Presidential election, 2016

[Galen]

(11-14-2016, 06:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 02:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 03:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 02:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 01:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Plenty of people of all generations are idiots, though boomers may be more insistent about any idiotic positions they hold.

Condescension, yes, though GIs also tended to be condescending.  Specifically, GIs tended to be condescending when taking positions that they knew - or perhaps "knew" - to be true, but when they didn't know the reasons why those positions were true.  Boomers may be condescending even when they do know the reasoning, but just can't be bothered to discuss it.

The GIs on the other hand were generally very competent and so I have fewer problems with their condescension.  When they were wrong is was rare and very spectacular.  In the end GIs tended respond to reality.  I rather liked them in spite of these flaws because of their basic sanity.

I'm curious where you got that impression; that wasn't my experience.  My experience was that GIs understood some things, but failed to understand other things despite their being obvious.  On the whole, they were probably comparably competent on a relative scale as their presidents were.  Johnson, Nixon, and Carter were incompetent to varying degrees; Reagan was exceptionally competent and Kennedy might have been competent had he had more time.  The overall average is probably slightly subpar relative to other generations.

With respect to political leaders, I think the primary difference with boomers was that GI presidents generally tried to improve things for the nation as a whole, even where they failed, and with the possible exception of Johnson; Boomer presidents to date were more interested in improving things for their political party at the cost of political opponents.  But I don't know if you're talking about political leaders or personal acquaintances.

I am curious as to what common things you think GIs did not understand.

I think it was different things for different GIs.

For Nixon, it was that price controls would fail, either through shortages or some other way.

For some GIs I knew, it was that cigarette butts could start fires.  They seemed to believe spontaneous combustion was pretty common and could not have been started by the cigarette butts involved in the situations.

That is why I said generally because, like any generation, they had idiots.  Its just that Boomers have had much more trouble adjusting to reality.  I think that Adam Savage came up with a phrase that sums up the Baby Boom Generation: I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Actually, just about everything Nixon ever did with respect to economic policy was wrong.  Wage and price controls was a pretty spectacular thing to get wrong.  It was the price controls on oil, which hung around through most of seventies, that gave us the gas lines.  It was closing the gold window that gave us the petrodollar which, when it ends, it really going to bite us all in the ass really hard because we will no longer be able to export inflation.

GI mistakes tended to be the result of overconfidence because they often were so successful.  They were the ones that invented the phrase "Failure is not an option". While today people often have a rather mechanistic and deterministic view of the world, it was worse in the sixties and seventies.  One of the most irritating things I used to hear in the seventies was: If we can land a man on the moon then why can't we X.  Where X was some utopian bit of social engineering that had no chance of working.

[Bob Butler 54]

Taramarie

We were having an interesting conversation a few days back. Kinser popped in and got me going on other stuff. I couldn't find the time and energy to hold both conversations at once. I'll try to pick it up, though I don't know how much there is left to say.

(11-13-2016, 02:51 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: "Correct in that we're locked into a clash of ideals.  It's problematic, though, that we're locked into fixed positions.  An awful lot of us can only see things through specific perspectives and attitudes, which is emphatically not ideal."

What do you think can cause someone to shift their ideals? In a way that personally impacts them perhaps? I guess it all depends on how open their mind is to a different perspective.

In general, I believe it takes a traumatic failure of one's ideals in order to force reconsideration.  I don't see the human brain as a objective tool for pursuing goals and analyzing situations, or perhaps it does it in two phases.  First, it builds a world view to analyze problems and values as goals to be sought.  This takes a lot of effort, thus it is effective to do this once as one is growing into maturity.  Once maturity is reached, it is easier to act using the world view to analyze and the values as targets to be sought rather than to think through every decision objectively from scratch.

From an evolutionary perspective, at least in the hunter gatherer environment where we evolved, one can argue that this approach is very cost effective.  Today's environment is much more diverse and complex than the hunter gatherer life style we evolved for.  Two perfectly good minds that grew up in different environments can develop entirely different world views and values.

How traumatic a failure is required before a human can reexamine something that has been set at a core level?  I might provide two illustrations.

Atlanta, 1864


Berlin, 1945

The above reflects how world views are altered on a massive crisis scale, or at least people will give the impression of having a world view shift.  The slave owners might be made to acknowledge their property is now free, but that didn't prevent Jim Crow.  While the Germans and Japanese after World War II became very dubious about fighting wars of aggression, some of the Germans still didn't think much of Jews.

Causing that degree of trauma to someone's world view by typing in a chat room is difficult to rare.  I've been saying that people are seldom moved off their bedrock.  That is because the defense mechanisms that protect the brain from reconsidering world views --  vile stereotypes, blindness to obvious fact, a tendency to revert to childish insult and squabbling, others -- are just that strong.  The defense mechanisms might be considered symptoms of a disease, or perhaps a reflection of how the human mind works.

Some world views are more flexible than others.  A fundamentalist with firm literal belief in the Bible is in a tight place. It is perhaps fortunate for such people that the Bible was written over a long period of time, records values reflecting quite different cultures, thus one can pick and choose from among the centuries to build a perspective that works. There is a good deal of wiggle room between 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek'.  A scientist who lives the notion that all theories must be reconsidered when fact conflicts with the theory is in a much better place.  Even if his political values are strong, such people are trained somewhat to stop and reevaluate, and acting in conflict with observed fact is anathema.

Part of one's chat room game might be attempting to understand how people view the world, what their goals are.  If you wish to make a point, using an argument centered on their world views or values will be much more effective that an argument from a different perspective.  Defense mechanisms are apt to kick in such they will be unable to comprehend or acknowledge an argument from a different perspective.  [understatement]  Alas, arguing against a perspective from within that perspective is tricky at best.  [/understatement]

You might try stating your own values firmly and clearly.  This won't make the change their values, but if you are firm, clear, with many repetitions, they might hear you, they might eventually listen.  The same with obvious facts.  Simple, clear, firm, undeniable, repeated.  You might also go with an expectation of failure, that they aren't going to listen anyway.  Expect vile straw men, denial, insults and childish temper tantrums.  It's endless.

The emotional force applied might need to be comparable to Berlin 1945 or Atlanta 1864.  It might not be worth it.  It's hard to apply that much force while being nice.  Thus, while I'm with you in trying for a chat room that isn't totally dominated by the defense mechanism rudeness, if you're really interested in communicating your views, in shifting other people's values, you might need to reach for the chisel and hammer from time to time.  I'm sensing that your own values will make you reluctant to go for the hammer and chisel.  If you can communicate at a core values at level while staying nice, you go girl, go for it.

(11-13-2016, 02:51 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Problem is, in some respects listening does hurt.  Extreme partisans are often incapable of reevaluating their world views or values.  To force them to reconsider basics is very hard for them.  It's not physical pain, but it's emotional trauma.  That is why they have defense mechanisms such as vile stereotypes.  When you are right and they are wrong on a fact and ideals level, you become invisible, one of their vile stereotypes suddenly materializes where you were standing, and they will attack the vile stereotype.  The inability to perceive obvious facts is another defense mechanism.  Whenever an extreme partisan starts responding in a childish or abusive fashion, it is quite likely that you have stressed their world view or values to the point where their mind has to change the subject, move the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them.

Do they not consider that others may have different values and that theirs impacts others in a way that does not fit them (through politics). The big question is how to allow people to live under a system that fits them without stepping the boundary onto how others want to live their lives. Which is why I believe politics and culture should not mix. They already have enough issues with economic disputes. Culture makes it personal and when you live in such a massive and diverse country it makes it near impossible to please everyone. That is also a good piece of advice "move the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them." Thank you I will keep it in mind.

You are touching on something very basic here.  Two conflicting principles.  Civilization involves rules to make sure people don't hurt each other.  Human rights exist in part to prevent government rules that limit freedom.  There is a conflict when one person's freedom is another person's evil that should be prevented.  Such conflicts can and often do work at a core values level, in which case they are a step short of unresolvable.

"Keeping the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them" would be a good way to keep the peace, to keep the forum more civilized.  It would not be a good way to communicate your own values or attempt to change theirs.  Values change is traumatic.  Defense mechanisms such as vile stereotypes, rejection of fact, insults and tantrums reflect the trauma.  There might be a choice between inflicting the trauma or giving up on communicating.

(11-13-2016, 02:51 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One way to keep score in a political chat room is by personal attacks drawn by facts and ideals.  With many extreme partisans, whenever you draw a personal attack, you have successfully proven their values are flawed, though most will posture and squirm to avoid at all costs admitting it.  They were unable to defend their points of view.  They'll revert to elementary school recess behavior, insults and verbal brawls.  Thus, when someone sends abusive childish stuff at me, I am apt to quietly smirk and repeat variations of the ideals and facts that caused them to loose their cool.

Mean of me, I know, but that's all one can really do.  Pushing someone entirely off his bedrock is extremely rare.

Ah I never thought of that before. I just thought they were being nasty. Thank you for the advice. Much appreciated.

I had been sort of aware of the above for quite some time.  Thanks for prompting me to share.

[Warren Dew]

(11-15-2016, 05:38 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 06:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 02:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 03:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 02:35 AM)Galen Wrote: The GIs on the other hand were generally very competent and so I have fewer problems with their condescension.  When they were wrong is was rare and very spectacular.  In the end GIs tended respond to reality.  I rather liked them in spite of these flaws because of their basic sanity.

I'm curious where you got that impression; that wasn't my experience.  My experience was that GIs understood some things, but failed to understand other things despite their being obvious.  On the whole, they were probably comparably competent on a relative scale as their presidents were.  Johnson, Nixon, and Carter were incompetent to varying degrees; Reagan was exceptionally competent and Kennedy might have been competent had he had more time.  The overall average is probably slightly subpar relative to other generations.

With respect to political leaders, I think the primary difference with boomers was that GI presidents generally tried to improve things for the nation as a whole, even where they failed, and with the possible exception of Johnson; Boomer presidents to date were more interested in improving things for their political party at the cost of political opponents.  But I don't know if you're talking about political leaders or personal acquaintances.

I am curious as to what common things you think GIs did not understand.

I think it was different things for different GIs.

For Nixon, it was that price controls would fail, either through shortages or some other way.

For some GIs I knew, it was that cigarette butts could start fires.  They seemed to believe spontaneous combustion was pretty common and could not have been started by the cigarette butts involved in the situations.

That is why I said generally because, like any generation, they had idiots.  Its just that Boomers have had much more trouble adjusting to reality.  I think that Adam Savage came up with a phrase that sums up the Baby Boom Generation: I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Actually, just about everything Nixon ever did with respect to economic policy was wrong.  Wage and price controls was a pretty spectacular thing to get wrong.  It was the price controls on oil, which hung around through most of seventies, that gave us the gas lines.  It was closing the gold window that gave us the petrodollar which, when it ends, it really going to bite us all in the ass really hard because we will no longer be able to export inflation.

GI mistakes tended to be the result of overconfidence because they often were so successful.  They were the ones that invented the phrase "Failure is not an option". While today people often have a rather mechanistic and deterministic view of the world, it was worse in the sixties and seventies.  One of the most irritating things I used to hear in the seventies was: If we can land a man on the moon then why can't we X.  Where X was some utopian bit of social engineering that had no chance of working.

Nixon's economic policy was generally bad, no doubt.  My examples were limited to cases where the errors were obvious to a child, which I was at the time.

Do you consider Obama boomer or X?  He certainly did the substitution of his own reality thing a lot.

[tg63]

one other consideration re: the value of public forum discussions between entrenched positions; as someone who has participated on other boards for a long time I've come to realize that for every contrary position someone takes, there are others - potentially many others - who may be lurking/reading who are much more open that those participating ... as such when I respond/get involved it's never with an intent to change anyone's mind, so much as to present an alternate position to those reading who may only be getting one side of a story. fwiw.

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2016, 06:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In general, I believe it takes a traumatic failure of one's ideals in order to force reconsideration.  I don't see the human brain as a objective tool for pursuing goals and analyzing situations, or perhaps it does it in two phases.  First, it builds a world view to analyze problems and values as goals to be sought.  This takes a lot of effort, thus it is effective to do this once as one is growing into maturity.  Once maturity is reached, it is easier to act using the world view to analyze and the values as targets to be sought rather than to think through every decision objectively from scratch.

From an evolutionary perspective, at least in the hunter gatherer environment where we evolved, one can argue that this approach is very cost effective.  Today's environment is much more diverse and complex than the hunter gatherer life style we evolved for.  Two perfectly good minds that grew up in different environments can develop entirely different world views and values.

A few decades ago some anthropologists romanticized the hunter-gatherers in jungle or savanna environments for having the most satisfying lives possible. Because of the climate and topography, little can last, and there can be no capital aside from the tools used for hunting, fishing, or cooking. There is no clear title to land, so there are no landlords to oppress farmers. There can be no industry, so there are no capitalists to exploit workers.. People meet their needs as they emerge, typically hunting or gathering as they start to get hunger pangs. A few small prey items of one large prey item (gazelle? capybara?) can feed a family-sized unit well before it rots.

One of the promoters of this view was a Marxist who considered the hunter-gatherer way of life the norm of human nature and that in the end Humanity would re-attain the hunter-gatherer's freedom through Communism because prosperity would be so strong that master-subject relations such as landlord-serf and capitalist-worker would be irrelevant. 

Today we face the prospect of the disparity between ownership and worker reverting almost to an aristocrat-serf difference in America. That will go badly.

Quote:How traumatic a failure is required before a human can reexamine something that has been set at a core level?  I might provide two illustrations.

Atlanta, 1864


Berlin, 1945

The above reflects how world views are altered on a massive crisis scale, or at least people will give the impression of having a world view shift.  The slave owners might be made to acknowledge their property is now free, but that didn't prevent Jim Crow.  While the Germans and Japanese after World War II became very dubious about fighting wars of aggression, some of the Germans still didn't think much of Jews.

The damage could be even worse this time. The weapons have become more powerful, and there is no safe haven from a nuclear-armed ICBM except being as far from any possible target as possible.

Quote:Causing that degree of trauma to someone's world view by typing in a chat room is difficult to rare.  I've been saying that people are seldom moved off their bedrock.  That is because the defense mechanisms that protect the brain from reconsidering world views --  vile stereotypes, blindness to obvious fact, a tendency to revert to childish insult and squabbling, others -- are just that strong.  The defense mechanisms might be considered symptoms of a disease, or perhaps a reflection of how the human mind works.

Our educational system has failed to keep up with the reality of the Internet that offers so much information (and bilge). Some of the most superficially-enticing stuff can use impressive imagery and shock value to deceive one into believing garbage, as at...

(Did you think that I was going to lead anyone to Holocaust denial, homophobia, Afrocentrism, or truther/birther stuff?)

Before people get easy access to the wide variety of material on the Internet, they need to develop a moral compass and the capacity for critical judgment.  Then, and only then, can they be prepared to savor the Internet without getting burned.

Quote:Some world views are more flexible than others.  A fundamentalist with firm literal belief in the Bible is in a tight place. It is perhaps fortunate for such people that the Bible was written over a long period of time, records values reflecting quite different cultures, thus one can pick and choose from among the centuries to build a perspective that works.  There is a good deal of wiggle room between 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek'.  A scientist who lives the notion that all theories must be reconsidered when fact conflicts with the theory is in a much better place.  Even if his political values are strong, such people are trained somewhat to stop and reevaluate, and acting in conflict with observed fact is anathema.

It may be ironic that the atheists and agnostics know more about religion than do believers, on the whole. In my experience, Christian fundamentalists are remarkably ignorant of the scholarship of the Bible. Atheists and agnostics may recognize it as a piece of literature, a historical document, and a source for quote-mining. But that said, connecting moral authority to the LORD has its values. A call from a 'mere' politician for social justice is one thing. A call for social justice from the Pope is far more impressive.

Religious bodies must evolve to face changing reality if they are to have authority. 

Science, in contrast to religion, has credibility because it must adapt to reality. Biologists do not re-read The Origin of Species to understand heritable characteristics of living things better; they instead seek evidence in DNA, the chemical language of genetics. Science does not have the provincialism that religion and politics do. That one physicist is an Iranian and the other is an Israeli has little bearing on how they would interpret the motion of a pendulum. But on politics or religion they might be at each other's throats. 

Few of us can look at politics objectively. We all have some moral values that determine the  validity of policy.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Part of one's chat room game might be attempting to understand how people view the world, what their goals are.  If you wish to make a point, using an argument centered on their world views or values will be much more effective that an argument from a different perspective.  Defense mechanisms are apt to kick in such they will be unable to comprehend or acknowledge an argument from a different perspective.  [understatement]  Alas, arguing against a perspective from within that perspective is tricky at best.  [/understatement]

 
You might try stating your own values firmly and clearly.  This won't make the change their values, but if you are firm, clear, with many repetitions, they might hear you, they might eventually listen.  The same with obvious facts.  Simple, clear, firm, undeniable, repeated.  You might also go with an expectation of failure, that they aren't going to listen anyway.  Expect vile straw men, denial, insults and childish temper tantrums.  It's endless.

If one is in Saudi Arabia, then certain values are out of bounds.

Again we need to have people get some sophistication before going on the Internet so that people using it avoid straw men, denial, insults, and childish temper tantrums.

Quote:The emotional force applied might need to be comparable to Berlin 1945 or Atlanta 1864.  It might not be worth it.  It's hard to apply that much force while being nice.  Thus, while I'm with you in trying for a chat room that isn't totally dominated by the defense mechanism rudeness, if you're really interested in communicating your views, in shifting other people's values, you might need to reach for the chisel and hammer from time to time.  I'm sensing that your own values will make you reluctant to go for the hammer and chisel.  If you can communicate at a core values at level while staying nice, you go girl, go for it.

Did the defenders of slavery expect to see their world destroyed so completely? I doubt it. Had the Germans known what Hitler was going to bring them in a dozen years, then they would have stayed clear of Hitler. But people rarely have foresight.

Maybe in 2023 one might add a similar image, this time of Chicago or Dallas, and in garish color, as an example of the consequences of reckless deeds by a nation's leadership.

[Eric the Green]

There's little guarantee that the people who brought about failure on themselves, will see the error of their ways. It will be tragic. The Germans and the Japanese experienced utter destruction and defeat, and they did change their ways. But the South in 1864 experienced it, and they did NOT change their ways. And these were the same Americans that are now refusing to change, despite their decline and anger over it. It could be that the principle Butler is describing will not apply to Middle Americans. They can't get it, apparently.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2016, 10:36 AM)tg63 Wrote: one other consideration re: the value of public forum discussions between entrenched positions; as someone who has participated on other boards for a long time I've come to realize that for every contrary position someone takes, there are others - potentially many others - who may be lurking/reading who are much more open that those participating ... as such when I respond/get involved it's never with an intent to change anyone's mind, so much as to present an alternate position to those reading who may only be getting one side of a story. fwiw.

Thanks for the hope

[Galen]

(11-15-2016, 08:21 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 05:38 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 06:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 02:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 03:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm curious where you got that impression; that wasn't my experience.  My experience was that GIs understood some things, but failed to understand other things despite their being obvious.  On the whole, they were probably comparably competent on a relative scale as their presidents were.  Johnson, Nixon, and Carter were incompetent to varying degrees; Reagan was exceptionally competent and Kennedy might have been competent had he had more time.  The overall average is probably slightly subpar relative to other generations.

With respect to political leaders, I think the primary difference with boomers was that GI presidents generally tried to improve things for the nation as a whole, even where they failed, and with the possible exception of Johnson; Boomer presidents to date were more interested in improving things for their political party at the cost of political opponents.  But I don't know if you're talking about political leaders or personal acquaintances.

I am curious as to what common things you think GIs did not understand.

I think it was different things for different GIs.

For Nixon, it was that price controls would fail, either through shortages or some other way.

For some GIs I knew, it was that cigarette butts could start fires.  They seemed to believe spontaneous combustion was pretty common and could not have been started by the cigarette butts involved in the situations.

That is why I said generally because, like any generation, they had idiots.  Its just that Boomers have had much more trouble adjusting to reality.  I think that Adam Savage came up with a phrase that sums up the Baby Boom Generation: I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Actually, just about everything Nixon ever did with respect to economic policy was wrong.  Wage and price controls was a pretty spectacular thing to get wrong.  It was the price controls on oil, which hung around through most of seventies, that gave us the gas lines.  It was closing the gold window that gave us the petrodollar which, when it ends, it really going to bite us all in the ass really hard because we will no longer be able to export inflation.

GI mistakes tended to be the result of overconfidence because they often were so successful.  They were the ones that invented the phrase "Failure is not an option". While today people often have a rather mechanistic and deterministic view of the world, it was worse in the sixties and seventies.  One of the most irritating things I used to hear in the seventies was: If we can land a man on the moon then why can't we X.  Where X was some utopian bit of social engineering that had no chance of working.

Nixon's economic policy was generally bad, no doubt.  My examples were limited to cases where the errors were obvious to a child, which I was at the time.

Do you consider Obama boomer or X?  He certainly did the substitution of his own reality thing a lot.

I was even younger than you and have surprisingly clear memories of the time.  Then it was a simple matter of doing my homework in order to understand what was going on.  Most of the adults at the time didn't understand the significance of August 1971 and still don't.

Obama was born in 1961 so he really was on cusp.  You don't really start seeing classic Xer behavior until you get to 1965 because it took about five years for the really nasty effects of the Awakening to become apparent.   Nothing quite like watching the the relatively well functioning world of the GIs destroyed by adults who really were more like spoiled children.

[pbrower2a]

Paradoxically Germany has one of the fastest-growing Jewish communities in the world. Should Donald Trump give them a nasty scare, then the kids of many American Jews will start learning German for reasons other than getting to read Schiller and Goethe in the original.

Think of what Germany would have to offer American Jews:

1. excellent educational system, including low-cost education through graduate school.

2. similarity of German and Jewish-American culture.

3. invisibility.

4. well-working private sector... good climate for business.

5. rigid ban on neo-Nazi activities and symbolism.

[Bob Butler 54]

There are rumblings of a Trump impeachment as soon as he presents an excuse, and given his style of doing things he is apt to present an excuse.  The theory is that a lot of establishment Republicans would definitely prefer Pence, while a lot of Democrats of all stripes would definitely prefer anyone but Trump.  There's a decent argument that it could happen.  It wouldn't be hard to roust up the numbers.

But the Republican base is already grandly ticked off at the establishment Republicans.  A Trump impeachment might be a a short term grand win for a lot of folk, but the consequences...

[Eric the Green]

Given how fully the Republicans fell in line behind Trump, I am pessimistic about any impeachment happening. And given that lots of Democrats feel that Pence is worse, they would wonder about what the point is.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-15-2016, 03:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: "Keeping the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them" would be a good way to keep the peace, to keep the forum more civilized.  It would not be a good way to communicate your own values or attempt to change theirs.  Values change is traumatic.  Defense mechanisms such as vile stereotypes, rejection of fact, insults and tantrums reflect the trauma.  There might be a choice between inflicting the trauma or giving up on communicating."

Unfortunately it is the truth though as I do listen to everyone and pick up on these things. I can put myself in other people's shoes and sense these things. I do not know how to tell them otherwise. I am trying to warn them. I am not very good at getting across that message. But as you say it would take a war for them to consider a different view.

I don't see war as the only way to open minds to significant values change.  It has been the most common way of doing it in an S&H crises.  There are such wars in most such crises.  Still, an economic collapse on the scale of the Great Depression or an ecological collapse on the scale of the Dust Bowl might well do it.  Alas, the 2008 economic collapse was not enough to wean the Republican base off borrow and spend trickle down.  From the looks of things, the Earth will have to be pretty well wrecked before they honestly evaluate climate change.  Things have to get really really bad before regeneracy and transformation.  Bush 43 just wasn't horrible enough.

But neither war nor collapse are available as working tools to the typical poster in a political internet chat room.  We have to make do with childish insults, which isn't the same thing.

Those with scientific values might question a theory or perspective if it conflicts with what happens in the real world without traumatic values shaking events.  I just have to kind of hope that there are enough people in the world or reading these boards who can see reality without a multiple megaton kick in the rear.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 02:29 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 01:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Given how fully the Republicans fell in line behind Trump, I am pessimistic about any impeachment happening. And given that lots of Democrats feel that Pence is worse, they would wonder about what the point is.

The point would be, go for least worst. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even, don't let it be the enemy of the still f__ed up but nonetheless,  less f__ed up.

No, there's no point to it. After Trump, Pence. After Pence, Ryan. After Ryan, who knows? Don't let the horrible be the enemy of the horrible? You might think so, but the Democrats won't. If Trump commits horrible crimes, they might have to impeach him. But that won't make any difference to the issues we face. You may think a warmonger is better than a traitor, but most Democrats won't think so, or may not see it in those terms.

One point in favor of your scheme, however, might actually be Pence's 9-9 horoscope score for the 2020 election. 9-9 is more beatable than 8-4, although most Democrats and even anti-Trump Republicans are not likely to go by my scoring system when deciding whether to impeach Trump or not. Oh, and Pence will be going through his Saturn Return in office if he takes over before 2020. Not something that any president or candidate has ever survived intact, in one way or another.

I might have to revise the scores a little bit with Hillary's loss, however. You see, I thought she would win, and it's a lot of work to feed in two more candidates to my data later on, so I went ahead and added Hillary and Trump's aspects into my data as winner and loser. But now I have to feed them in again anyway, if I continue with my system.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 02:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 02:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Some Republicans were so disgusted with Trump they actually voted for Hillary. So yeah, be aware of that too. I am sure those folk love being lumped with others that they were against....

I'm a variant of that, an Independent Conservative who held my nose and voted for Clintoon. I put my brain above my heart and made one of those "least worst" decisions. What little good it did, sitting here in a deep blue state. Some may ask, given it was a deep blue state why didn't I go for a minor party candidate. I did consider that. But I felt that crossing over to Clinton would make a more profound statement, similar to the graphic quasi-commical anti-Totalitarian image I created and sent back to the Trump people in their postage paid envelope, when they sent me an appeal for money some months ago.

Not being informed about American politics, Taramarie is mistaken; Trump got almost all the Republican votes. He got 47% of the vote which must include almost all Republicans. The only dissenters were a small group in Utah who voted for McMullin. I agree, voting for Hillary made a more profound statement. That's why I didn't vote for Stein although I am a Green. Stein campaigned mainly against Hillary, so I thought I could only vote against Trump by voting for Hillary. And at least it added one more to the popular vote against Trump.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 02:29 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 01:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Given how fully the Republicans fell in line behind Trump, I am pessimistic about any impeachment happening. And given that lots of Democrats feel that Pence is worse, they would wonder about what the point is.

The point would be, go for least worst. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even, don't let it be the enemy of the still f__ed up but nonetheless,  less f__ed up.

No, there's no point to it. After Trump, Pence. After Pence, Ryan. After Ryan, who knows? Don't let the horrible be the enemy of the horrible? You might think so, but the Democrats won't. If Trump commits horrible crimes, they might have to impeach him. But that won't make any difference to the issues we face. You may think a warmonger is better than a traitor, but most Democrats won't think so, or may not see it in those terms.

One point in favor of your scheme, however, might actually be Pence's 9-9 horoscope score for the 2020 election. 9-9 is more beatable than 8-4, although most Democrats and even anti-Trump Republicans are not likely to go by my scoring system when deciding whether to impeach Trump or not. Oh, and Pence will be going through his Saturn Return in office if he takes over before 2020. Not something that any president or candidate has ever survived intact, in one way or another.

I might have to revise the scores a little bit with Hillary's loss, however. You see, I thought she would win, and it's a lot of work to feed in two more candidates to my data later on, so I went ahead and added Hillary and Trump's aspects into my data as winner and loser. But now I have to feed them in again anyway, if I continue with my system.

One reason I rooted for Trump over Ted Cruz is that Cruz was doing better in the polls against Hillary than Trump. Also, Cruz is more conservative. However, astrology told me that Cruz had no chance. His 3-12 score would have doomed him against Hillary. Although Trump is wrong when he says "everybody likes me," he was far more likeable than Cruz. Truth be told, I had predicted Trump would be the nominee, and I wanted my prediction to come through. Fortunately, I had no voice in the matter.

But Trump beat Hillary in the rust belt by promising to repeal the trade deals and thus bring back jobs. Cruz was promising to protect their individual right to bear arms and their "right" to discriminate against gays on religious grounds. Trump had the stronger appeal to the Rust Belt, even though their views were similar; it was a question of emphasis.

[Eric the Green]

Many political observers thought a significant number of Republicans would either vote for Clinton, one of the third party candidates, or stay home rather than casting their votes for Trump. According to the exit polls, Republicans stayed loyal to their presidential candidate. Some 89 percent of self-described Republicans voted for Trump; 91 percent of white Republicans did. In contrast, only 84 percent of white Democrats voted for Clinton. She did win 86 percent of white Democratic women, but only 81 percent of white, Democratic men voted for her.

Surprisingly, given all of the attention to Trump’s attitudes and behavior toward women, he did virtually as well among white, Republican women (91 percent support) as he did among white, Republican men (92 percent). Clinton was more competitive among white independent women than men, losing to Trump by a 49 to 41 percent margin among independent women and by 57 to 31 percent among independent men.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exi...residency/

[Eric the Green]

Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

[Warren Dew]

(11-16-2016, 06:03 PM)taramarie Wrote: No I am not mistaken. I said SOME. I did not say all.

You said "quite a few".  That doesn't make you mistaken, but it probably makes your Republican friends very atypical, as 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.  There were more Democrats voting for Trump than Republicans for Clinton.

[Kinser79]

(11-16-2016, 09:21 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 08:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 06:03 PM)taramarie Wrote: No I am not mistaken. I said SOME. I did not say all.

You said "quite a few".  That doesn't make you mistaken, but it probably makes your Republican friends very atypical, as 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.  There were more Democrats voting for Trump than Republicans for Clinton.

Possibly yes. Yes I heard some Bernie supporters went and voted for Trump. I am just very suspicious of people being lumped into groups as i view it in the same light as negative labels. Kind of feeds lazy stereotyping.

Internal polling from the Trump campaign puts the figure at about 30% of Sander's supporters in the Primary voted for Trump. I actually think that number was much higher simply because HRC was repugnant to the population. Myself I voted for Sanders in the Primary and ended up voting for Trump in the General. But then again even during the Primary I said that if Sanders wasn't nominated I'd vote for any Republican.

[Warren Dew]

(11-16-2016, 10:07 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 09:21 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 08:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 06:03 PM)taramarie Wrote: No I am not mistaken. I said SOME. I did not say all.

You said "quite a few".  That doesn't make you mistaken, but it probably makes your Republican friends very atypical, as 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.  There were more Democrats voting for Trump than Republicans for Clinton.

Possibly yes. Yes I heard some Bernie supporters went and voted for Trump. I am just very suspicious of people being lumped into groups as i view it in the same light as negative labels. Kind of feeds lazy stereotyping.

Internal polling from the Trump campaign puts the figure at about 30% of Sander's supporters in the Primary voted for Trump.  I actually think that number was much higher simply because HRC was repugnant to the population.  Myself I voted for Sanders in the Primary and ended up voting for Trump in the General.  But then again even during the Primary I said that if Sanders wasn't nominated I'd vote for any Republican.

To be fair, a lot of people who voted for Sanders in the primary were independents rather than Democrats.