Presidential election, 2016

[Kinser79]

(11-13-2016, 10:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Yes, I know I have replied previously, and I don't like to repeat myself too too often, but one more time. I'd suggest that extreme partisans have selective memory when ideas that conflict with their values are presented, so I fully expect to repeat myself again someday.

I imagine that both of us will repeat ourselves several times a day on this forum. For some it seems to me that they are locked into their world view and are unwilling to even attempt to look at any issue from more than one angle.

Quote:I do have an 'arrow of progress' which pretty well matches classic Whig values. Yes, just about everyone struggling for power will try to label their values and schemes as progressive, but it is possible to have a notion of where progress truly lies.

I don't necessarily disagree. I will say however that the notion of what is and is not progress is relative.

Quote:I favor human rights, equality, democracy and more even distribution of wealth.

I too favor human rights and democracy. Equality however is a pipe dream. Different people have different needs, different desires, and different abilities. Everyone's outcomes will be different. Let us suppose I give two men 100,000 dollars. One of these men is very frugal but is lazy, the other is less risk averse but is willing work hard to grow his investment in say a food truck. The former may be able through pinching pennies and spending wisely to live fairly comfortably off that money for several years but at the end of it he still is broke. The other may take a very big risk in buying the truck, buying food and driving it from place to place making meals and selling them at a modest profit. Should the economy do poorly or he has a bad product he will end up broke, but should he have a good product and the economy not do exceptionally poorly he would be able to even save money. Thus we see from this small example that equality does not exist. At most you can have equality before the law--wherein the laws apply equally to all, but that is as far as human equality is acheivable.

Because of my arguments concerning equality a more even distribution of income is neither wanted nor necessary. Rather instead, I would desire a more even distribution of opportunity. It is my view that wherein it is possible to expand opportunities for everyone to pursue their own goals, at their own pace under their own power.

As such I'd say that my inicators of progress are Human Rights, Democracy and Liberty. I've read an interesting book lately. I must admit though that it is hardly a new book. Radicalism and its Stupidities by H. Strickland Constable

https://books.google.com/books?id=lQdDAQ...e&q&f=true

Quote: In any given S&H crisis, I anticipate a conservative faction attempting to uphold the old values, and with it the political and economic systems that grant the elite ruling class political power and wealth. The progressive faction will have cultural and economic reasons to overturn the old. Generally, by the time the 4T rolls around, problems with the old ways of doing things are blatant and obvious. Often the progressive faction is lead by a new group of elites who wish to diminish or take over from the old elites.

Thus, tax and spend liberalism featured massive taxes on the ruling elites and produced as comfortable an existence for the working classes as has ever existed. Reagan's Borrow and spend trickle down redistributed wealth back to the elite ruling robber baron class, and created an anemic economy that has many dissatisfied who are aware of what went on during the tax and spend era. This would suggest that the New Dealers were true progressives, while the unraveling era Republicans have not been.

By and large I think we mostly agree here. Where we differ is on seeing who is the actual conservative here and who is just the mouth piece of the Establishment. Given that the Establishment Politicans cannot stand Trump but seem to love Clinton it should be easy to deduce which is which unless one is stuck on labels. Personally myself I could care less if someone has an R or a D behind their name. I kind of view the political parties the same way as I view a dispute of the merits of the Crips over the Bloods.

It is for this reason why I can vote for Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general. Red vs Blue is meaningless to me, and well anyone who isn't a "extreme partisan". Or perhaps to put it as my Boyfriend does "I didn't leave the Democrats, the Democrats left me."

Quote:Similarly, equal pay for equal work triggers the 'equality' aspect. I would label that as progressive.

The wage gap is a myth. Men and women who work the same job, with the same competancy for the same hours get paid the same. Wherein earnings differences occur between men and women is in relation to their choices. Women typically take lower paid positions, and work in lower paid fields generally, take more time off work and work less overtime. Men often make the opposite choices but perhaps I should let this dangerous faggot explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSRQc251jzM

Quote:Similarly, equal treatment in marriage for all gender combinations triggers both equality aspect and human rights.

First there are only two genders: Male and Female. Thus there are only three possible combinations. Personally I don't care if gays and lesbians get married, but, I wish that they wouldn't. The very best things about being gay lie in the more licentious aspects of it. As such I oppose the domestication of homos everywhere.

Quote:Republicans are traditionally the party of the Robber Barons. While the Democrats have recently sucked deep at the nipple of Citizens United, they still seem less beholden to the elite ruling class than the Republicans. This is not a question of black and white, though, not at this point. It is a question of two shades of very dark grey.

So the GOP has traditionally been beholden to a class that no longer exists. However, if we have a new elite of internet moguls and such then those are overwhelmingly Democratic. Lincoln described the two parties and how they function in the US as being like two drunken men in a brawl. eventually they end up through that brawl wearing each other's coat.