07-17-2017, 05:42 AM
Well, giving up on approaches that aren't accepted isn't a bad notion... I'm finding it amusing to try to convince you to speak, and Eric to listen...
I don't know that this is what you are talking about, but I don't consider your economics arguments to be main stream red. Yours is a decent perspective. I gave up on rebutting it though, letting Mikebert take it. He is better at detailed mathematical economics than I. He's been on the board for a long long time, and I've learned that when he occasionally starts throwing numbers and math about to get out of his way and watch the show. Yours is just a separate argument seldom used by main stream red to the red base. As you have likely figured out, my more basic approach is based on performance rather than theory. Bush 43 nearly took down the world economy. His father was somewhat better, but still lost his second term to 'It's the economy, stupid.' It's too soon to judge Trump on economics, but his team has looked dysfunctional over all.
From my perspective, economics is the most important driver in the unraveling pendulum. Since Nixon, the White House has been swinging back and forth between the major parties. The Republicans nigh on break the economy, but the country becomes dissatisfied with the slow Democratic recovery, thus the red get back in power based on the unraveling memes. The culture war issues (guns, abortion, the environment, etc...) aren't totally irrelevant, but it's the economy, stupid.
Prior American crises peaked with a revolution, a civil war, and a world war. This has a lot of turning fans anticipating a violent climax to our current problems. Thus, I watch the spiral of violence. I'm not seeing a critical escalation. Both the red and blue cultures have been rejecting violence as a method for changing the country. After major provocations such as OKC or September 11th, red and blue politicians get together to suggest that bombs are not how patriots resolve differences within the culture. That seems to be sticking, and, of course, revolution or civil war is not in the establishment's interests.
Not so long ago, driving a red extreme partisan into silence would count for me as a victory. That's one way of keeping score. In case you haven't noticed, I've shifted score keeping methods. If we aren't going into a decisive violent climax, the two cultures have to learn to live with each other. Each has to learn what the other truly considers precious, and find a middle ground where both factions get most of what they want. The alternative is to continue the unraveling pendulum, for each faction to be dominant for a term or two, for each culture to try to attempt to push its values on the other.
I don't know that this is what you are talking about, but I don't consider your economics arguments to be main stream red. Yours is a decent perspective. I gave up on rebutting it though, letting Mikebert take it. He is better at detailed mathematical economics than I. He's been on the board for a long long time, and I've learned that when he occasionally starts throwing numbers and math about to get out of his way and watch the show. Yours is just a separate argument seldom used by main stream red to the red base. As you have likely figured out, my more basic approach is based on performance rather than theory. Bush 43 nearly took down the world economy. His father was somewhat better, but still lost his second term to 'It's the economy, stupid.' It's too soon to judge Trump on economics, but his team has looked dysfunctional over all.
From my perspective, economics is the most important driver in the unraveling pendulum. Since Nixon, the White House has been swinging back and forth between the major parties. The Republicans nigh on break the economy, but the country becomes dissatisfied with the slow Democratic recovery, thus the red get back in power based on the unraveling memes. The culture war issues (guns, abortion, the environment, etc...) aren't totally irrelevant, but it's the economy, stupid.
Prior American crises peaked with a revolution, a civil war, and a world war. This has a lot of turning fans anticipating a violent climax to our current problems. Thus, I watch the spiral of violence. I'm not seeing a critical escalation. Both the red and blue cultures have been rejecting violence as a method for changing the country. After major provocations such as OKC or September 11th, red and blue politicians get together to suggest that bombs are not how patriots resolve differences within the culture. That seems to be sticking, and, of course, revolution or civil war is not in the establishment's interests.
Not so long ago, driving a red extreme partisan into silence would count for me as a victory. That's one way of keeping score. In case you haven't noticed, I've shifted score keeping methods. If we aren't going into a decisive violent climax, the two cultures have to learn to live with each other. Each has to learn what the other truly considers precious, and find a middle ground where both factions get most of what they want. The alternative is to continue the unraveling pendulum, for each faction to be dominant for a term or two, for each culture to try to attempt to push its values on the other.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.