Who Can Beat Trump?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-20-2018, 06:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, if you don't like to be associated with the views and beliefs of socialists and communists and so forth then you shouldn't be hanging around with them and casually supporting their views and beliefs and using them as much as you do and have been doing since I first laid eyes on you and began reading and deciphering your posts and learning more about you. Right now, I view you as a borderline blue Democrat because you spend a lot of time and efforts bouncing between traditional Democratic views that you probably hold dearly and the blue views you have to share and doing your best to remain appealing to both.

I don't fling terms around like your blues. I don't use race as an excuse like your blues. If wondering what's going on, I'm speaking to a person (YOU) who I view as Democrat and asking him what the Democrats are going to do about the blues who are PISSING OFF, TURNING OFF, ANTAGOZING AND SERIOUSLY AGGRAVATING AT LEAST HALF OF THE COUNTRY THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AT THIS TIME WHO VOTED IN THE LAST ELECTION.

Well, I think you lie about flinging terms, if you count your idea of socialist and communists as terms.  You use them as much as the next guy, though you are refusing to define what you mean by them.

'Socialist' is redefined by a lot of people, and could mean a bunch of things.  That makes the term a poor one to use.  I would as soon avoid it.

I might be a half Maxist, but definitely not a communist.

Marx was correct in saying a capitalist elite is apt to create an imbalance of wealth in their own favor.  

Marx was in many ways wrong.  He claimed this imbalance of wealth would inevitably lead to a violent revolution.  That has proven one of his more incorrect predictions.  The capital elites have lessened the imbalance of wealth just enough such that it is in many places more cost effective to support it than to fight it.  The elites are in enough of a position of control to relieve the most obvious threat against them.  There will be, in my opinion, no revolution.

The communists lost the Cold War in major part as autocratic government is inferior to democracy.  The communist party would become the new elite class, invariably tried to create an imbalance of wealth in its favor, and lost to more competitive systems, including democracy and capitalism.  That is water under the bridge, a done deal, decided, in the past.  Even Russia and China, autocratic champions, use a strong element of capitalism these days.  There are capitalist elites even there.  There are no more relevant pure communists.

And yet, the red - blue divide is in part a class struggle between those out to maximize division of wealth on the red side, and reduce it on the blue side.  The establishment wings of both sides are in the elites pocket, but more the red side.  The People side would reduce the imbalance of wealth, or at least I would.   I can applaud that the red side's rejection of their establishment, but they could not find anyone other than the incompetent, narcissistic liar Trump to try to implement their obsolete ideals.  I do not anticipate their finding anyone much better.  Meanwhile, the blue side has yet to step away from their establishment cleanly.

Are you correctly interpreting and projecting what the blues actually believe?  No.  You cannot move past the ad hominem and straw man level of false stereotypes.  You can not listen.

Are the progressives paying attention to the middle of the country?  Not really.  What you said in all caps is true.  The progressives see the middle of the country as a lost cause.  Many of them (cough cough Eric) see resolution only through conflict.  I see the Industrial Age as over, as the patterns valid then being much less relevant now, as things more likely resolved though politics than through violence.  The good ideas of the middle of the country should be preempted.  The bad, rejected.  The needs to solve the real problems such as borrow and spend economics, global warming and racism are coming to a boil.

I am also seeing the red using the old compromises that brought the slaveholders into the Union.  The Senate gives power to the small states, as does the electoral college.  There is the more modern problem of gerrymandering.  The capitalist elites and the red have an advantage over the People.

For a time.  The middle of the country is stubborn, but not stupid, at least most of them.  The elites are small.  They have the money, but they cannot fool all of the People all of the time.  Eventually, the needs of the many will overwhelm the gluttony of the few.

I have noted your inability to answer what 'rights' specifically the Democrats are putting at risk.  You fling terms around, refuse to define them, and swim in stereotypes.  Well, put up or shut up.