The threat of misinformation, conspiracy theory and social media to our democracy

[Eric the Green]

I'm surprised I don't see a recent thread on the 4T forum on this topic. It's time, and President Obama came to my county, the major source of social media itself, to discuss this very topic in April 2022. He starts by discussing Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the larger worldwide and USA trend of which Putin's a part.

click here to get to Obama's speech
https://youtu.be/ExEApwbhfqQ?t=575





Obama, any more than any other president, was not perfect in his decisions and actions. But this was mostly because he was not given support from young people who decided Obama was not perfect or change did not happen fast enough, and then gave up, as well as independents and moderates who decide to blame the president for everything that happens. He says what we need to hear now, and we need to listen rather than blame the messenger. We need to move away from conspiracy theory, misinformation and the misuse of social media.

[David Horn]

(04-22-2022, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama, any more than any other president, was not perfect in his decisions and actions. But this was mostly because he was not given support from young people who decided Obama was not perfect or change did not happen fast enough, and then gave up, as well as independents and moderates who decide to blame the president for everything that happens. He says what we need to hear now, and we need to listen rather than blame the messenger. We need to move away from conspiracy theory, misinformation and the misuse of social media.

Obama made one strategic error: going for healthcare first.  He then went cautious on everything else (perhaps, understandably so).  Unfortunately, that was the window that needed a leader with real teeth.  He had his army behind him, but picked the wrong issue to advance, then compromised on that.  He needed to do FDR's 100 days, and didn't.

If a do-over was possible, here's the strategy:

1. Pick easy wins and pass them
   
2. Promote those wins as a new dawn in America
   
3. Negotiate with the Senate Dems of the time, and kill the filibuster
   
4. Pass healthcare the way all but one or two Dems wanted it passed
   
5. Go for higher taxes on the rich and corporations and lower taxes on everyone else.
   

From that point on, the GOP would have been in full defense mode, and the attacks would have diminished because they would have been highly unpopular.  

But unfortunately, do-overs are impossible.

[Eric the Green]

(04-23-2022, 09:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama, any more than any other president, was not perfect in his decisions and actions. But this was mostly because he was not given support from young people who decided Obama was not perfect or change did not happen fast enough, and then gave up, as well as independents and moderates who decide to blame the president for everything that happens. He says what we need to hear now, and we need to listen rather than blame the messenger. We need to move away from conspiracy theory, misinformation and the misuse of social media.

Obama made one strategic error: going for healthcare first.  He then went cautious on everything else (perhaps, understandably so).  Unfortunately, that was the window that needed a leader with real teeth.  He had his army behind him, but picked the wrong issue to advance, then compromised on that.  He needed to do FDR's 100 days, and didn't.

If a do-over was possible, here's the strategy:

1. Pick easy wins and pass them
   
2. Promote those wins as a new dawn in America
   
3. Negotiate with the Senate Dems of the time, and kill the filibuster
   
4. Pass healthcare the way all but one or two Dems wanted it passed
   
5. Go for higher taxes on the rich and corporations and lower taxes on everyone else.
   

From that point on, the GOP would have been in full defense mode, and the attacks would have diminished because they would have been highly unpopular.  

But unfortunately, do-overs are impossible.

Obama could not have killed the filibuster; he had too many Manchins. In our house are many Manchins. If it were not so I would have told you.

Obama only went cautious because he knew how much he could pass. Pelosi passed his agenda; the Senate could not. He had zero margin for error, and even that only for 7 months. His army was not behind him. After that, young voters gave up on him, first in Massachusetts, and then in the midterms. He lost his congress, and so his administration was effectively over. That's just not enough time to do all the things you propose above, and I favored too. The nation is too divided to accomplish anything. The other side is implacable. This is the cold civil war and stalemate rules. But if his young voters who had elected him had stood with him, he could have kept his congress and become the next FDR. There is the do-over. It looks instead like we will do-over the error.

[David Horn]

(04-23-2022, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama could not have killed the filibuster; he had too many Manchins. In our house are many Manchins. If it were not so I would have told you.

Obama only went cautious because he knew how much he could pass. Pelosi passed his agenda; the Senate could not. He had zero margin for error, and even that only for 7 months. His army was not behind him. After that, young voters gave up on him, first in Massachusetts, and then in the midterms. He lost his congress, and so his administration was effectively over. That's just not enough time to do all the things you propose above, and I favored too. The nation is too divided to accomplish anything. The other side is implacable. This is the cold civil war and stalemate rules. But if his young voters who had elected him had stood with him, he could have kept his congress and become the next FDR. There is the do-over. It looks instead like we will do-over the error.

When you play at the big table, you can either use a defensive posture, lose little and gain little (or nothing), or you you can go for the gold. Going big is no guarantee, because the phrase go big or go home is exactly right. Stil, it's the better choice.

Obama chose the cautious path, and Biden is too. Trump went big and went home. But who is having the most lasting impact? Leaders lead ... period! You might argue that Trump was and still is a terrible leader. Agreed. But in the end, he's still having an impact. Many more proficient slimeballs are waiting in the wings for the next round. They may go home too, but they also may not. If they are not opposed with equal fervor to their own misguided machismo, they will get to try again and again until, eventually, one will make it. Heaven help us then.

[beechnut79]

(04-23-2022, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-23-2022, 09:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama, any more than any other president, was not perfect in his decisions and actions. But this was mostly because he was not given support from young people who decided Obama was not perfect or change did not happen fast enough, and then gave up, as well as independents and moderates who decide to blame the president for everything that happens. He says what we need to hear now, and we need to listen rather than blame the messenger. We need to move away from conspiracy theory, misinformation and the misuse of social media.

Obama made one strategic error: going for healthcare first.  He then went cautious on everything else (perhaps, understandably so).  Unfortunately, that was the window that needed a leader with real teeth.  He had his army behind him, but picked the wrong issue to advance, then compromised on that.  He needed to do FDR's 100 days, and didn't.

If a do-over was possible, here's the strategy:

1. Pick easy wins and pass them
   
2. Promote those wins as a new dawn in America
   
3. Negotiate with the Senate Dems of the time, and kill the filibuster
   
4. Pass healthcare the way all but one or two Dems wanted it passed
   
5. Go for higher taxes on the rich and corporations and lower taxes on everyone else.
   

From that point on, the GOP would have been in full defense mode, and the attacks would have diminished because they would have been highly unpopular.  

But unfortunately, do-overs are impossible.

Obama could not have killed the filibuster; he had too many Manchins. In our house are many Manchins. If it were not so I would have told you.

Obama only went cautious because he knew how much he could pass. Pelosi passed his agenda; the Senate could not. He had zero margin for error, and even that only for 7 months. His army was not behind him. After that, young voters gave up on him, first in Massachusetts, and then in the midterms. He lost his congress, and so his administration was effectively over. That's just not enough time to do all the things you propose above, and I favored too. The nation is too divided to accomplish anything. The other side is implacable. This is the cold civil war and stalemate rules. But if his young voters who had elected him had stood with him, he could have kept his congress and become the next FDR. There is the do-over. It looks instead like we will do-over the error.

Did Biden pick the right issue with the Build Back Better agenda? And, even though Obama proved to be a big disappointment for true progressives, he still manage to win a second term. Or, was this because so many considered him to be the lesser of two evils? On the surface Biden would appear "safer" to the other side than was Obama, who was definite more of a firebrand than Biden or even Trump,  at least while campaigning.

[Eric the Green]

(04-24-2022, 09:52 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-23-2022, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-23-2022, 09:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama, any more than any other president, was not perfect in his decisions and actions. But this was mostly because he was not given support from young people who decided Obama was not perfect or change did not happen fast enough, and then gave up, as well as independents and moderates who decide to blame the president for everything that happens. He says what we need to hear now, and we need to listen rather than blame the messenger. We need to move away from conspiracy theory, misinformation and the misuse of social media.

Obama made one strategic error: going for healthcare first.  He then went cautious on everything else (perhaps, understandably so).  Unfortunately, that was the window that needed a leader with real teeth.  He had his army behind him, but picked the wrong issue to advance, then compromised on that.  He needed to do FDR's 100 days, and didn't.

If a do-over was possible, here's the strategy:

1. Pick easy wins and pass them
   
2. Promote those wins as a new dawn in America
   
3. Negotiate with the Senate Dems of the time, and kill the filibuster
   
4. Pass healthcare the way all but one or two Dems wanted it passed
   
5. Go for higher taxes on the rich and corporations and lower taxes on everyone else.
   

From that point on, the GOP would have been in full defense mode, and the attacks would have diminished because they would have been highly unpopular.  

But unfortunately, do-overs are impossible.

Obama could not have killed the filibuster; he had too many Manchins. In our house are many Manchins. If it were not so I would have told you.

Obama only went cautious because he knew how much he could pass. Pelosi passed his agenda; the Senate could not. He had zero margin for error, and even that only for 7 months. His army was not behind him. After that, young voters gave up on him, first in Massachusetts, and then in the midterms. He lost his congress, and so his administration was effectively over. That's just not enough time to do all the things you propose above, and I favored too. The nation is too divided to accomplish anything. The other side is implacable. This is the cold civil war and stalemate rules. But if his young voters who had elected him had stood with him, he could have kept his congress and become the next FDR. There is the do-over. It looks instead like we will do-over the error.

Did Biden pick the right issue with the Build Back Better agenda? And, even though Obama proved to be a big disappointment for true progressives, he still manage to win a second term. Or, was this because so many considered him to be the lesser of two evils? On the surface Biden would appear "safer" to the other side than was Obama, who was definite more of a firebrand than Biden or even Trump,  at least while campaigning.

Biden is certainly known for speaking with fiery passion, but less as an intellectual and more of a working man's spokesman.

Biden put many projects to answer the needs of the people and reduce inflation into the BBBBB. The climate change provisions are at least a start. Certainly he picked the right issues. The voters didn't pick the right senators.

I voted for Bernie, and was disappointed when he didn't win. After I revised the way I count the aspect scores in my horoscope scoring system, to take out the extra step of ranking the aspects and then using those numbers, and adjusting the raw numbers so that each category of evaluation had the needed input into the total scores, and also added in the aspects of the mostly-losing 2020 candidates plus Biden's winning aspects into the system, Bernie Sanders lost a positive point from 14-7 to 13-7. So he was indicated as less likely than Biden to beat Trump, since Biden's score rose from 14-7 to 16-6, while Trump's score stayed at 9-4.

Although I prefer candidates more on the left, I don't necessarily agree with David's apparent view that Democrats need candidates further to the left to get young people energized and voting and thus win the presidency over Republicans. I agree that the candidate needs some charisma and ability to inspire and connect with voters in order to win. But this does not necessarily equate to being further on the left, and I don't assume that "having the fire" equates to being "further left". If anything, being too far to the left often correlates with a lower score for such candidates, based on who wins historically. Some of them have what Elizabeth Warren has in their charts, a Mars to Neptune 120 or 60 degree angle, which equates to a "crusader" approach, and this aspect (which I have myself) has a very poor record of getting elected USA president. Republican candidates can also have high scores and connect well with Americans too, of course.

And to me today, although I vote left in primaries, I have rejoined the Democratic Party (since the 2020 CA primary to vote for Bernie, which he won), and I recognize now that the USA is too backward to easily elect a leftist candidate, and a more moderate one, though he may be more war-like or more accomodating to the oligarchy than someone further left, brings some progress in the USA, and that is better than none-- which is what we necessarily get (at best) from a Republican president; in fact, what we are likely to get from such a president today is regression and destruction of everything of value. So I voted for Hillary and for Joe in the general election, to register my fervent opposition to the Drumpster Fire. I did not vote for Obama, but I certainly rooted for him to beat the Republican.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[Eric the Green]

(04-24-2022, 08:02 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-23-2022, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama could not have killed the filibuster; he had too many Manchins. In our house are many Manchins. If it were not so I would have told you.

Obama only went cautious because he knew how much he could pass. Pelosi passed his agenda; the Senate could not. He had zero margin for error, and even that only for 7 months. His army was not behind him. After that, young voters gave up on him, first in Massachusetts, and then in the midterms. He lost his congress, and so his administration was effectively over. That's just not enough time to do all the things you propose above, and I favored too. The nation is too divided to accomplish anything. The other side is implacable. This is the cold civil war and stalemate rules. But if his young voters who had elected him had stood with him, he could have kept his congress and become the next FDR. There is the do-over. It looks instead like we will do-over the error.

When you play at the big table, you can either use a defensive posture, lose little and gain little (or nothing), or you you can go for the gold.  Going big is no guarantee, because the phrase go big or go home is exactly right.  Stil, it's the better choice.

Obama chose the cautious path, and Biden is too.  Trump went big and went home.  But who is having the most lasting impact?   Leaders lead ... period!  You might argue that Trump was and still is a terrible leader.  Agreed.  But in the end, he's still having an impact.  Many more proficient slimeballs are waiting in the wings for the next round.  They may go home too, but they also may not.  If they are not opposed with equal fervor to their own misguided machismo, they will get to try again and again until, eventually, one will make it.  Heaven help us then.

Yes indeed, I don't disagree. As I say in the post above, though, being on the left (assuming that means "going big" and "going for the gold" for Democrats) does not necessarily indicate a candidate who can connect with the voters well, with fervour, style and articulateness. The horoscope scores, based mostly on angles between planets' positions, indicate these qualities much better than how progressive they are. Unfortunately, the potential candidate with the most charisma in the Democratic field, Mitch Landrieu, lacks ambition and self-confidence, and also lacks a degree of status and recognition. I see no others available now.

So we are left with Biden. Sanders has appeal, but his way of speaking is too set in its ways. He has a Mercury-Saturn trine, as does Kamala Harris, and this is a great detriment to a candidate since it indicates a plodding or boring style of speaking. Sanders can raise his voice well and propose going for the gold (his speaker-planet Mercury is also trine (120-degree angle) to progressive, inspired Uranus, unlike Harris', whose Mercury is also trine to plodding, status-quo-oriented Saturn), but Sanders gets stuck in ruts repeating the same points endlessly. Biden is better than you give him credit for. He connects with people. His BBBBB is golden, but he can only get that part of it that he can get passed, and if the voters don't give him a congress, which they have not, NO leader can prevail.

[David Horn]

(04-24-2022, 05:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes indeed, I don't disagree. As I say in the post above, though, being on the left (assuming that means "going big" and "going for the gold" for Democrats) does not necessarily indicate a candidate who can connect with the voters well, with fervour, style and articulateness. The horoscope scores, based mostly on angles between planets' positions, indicate these qualities much better than how progressive they are. Unfortunately, the potential candidate with the most charisma in the Democratic field, Mitch Landrieu, lacks ambition and self-confidence, and also lacks a degree of status and recognition. I see no others available now.

So we are left with Biden. Sanders has appeal, but his way of speaking is too set in its ways. He has a Mercury-Saturn trine, as does Kamala Harris, and this is a great detriment to a candidate since it indicates a plodding or boring style of speaking. Sanders can raise his voice well and propose going for the gold (his speaker-planet Mercury is also trine (120-degree angle) to progressive, inspired Uranus, unlike Harris', whose Mercury is also trine to plodding, status-quo-oriented Saturn), but Sanders gets stuck in ruts repeating the same points endlessly. Biden is better than you give him credit for. He connects with people. His BBBBB is golden, but he can only get that part of it that he can get passed, and if the voters don't give him a congress, which they have not, NO leader can prevail.

Let me reach out and touch a potential leader or two. First, Cory Booker. He has charisma to burn, experience where it counts, and a lot of good ideas to boot. Another player, Amy Klobuchar. She's a bit rougher around the edges than Booker, but she also has solid experience and a never-quit attitude. Then there's the improbable but solid governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear.

We don't have to accept less, and these are only three of many excellent choices.

[pbrower2a]

We got out of one problem in defeating a President who is both senile and immature. We ended up with a President who is past "life expectancy at birth", which means that he has generational constituency to back him. He has had to forge one out of three generations (Boom, X, and Millennial) younger than his. He obviously does not fit Boom, X, or Millennial style as a leader.

He has done the best that he can under the circumstances. He has gone by the book, which is far safer than showing contempt for old norms. He has shown little indulgence for those who broke the rules badly on January 6, 2021. Should there be an amnesty for such, then such will be by another President sympathetic to the personality and agenda of Donald Trump. God help us should that happen.

It is possible that President Biden sees himself as a likely one-term President due to age.

[Eric the Green]

(04-25-2022, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2022, 05:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes indeed, I don't disagree. As I say in the post above, though, being on the left (assuming that means "going big" and "going for the gold" for Democrats) does not necessarily indicate a candidate who can connect with the voters well, with fervour, style and articulateness. The horoscope scores, based mostly on angles between planets' positions, indicate these qualities much better than how progressive they are. Unfortunately, the potential candidate with the most charisma in the Democratic field, Mitch Landrieu, lacks ambition and self-confidence, and also lacks a degree of status and recognition. I see no others available now.

So we are left with Biden. Sanders has appeal, but his way of speaking is too set in its ways. He has a Mercury-Saturn trine, as does Kamala Harris, and this is a great detriment to a candidate since it indicates a plodding or boring style of speaking. Sanders can raise his voice well and propose going for the gold (his speaker-planet Mercury is also trine (120-degree angle) to progressive, inspired Uranus, unlike Harris', whose Mercury is also trine to plodding, status-quo-oriented Saturn), but Sanders gets stuck in ruts repeating the same points endlessly. Biden is better than you give him credit for. He connects with people. His BBBBB is golden, but he can only get that part of it that he can get passed, and if the voters don't give him a congress, which they have not, NO leader can prevail.

Let me reach out and touch a potential leader or two.  First, Cory Booker.  He has charisma to burn, experience where it counts, and a lot of good ideas to boot.  Another player, Amy Klobuchar.  She's a bit rougher around the edges than Booker, but she also has solid experience and a never-quit attitude.  Then there's the improbable but solid governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear.  

We don't have to accept less, and these are only three of many excellent choices.

None of these three has any chance of ever being elected president of the USA.

There's no reason to believe that Biden is not a better bet in any sense than these three.

Remember I said no 2020 candidate has any chance besides Biden. Booker dropped out before the primaries, and Klobuchar I believe was a distant 5th place.

Note also that none of these three has any "go for the gold" policy plans that are any more bold or progressive than Biden's.

[David Horn]

(04-26-2022, 12:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-25-2022, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let me reach out and touch a potential leader or two.  First, Cory Booker.  He has charisma to burn, experience where it counts, and a lot of good ideas to boot.  Another player, Amy Klobuchar.  She's a bit rougher around the edges than Booker, but she also has solid experience and a never-quit attitude.  Then there's the improbable but solid governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear.  

We don't have to accept less, and these are only three of many excellent choices.

None of these three has any chance of ever being elected president of the USA.

There's no reason to believe that Biden is not a better bet in any sense that these three.

Remember I said no 2020 candidate has any chance besides Biden. Booker dropped out before the primaries, and Klobuchar I believe was a distant 5th place.

Note also that none of these three has any "go for the gold" policy plans that are any more bold or progressive than Biden's.

I don't see Biden running again, neither of us thinks Harris is viable, and the two street fighters are both in their 70s.  Jumping past the flotsam in their 50s and 60s, and the next crop with the guts to go toe-to-toe with the dystopian Republicans are all too young.  So I'll still pick Cory Booker or, perhaps, Pete Buttigieg. Nether is a true street fighter, but both connect with people at the core level, and they have backgrounds that are hard to fault.

[Eric the Green]

(04-26-2022, 12:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-26-2022, 12:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-25-2022, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let me reach out and touch a potential leader or two.  First, Cory Booker.  He has charisma to burn, experience where it counts, and a lot of good ideas to boot.  Another player, Amy Klobuchar.  She's a bit rougher around the edges than Booker, but she also has solid experience and a never-quit attitude.  Then there's the improbable but solid governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear.  

We don't have to accept less, and these are only three of many excellent choices.

None of these three has any chance of ever being elected president of the USA.

There's no reason to believe that Biden is not a better bet in any sense that these three.

Remember I said no 2020 candidate has any chance besides Biden. Booker dropped out before the primaries, and Klobuchar I believe was a distant 5th place.

Note also that none of these three has any "go for the gold" policy plans that are any more bold or progressive than Biden's.

I don't see Biden running again, neither of us thinks Harris is viable, and the two street fighters are both in their 70s.  Jumping past the flotsam in their 50s and 60s, and the next crop with the guts to go toe-to-toe with the dystopian Republicans are all too young.  So I'll still pick Cory Booker or, perhaps, Pete Buttigieg.  Nether is a true street fighter, but both connect with people at the core level, and they have backgrounds that are hard to fault.

Well, best wishes with your recommendation. I forecast in 2020 that none of the 2020 Democratic candidates had any chance against Biden, or Trump, except maybe Bernie Sanders (score 13-7). The latter was the last one standing; all the others melted away in a dismal pile. None of them will ever win. The other ones who could have won did not run. That's too bad, but that's what we got. We can't go back and wish they had run. It's a tragedy, perhaps, but we have to make do with Mr. Biden. Without him, we have no hope.

Cory Booker, score 8-10, has a Saturn Return due in 2028, which could be an additional barrier. His approach and style is too restless and unhinged.
Pete Buttigieg, charming as he is, has a score of 6-13. In the end, he doesn't have the strength of presence to be seen as presidential.
These two candidates just don't have the skill to connect.

Biden (score 16-6) has already said he will run again, and I believe him. His health and speaking style are, if anything, improving this year. I don't know though, if he will win. I think Trump (score 9-4) may be too discredited to beat him, when it comes down to it, but I could be wrong. Tim Scott (score 17-7) might have a shot, or Tom Cotton (score 17-9, uncertain), or even Marco Rubio (score 13-7), but I can't predict any of these or any other Republicans as defeating Biden. I may not be able to make a clear prediction, but I will present the data and the conditions when the time comes. Just how far Republicans succeed in fixing the election system may determine whether Trump or his successor wins or not. An election scoring system means little in an authoritarian state. I would probably be most afraid of Tim Scott.

Although Nikki Haley (score 8-12) versus Cory Booker might be an interesting scenario. A very unlikely one indeed, though.

Knocking Biden is not an accurate appraisal. Don't underestimate him, nor Trump for that matter.

https://philosopherswheel.com/presidenti...ScoredWhat

[David Horn]

(04-26-2022, 02:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Knocking Biden is not an accurate appraisal. Don't underestimate him, nor Trump for that matter.

As of today, Biden's approval among the three youngest generations (X, Millennial and Z) is about 20%. They are pissed-off that they have been screwed -- often directly by government -- and their concerns continue to go unaddressed. They are Progressive, so they aren't likely to vote against Democrats; instead, they'll just stay home. That's a textbook recipe for disaster.

[Eric the Green]

(04-26-2022, 03:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-26-2022, 02:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Knocking Biden is not an accurate appraisal. Don't underestimate him, nor Trump for that matter.

As of today, Biden's approval among the three youngest generations (X, Millennial and Z) is about 20%.  They are pissed-off that they have been screwed -- often directly by government -- and their concerns continue to go unaddressed.  They are Progressive, so they aren't likely to vote against Democrats; instead, they'll just stay home.  That's a textbook recipe for disaster.

I have heard it is low, but not that low. If they have that opinion, and don't vote, that is on them. They will be the sole cause of the disaster. Biden is good enough, and he is not responsible for them getting screwed over or having their concerns unaddressed. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but had Senator Manchin voted for the BBBBB, and for the voting rights bill he proposed and then scuttled along with senator Sinema, then the concerns of many young people would have been addressed as fully as they ever could be today. Young Millennials need to learn civics and listen to Obama's speech. If they think they should get everything they want all at once, if they want perfect and not better, and if they think the president alone can deliver without a congress, then they are the victims of their own ignorance about what kind of government they have and about what kind of society they live in.

[David Horn]

(04-26-2022, 04:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-26-2022, 03:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-26-2022, 02:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Knocking Biden is not an accurate appraisal. Don't underestimate him, nor Trump for that matter.

As of today, Biden's approval among the three youngest generations (X, Millennial and Z) is about 20%.  They are pissed-off that they have been screwed -- often directly by government -- and their concerns continue to go unaddressed.  They are Progressive, so they aren't likely to vote against Democrats; instead, they'll just stay home.  That's a textbook recipe for disaster.

I have heard it is low, but not that low. If they have that opinion, and don't vote, that is on them. They will be the sole cause of the disaster. Biden is good enough, and he is not responsible for them getting screwed over or having their concerns unaddressed. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but had Senator Manchin voted for the BBBBB, and for the voting rights bill he proposed and then scuttled along with senator Sinema, then the concerns of many young people would have been addressed as fully as they ever could be today. Young Millennials need to learn civics and listen to Obama's speech. If they think they should get everything they want all at once, if they want perfect and not better, and if they think the president alone can deliver without a congress, then they are the victims of their own ignorance about what kind of government they have and about what kind of society they live in.

Actually, that's a large part of the problem.  Due in large part to conservative blow-back, civics education in this country has been lacking for decades.  If you have no idea how the sausage is made, all you care about is getting your share.  That won't change quickly, but tell them that.  They are not likely to listen, but the effort is worth it I guess.

[beechnut79]

Your boldface comment seems to be a lesson that Obama himself had to learn once he assumed office. And although he no doubt meant well, the fact that we didn't even come close to getting all that we wanted is strongly laid at his feet nonetheless. Same during the Clinton presidency, the one plus being that the former of those mentioned didn't quite become the Republican in Democrat's clothing that the latter did. Therefore, despite being a detriment, it can be easily understood why so many do ending up voting for None of the Above. May be the same this time around too.

[Eric the Green]

(04-27-2022, 03:26 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Your boldface comment seems to be a lesson that Obama himself had to learn once he assumed office. And although he no doubt meant well, the fact that we didn't even come close to getting all that we wanted is strongly laid at his feet nonetheless. Same during the Clinton presidency, the one plus being that the former of those mentioned didn't quite become the Republican in Democrat's clothing that the latter did. Therefore, despite being a detriment, it can be easily understood why so many do ending up voting for None of the Above. May be the same this time around too.

It is easy to see that this is mostly misunderstood. That we didn't get all we wanted is mostly due to the voters, who stayed home in 2010 and thus voted for none of the above, as they will probably do this year, and thereby left the field to the Tea Party, enabling the Republicans to gerrymander congress and stop any further attempts at getting what we want. Obama had only 7 months of power. This was not Obama's fault; it was the voters' fault entirely. How can young people expect much to get through even a somewhat-friendly congress in 7 months? The main goal took up most of the time, but just before his congress was lost to him he got Obamacare passed, plus Wall Street reform and a stimulus which saved the economy after the crash. He also put mileage standards on cars and subsidized solar energy, getting this vital industry off the ground. Historians are already rating him in or near the top 10 among presidents for even getting THAT much done.

Much the same can be said about Clinton. He got less done, because unlike Obama for 7 months, Bill Clinton never had a filibuster proof congress, and he lost his weak majority after just 2 years to the previous Tea Party, called the Contract with America. The power of Reaganomics neoliberal ideology was even stronger in the 1990s, and it was hard for Clinton not to compromise with it, which he did. He did manage to raise the minimum wage and the earned income credit, which are among the policies that slowed down or reversed slightly for a while the slide toward the gross inequality which afflicts the USA today, and he got some minor gun control. For a couple of years, Clinton's budget management created the only surplus we've had for many decades. His successor promptly ruined all this.

The problem lies with the voters, who are not willing to back a Democratic president once we manage to elect one. Just like today, the Democrats in congress would not have been willing to bust the filibuster, being more fearful in their policies of the Republicans than vice versa.

Both Obama and Clinton also had their faults which Republicans are not directly responsible for. "Obomba" continued deadly drone attacks, until he was persuaded to stop, and did not stop the Bush wars as soon as he promised. He continued the post-9-11 surveillance regime that many objected to, and was unfriendly toward whistleblowers. Wall Street crooks went unpunished. Clinton carried out a harmful sanctions regime on Iraq which many died from. His cabinet frequently included Wall Street friendly folks who enabled further financial misconduct and harmful investing later, and so did Obama's. Still, those who accuse either one of starting wars are incorrect. Both had a much-more peaceful and less deadly foreign policy than the Nixon and Reagan-Bush regimes did. The difference in corruption between the Democratic and most of the Republican administrations is staggering.

[pbrower2a]

(04-26-2022, 04:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-26-2022, 03:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-26-2022, 02:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Knocking Biden is not an accurate appraisal. Don't underestimate him, nor Trump for that matter.

As of today, Biden's approval among the three youngest generations (X, Millennial and Z) is about 20%.  They are pissed-off that they have been screwed -- often directly by government -- and their concerns continue to go unaddressed.  They are Progressive, so they aren't likely to vote against Democrats; instead, they'll just stay home.  That's a textbook recipe for disaster.

I have heard it is low, but not that low. If they have that opinion, and don't vote, that is on them. They will be the sole cause of the disaster. Biden is good enough, and he is not responsible for them getting screwed over or having their concerns unaddressed. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but had Senator Manchin voted for the BBBBB, and for the voting rights bill he proposed and then scuttled along with senator Sinema, then the concerns of many young people would have been addressed as fully as they ever could be today. Young Millennials need to learn civics and listen to Obama's speech. If they think they should get everything they want all at once, if they want perfect and not better, and if they think the president alone can deliver without a congress, then they are the victims of their own ignorance about what kind of government they have and about what kind of society they live in.

For life to have meaning it must have some struggle. People who have everything given to them on a silver platter must create their own struggle lest life be meaningless. This said, for those who struggle simply because they are poor in a plutocratic or crony-capitalist society, some reasonable means of achieving their dreams (not merely consumption -- winning the lottery is not a struggle) must be available. The peasant, let alone the slave, was damned to be a loser in the economic order that he knew.

The President can achieve little on his own. The President has weak powers unless Congress gives them to him. If one is Lincoln, FDR, or for a short time Obama one gets them. If one is Eisenhower (close to the best) or Reagan (close to the worst for long-term results) one must rely upon persuasion. Trump may have assumed that the President has dictatorial powers, but he was wrong. 

High-school civics have been a snooze for many students. Maybe one Trump-like President can change that by a contrast between himself and the past. Another one can turn high-school civics into a snooze-fest for the reason that the mandatory courses in Marxism-Leninism were irrelevant bores in "socialist" countries. Most American youth would be indoctrinated in a fatalistic reverence for tycoons and executives while being told that they will choose between burning in Hell for disobedience or achieving Pie in the Sky When They Die as a reward for dying as cannon fodder in wars for profit or living miserably in This World in deference to the whims of the Master Class while denying their own pangs of deprivation and the constant demeaning of life. Protestant fundamentalism and the pseudo-Christian wealth cult offer much the same effect.

If you think that science or artistic creativity will refute the official ideology that will entrench itself, then think again. The elites will deny the effects of rational science with pseudoscience such as racism and young-earth creationism. Authoritarian regimes cannot afford independent thought or even a market economy if they are to maintain power. Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 can warn us of what awaits us if we let the economic elites decide that stupidity and ignorance are fitting controls of the masses. Someone might read All Quiet on the Western Front and decide that war ad militarism are pure wastes of youth who deserve better, Crime and Punishment to realize how criminal deeds can destroy one even before one gets caught, or 1984 to see how things are done.  

One thing is sure: the Hard Right has nothing better than what some liberal consensus can achieve -- but it does have poverty, repression, and hierarchy.

Let's remember that Civic generations get the vote out, and generally for the most collectivist and communitarian expression possible -- at least when young. Remember that the 2018 midterm election had the highest turnout for a midterm election for a very long time. It is less likely that 2018 is an anomaly in the pattern of Millennial voting than that 2020 was a fluke because of the plague of COVID-19. Democrats could canvass again as they did in 2022. Canvassing works. Most people want to know that the Parties care. The shadow of Donald Trump still falls upon American political life in 2022.

[David Horn]

I might be a good time to look at other data points.  There are a lot of academics looking at the problem of natural affinity.  In other words, some people are just wired to be fearful and are always going to oppose 'the other'.  They tend to be drawn to socially conservative entities, and the GOP is the top of the list.  Others are more open and accepting.  They tend to be Democrats. 

Here's a good NYTimes article on the subject.  It shouldn't be hidden behind the paywall, so enjoy!

[Eric the Green]

From what I have heard, young people today did not have civics classes at all. They need to create their own knowledge of how our government works, and most are too lazy to do that. I don't know just when civics education was abolished though, or how gradually.