Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2016, 01:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 12:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dialogue is not a prominent feature of fourth turnings. There is some kind of war, and one side wins. Then consensus develops around the winning side. As you say, what you call the "secular side" or the liberal side will win, and a consensus will develop around it. During the consensus time, some dialogue is possible, but it does not go deep. In the second turning, and to some extent in the late first turning, deeper experiences and conversations occur, and new visions for our future are developed. On the other hand, a new polarization also begins.

Yes and no.  Prior to the regeneracy it is much as you say.  Extreme folk are trying to make the conflict start, to trigger the unravelling.  You get people like Sam Adams, Thomas Paine and William Lloyd Garrison speaking extreme values with intensity, trying to get things going.

But the crisis is also a time to build a new society, to get things right.  It is a time of trial and error.  You have to do some experiments before you have a new pattern that can be set in cement come the 1T.  Crisis leaders like Lincoln and FDR have to be coalition builders, have to be inclusive, have to bring in as many factions into the consensus as possible.  While they can't forget or relax in their vision of new ideals, they aren't as narrow and extreme as the Sam Adams type of voice crying in the wilderness.

In FDRs Hundred Days, there was dialogue.  Everybody knew they had a disaster, Democrat, Republican, labor leader, robber baron, farmer...  everybody.  The transforming legislation of the Hundred Days didn't pop out of FDR's head whole.  He had many diverse enemies and rivals in and out of the White House trying to find something everyone could respect that would work.  Lincoln's cabinet was famously a team of rivals, with people holding diverse views, pulling in different directions, with Lincoln pulling it all together and making it work somehow.  If the stories of Hillary pushed at the Democratic Convention are true, she might well be good at that sort of thing...  listening to folks with different viewpoints and putting together a workable solution that takes all views into account.  While she doesn't have the presence and charisma one might want in a transforming politician, she just might have other tools just as important in getting things done.

One thing to note, however, is that the winning side is already at the outset broader and more able to hear other viewpoints. That was true even among the Sam Adams types. The other side was not, and had to be defeated. FDR did not listen so much to those whose hatred he welcomed. Nor could he accomodate the fascists; unconditional surrender was required, and General Sherman had to raise hell in order to defeat the southern fanatics. A similar situation exists today. But yes, in the crisis, it's many hands on deck to work out solutions.

Quote:Now, you are correct that we still have to calf the iceberg.  Right now we're still stuck to the glacier.  We're not moving anywhere.  We need to crack the ice and get floating.  We need Sam Adams types, Thomas Paines, and William Lloyd Garrisons.  While none of us are going to be that famous, a lot of us are partisan propagandists in a similar mode.

Trump might provide a wonderful opportunity to calf the iceberg.  We might end up with a bunch of diverse people sitting at the table because they could not stomach Trump.  To take a regeneracy and turn it into a transforming culture you'll have to still listen to and acknowledge valid points from as many people around the table as possible.

And Lincoln still had to press hard to get slavery outlawed. The battle is joined till the end.

Quote:We, of course, are a bunch of nobodies, far from the White House, not at all comparable to the Lincoln cabinet or the ad-hoc committees of the Hundred Days.  It might not matter if we are listening to each other or not.

But I for one am more interested in exchanging posts with people who are actually listening and responding civilly with cogent points.  Yes, there are sometimes extreme partisans repeating flawed positions that disregard conflicting viewpoints and reality.  If an obstinate partisan is being particularly blind and stubborn, I'lll rebut.  That's not overly satisfying though.  There is more to be done than that.

You need to look at yourself too sometimes, in this regard, as well as at others like me and playwrite. Not that I haven't said that before.

[Eric the Green]

We could have a poll; which rider would you like to see as president of the USA, Mad Vlad or Trump the Grump.

Meanwhile Rags, maybe you could suggest whom Hillary should pick for her cabinet. You're right; that will say a lot about how she governs, whether she has listened to Bernie and co., and whether she will get further out from under Wall Street--- unlike Bill and Barack.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-02-2016, 01:10 PM)playwrite Wrote: That doesn't mean we can't have fun in the interim!

Back on topic - 

Happy trails....  to you....
Until we meet again...

[Eric the Green]

Watch: Bill Maher Spend 30 Glorious Minutes Railing Against Donald Trump

[Eric the Green]

Joe Biden really brings it, says what needed to be said; and he says he's not joking, but...... it's really kinda funny too!





malarcky; yeah!

[Eric the Green]

There's been some discussion on some thread (I don't remember which one) about whether Trump is mentally ill. So I post this article.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell: Trump Is 'Mentally Ill'

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell Tuesday raised the issue of Donald Trump's mental capacity to serve as president — saying that "somebody has got to do a psychological profile and figure out why he acts the way he acts."

"It's becoming more and more clear that the biggest disqualifying factor as Donald Trump as president is his mental health," O'Donnell said, noting that he has known the Republican nominee for a decade. "Donald Trump is unfit for the office of the presidency."

He said that his clearest indication was Trump's attacks this past weekend on the family of Humayun Khan, the Muslim Army captain who died in Iraq in 2004.

His father, Khizr Khan, lashed out at Trump's plan to ban Muslims from entering the United States last week at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Humayun Khan, of Bristow, Va., was killed by a car bomb. He was awarded the Purple Heart and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

"It was a sick thing to do — and there is plenty of reason to think that Donald Trump did it because he is sick, mentally ill," O'Donnell said. "No matter how many times Donald Trump called women dogs, most in the political media were never going to question his mental health — but the line he crossed over the weekend with the Khan family has finally directed the question of what's wrong with Donald Trump at the right target: his mental health."

O'Donnell's comments followed similar comments by "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough earlier Tuesday and Dr. Drew Pinsky on CNN the night before.

"I fielded calls all day yesterday from conservatives — from Republicans, from officials, from people that the media would call right-wing bloggers — and everybody was asking me about his mental health," Scarborough said on his program, Mediaite reports.

"It’s not like there was talking points shot out by the DNC or by anybody else," he added.

"Everybody was talking about his mental health yesterday, everybody was calling me saying: 'What’s happening to him? What is wrong with him?'"

Scarborough said he has known Trump for 20 years.

Pinsky told Don Lemon Monday night that while Trump did not fit the strict legal definition for insanity, he did show signs of several mental illnesses.

"There’s two definitions of sanity: one is legal definition, and that is somebody who is so out of it they don’t know the difference between right and wrong," Pinsky said, RawStory.com reports. "That is a very high standard for insanity — and very few people meet that standard.

"When you’re legally insane, you’re really not functioning," he added. "Clinically, medically, usually when we talk about insanity, we mean psychotic, hearing voices, hallucinations."

Pinsky noted, however, Trump's apparent narcissism.

"People want to label him with a narcissistic personality disorder — and that is a pretty tough, tough thing to do at a distance," he told Lemon.

"But let me just talk to you. Narcissism, generally, can be a good thing: If you’re a fighter pilot, we want you to be narcissist, not to have fear in extreme circumstances.

"Most political leaders have some degree of narcissism, what motivates them to go into these areas," Pinsky said. "We’ve done research on this — and it bears that out."


Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/lawrence...z4GJRcNl6z

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-04-2016, 02:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Some folks on here have stated an opinion that Millies are going for Trump.

Not these ones:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/8...ort-trump/

Well, kids that can make it into Harvard might not be representative of Republican Millies as a whole, could possibly be a biased sample.  

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-03-2016, 05:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Pinsky noted, however, Trump's apparent narcissism.

"People want to label him with a narcissistic personality disorder — and that is a pretty tough, tough thing to do at a distance," he told Lemon.

"But let me just talk to you. Narcissism, generally, can be a good thing: If you’re a fighter pilot, we want you to be narcissist, not to have fear in extreme circumstances.

"Most political leaders have some degree of narcissism, what motivates them to go into these areas," Pinsky said. "We’ve done research on this — and it bears that out."

I've seen that narcissist diagnostic applied to Trump before, and had to look up the word.  I'm not generally one to say a politician is insane.  I'd prefer to attribute unusual political positions on unusual world views rather than invoke insanity.

But, (expletive deleted) the diagnosis of narcissism explains Trump well.

A fighter pilot is often betting his life (not to mention an expensive airplane) on his skills being better than the other guy's.  The confidence that comes with narcissism  can be a good thing...  if your skills really are better than the other guy's.  There is a pattern of a few pilots, the aces, having a huge percentage of the air to air kills.  Confidence is part of it.  Good eyesight plays a surprisingly large role.  Maintaining situational awareness, a good idea of what is going on around you, is another big factor.  Knowing what your plane can do that the other guy's plane can't is huge.  Having a plane that can do stuff the other guy's can't is big too.  Stick and rudder skills count.  Lots of factors.

But having a good fighter pilot willing to risk his life is different from having a commander in chief willing to gamble with the lives of others.  In general, at least in my opinion, the higher ranked one gets, the more the risks ought to be minimized and calculated.  Nothing is a certainty in combat.  You can't have commanders unwilling to take risks or accept some casualties.  Some of the better commanders, Patton and Montgomery come to mind, were full of themselves.

But I noted that in the Civil War as well as in World War II, the most flamboyant aggressive risk takers were kept a tier down underneath more balanced prudent superiors.  The notable examples might be Stonewall under Lee and Sheridan under Grant.  Patton under Eisenhower might be another example.  There is something to be said for giving an aggressive free wheeling commander a good sized chunk of one's force and letting him loose, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that sort of guy at the top.

I'd be nervous with a narcissist at the top.

[Eric the Green]

HEY, let's give the Grump what he really wants!!!

[Eric the Green]

Gavin Newsom gives us this video about Trump's immigration plan





Gavin Newsom has a better score on my new system than on my old one: 9-4 (one pt. better than Trump!)

Oooh, and he wants to build a wall with Canada too, and make Canada pay for it!
https://youtu.be/6xnFR53lWAs

Well, at least that should provide some jobs. More than the pipeline, probably

I'm reminded though about my statement that under Neptune in Pisces, which we are, people get on boats and move places. How's he going to stop all the people in boats if he builds a wall? What's he going to do about all those people on rafts and sinking boats operated by smugglers? Are we going to wall off the ocean too?

[Eric the Green]

A closer look at the Dementalist's meltdown this week

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-02-2016, 02:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And Lincoln still had to press hard to get slavery outlawed. The battle is joined till the end.

Back in Britain prior to immigration to the New World and in America with the Revolution and Civil War, the battle was indeed joined.  In the old times, crisis spirals of violence generally escalated into all out military conflict.  As democracy became more established, more crises were handled short of violence.  The Great Depression and Martin Luther King's non-4T push didn't go full military.

Today, I've been mentioning three issues, but would be open to considering more...  We have economic inequality, racial inequality in the justice system and global warming.  Of the three, only racial inequality's spiral of rhetoric and violence seems to be escalating into violence thus far, and it is no where near the military conflict level.

In Europe, Queen Victoria and Bismarck were also able to defuse incipient economic crises well short of crisis scale violence.  I'd note that neither Queen Victoria and Bismarck are generally thought of as progressive advocates for the common man, but they could see a potential threat to the ruling class and give enough ground to avert it.

As Kinser seems fixed to the idea that crises involve destroying the privileged elite class, you seem attached to the notion of all out confrontation to the point of destruction.  In some crises, yes, both things can happen.  The further back in time you go, the more likely you are to see them.  As democracy takes better hold, it is less certain they will happen, more possible that the problems will be solved without taking things over the edge.

I'm not Victoria, Bismarck or FDR, but I like the way they got things done.  If an economic and class problem can be solved as they did, let's do it.  The French and Russian revolutions got things done too, but things got ugly.  The sort of folks that are good at organizing mob violence don't necessarily have the right skill set for running a government that is beneficial to the People.  They are more obsessed with protecting themselves from mob violence than helping the People they are ruling.  The People are in their eyes potential enemies, a risk to their hold on power, not the ones they are there to serve.  

I'd prefer to go the Victoria / Bismarck / FDR route, though, yes, FDR went full military with Hitler.  Don't see that there was a choice with Hitler.

Thus, I'd as son invite lots of people to the table and listen.  I know this is hard on you, but we need John Adams types too.  I'll tell you what.  I'll put some really tough glass in the windows of my table room.  You can stand outside the room and throw rocks if you like.  Might provide some possible incentive.  

[pbrower2a]

(08-06-2016, 11:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 02:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And Lincoln still had to press hard to get slavery outlawed. The battle is joined till the end.

Back in Britain prior to immigration to the New World and in America with the Revolution and Civil War, the battle was indeed joined.  In the old times, crisis spirals of violence generally escalated into all out military conflict.  As democracy became more established, more crises were handled short of violence.  The Great Depression and Martin Luther King's non-4T push didn't go full military.

True. Hereditary leaders often proved incredibly inept, cruel, and destructive.  Caligula was a descendant of Augustus Caesar; Nero was a sun of Tiberius; Commodus was the son of the esteemed Marcus Aurelius. If one is stuck with the worst Chinese, Russian, or Ottoman emperors one has little choice but to put up with whatever comes. Democracy has generally proved to have better leaders because of the usually non-violent competition for votes. The Darwinian struggle for nation states has worked well for the USA for an unusually-long time for a political entity on an imperial scale.

Quote:Today, I've been mentioning three issues, but would be open to considering more...  We have economic inequality, racial inequality in the justice system and global warming.  Of the three, only racial inequality's spiral of rhetoric and violence seems to be escalating into violence thus far, and it is no where near the military conflict level.

I see racial inequality in economics likely to fizzle once poor white people start to recognize that they too are oppressed and exploited, too. Anti-elite populism has typically had its upswings and downswings in the Mountain and Deep South. It is now at its saecular nadir. Black Lives Matter can pressure police departments to reform their methods of policing. Of course what we really need may be reform of the prison system. Thought reform? Just look at the low rate of recidivism in Japan.

Quote:In Europe, Queen Victoria and Bismarck were also able to defuse incipient economic crises well short of crisis scale violence.  I'd note that neither Queen Victoria and Bismarck are generally thought of as progressive advocates for the common man, but they could see a potential threat to the ruling class and give enough ground to avert it.

Victoria recognized, like Bismarck, that if workers were not to fall for socialist revolution they would need a stake in the system. But let us remember that Victoria found that parliaments and ministers worked well -- as did several successive Prussian and German Kaisers. Wilhelm II broke that trend, becoming as despotic as he could get away with being... and he practically destroyed his world. See also Nicholas II, too despotic to tolerate anything that challenged his authority but too weak to rule effectively. Maybe a nice little war might promote some patriotism and divert people from their economic woes?

Quote:As Kinser seems fixed to the idea that crises involve destroying the privileged elite class, (Eric seems) attached to the notion of all out confrontation to the point of destruction.  In some crises, yes, both things can happen.  The further back in time you go, the more likely you are to see them.  As democracy takes better hold, it is less certain they will happen, more possible that the problems will be solved without taking things over the edge.

I'm not Victoria, Bismarck or FDR, but I like the way they got things done.  If an economic and class problem can be solved as they did, let's do it.  The French and Russian revolutions got things done too, but things got ugly.  The sort of folks that are good at organizing mob violence don't necessarily have the right skill set for running a government that is beneficial to the People.  They are more obsessed with protecting themselves from mob violence than helping the People they are ruling.  The People are in their eyes potential enemies, a risk to their hold on power, not the ones they are there to serve.

Recognizing that one needs to get one's potential opponents to have a stake in the system is one way to thwart revolution; it is more effective than even a strong police or military. It may not be proved, but I believe that Lenin won the revolution when he started paying the cops and the soldiers. Even at a low intellectual level, I have found that Dale Carnegie's How to Make Friends and Influence People can be touted as a means of avoiding needless trouble. (Kinser could definitely use it).

Quote:I'd prefer to go the Victoria / Bismarck / FDR route, though, yes, FDR went full military with Hitler.  Don't see that there was a choice with Hitler.

Attacking a Great Power that has solved most of its internal problems near the end of a 4T is a great blunder. FDR may not have liked war, but that does not mean that he couldn't be the worst possible enemy of aggressors.

Quote:Thus, I'd as son invite lots of people to the table and listen.  I know this is hard on you, but we need John Adams types too.  I'll tell you what.  I'll put some really tough glass in the windows of my table room.  You can stand outside the room and throw rocks if you like.  Might provide some possible incentive.  

[/quote]

Ironically, John Adams may have easily become a Tory, having defended the soldiers in the Boston Massacre. Only when the Crown rewarded him for his scrupulous process by requisitioning his house did they lose him as a possible ally as an honest broker in a political dispute. Maybe the concept of independence might have failed had George III taken a wiser course of action. Tightening the grip on colonial politicians who were doing a reasonably-good job on their own was a very bad idea. The American colonies were just too big and potentially powerful to hold.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-01-2016, 06:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-01-2016, 03:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future  unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.

If one buys into the Reagan memes, that the government is so flawed and corrupt that all it does is failure, that low tax small government is the way to go, you can see how Trump's projections might seem meaningful and potentially accurate.

Those buying into the progressive ideas are echoing the New Deal notions that coming together from the common good is beneficial.  They want a return to the rewarding policies of the 1950s and 1960s when the crisis values of working together for the common man made America great.

I see you locked into the Reagan Memes.  Not surprising.  They've been hammered home for decades now, and voting for tax cuts gives such an immediate return that it's tempting.  Thus, you're going to stick with the Reagan Memes and project the future as if they were true.

But the Reagan Memes have been driven way way beyond the point of diminishing return.  There can be governments that try to do too much, and governments that try to do to little, and we've been pushing way too far in the too little direction during this extended unravelling.  Time to move back to the center.  I expect that if we do start moving back to an effective engaged government, we will move too far.  Any time a party takes control it will push it's memes to far and too long.  While its a concern, it might take us a decade plus to reach that point.  Believe it or not, I half expect to start pushing the Reagan memes myself many years in the future.  Leave any party in power too long and they will take their ideas too far.  If the S&H cycles or something like them continues, another unravelling will eventually come, and Reagan's time may return.  For the moment, though, we have unravelled quite enough, thank you.

Meanwhile, Republican borrow and spend economics has been discredited.  Bush 41's career died with 'It's the economy, stupid', and Bush 43 drove the economy into collapse.  Republican Bush 43 neo-con serial unilateral preemptive nation building has been discredited as a foreign policy.  The troops are home and won't be going abroad in numbers at any time soon.  Nixon's southern strategy's success has been diminishing.  With an ever more diverse electorate and increasing tolerance, playing the race card in Nixon's vicious hateful way has become a more desperate and risky ploy.  Trump is giving it one more go.  We'll see where it takes him.  Obama Care has shown that big government projects can benefit the common man.  The Republican projections that it would fail proved false.  Obama Care has been a positive for Hillary.

If one has one's eyes open, recent history says a lot to suggest Trump is playing to a diminished remnant who are still clinging to the unravelling world view and values.  That diminished remnant is still mighty.  It is not to be ignored.  It is, however, diminished and diminishing.  

We look at the world through different lenses.  To me it seems like you are living in an echo chamber.  You can't see the blatantly obvious.  I suspect you see me exactly the same way.  This is human nature.  It is easy to see what reaffirms one's values and hard to see reality when it conflicts with one's values.  Thus, meaningful conversations between partisans on opposite extremes are rare to impossible.  It seems easier for a human to pull out a gun and a bomb to fight for one's principles than it is to honestly reevaluate one's principles.  Destruction is often embraced sooner than Truth.

In 2008 and 2012 on these forums, as the elections approached, the partisans on both sides got ever more partisan.  Most were projecting victory for their own values and party and heaped scorn on the other guys.  We seem to be falling into that rut again.  In the last few months since the new forums opened I've gotten drawn into pushing the Blue partisan points.  I'm not sure how necessary this is.  There are enough Blue partisans about without one more.  Still, I like to think I put a different if still left handed spin on things.

But I don't know how much more is left to be said this side of November.  November will bring a reality check that even the most partisan can't ignore.

I'm viewing the same world as you. I assume that we currently live in the same world. A highly adaptive and changing world that no one is capable of controlling because of all the freedoms and access to alternate forms of information and alternate avenues of opportunity that we have today. I hate to burst your bubble but if you come out of this election with less taxpayers and more liberal charity cases with more issues and problems that will require more financial resources in order to support and maintain, you lost as far as this election is concerned. What's diminishing within your ranks? Why is the workingman horse that the Democrats have been used to riding on for years diminishing? You have problems Bob, tens times more problems than the problem that exist on the right. You're living in echo chamber. This place is a very clear example of a liberal echo chamber. I get the impression that you don't stray very far from liberal echo chambers. A liberal place that echoes the notion that their values are the best even though they've been proven to be unable hold up against the strength and resilience mine. Drawing conclusions based on the Democratic past while ignoring the obvious differences that exist today. I consider myself fortunate to not be emotionally tied to one political party or one politic candidate.

[Eric the Green]

It's fine to strike a different note within our liberal echo chamber, Classic. I do think you are emotionally tied to some of the basic Republican ideas, however, but if you consider yourself untied, I'm on board with that; let's see where it leads you.

The working class is diminishing, that's true, which means it's not a solid course of votes for either party. The Democrats have gone more techie and yuppie, as the economy shifts from drudgery to smarts. But the workers will vote liberal if they know what's good for them. Getting the wealthy to pay more taxes will help deal with the charity cases indeed, and what's more, help them to get out of poverty; whereas the trickle-down favor-the-powerful policies of the Republicans have diminished the middle class and expanded poverty for 35 years and counting. The conservative policies are those that have proven they can't hold up, as wealthy has been more and more concentrated due to their policies, while the middle class finds fewer opportunities.

Trump can pose as their champion and their voice, but he would lead them into the ditch so that his own class can continue to corner the market on power and wealth. That's what he's always done, and that's what he'll do despite his claims. And despite their claims, the favor-the-rich policies of the conservatives have never worked. Liberal mixed-economy policies always work, if administered properly, and not taken to extremes by a different leftist "communist" elite. But, that can't happen here, and never has.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-07-2016, 02:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's fine to strike a different note within our liberal echo chamber, Classic. I do think you are emotionally tied to some of the basic Republican ideas, however, but if you consider yourself untied, I'm on board with that; let's see where it leads you.

The working class is diminishing, that's true, which means it's not a solid course of votes for either party. The Democrats have gone more techie and yuppie, as the economy shifts from drudgery to smarts. But the workers will vote liberal if they know what's good for them. Getting the wealthy to pay more taxes will help deal with the charity cases indeed, and what's more, help them to get out of poverty; whereas the trickle-down favor-the-powerful policies of the Republicans have diminished the middle class and expanded poverty for 35 years and counting. The conservative policies are those that have proven they can't hold up, as wealthy has been more and more concentrated due to their policies, while the middle class finds fewer opportunities.

Trump can pose as their champion and their voice, but he would lead them into the ditch so that his own class can continue to corner the market on power and wealth. That's what he's always done, and that's what he'll do despite his claims. And despite their claims, the favor-the-rich policies of the conservatives have never worked. Liberal mixed-economy policies always work, if administered properly, and not taken to extremes by a different leftist "communist" elite. But, that can't happen here, and never has.

I consider myself untied and free to roam politically. Plus, I don't live in an echo chamber or view myself as being associated with one. As you have seen, I'm quite capable of operating alone and messing up a liberal echo chamber with very limited support. To me, Bob is a liberal fool who doesn't realize that he lives in a echo chamber and actively participates within an echo chamber and receives the bulk of his knowledge and information from an echo chamber. Me, I prefer to get my knowledge and information first hand. To me, you're a fool. A fool supports a party and a candidate who is more interested in associating itself with Hollywood glamor and glitz, yuppies and techies and other upper end income sorts who represent the money that need for support of their political campaigns and social programs that they claim is being used to lift the poor.

[Eric the Green]

(08-07-2016, 10:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 02:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's fine to strike a different note within our liberal echo chamber, Classic. I do think you are emotionally tied to some of the basic Republican ideas, however, but if you consider yourself untied, I'm on board with that; let's see where it leads you.

The working class is diminishing, that's true, which means it's not a solid source of votes for either party. The Democrats have gone more techie and yuppie, as the economy shifts from drudgery to smarts. But the workers will vote liberal if they know what's good for them. Getting the wealthy to pay more taxes will help deal with the charity cases indeed, and what's more, help them to get out of poverty; whereas the trickle-down favor-the-powerful policies of the Republicans have diminished the middle class and expanded poverty for 35 years and counting. The conservative policies are those that have proven they can't hold up, as wealthy has been more and more concentrated due to their policies, while the middle class finds fewer opportunities.

Trump can pose as their champion and their voice, but he would lead them into the ditch so that his own class can continue to corner the market on power and wealth. That's what he's always done, and that's what he'll do despite his claims. And despite their claims, the favor-the-rich policies of the conservatives have never worked. Liberal mixed-economy policies always work, if administered properly, and not taken to extremes by a different leftist "communist" elite. But, that can't happen here, and never has.

I consider myself untied and free to roam politically. Plus, I don't live in an echo chamber or view myself as being associated with one. As you have seen, I'm quite capable of operating alone and messing up a liberal echo chamber with very limited support. To me, Bob is a liberal fool who doesn't realize that he lives in a echo chamber and actively participates within an echo chamber and receives the bulk of his knowledge and information from an echo chamber. Me, I prefer to get my knowledge and information first hand. To me, you're a fool. A fool supports a party and a candidate who is more interested in associating itself with Hollywood glamor and glitz, yuppies and techies and other upper end income sorts who represent the money that need for support of their political campaigns and social programs that they claim is being used to lift the poor.

Right; except what's got you fooled and confused, is that those social programs REALLY DO lift the poor! Kick in the head, ain't it? To realize that what you thought was the truth, growing up in Reagan meme land, really isn't? Or at least it WILL be a kick in the head, when and IF you finally DO realize it. Not that programs are the answer to everything, but in fact without them we are all in shit creek. And it's OUR candidates, not yours, who want to reform the system so that big money and glamour does not rule our politics. But little facts like that don't seem to bother you too much. You can continue to float along in YOUR echo chamber and sorta just let those little details go unnoticed. But that's OK; we need some fools like you around to help keep us wise guys on the ball

[Anthony '58]

But isn't cutting off immigration a de-facto social program for the poor?  And isn't giving them a plenary indulgence from paying any income tax a de-facto social program for the poor?

I hate to use this cliche because my family has owned a total of nine different cats since 1974 - but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-07-2016, 11:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 10:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 02:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's fine to strike a different note within our liberal echo chamber, Classic. I do think you are emotionally tied to some of the basic Republican ideas, however, but if you consider yourself untied, I'm on board with that; let's see where it leads you.

The working class is diminishing, that's true, which means it's not a solid source of votes for either party. The Democrats have gone more techie and yuppie, as the economy shifts from drudgery to smarts. But the workers will vote liberal if they know what's good for them. Getting the wealthy to pay more taxes will help deal with the charity cases indeed, and what's more, help them to get out of poverty; whereas the trickle-down favor-the-powerful policies of the Republicans have diminished the middle class and expanded poverty for 35 years and counting. The conservative policies are those that have proven they can't hold up, as wealthy has been more and more concentrated due to their policies, while the middle class finds fewer opportunities.

Trump can pose as their champion and their voice, but he would lead them into the ditch so that his own class can continue to corner the market on power and wealth. That's what he's always done, and that's what he'll do despite his claims. And despite their claims, the favor-the-rich policies of the conservatives have never worked. Liberal mixed-economy policies always work, if administered properly, and not taken to extremes by a different leftist "communist" elite. But, that can't happen here, and never has.

I consider myself untied and free to roam politically. Plus, I don't live in an echo chamber or view myself as being associated with one. As you have seen, I'm quite capable of operating  alone and messing up a liberal echo chamber with very limited support. To me, Bob is a liberal fool who doesn't realize that he lives in a echo chamber and actively participates within an echo chamber and receives the bulk of his knowledge and information from an echo chamber. Me, I prefer to get my knowledge and  information first hand. To me, you're a fool. A fool supports a party and a candidate who is more interested in associating itself with Hollywood glamor and glitz, yuppies and techies and other upper end income sorts who represent the money that need for support of their political campaigns and social programs that they claim is being used to lift the poor.

Right; except what's got you fooled and confused, is that those social programs REALLY DO lift the poor! Kick in the head, ain't it? To realize that what you thought was the truth, growing up in Reagan meme land, really isn't? Or at least it WILL be a kick in the head, when and IF you finally DO realize it. Not that programs are the answer to everything, but in fact without them we are all in shit creek. And it's OUR candidates, not yours, who want to reform the system so that big money and glamour does not rule our politics. But little facts like that don't seem to bother you too much. You can continue to float along in YOUR echo chamber and sorta just let those little details go unnoticed. But that's OK; we need some fools like you around to help keep us wise guys on the ball

If that's true, why are Democrats still running on the same issue (income inequality) that they've been running on for decades. According to the Democrats, we are still as racist as we've ever been. If that's true, whatever social programs that were created and funded to address that issue isn't working. So, which Democratic view point is one supposed to believe now. Hillary's view point is that America for the most part peachy keen and that there's little for Americans to be concerned about at this time. Clinton didn't make 300 million working within the private sector. Clinton made 300 million while working in politics as a public servant. People who are OK with that really have nothing bad to talk about as far as the Republicans. Hillary may be viewed as greatest woman that exists to you and your values and whatever values that you've attached yourself to today. Dude, its people like me who are going to virtually wipe out the wise guys that you unknowingly represent. Why waste time screwing around with two pesky old birds when the time is coming and the natural changes are now taking place to take both of them out with one stone. In case you happen to be a liberal fool who still lives and breaths within the same old echo chamber and spends a lot time within the same old echo chamber, the Republican base has removed the politicians that it associated with bullshit. Logically speaking, rejected bullshit that no longer has a side will tend to drift to the side where bullshit still works. The political issue for the progressives are just beginning. The issue is the straight forwardness that will be becoming more and more prevalent on the right. Glitz and glamor, liberal child play and hippie (blue) values are the powers that pretty much rule your politics which is why I no longer pay attention to it or view it as being viable long term. Logically speaking, I expect as the nation moves deeper into crisis our politics will become more serious. The Republicans are ahead of the Democrats in that regard. I keep you on the ball. I love to f--k around with foolish liberals who view themselves on the ball.

[Bob Butler 54]

The Myers-Brigs system of understanding human personalities has four opposing pairs of types. One that interests me in my exploration of world views and values is the distinction between Judger and Perceptive. While this isn’t the purest expression of Myers Brigs, I see the Judger as having strong world views and values. The Judger will have a firm set of principles on how to perceive the world, and a set of goals to be striven towards to improve the world and thrive within it. The Perceptive is more oriented to the perceiving of the world accurately, on constantly refining his view of the world while being rigidly dependent on it less.

It takes all types. There is something to be said for both types of thinking, indeed, for all eight of the Myers Briggs stereotypes. Building a team, I’d want to include representatives of all of them. A Judger can look at a situation, fit it quickly to his idea of how things work, and come up with a fast and seemingly obvious solution. A Perceptive might be more inclined to sit there and examine the problem in more detail, to eventually come up with a customized solution appropriate uniquely for the given situation. Of course, it might be a pain in the rear do do things a bit different in a given case than in every other case, which might annoy the Judger in his desire to cleanly use the tried and true solutions in a similar way every time.

It’s not so simple as one approach is good, the other bad.

One extreme form of what I think of as a Judger is the religious fundamentalist. If an individual is totally committed to a holy text, anything that conflicts with the text is false. Somehow, some way, there is assumed to be an error in the thinking of anyone who disagrees with the holy text. This can result in discarding entire fields of science wholesale, with a feeling that a student of scripture knows better than professional scientists that have spent their lives working in a given field.

Extreme Judgers with strong political values, extreme partisans, have a talent for defending their world view. The have, they have to have, solid defense mechanisms that kick in whenever a threat to the validity of their world view rises. This involves a special ability to ignore all parts of reality that conflicts with or requires refining their way of seeing the world.

A political partisan can be as dedicated to political systems of understanding the world as any religious fundamentalist. If you are a conservative, you are apt to have the ability to detect doctrinaire partisan progressives that are detached from the world, folks who seemingly have no clue. Conservative posters on this site will gang up on certain progressives who seem way out there in la la land. I feel no need to name names or point fingers. I'll state it as a truth as self evident as anything declared by Jefferson. While I might label these progressive natives of la la land extreme Judgers with strong world views and values, conservatives are more apt to use more pungent and demeaning language. It amounts to the same thing. Some folk are disconnected from reality.

While it might seem easy to identify political opposites whose world views are disconnected from reality, it is difficult to impossible to recognize when one’s own thought patterns are similarly off. If people direct pungent and insulting language at you frequently, this might be considered a clue. I’m not one to advocate argument by insult, but when it gets flying well above the usual level there is apt to be a major league world view clash in progress, and one’s own world view is apt to be part of the problem.

I consider myself to lean Perceptive. It is more important that one’s world view match reality than to cling to the world view one has unchanged. This doesn’t imply I haven’t got stubborn principles I’ll cling too. I just have different principles. Key among them… If a large number of people follow a political world view, at one point the world view was appropriate and worked. There are historical reasons people were drawn to it. Once drawn in, it is hard to revaluate it, hard to tune it or incorporate changing circumstances, but if one looks back in history there are generally valid reasons various world views came to exist and dominate.

I hold this to be true of both the FDR New Deal world view and the Reagan - Nixon unravelling memes. There are times of crisis when things are falling apart, when it is necessary and appropriate to come together to work for the common good of all. There are times of unravelling when one party has been in power too long, when taxing and spending are being done to win favor from special interest groups more than to solve dire and otherwise unsolvable problems, when a progressive party has been in power too long and has become corrupt and inefficient.

People are not (fill in your favorite insult here) for embracing either world view. Both can be justified. Both have their place in history. The place for helping each other out as things are falling apart is in a crisis. FDR was a fine crisis leader. We’re heading into another crisis today. Nixon and Reagan — well, Reagan anyway — was a fine unravelling leader. The GIs and to an extent the Silent and Boomers as well were well and truly burned out trying to bear any burden, pay any price, fight any foe, etc… We had tried to do too much. We failed at too many things with Watergate, the hostage crisis, oil crisis, stagflation, the fall of Saigon and national malaise. It was time for a change and a break.

I’m into cyclical history to the extent of saying the FDR and Reagan memes are part of the cycle, with both sets of ideas having their place. My world view has come to embrace cyclical history more than either the FDR or Reagan memes. I see the current election as a referendum between the two sets of memes, a vote on where we are or ought to be in the cycle. I can look at extreme Judger partisans who cling to one set of memes or the other with rigid certainty while rejecting the other absolutely and without doubt and shake my head in great frustration.

Now, the policies appropriate to today are no more a precise return to FDR than Reagan’s memes are a replication of Gilded Age laissez faire. History doesn’t go around in a circle. It’s a spiral. Major progress is made every crisis. The problems being solved in any given crisis are not the same as the problems of the crisis before. Thus, the new solutions will reflect four score and seven years worth of changing technology and culture.

But you still want to work together for a common cause for the common good in a crisis, while that sort of intensity and dedication isn’t going to be sustained indefinitely. One shouldn’t try. Unravellings are a time for the Robber Barons, while crises are a time for the People.

But people generally don’t think cyclically when examining their political values. Some will say FDR’s ideas were great for his time and embrace them. Others will say Reagan’s ideas were great for his time and embrace them. Few are ready to admit that both leaders had considerable merit, knew their country, knew the mood of the people given the state of the cycles when they took power. Both did what they felt had to be done, what was entirely appropriate during their times in office.

A cyclical world view embracing and including both sets of values is more complex and nuanced than either world view alone. To me, both sets of values have merit in their time and place. Neither set should be embraced as all inclusive. One needs to understand and respect both sets of values if one is to truly understand a culture where both FDR and Reagan are respected and revered. One can’t forget, though, that both sets of ideas have flaws. Each way of thinking has its time, and that time is not always. One can’t blindly worship what was right a decade or a century ago. One must absolutely acknowledge the flaws in both perspectives and be ready to tune and improve big time.

Not that I expect extreme Judgers, extreme partisans, to grow their world views that much. That is really really hard. People are used to thinking linear and thinking binary. One sees either or confrontation rather than inclusive understanding. If one side of a world view clash is right, it seems to follow that the other side must be wrong.

Buzz. Incorrect. There is more to history and politics than you can find while clinging to either set of values only.