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

[Mikebert]

Quote:The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.

Are you sure about that? Seems to me folks on the red side have no problem with government in the military and criminal justice sphere.  We maintain by far the largest military establishment on Earth. Did the Red side oppose the Reagan buildup?  Did they oppose the Gulf War, Afghanistan or Iraq? Did we not engage in a massive expansion of the correction system in the 1990’s.  Was that opposed by the Red side?

The Red side opposes government doing stuff they don’t approve of.  So does the Blue side.  Here is where you could invoke values.  For example, much of Trump’s appeal is because a lot of folks are sick and tired of progressives stuffing PC down their throats. Now we are supposed to celebrate men wearing dresses?  What the fuck is wrong with America?

Quote:For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.

When it is doing Blue team projects.  Conservatives don’t make as a big issue about inefficient, corrupt and ineffective Defense or Corrections spending.  And ditto for the Blue team.

Quote:Tax and spend is anathema.  

Yes because of what they want to spend it on.

Quote:When in doubt, cut taxes and force the government to cut services.

On stuff they don’t like, such as programs for the poor, education, safety, environmental, and the regulatory state in general.  They generally have supported expansion in Defense outlays.  Blue folks will say similar things about spending on Red priorities, but the fact is the Blue team has a lot more priorities they want paid for by other people than does the Red side.  So they do not beat that drum nearly as much.

Quote:On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.

Is that really a belief any more, or just wishful thinking?  I support the ACA because (1) it was my team and (2) the Medicaid expansion benefits family members.  I do not support it because I know it is a good program. Those folks I know who are not on Medicaid and who use the system do not have good things to say about it, even with the subsidies.  I know exactly how they feel.  When I was in grad school I went without insurance during the years I was on a NSF fellowship (TAs got employer-provided insurance).  When I had been in college (and was on my parents plan) there were student medical insurance plans offered that were very reasonably priced. The reason was they could only be used by a student population who were  young and healthy.  But then the state government mandated that these plans cover mental health issues.  Now students are at a higher risk of this, and so the premiums shot up to unaffordable levels.  Now the government is mandating that my 20’s self should buy this expensive insurance that covers stuff I don’t have to worry about.  I would also note that back in my 20’s I was a big fan of Free to Choose.

I was unwilling to subsidize other people’s health care back then when I was poor.  Now that I am rich I have no problem with that and am perfectly willing to pay the taxes for single payer.  But I can completely understand other rich folks who object to being forced to subsidize other people, particularly when it is in a program rife with rent-seeking.  They see it as theft—that is, immoral. Here’s another values issue. If we get single payer someday it’s is not going to be because the folks who objected to it on moral ground have changed their minds.  It will be because they were defeated.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.

Are you sure about that? Seems to me folks on the red side have no problem with government in the military and criminal justice sphere.  We maintain by far the largest military establishment on Earth. Did the Red side oppose the Reagan buildup?  Did they oppose the Gulf War, Afghanistan or Iraq? Did we not engage in a massive expansion of the correction system in the 1990’s.  Was that opposed by the Red side?

The Red side opposes government doing stuff they don’t approve of.  So does the Blue side.  Here is where you could invoke values.  For example, much of Trump’s appeal is because a lot of folks are sick and tired of progressives stuffing PC down their throats. Now we are supposed to celebrate men wearing dresses?  What the fuck is wrong with America?

When have you been forced to celebrate in a white dress?

I am not thrilled by affirmative action or political correctness.  I'd much rather they not be necessary.  These are not government programs that should be pushed to the max, the bigger the better.

While it is not one of my favored issues, I am against prejudice.  If people are being harassed or denied equal opportunity because of race, religion, gender, place of birth, etc...  I see something as being wrong which should be addressed.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."  In short, it's one of the government's primary jobs to promote equality.

From the Civil War through Nixon, the Democrats were the party of the KKK.  When LBJ with his War on Poverty and Civil Rights activism drew lots of black votes, Nixon's Southern Strategy deliberately sought out the prejudiced and hateful.  The haters are slowly losing ground, sometimes not so slowly in the case of the recent gay marriage court decision.  There are more battles to be fought, and they will be fought.  Meanwhile, hatred can be used for political gain.  Build a wall on the Mexican border.  Expel people from the country based on their religious belief.  Certain people will weave songs of hate for personal power.  

That's what's wrong with America.

I'm not out to coerce the prejudiced to behave in a certain way.  I'm against prejudice though.  People should not be harassing, insulting and otherwise oppressing others.  To say one opposes political correctness and affirmative action is not that far from saying one approves of bigotry and hatred, that bigotry and hate should be allowed to stand and thrive without challenge or question.  I can dream of a time when government action to promote equality will be unnecessary, and I'd try to keep a line that when one is protecting a group from harassment one shouldn't harass the harassers unduly.  Still, there is much yet to be done.  Good men to doing nothing is not an option here.

***

The conversation you have crashed was primarily on the domestic issues.  I'm willing to go back to Jr High school basics if you want to, but I'm not going to cover the entire year of Jr High school in one post.  Yes, broadly the Republicans have been the more hawkish party going back to when Truman allowed Mao to take China rather than leap into a land war in Asia.  There have been no lack of wrinkles in that broad trend, though.  Of late, the Democrats have generally been more willing to quash failed states and massive crimes against humanity, while Bush 43 had his 'put troops near the oil' adventure in Iraq.  Neither party has had particularly good results.  It's hard to take military force into the Middle East and come out with good approval ratings for one's action.  While both parties will with glee find flaws with whatever the other side does, neither party seems enthusiastic about boots on the ground just now.  Just as well.

Yes, both parties do stuff they approve of.  Thank you for the profound insight.

(08-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.

When it is doing Blue team projects.  Conservatives don’t make as a big issue about inefficient, corrupt and ineffective Defense or Corrections spending.  And ditto for the Blue team.

Yes.  One's own teams stuff is presented as helpful and efficient.  The other team's stuff is presented as corrupt and inefficient.  Consider the Pentagon's acquisition process for an example of how efficient the military side can be or appear to be.

(08-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.

Is that really a belief any more, or just wishful thinking?  I support the ACA because (1) it was my team and (2) the Medicaid expansion benefits  family members.  I do not support it because I know it is a good program. Those folks I know who are not on Medicaid and who use the system do not have good things to say about it, even with the subsidies.  I know exactly how they feel.  When I was in grad school I went without insurance during the years I was on a NSF fellowship (TAs got employer-provided insurance).  When I had been in college (and was on my parents plan) there were student medical insurance plans offered that were very reasonably priced. The reason was they could only be used by a student population who were  young and healthy.  But then the state government mandated that these plans cover mental health issues.  Now students are at a higher risk of this, and so the premiums shot up to unaffordable levels.  Now the government is mandating that my 20’s self should buy this expensive insurance that covers stuff I don’t have to worry about.  I would also note that back in my 20’s I was a big fan of Free to Choose.

I was unwilling to subsidize other people’s health care back then when I was poor.  Now that I am rich I have no problem with that and am perfectly willing to pay the taxes for single payer.  But I can completely understand other rich folks who object to being forced to subsidize other people, particularly when it is in a program rife with rent-seeking.  They see it as theft—that is, immoral. Here’s another values issue. If we get single payer someday it’s is not going to be because the folks who objected to it on moral ground have changed their minds.  It will be because they were defeated.

When FDR promoted 'Freedom from Want', one aspect of it was health care.  Eleanor worked it into the UN's Bill of Rights.  The thought was that being poor shouldn't be a death sentence, that all should have access to health care.  Of course, that's been half forgotten and nowhere near accomplished.

In a wealthy country with a huge division of wealth, it seems a proper goal to revisit.  Keeping the insurance companies involved in the health care industry adds overhead costs, extracts profit and adds nothing to the process.  The VA provides coverage much more efficiently.  The current system coercing employers and inducing workers to be declared part time so benefits can be denied is baroque... or should that be broke?

I could be be in favor of Free to Choose too.  Is Medicare one of the systems I can be free to choose?

But I don't know that this is the right thread to do a Health Care discussion.  We're supposed to be bashing Trump here.  Health Care certainly deserves its own thread.

On a broader context, yes, big bureaucratic systems systems can get corrupt and inefficient.  On the other hand, big complex problems cannot always be addressed without big bureaucratic systems.  The New Deal through Great Society eras of the 1930s through 1960s saw much achieved.  As I would expect when one party maintains control of Congress that long, the government was not by any means a lean mean fighting machine towards the end.  I believe this contributed to the failures of government in the 1970s, the National Malaise, and the Reagan era perception that grew out of that time was that government had become too big, clumsy and ambitious.

It had become too big, clumsy and ambitious.

That shouldn't lead to a conclusion that a bunch of health insurance companies siphoning off a ton of profit out of the health care industry is in any way helpful to the health care industry.  Similarly, the red world view often includes a blanket assumption that any attempt to help the people will fail or struggle.  There is often an element of self interest involved where those who can afford to take care of their own circumstances are not interested in helping the People as a whole.

Room for honest differences of opinion, sure.  Isn't that why we're here?

[pbrower2a]

(08-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.

Are you sure about that? Seems to me folks on the red side have no problem with government in the military and criminal justice sphere.  We maintain by far the largest military establishment on Earth. Did the Red side oppose the Reagan buildup?  Did they oppose the Gulf War, Afghanistan or Iraq? Did we not engage in a massive expansion of the correction system in the 1990’s.  Was that opposed by the Red side?

Could it be that the Red-Blue split is on whether people have or lack optimism in the general goodness of human nature, with the Red side have trust only in those who have already proved themselves competent in amassing wealth or exercising power without judging how those 'competent' people amassed their wealth or how and for what purposes the powerful exercise their power, and the Blue side that those who have wealth and power are to have some accountability to the rest of us?

Government can be very effective if it fosters the power of elites and rewards those elites well by exploiting, intimidating, and repressing the masses in an anti-egalitarian society (fascism and neo-feudalism) or one in which life is a privilege contingent upon obedience to political and bureaucratic authorities (Marxism-Leninism, Baathism)?

Quote:The Red side opposes government doing stuff they don’t approve of.  So does the Blue side.  Here is where you could invoke values.  For example, much of Trump’s appeal is because a lot of folks are sick and tired of progressives stuffing PC down their throats. Now we are supposed to celebrate men wearing dresses?  What the fuck is wrong with America?

Which is not to say that the Red side has developed its own set of 'politically-correct' values. It will be very easy to give a strawman description of right-wing PC... the common man has his noblest purpose in enriching and pampering extant elites, ideally traditional ones. Economic gain for the elites and their consummate indulgence form the noblest objective in life, and suffering for it is the duty of us all. The economic bottom line is the noblest of all truths, and anything that gets in its way --even science -- must be shown the error of its ways. Anthropogenic global warming is a myth because it runs afoul of some corporate profits.

Quote:

Quote:For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.

When it is doing Blue team projects.  Conservatives don’t make as a big issue about inefficient, corrupt and ineffective Defense or Corrections spending.  And ditto for the Blue team.

That's about how it goes. It is easy for the Blues to attribute economic and cultural sadism to the Reds -- a world reminiscent of the Jim Crow South in the South and the nastiness of the Gilded Age Up North... and in return people not in the elites get pie in the sky if they have lived in accordance with the  demands of the economic elites and then die. But if they fail to comply, they go where the Nazis and Stalinists are. The Reds, on the other side, see a world of intoxication, abortion, homosexuality, fornication, riot, inadequate wealth and indulgence for God's chosen elites, weakening of religion, and above all else -- free-thinking, should the Blues get their way. To prevent such the Red side needs some real dungeons and torture chambers that scare people into submissive faith and productivity, the latter without asking any questions of the purposes of that productivity.

The nightmarish depiction that Marxists have of capitalism at its worst is a non-solution.  Marxism is itself a non-solution because, like capitalism at its worst, it creates irresponsible power in bureaucracies. The ideal of the monastery or convent that denies the world is at most for a few (Odin and I would have probably been sent in such a direction... nothing could have better fit autism in those days than copying manuscripts by hand, I suppose).

American institutions, at lest outside of the places of heavy slave-use, were made for yeoman farmers and small shopkeepers who lacked the means to buy lobbyists. They were made for a candle-maker, a tavern-keeper, or a farmer not known six farms away -- and not for Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries, Procter&Gamble, Wal*Mart, General Motors, Bank of America, or Microsoft. They were not made for expressing 'class' interests, either. Government representing economic interests instead of people, whether Mussolini's fascismo, Tito's Socialist variant, or the mess that we have in America as government by lobbyist, is a perversion of Jeffersonian democracy as our civics texts told us in high school.


Of course corporate subsidies, enforcement of unconscionable contracts, and wars for profit are lucrative. Those need to go. How well this Crisis goes will depend upon how well we divest ourselves of bad habits that we have accreted in recent decades.

Quote:

Quote:Tax and spend is anathema.  

Yes because of what they want to spend it on.

Quote:When in doubt, cut taxes and force the government to cut services.

On stuff they don’t like, such as programs for the poor, education, safety, environmental, and the regulatory state in general.  They generally have supported expansion in Defense outlays.  Blue folks will say similar things about spending on Red priorities, but the fact is the Blue team has a lot more priorities they want paid for by other people than does the Red side.  So they do not beat that drum nearly as much.

Quote:On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.

Is that really a belief any more, or just wishful thinking?  I support the ACA because (1) it was my team and (2) the Medicaid expansion benefits  family members.  I do not support it because I know it is a good program. Those folks I know who are not on Medicaid and who use the system do not have good things to say about it, even with the subsidies.  I know exactly how they feel.  When I was in grad school I went without insurance during the years I was on a NSF fellowship (TAs got employer-provided insurance).  When I had been in college (and was on my parents plan) there were student medical insurance plans offered that were very reasonably priced. The reason was they could only be used by a student population who were  young and healthy.  But then the state government mandated that these plans cover mental health issues.  Now students are at a higher risk of this, and so the premiums shot up to unaffordable levels.  Now the government is mandating that my 20’s self should buy this expensive insurance that covers stuff I don’t have to worry about.  I would also note that back in my 20’s I was a big fan of Free to Choose.

The problem is our blank-check medical system. Anything can work very well when it is given unlimited funds with which to do what it deems appropriate. Give me unlimited funds and I just might write a symphony. But that would take ten years or so (with the unlimited funds I would take care of myself very well), and it would largely be a plagiarism. Healthy economies do not depend upon the blank check; they insist upon cost constraints. That's how we avoid having banal cars that cost  ten years' pay for a barber.  Competition keeps prices from soaring into the stratosphere.

Quote:I was unwilling to subsidize other people’s health care back then when I was poor.  Now that I am rich I have no problem with that and am perfectly willing to pay the taxes for single payer.  But I can completely understand other rich folks who object to being forced to subsidize other people, particularly when it is in a program rife with rent-seeking.  They see it as theft—that is, immoral. Here’s another values issue. If we get single payer someday it’s is not going to be because the folks who objected to it on moral ground have changed their minds.  It will be because they were defeated.

[/quote]

... and I figure that if I paid my full share I would be subsidizing people who have had lives of smoking, drinking, whoring, drug use, and extreme obesity. At the least I have "Mormon lungs" and a "Mormon liver". Had my autism been caught earlier instead of being badly diagnosed as problems of dealing with anger I might have gotten some appropriate direction that would have saved me much grief and made me a productive contributor to our society instead of shunting me off into ill-paying jobs that I could never hold. Maybe it is a good thing that I never married and sired children, except that I really am good with children.  There was adoption, and maybe my wife (likely a fellow person with Asperger, as likes tend to seek out likes at the least in culture) might have gotten some dirty looks as we raised children who look nothing like either of us.

I would rather have Asperger's syndrome than low intelligence, sexual sadism (arguably a definitive evil), substance abuse, paranoia, schizophrenia, sociopathy or psychopathy, or even pathological narcissism. I am rational and intelligent; you can trust me driving you and you can trust me with your children and your assets.

[playwrite]

(08-19-2016, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:51 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

Eric's got this right for those niches that are not the elites- you add them all up, let them compromise among themselves, and you got Chomsky's "population" sans the financial elites and the hillbillies.

And the financial elites on the Dem side are either for greater taxation on themselves (Warren Buffet), giving most of it away (Bill Gates; and without the Right's religious strings attached), or lobbying hard for Progressive agendas that do little for themselves (George Clooney, George Soros, Hollywood, Silicon Valley).

Together, that is a pretty solid coalition and well-financed.

On the Right, it is fracturing and collapsing.  Put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with someone like Classic and see who crawls out alive.

Trump is not the only one making the mistake that about 35% of the electorate/population/culture of the Right represents the entire US electorate/population/culture - it just that 35% makes a lot of noise and scares people, and that should be expected from a cornered large dying animal.

You put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with me, he'd end leaving the room broke and empty handed. Whether he's crawling like a liberal frat boy who was unable to convince me who didn't get his way who knows  that he iand others like him are financially doomed or he decides to walk out like a real man should after being rejected because the global ponzi scheme that he and his pals made a fortune in worthless digits has failed because there's no hard money to back them up, depends on what type of man the Hampton truly is at the core.

My money would be on the hedge fund manager.  Not because he pays his trainer $5K/month to keep him in top physical shape and you being a typical Trump support just short of a clogged arteries heart attack.  It's because he already has you eating out of his hand and doing tricks for him.

[playwrite]

(08-20-2016, 11:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

You are equating values with beliefs.  They are different things.  Values are hard to change because they contain a strong emotional or even spiritual content.  Beliefs are logical constructs.  The latter is amenable to  “burned hand teaches best” experiences, the former, much less.  Our issue is not values lock, (what we believe to be good) but belief lock (how we believe the world works). 
 

I use both 'world views' and 'values'.  World views would be what you are calling beliefs...  how does the world work, while values say what goals should be pursued.  Both can be stubborn, hard to change.  Both can be important.  I will sometimes use one phrase to indicate elements of both.  It is just easier to read if one says 'values' instead of 'world views and values'.  At other times I'm just focusing on one or the other, and will use one of the other.

But while my language might not be ideal, and the two are tied into one another tightly, one informing and being derived from the other, I shan't disagree with your primary statement here.  Conflict in world views is very important.

(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.

They can and do.  The issue is, current policies are working just fine for elites, so why change?  The definition of elites are those who run the American state and its major institutions.  By definition, it is they who are to be convinced that policies need to be changed. Look at the past 4Ts.
 
Revolutionary 4T: Things were not good for American commercial elites like John Hancock, who were constrained by British mercantile policy.  Furthermore, British monetary policy repressed American businesses.  British Indian and frontier policy constrained land speculators and created internal problems like the Paxton terrorists in Western Pennsylvania.  When American elites got too frustrated they recruited a critical mass of non-elites to their cause, gained control of the colonial militias, and set up shop as an independent nation.
 
Civil War 4T: Things were definitively moving against the interest of Southern elites in the 1850’s. In 1860 what they perceived as an abolitionist party won the election.  It seemed likely that within a fairly short period of time they would be stripped of 60% of their wealth. They tried to pull out of the union peaceably, but the North wouldn’t have it, and what they feared happened to them, but only because they lost the war.
 
Depression 4T: American elites faced challenges, including a real revolutionary situation at the end of the 1896-1920 Progressive Era. Elites apparently successfully addressed this threat (see Gabriel Kolko’s book about the Progressive Era being a conservative program, and Kitty Calavita on the motive for immigration suppression in the early 1920's) without addressing the core problem, economic inequality.  Another way to put this is: problem was them, there are too many of them (elite proliferation) and they had too much of the pie. (see Peter Turchin’s stuff about secular cycles and elite proliferation). 

The only way to solve this problem is for some elites to take a haircut and become less elite. Volunteers, anyone? That wasn’t ever gonna happen, except it did.  Why?  Because the capitalist economy had collapsed, taking fair number of elites with it.  And so now there was elite motivation to DO something.  So changes were made to salvage things for one subset of elites at the expense of another.  How was this decided? Well liberal elites in the Democratic party were able to marshall superior forces and prevail over conservative elites in Republican party in the critical election of 1932.  This election served as a political revolution in place of a real one.
 

When reading your posts, I have long and often noted an emphasis you place on the importance of the elites.  This might be described as a world view clash.  When analyzing a given crisis, you will focus on the elites, while I will focus on the ordinary people.  Which belief is more accurate?

I am not going to dismiss or make light of the role of the elites.  In the examples you list above, one can project elites fighting over financial and political power, while the bulk of the population might care about taxation without representation, slavery, and life without increasingly grievous economic collapses.  I shall not in the least say you are wrong in saying the elites are very very important in shaping a crisis, and I'd add that the motivations and values of the common people are often very different from the elites.

But crises are not settled in smoked filled rooms by a handful of elites.  Conflicts can be settled at the ballot box.  Lincoln and FDR got elected.  Conflicts can be settled on the battle field.  How many people are willing to fight how hard to support their beliefs and values?  Yes, there was a power struggle between the southern slave owners and the northern robber barons on what shape the government and the country would take.  It would never have gone to the battle field without John Brown and the abolitionists though.

Again, I see your belief system as overly focused on the role of the elites with a certain degree of blindness to the importance of democracy and war.  Again, this isn't to say that elites aren't important.  They are.  They aren't all important.

In our current situation, groups of elites did not decide to make Donald Trump president.  The Donald's place was decided by a whole bunch of people angry at the  Republican establishment.  Thus, your world view is discredited.  Let's see how easily you change.

(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:You and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.  I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

You make these fuzzy statements with no specific examples of what you mean.  Can you give some specific examples where you apply what you are talking about in order to illustrate them.

The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.  For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.  Tax and spend is anathema.  When in doubt, cut taxes and force the government to cut services.  If the era of the National Malaise was formative, one might be inclined to buy into this.  On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.  From the 30s through the 60s, the GIs basically ran on 'see problem solve same'.  They would not hesitate to throw large amounts of money at a problem.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Another example might be the red preference for supply side stimulus and the blue preference for demand side.  Here, I might note an association between a belief system and self interest.  Even if a robber baron knows full well there is no need to make more money available for investment, he might favor supply side as he might well think that tax cuts to the wealthy is to his personal advantage.  Similarly, supposing hypothetically a time of full employment with most to all earning a living wage, someone living on main street might still favor additional demand side stimulus.  One's world view and values are absolutely effected by one's wallet.

Now, I didn't feel a need to review with Eric and Classic these basic differences between their ways of thinking.  Neither asked for clarification.  I have spoken on both sets of beliefs many a time, and they are not unrelated.  That you needed to ask implies to me that you have not been reading my stuff with any attention at all.  To some degree I'm willing to feed you US politics and economics 101, but I've found that when your perspective on things clash with common points of view you are very slow to comprehend common points of view.  Your own world view is not as objective as you seem to think.  At times you are unable to recognize or understand stuff that should be basic to those living in the United States.  I find myself repeating Jr High school level political concepts and finding you unable to acknowledge them.  I associate this with a values lock problem, and have learned to avoid interacting with you as the experience is futile.  I have better experiences with more open minded and flexible thinkers like Eric and Classic.

Well.  Slight exaggeration.

Bob, the problem you have is being stuck with the values-lock meme.

It's both a no-shXt-Sherlock and a dead end.

The 4T doesn't get resolve by people "unlocking;" it gets resolve by one set of "locks" defeating the other set.

[Anthony '58]

But what "color" is protecting American jobs by slapping tariffs on foreign goods - not for nothing, as the antebellum North advocated and the antebellum South opposed - and creating labor shortages by cutting off immigration and driving wages up?

I call that "socialism by attrition."

[Mikebert]

Bob, I think the principal driver of the saeculum are objective beliefs or theories of how things work, what I call the paradigm. You talk of conflicting values and values lock which appears to be a different since it implies morality.  So I asked for examples because I have not seen where your concept is really different from mine.  And you came back with Red-side theories (that’s what I think, I wanted to see where we differ). I responded by throwing in some Red-side values expressed in an emotional tone.  And now you have brought in values. So now we something to work with. Stuff in () is added for clarity.

Quote:I am not thrilled by affirmative action or political correctness.  I'd much rather they not be necessary.….(but) it's one of the government's primary jobs to promote equality.

This is a value. As I see it, you believe the government needs to promote equality as part of the pursuit of happiness. So where does the values lock come in?
 

Quote:While it is not one of my favored issues, I am against prejudice.  If people are being harassed or denied equal opportunity because of race, religion, gender, place of birth, etc...  I see something as being wrong which should be addressed….The haters are slowly losing ground, sometimes not so slowly in the case of the recent gay marriage court decision. There are more battles to be fought, and they will be fought.  Meanwhile, hatred can be used for political gain.  Build a wall on the Mexican border.  Expel people from the country based on their religious belief.  Certain people will weave songs of hate for personal power…….

Quote:That's what's wrong with America.

Are you saying that the values lock is haters gotta hate?  Has it occurred to you that the Red side may not see themselves as haters? You give Trump’s wall as an example of hate. The wall is a symbol for a policy of aggressive restriction of immigration like what was done in 1924. Both it and an opposition to free trade call have similar economic characteristics.  Both seek to restrict the use of American demand to support job creation for foreigners, either abroad or illegally inside the US. Both would probably have direct beneficial impact on low-wage American workers. Turchin thinks immigration restriction was key to the inequality reduction mid century.  I disagree and plan to offer my capitalist crisis theory as an alternative, as soon as his book comes out so I can cite it. But that is an empirical question. What IS true, is both of the things Trump wants were in place before the New Deal, and may well have allowed it to work better than it might otherwise have. I just don’t know. Given this I cannot classify immigration restriction as hate. 
 
I have favored gay marriage since 1994.  However, as was predicted by conservative pundits I read, as soon as this was achieved progressives would start pushing on the transgender front.  And they have (as you say there are more battles to be fought). In recent times there has been an increase in the fraction of teenagers who identify as transgender.  Should these teenagers be allowed to get the hormone treatment/surgical intervention they say they want.  Such actions are not the same as boys wearing earrings or dying your hair blue (both things that are not permanent).  I think the red side has a point in saying these kids can wait until they are adults before taking such steps.  I understand the research to be supportive of this view.  Another example of battles to be fought would be forcing religious organizations to not discriminate against gay or transgender people, even when their religious beliefs hold these people to be sinners.  Red siders are incensed when Blue siders equate their views on gay marriage with racial views on marriage from half a century ago.


Finally Trump did not say Muslims should be expelled from the US.  He called for a shutdown on Muslim immigration until we can figure what the hell is going on.  Since then he has fleshed out his position.  In short he wants to prevent Muslims who are “haters” (as you call them) from entering the US.  Right now we would allow advocates of Sharia law (the Muslim equivalent of Christian Dominionists) into the US if they have no connection with terrorists organizations (the Muslim equivalent of groups like Christian Identity).  (As with Christians only a tiny fraction of very orthodox Muslim adherents support terrorism).  The reality is a much larger fraction of Muslims still hold with the old-time religion, whereas very few Christians still do.  The funny thing is Blue folks decry the old-time remnants of Christianity, while seeming to be OK with their much more prevalent old-time Muslims.   A lot more Muslims still are believers in their faith than Christians.
 

Quote:I'm not out to coerce the prejudiced to behave in a certain way.  I'm against prejudice though.… To say one opposes political correctness and affirmative action is not that far from saying one approves of bigotry and hatred, that bigotry and hate should be allowed to stand and thrive without challenge or question.  I can dream of a time when government action to promote equality will be unnecessary, and I'd try to keep a line that when one is protecting a group from harassment one shouldn't harass the harassers unduly.  Still, there is much yet to be done.  Good men to doing nothing is not an option here.

This is kind of a mess.  You are contradicting yourself.  In the first two statements you say you are opposed to prejudice, but don’t think we should require people to behave in a non-prejudiced manner. You then equate opposition to PC and affirmative action is close to prejudice.  That is you see them as bad, but don’t think we should anything about them.  But then in the final statement you say doing nothing is not an option. You seem to imply that prejudice should be handled on a private interpersonal level, yet you appear to support affirmative action (since opposing this is close to the prejudice that good men must oppose).  So good men should support affirmative action?  But isn’t this coercion of the prejudiced?
 
The sense I gather from this post is that the Red side are haters, and the sooner their values die the better.  On the other hand the values you hold are the correct ones. Those that will win out in the future.  What you call the arrow of progress.

[Bob Butler 54]

Hmm. Took a look at set of dictionary definitions for paradigm. The recurring word was ‘pattern’. One might say that red folk see certain patterns in the world, and blue folk different patterns. If that's an acceptable context, the meaning wouldn't be too different from 'world view'. Perhaps a paradigm is a smaller discrete thing while a world view is more inclusive and complex? Still, if you want to make ‘paradigm’ your word, you should define what you mean by it rather than me. Remember that you are neither Noah Webster nor Humpty Dumpty. Others may well want to use the word in different contexts.

(08-21-2016, 05:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: This is kind of a mess.  You are contradicting yourself.  In the first two statements you say you are opposed to prejudice, but don’t think we should require people to behave in a non-prejudiced manner. You then equate opposition to PC and affirmative action is close to prejudice.  That is you see them as bad, but don’t think we should anything about them.  But then in the final statement you say doing nothing is not an option. You seem to imply that prejudice should be handled on a private interpersonal level, yet you appear to support affirmative action (since opposing this is close to the prejudice that good men must oppose).  So good men should support affirmative action?  But isn’t this coercion of the prejudiced?.

I’d like to focus on one example for the moment. If we scatter about trying to look at all aspects of the red and blue world views in their entirety in one thread, we’ll resolve and refine nothing.

You do not approve of guys wearing white dresses celebrating. Because they do celebrate, something is wrong with America. On the flip side, my inclination is to say that because everyone ought to be able to celebrate, the fact they the can in America is part of what is right in America.

Now, if you can walk away and let the celebration happen without harm or harassment, that’s fine. You have a bad feeling about something that isn’t going to go away. I’ve no desire to deprogram you or make you feel comfortable with it. Nor do have I a desire to shame or insult you. I do see you as having a problem, an irrational bit of intolerance, but so long as you don’t actively act on said intolerance, no harm no foul.

On the other hand, if you determine you must go out of the way to ruin the celebration, there is a problem. The guy in the white dress should have as much ability to enjoy a good celebration as anyone. If someone starts taking legal steps to prevent the celebration, or tries to deny resources necessary for the celebration to properly take place, that would be very problematic. People should not be actively out to ruin people’s day because of race, religion, gender, etc…

Somewhere between no harm no foul and definite harm definite foul there is a grey zone. I won’t presume to say exactly where it is in this case. I’ll predict that there will be much disagreement where the line ought to be. If someone wants to make the other guy’s position look absurd and irrational, it will likely be very easy to do so... at least to other people who share the same paradigms. Whether we use ‘values’, ‘paradigm’, ‘world view’ or ‘beliefs’ there will be no easy agreement. People can be irrational about these things. It isn’t going to be cleared up by refining and polishing word definitions and logic structures.

And that’s where you saw my contradictions and weaseling. I see it as unacceptable that good men do nothing when irrational hatreds are still being actively pursued. At the same time it is too easy to develop an irrational hatred for those who irrationally hate. Sometimes the cure can come to resemble the disease. This is and ought to remain remain a concern. When there is a fuzzy grey line there, charging in like a mounted paladin with a holy sword as if one is sure one is right and the other guy is wrong isn’t going to help.

The only thing I can see with absolute clarity is that if one sees things with absolute clarity, one is likely wrong.

Then again my world view and value system encourages balancing the needs and desires of both sides involved in a conflict. If at all possible, I’d like to see the guy in the white dress happily dancing while the other guy who would freak out if he saw it is safely well away from the building.

If I must throw up a dividing line, the guy who can walk away from the dance is on the correct side of line, while the guy who tries to ruin the dance isn’t.

(08-21-2016, 05:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The sense I gather from this post is that the Red side are haters, and the sooner their values die the better.  On the other hand the values you hold are the correct ones. Those that will win out in the future.  What you call the arrow of progress.

At the high and abstract level, the arrow I uses as my guide points towards equality, human rights and democracy. Much progress made. Much more to go. If you have a better direction to set off in, suggest it. The Constitution doesn't explicitly enumerate a right to dance in a white dress, but people are dancing anyway. I'm more concerned with the division of wealth, but that's for another post.

You are also doing much as Classic does, assume that I'm dogmatic blue. No doubt I lean blue on most issues. On the other hand, the example above might indicate a lot more understanding of the other perspective than you'll get from a lot of partisans. What you see as a mess might be an attempt at nuance. I don't know that I'm the ideal fencing partner if you want pure blue.

[pbrower2a]

(08-19-2016, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-19-2016, 02:51 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

Eric's got this right for those niches that are not the elites- you add them all up, let them compromise among themselves, and you got Chomsky's "population" sans the financial elites and the hillbillies.

And the financial elites on the Dem side are either for greater taxation on themselves (Warren Buffet), giving most of it away (Bill Gates; and without the Right's religious strings attached), or lobbying hard for Progressive agendas that do little for themselves (George Clooney, George Soros, Hollywood, Silicon Valley).

Together, that is a pretty solid coalition and well-financed.

On the Right, it is fracturing and collapsing.  Put a hedge fund manager from the Hampton's in a room with someone like Classic and see who crawls out alive.

Trump is not the only one making the mistake that about 35% of the electorate/population/culture of the Right represents the entire US electorate/population/culture - it just that 35% makes a lot of noise and scares people, and that should be expected from a cornered large dying animal.

You put a hedge fund manager from the Hamptons in a room with me, he'd end leaving the room broke and empty handed. Whether he's crawling like a liberal frat boy who was unable to convince me who didn't get his way who knows  that he iand others like him are financially doomed or he decides to walk out like a real man should after being rejected because the global ponzi scheme that he and his pals made a fortune in worthless digits has failed because there's no hard money to back them up, depends on what type of man the Hampton truly is at the core.

No. The hedge fund manager from the Hamptons is going to find an alternative to dealing with you very fast. You will be the one who ends up flat broke because that hedge fund manager will take his business elsewhere when you try to brainwash him on politics.

Back in the 1970s, need I remind me -- the frat boys were definitely not the liberals. I knew them, and I had little to do with them. They knew that no matter how much they drank their way through their campus career, Daddy would come through and ensure a cushy job for them. It's the kids that they rejected for having a German-sounding surname (either some Jew or some hayseed that they wanted nothing to do with) from membership in the frat had to go to college for the right reasons.

Now if you believe that the financial system is again a house of cards... I am not satisfied that the financial wizards learned anything from the Crash of 2008 except that Uncle Sucker will bail them out rather than risk another Great Depression.

The financial system needs some reality behind it, as explained by the collapses of such entities as Lincoln Savings in the 1980s, Enron, and Lehman Brothers. Get egregious, and you become the whipping boy for the regulators and the legal system.

We will be going into a 1T in which people eschew public and private debt as if it were a filthy four-letter word (which it is if you are in hock to a loan shark) instead of a dangerous and capricious tool. The public will intend on paying down debt from the Crisis of our time, and it will insist upon pay-as-you-go even for recession-stopping big projects.  The financial wizards will respond, paying more attention to the quality of the transactions than upon upon selling them.  I can make a safe prediction that around 2030 banking will again be the home of the least-educated, laziest, and least-imaginative people in business, the people who say no to people who want easy access to other people's money. Add to that, executives will get ahead by giving their subordinates an cause for loyalty to the company for which they work instead of treating them like livestock at best and vermin at worst.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump now has the whack job former Representative Michelle Bonkers -- excuse me, Bachmann -- advising him... on foreign policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mich...ction=&

(from Back to the Future):


Doc: Tell me, Future Boy, who's President of the United States in 1985?
Marty: Ronald Reagan.
Doc: Ronald Reagan? The actor? [rolls his eyes] Ha! Then who's vice-president, Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady?
Marty: Whoa, wait. Doc!
Doc: And Jack Benny is Secretary of the Treasury!


...at least Reagan made some sense.

Of course first priority will be to deport the usurping Kenya-born President so that we really can Make America Great Again!

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN is wondering if The Donald's latest reset can stick.  The second headline suggests he has a chance this week to show discipline.

Well, yes, he's had a chance to show discipline every week.  It's just that unlike professional politicians, he doesn't generally take the option. For most politicians, having an opportunity to show discipline isn't headline material.

"Look. Ohhh. Ah. The Donald! He has a chance to act sane this week! Look look! See The Donald run."

I'll admit, it makes for a high entertainment level campaign.  If nothing else, he's pretty good at entertainment.

It's just that the stakes are a bit high.

[playwrite]

Some inside ball gossip -

Trump blew up about a guest on Morning Joe giving him a backhanded complement -

Quote:“He’s sort of talking about his candidate as if he graduated from diapers to big boy pants.”

- and the crew busting up laughing.

More here -

Thin-Skinned Baby Donald Trump Poops Diaper In Rage At Mean ‘Morning Joe’ Hosts 


But here's the thing that's got the political class currently going into hysterics -

Trump's Twitter storm goes, by far, after the female cohost, Mika Brzezinski, calling her "off the wall", "neurotic", "insecure" and a "not very bright mess."

I'm sure this is going to show up in a Clinton ad to help bring further female scorn onto The Donald.

But what the chattering classes are going nuts about is does the Donald's focus on the only woman at the event foreshadow a complete meltdown by Trump when he loses to Clinton?   Obama may have been Black, but at least he was male.

Check the typical Trump supporter views on a woman in the WH, among other things -

[Eric the Green]

Extreme vetting! Let's deport all the Trump voters!

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

John's advice to Donald:

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2016, 11:52 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I ran a precision machining and assembly business from my parents' garage when I was 16 years old. I worked on the line in machining, sheet metal and assembly to help work my way through college. Beyond that I did the typical restaurant and retail stuff.

(expletives deleted - I'm trying to turn a new leaf vis anger management)

Hmm.  My first job was 'House Services Department'... err...  the janitorial staff for New England Telephone.  (They later became Nynex, then Verison.)  Is cleaning toilets a shit job?  My second was night shift, removing still cooling plastic parts from injection moulding machines.  Old style mindless manufacturing.  Remove part from mold, then package it before the next part was ready.

The third was assembling prototype fly by wire systems for the Navy's Vietnam era F8 fighter.  This was something of a let down for others on my team at Draper Labs.  The prior project had been the inertial guidance system for Project Apollo.  For the rest of my career I was doing high tech for the military-industrial complex.

While the first job wasn't a prize, it also reflected how things used to be.  My father worked for New England Telephone.  It was presumed in his time that if you pulled your weight, if you got into the Bell System, you had a job for life.  Not only that, but if your son needs a summer job, he's in too.  Things were very different then.  Another aspect was that when my father offered stinky job in the family business, I was expected to take it and did.  You were expected to pay your dues, but if you did pay your dues you expected doors to open.

[Eric the Green]

Food for thought for Classic Xer:

Old Democrats are different? No, liberal Democrats walk forward. That's what they do. Always.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

(08-19-2016, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... there have been successful big government programs, and unsuccessful ones.  There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so.  Depending on what times and places one focuses on in US history, one can learn very different ideas on how America works, what is wrong with it, what is right, and what could be better.

Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others.  People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life.  He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly.  I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.

But you can't doubt that many of the key divides in the current Red / Blue divide are extremely stubborn.  I can find merit and historical cause for both sets of ideas, perhaps because my own values hold that world views that succeed became strong because they worked or seemed to have worked in their time.  I lived through the 60s and remember the notion that big problems ought to be confronted and solved, and this often involved throwing lots of money at problems.  I also saw the National Malaise, with the string of failed US policies and projects that disillusioned many about the effectiveness of the government.

There are two sets of lessons learned.  I think we would be better off if everyone tried to learn both sets of lessons.

But that's sure not what is happening.  Partisans like you and Eric will cling to the lessons and policies of one time and with intense prejudice find ways to reject the lessons and policies of other times.  This is going to the point of demonization, where anyone who holds the other set of values must be stupid, deluded, brainwashed, evil or a clone of Hitler.  Folks from either extreme aren't considering where the other side might be coming from.  They would rather assume that the other side is totally flying mammal excrement out of their minds.

I don't see either side as being more or less evil, deluded, stupid or etc...  I do see a pendulum that ought to be swinging with the cycles.  At the moment we have a large division of wealth and entrepreneurs are having no difficulty raising funds.  There is no current need for supply side stimulus, to take from the poor to give to the rich.  There is a real lack of jobs paying living wages.  This makes it a good time for demand side stimulus.  Money has to be inserted onto Main Street, where it will allow folk to buy and sell stuff, to get goods and services moving freely again.  If we can improve infrastructure, education and health care in the process, it's worth doing.

It's not a matter of one ideology or the other always being better.  It is a matter of honestly looking at what the nation needs and adjusting policy to match the current needs, not what the needs were when last a given party sized power.  Right now, Main Street has a lot more genuine needs than the Robber Barons.  The Robber Barons are riding as high as they ever have.

Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right.  It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.  This doesn't seem to be happening, though.  (Classic Xer) and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture.  Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes.  It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions.

I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe.  Still, the partisan divide continues.

If you see all of history, you can see that there's only been one other time besides our own when the supposed "other party" besides the more-progressive one was in-fact too stubborn, deluded, brainwashed, almost Hitler like. That was the 1850s and 1860s. We are in that time again.

"There have been times when the people have needed a lot of help, and times they do OK with less help.  There have been times and places where the government can become ingrown and corrupt, and times when they are less so." While I might agree with this, that does not mean that the Reagan-Bush-Tea Party era qualifies as a time when people did OK with less help, or when the government had been ingrown and corrupt before they came along. No, people needed MORE help from government in Reagan's time, and MORE corruption occurred as a result of his election. Corruption in government is a progressives' issue anyway, not a conservative issue. Conservatives don't cure it; progressives cure it. It's not about how big government is, it's about what it does.

As a Goldwater Republican said on a PBS doc, Goldwater in 1964 would not have approved of the Tea Party's ideas today. Just because pendulums swing and cycles occur, does not mean that any ol swing is the right ol thing. It would not do either if the USA swung in a too-radical direction toward communism, isolationism, or violent leftist activities. Or a Green Party candidate who adopts and spreads Republican lies. We don't need to agree with swings that swing too far. That's what has happened in the Reagan-Bush-Tea Party era. The partisan divide will continue until this right-wing swing is defeated. 

As mikebert said, values don't come unlocked in 4Ts; one set of locked values defeats the other. Only then will you see more consensus.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2016, 12:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Extreme vetting! Let's deport all the Trump voters!

Who would take them?

Can we have them pay for their own fence?