The Partisan Divide on Issues

[pbrower2a]

(04-07-2020, 06:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 02:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-06-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, that makes sense, she seems as ignorant and as partisan as you and most others like you here. So, what did those planners do to earn their paychecks during their stint under Obama other than flap their gums, fuck around and act important and accomplish little to nothing. BTW, that is what liberals seem to do best these days.

The various guests were in the front lines for AIDS, S1N1 and SARS among others.  As for ‘ignorant and partisan”, what is there in the above posting that says anything?  How can I respond if there is nothing there?

Again, you should try watching a few of Rachel’s shows.  If you are going to criticize something or some group, know something about what they are saying or doing.  If you don’t bother to learn, all you can do is to show your ignorance.

A conservative may dislike Rachel Maddow's politics, but as a rule she is a superb journalist. She gets the facts right. The dispute that a conservative has with her is with her interpretation. I'm guessing that she is simply the peak of a pyramid that does what journalists rightly do: reporting and (just as important) fact-checking. She connects undeniable fact with solid logic to get a conclusion that usually satisfies me. Contrast someone like Sean Hannity; he fits the story to his ideology, and if the story falls apart -- so do his conclusions.

As with Rachel Maddow as a journalist, so it was with Obama as an administrator. Neither knows everything, and both well know that. There is someone wiser, but such people are not good at expressing themselves or are too busy with their work to make public statements. Both know that politics and journalism exist to convince people, and someone like either is able to put such in the terms of a competent layman. 

Physicians do not do law or engineering; attorneys do not do medicine or engineering; engineers do not do medicine or law. Jacks-of-all-trades can go from one area of mediocre performance to another wherein training is slight... but develop certain skills to a certain level and one precludes the ability to do other things well for what one gets paid amply. The cellist Yo-Yo Ma does not play piano in some sleazy dive, but the piano player in a sleazy dive could switch to cashiering in a grocery store if the sleazy dives are shut down under stay-at-home orders.

I have yet to figure what Donald Trump does well that is a legitimate achievement. Oh, he got elected? In a fluke.

A superb journalist wouldn't be stuck working for a third rate cable station that's basically surviving on crumbs so to speak. She may be superb to you and her fans and a third tier audience comprised of liberals who spend the bulk of their time with liberals and pumping each other up and telling each other how great they are on a regular basis.

Donald Trump has a totalitarian-style personality cult around him. If you want an apolitical analogy, then look at $cientology for doing mind control. Trump supporters have found just the person to appeal to them. Besides, there is a big difference between people who think Donald Trump the most wonderful thing to have ever happened in American politics and the typical Obama supporter who saw clear positives but admit that he isn't in the same league as Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt (either one!) or Jefferson. You know -- Mount Rushmore and FDR. Obama knew his limitations and knew what to do about those limitations -- like consulting someone more specialized instead of looking to flatterers. Obama got the moniker "No Drama Obama" because he does not create trouble that gets him excited. 

Someone with a Trump banner or a MAGA hat generally doesn't have much wit or wisdom to offer.    

Quote:BTW, for your information, Trump was elected because Obama turned out to be hoax (didn't live up to all the hype and fell short as far as expectations) and Clinton didn't seem have the balls to upset the global apple cart. The dude has balls. You keep forgetting we're not France. I keep reminding you who we are and what you have to accept in order to remain America vs just another global citizen that the world will have to support. You already know where you stand with me and you know where you rank as far as my values.

"Trump has balls"? Do you mean that he exudes primitive, crude machismo? Like this fellow?



Nothing is sissy about Mussolini or his greatest American imitator. Reckless, ruthless, deceitful, corrupt, egotistical, fanatical, and megalomaniacal  -- such is il Duce. Regrettably such is also true about Donald Trump.    

We so far have a pattern of two-term Presidents for the last three with a change of Party in the White House after two terms. That pattern of course says that Trump will be re-elected. Obama tried to be a great President, but Corporate America had its own agenda and deep pockets for pushing the most reactionary figures possible (the sorts who concur that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it serves the economic elites).

It could be this simple: in 1933, FDR started backing the banks after three years of economic meltdown after which Big Business lacked the funds for buying the political system In 2009, Obama backed the banks after a year and a half of an economic meltdown that after a year and a half was indistinguishable from the three years following the 1929 Stock Market Crash.  After a year and a half of an economic meltdown, Corporate America was in a good position in which to buy the political process until America became a pure plutocracy as the result of the 2016 Presidential election. Obama did what FDR did, but a year and a half earlier in a dangerous economic meltdown. It is your interpretation to decide which is better and which is worse. Considering what a disaster Donald Trump is, maybe we as a nation are such swine that we would be better off with a replay of the Great Depression than ending up with the Presidential disaster that we now have. 

I can say this: except on racism and male chauvinism, if I had to choose whether Americans were nicer people in 1940 than now, then I would pick 1940. Technology and entertainment are terribly over-rated. Shared danger does far more to improve a People than does anything else. Maybe the fear of pointless death that can kill any adult without association with any vice will make us a far nicer people than we used to be even without ridiculous levels of unemployment.  

Aside from pay cable such as HBO; C-SPAN, Turner Classic Movies, FoX Movie Channels, American Movie Classics,  and channels related to Discovery and National Geographic, most of what is on cable ranges from either utilitarian or mediocre to downright awful. Among the awful are of course reality TV, shopping channels, religious hucksters, and overt propaganda such as FoX  Newspeak Channel and One America Network.  

CNN is OK for straight reporting, but its analysis is horrible.   

Do you want a comparison between Obama and another President?

Quote: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.


 
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. 

The most similar elections involving different Presidents are the overwhelming landslides involving 49 states going to one nominee and one state and Dee Cee going to the other. If you are willing to look at a Party switch from one President to the 49-state landslides, then 46 states out of 48 (when the two states were very small in population) make the first re-election of FDR against a comically-weak opponent look like that involving much the same in 1972 and 1984. But such isn't interesting. In any event, I look at the overlay between Eisenhower and Obama in their electoral wins, and except for the swatches of states from Montana to Arizona and from North Dakota to Texas, Eisenhower and Obama wins look much alike. Both did very well among the best-educated voters, but not so well in the most backward part of America in its political heritage (the Mountain and Deep South). Both were similar in temperament and character, which is exactly what one would expect of mature Reactives (Obama acted much more like someone in his 60's than someone crossing 50) more pragmatic than angry. In 2008 Obama even achieved what a Republican nominee for President usually did, faring better among people as their incomes increased. 

Neither Eisenhower nor Obama quite fits the 'populist' label. Both Eisenhower and Obama were arch-conservatives in style. OK, Eisenhower was a bit more conservative than America as a whole in the 1950's and Obama was a bit more liberal. 

Is there a moral to this story? Sure. The next effective President with a largely-conservative agenda is going to behave much more like Obama, probably down to the wholly-conventional family life, than like Donald Trump. Somehow I prefer caution, charity, probity, modesty, and moderation  to what I associate with Donald Trump.