, when did the KKK get darker Bob? Are you going to be foolish enough to give them a pass? Why would a free American like yourself go along with their racist views and give them a pass?

Again, the rural racist faction was fighting for continued slavery in the US Civil War.  That faction moved to the Republicans when LBJ allied with MLK in the last awakening to get the black vote.  Nixon respond with the southern strategy  The two parties over the years switched position on race.  I am tired of the conservative posters pretending to be ignorant of the history, to have never heard of the southern strategy.  If so, what are they doing on a history oriented site?

Looking at the Chauvin trial, people seem to be looking at it from two opposing angles.  One will say systematic racism is the problem, there are too many bad cops who will murder on a whim, and it has been that way since the slave ships started coming.  Others say that it is the ghetto mindset that is the problem, assume all minorities have the ghetto mindset, and so long as minorities exist that are not subdued by a surplus of law and order you will have a conflict.  Whites are supposed to be supreme.

Well, there were four guys on George Floyd.  None of them acted.  From across the country that makes the ratio four bad cops to zero good ones.  The original police report had Floyd with a preexisting condition.  He died not due to the knee to the neck, but of the preexisting condition.  The police as a whole recognized and blessed the bad cop’s version of what they wanted to present to the public.  You just can’t do that when there is a video showing reality.

Lately watching a broadcast from Brooklyn Center, there were bad cops and supposedly good cops in the police station, violent protesters exchanging projectiles with them, non violent protesters letting their position be known, and looters looting.  The primary lesson I learned was that while the violent protesters were being violent, they were providing an excuse for the cops not to do their job.  They were all bad cops.  The zero good cops in that part of the world was confirmed.  At the same, the violent protesters were providing a non productive cover for the bad cops not to do their jobs.

And that seems to be the red blue divide.  You blame the systematic racism or you blame the minorities.  While I see the systematic racism the more significant problem, both sides have room to grow.  If the ghetto mindset grows out of believing you have to be a drug pusher, a star athlete or a welfare mom to succeed, as long as systematic racism makes it impossible for blacks to join society and be a success the ghetto mindset is far too true.

The other distinction is that the blue want to solve the problem, while the red wants things to remain the same.  The progressives come up on top traditionally in a crisis.  Just ask the rural racist faction of the US Civil War.  Violence and oppression can only get you so far, not far enough to fight progress.

The Marxists are obsessed with capitol being the problem.  Neither US party feels that problem enough to solve it completely just now.  The Nazi were into tribal thinking, celebrating the aryan superman, blaming the Jews, Slavs, homosexuals and others, and using violence to enforce what they saw at truth.  The Republicans are using a tribal thinking racist approach too, though they aren’t invading with armies as they did last crisis.

So I am not associated with them.  The KKK is not getting darker, but is yielding as the culture improves somewhat over the years.  This is time for the KKK to diminish further.  They essentially vanished when their feeble attempts at protest was dwarfed by the start of the George Floyd protests.

As you have defined Acirema as the opposite of America, you have defined msicar as the opposite of racism.  If one aspect of racism is keeping minorities away from jobs of influence and wealth, just look at the difference between Trump’s white male cabinet and Biden’s mixed cabinet to see which is the truly racist group.

The two major issues this crisis seem to be COVID and systematic racism.  Trump was willing to solve neither problem, but wanted existing problems to remain.  Division and hatred was his thing.  That alone says a good deal about the driving ideals of the crisis, and which will end up on top.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-22-2021, 07:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Again, the rural racist faction was fighting for continued slavery in the US Civil War.  That faction moved to the Republicans when LBJ allied with MLK in the last awakening to get the black vote.  Nixon respond with the southern strategy  The two parties over the years switched position on race.  I am tired of the conservative posters pretending to be ignorant of the history, to have never heard of the southern strategy.  If so, what are they doing on a history oriented site?

Looking at the Chauvin trial, people seem to be looking at it from two opposing angles.  One will say systematic racism is the problem, there are too many bad cops who will murder on a whim, and it has been that way since the slave ships started coming.  Others say that it is the ghetto mindset that is the problem, assume all minorities have the ghetto mindset, and so long as minorities exist that are not subdued by a surplus of law and order you will have a conflict.  Whites are supposed to be supreme.

Well, there were four guys on George Floyd.  None of them acted.  From across the country that makes the ratio four bad cops to zero good ones.  The original police report had Floyd with a preexisting condition.  He died not due to the knee to the neck, but of the preexisting condition.  The police as a whole recognized and blessed the bad cop’s version of what they wanted to present to the public.  You just can’t do that when there is a video showing reality.

Lately watching a broadcast from Brooklyn Center, there were bad cops and supposedly good cops in the police station, violent protesters exchanging projectiles with them, non violent protesters letting their position be known, and looters looting.  The primary lesson I learned was that while the violent protesters were being violent, they were providing an excuse for the cops not to do their job.  They were all bad cops.  The zero good cops in that part of the world was confirmed.  At the same, the violent protesters were providing a non productive cover for the bad cops not to do their jobs.

And that seems to be the red blue divide.  You blame the systematic racism or you blame the minorities.  While I see the systematic racism the more significant problem, both sides have room to grow.  If the ghetto mindset grows out of believing you have to be a drug pusher, a star athlete or a welfare mom to succeed, as long as systematic racism makes it impossible for blacks to join society and be a success the ghetto mindset is far too true.

The other distinction is that the blue want to solve the problem, while the red wants things to remain the same.  The progressives come up on top traditionally in a crisis.  Just ask the rural racist faction of the US Civil War.  Violence and oppression can only get you so far, not far enough to fight progress.

The Marxists are obsessed with capitol being the problem.  Neither US party feels that problem enough to solve it completely just now.  The Nazi were into tribal thinking, celebrating the aryan superman, blaming the Jews, Slavs, homosexuals and others, and using violence to enforce what they saw at truth.  The Republicans are using a tribal thinking racist approach too, though they aren’t invading with armies as they did last crisis.

So I am not associated with them.  The KKK is not getting darker, but is yielding as the culture improves somewhat over the years.  This is time for the KKK to diminish further.  They essentially vanished when their feeble attempts at protest was dwarfed by the start of the George Floyd protests.

As you have defined Acirema as the opposite of America, you have defined msicar as the opposite of racism.  If one aspect of racism is keeping minorities away from jobs of influence and wealth, just look at the difference between Trump’s white male cabinet and Biden’s mixed cabinet to see which is the truly racist group.

The two major issues this crisis seem to be COVID and systematic racism.  Trump was willing to solve neither problem, but wanted existing problems to remain.  Division and hatred was his thing.  That alone says a good deal about the driving ideals of the crisis, and which will end up on top.

The KKK is darker these days. Don't you see the larger urban racist faction associated with the Democratic party today? How do you not see it these days? Are you selective about what you see and hear or are your media outlets selective about what you see and hear? I can't say for certain but it seems like the urban minority KKK is much bigger and much more powerful than the rural white KKK that you're always railing about and blaming for something or another along with others here associated with the tribe. I been telling you for a while that you better wise up and pull your head out before its to late.