The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 02:08 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 09:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 03:39 AM)taramarie Wrote: Astrology is Eric's profession as far as i know so of course he will discuss it and inject it into his "findings" regarding the political topics that you guys discuss. I do not see that much discussion about dogs, but pbrower mentioned his reason for bringing up dogs so he can answer that better than i can as i only mentioned dogs in south africa as that was brought up and i have experience in south africa. As for violence and xenophobia....this is the 4T and there is violence partly because of xenophobia as well as other various outrages going on in your country which are splitting the population into pieces. Also i believe it could be a feeling of needs not being met/heard or understood and the only way to get those needs met is a feeling of having to take action even if it means violence at times. I feel this going on within both sides politically in your country going by what people say and how it is said. It is a 4T so obviously that will happen. I just hope it does not end up as another civil war. More than likely not. I hope so anyway. "Odd areas of interest" may be a call out for the need to bring attention to a need as well as a simple interest. Perhaps listen to the message behind those interests?

You did catch a few poster's specific interests, ones which I have grown past.  I suppose it just itches in my case because I have grown past them.  I know just enough to catch some errors and engage.

But the violence?  It was common...  in the Industrial Age and before.  This is not the Industrial Age or before.  The ones I find obsessed with violence and xenophobia seem to be dwelling in the past, are conservative, are really reluctant to change, are least able to see how things changed at the age boundary.  War and violence are not cost effective or necessary anymore.  We are absurdly slow to figure this out, especially the more conservative among us.  Watching them type that we have always had a crisis war before therefor they will be disappointed that they will not find a nuke going off just above their heads is more than a little off.

Well it is them. Their interests and needs. If you wish to converse with them, you will have to accept that this is a part of them. Just like when i start talking about New Zealand because it is a part of who i am. It is good however that you realize why it irks you. As for no need for war and violence, that depends on what will happen in the future actually. In a hypothetical situation and i do mean this is hypothetical, what if a country decided to take over just as the nazi's did. Would the USA just roll over and say nah war and violence is not necessary anymore. Yes it is not cost effective. Not at all. But the cost if for example that vaguely mentioned country who decided to take over countries including for example yours, would the cost of not doing anything be higher? Really i think it is a good consideration to take into account. That country wanting to take over may be pushing for an agenda that your country folk would not agree with at all. This is under the assumption that talk has no effect here at all and war is needed in this case to push back people forcing their agenda on people physically. I think sometimes it is needed, but should be done ONLY when there is no other option and other ways of resolving issues have not worked. It should be a last resort move.

If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

In recent years the presidents of the two parties have traded places to a large extent when it comes to use of the military and defense of the country. The so-called need to defend our country hasn't really been much of an issue since 1814. Wars by the United States have been for imperial expansion and colonization for the sake of American power and industry, and in some cases (like world wars I and II) the USA decided it could also help save the position and fortunes of allies we considered more civilized than those who were attacking them. In most cases these colonial wars also had the element of the "white man's burden" and our belief that we could impose our ideals on other nations.

Up until the 1970s, it was the more "liberal" Democratic party and politicians who pushed harder for war and took the nation into battle, while the conservatives were isolationists and wanted to stay home. An exception was the election of 1900, when the liberal Democrat advocated against imperialism and the Republican incumbent was pursuing it full speed ahead, and his successor took the same line. That was very prescient (and very connected astrologically to the same kind of situation in the late sixties and the election of 1972).

After the Vietnam debacle, and anti-war faction pretty much took over the Democratic Party, and it was the Republicans since Nixon who have pursued and started imperial and colonial wars, such as Reagan's support for Nicaraguan Contras, Bush I's Gulf War and Bush II's Gulf War #2.

After 9-11 Bush declared war on "terrorism," but he failed to destroy Al Queda, and instead got us involved in yet another colonial, imperial "regime change" war in Afghanistan. He bungled it badly, and then shifted resources to his colonial Gulf War #2 project instead. Obama came in and focused on the real target, and got the job done. Then he answered the need to wipe out the demons of the Islamic State. Trump came in and finished that job, although with much greater damage to the people and the region. Meanwhile both leaders allowed a genocide to unfold in Syria that threatened the stability of Europe.

Trump, with all his faults, is hesitant to start colonial and imperial wars. He alleges that he opposed the war in Iraq, and that's fine if it keeps him from doing something similar. But the way he bungles so many affairs, foreign and domestic, and breaks so many treaties, I hardly see him as another Churchill.

Right now, China is making cyber attacks on the USA that must be countered, and is violating the terms of its takeover of Hong Kong. The Trump administration seems willing at least to keep abreast of China's aggressions. Maybe the West should invade Hong Kong to liberate the people there. But I doubt either political party would have the stomach now to launch another such colonial war of choice against China, and I doubt also that Biden would fail to keep watch on China and its cyber and economic attacks on the USA. I don't see much difference between the parties right now on the war-peace issue. Trump is America first, talking like an isolationist at times, and Biden is also an old opponent of the USA's colonial war in Vietnam.

Just because Trump talks about making America great again and winning so often that we get tired of winning, and wastes billions on unneeded defense programs and weapons, does not mean he is any better at defending the country than the much-more experienced and much wiser Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden.

Classic Xer's talk about his party being the defender of America, and the other party being the one to roll over, doesn't seem very accurate now.