The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(02-08-2020, 08:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 04:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

You could stick a picture of yourself in the mirror. I guess it would apply then.

We liberals will continue to advocate for this agenda, and we think it will make much progress in this next decade now starting.

How are you going to accomplish that without American support? How are you going to fund liberal schools without American students and American tax dollars? How are you going to feed illegals and American born who prefer the system that their parents had their native countries and loves the legal system that clearly favors them over the American folks that it was clearly intended to help advance. You think that might cause some serious racial/ethnic issues for you to deal with in the next decade. Like I said, a racist is the only person who would call a white a racist to their face. Guess what, if the Neo Nazi's slit her throat, I'm not going to care. If a Blood or Crypt, gun them down, I'm not going to care. If a group of nasty Hispanics beat you death on some street or some hall way or in your home, I'm not going to care. Like I said, half the country hates your guts and a quarter could give two shits less about you and the liberals these days. That's where you're at right now and its not going to get any better or easier  for the  liberals from here on.

"disagree with on most issues that are relevant to them and their way of life"

Now that's funny. Owning a gun is not relevant to anyone's way of life. And yet you guys focus on that and are all hung up on that and support the gun lobby that opposes all sensible gun regulations.

The blue Americans are the real Americans. 52% of Americans disapprove of Trump's job in office, and 54% have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the real clear politics average (and if anything that website leans right). These blue Americans pay most of the taxes that you red Americans spend on useless make-work military bases. Illegals earn their way; they don't need to be "fed." If you Republicans didn't send all our jobs overseas for decades now, perhaps companies wouldn't be giving jobs to illegals.

If you support racist policies, which you do, then what does that make you? It doesn't matter what anyone calls you. What you support defines you. Calling hispanics nasty people who beat other people is racist. In CA, hispanics do most of the work. They have done work for me. They are doing well and don't need to beat me up. But that you think they do, shows what you think about them. And when you point fingers, there are three of your own fingers pointing back at yourself.

When you violently rebel, it will be you guys that don't have it easy.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-10-2020, 03:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 09:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 08:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

In a nutshell, that's a symptom of what's driving modern politics in the US.  We're well past the use-by date for this Constitution.  It needs a major overhaul to remain viable in the 21st century, but the minority that benefits from keeping things as they are still holds total veto power.  That was and is a major fault in the original document, though one the Founders couldn't know.  It will be resolved at some point, but how is anyone's guess.  Let's hope that sanity reigns, and violence is avoided, or keep to a minimum at the very least.

Texas is already underfunding their census effort to delay redistricting that's not to the GOP's advantage.  We'll see much more of this before the resolution takes hold.  I'm afraid that this 4T won't be long enough to get there, so this gets passed to the future.

Another perspective is that the progressives agreed to a certain constitution, which happened to become rule of law, and the progressives are attempting to overturn that agreement without the supermajority originally agreed to to change it.  The progressives are so sure their culture is superior that they are attempting to force it on the rest of the country.

Now, problems which aren’t solved will get worse.  Eventually, you might get the supermajority.  In the meantime, you might take a hard look at the original arrangement and find a way of living within it.

No, the real problem is representation in a representative democracy.  When 18% of the voters elect 50% of the Senators, who in turn confirm 100% of the judges, the game is rigged.  Add to that, since 2000 the electoral plurality has selected a Democrat in every Presidential contest except 2004, yet the GOP has held the White House for 12 of those 20 years.  Just to get to judicial parity, the Democrats need an 8+% majority.  To dominate, that rises to 20%.  The GOP only needs a draw.

Was that baked into the Constitution?  Yes.  It may be that the Founders were balancing the 3/5 rule for slaves by giving the then non-slaveholding states some leverage.  Virginia was far and away the most populous state at the time.  Now, there is no slavery, and the rule by farmers has also passed, so these are archaic rules set in concrete by well meaning men.  Fixing that peacefully will be incredibly hard, but fixing it is mandatory, if for no other reason than the total disregard for AGW by the dominant minority.  Sadly, survival demands it.

Well, that is one more perspective.  I should add, there are lots of perspectives.  Not as simple a problem as one can reduce it to only one important perspective.

Yes, a lot of the slavery compromises are still in place, including the senate, the electoral college, and the amendment process.  As a result, the conservatives have more than their share of power.  This is more reasons the progressives should look hard at the old methods for regulating weapons owners, and use the tools which they do have.  They have just been trying to push a perspective that the militia no longer exists, therefore the right does not.  Now that an individual right has been recognized and some point at the militia being well defined in the US Code and existing, this argument is pretty much gone.  They might as well abandon it and try to regulate the militia as the Founders intended.  

The bit about the progressives trying to change the culture by force is problematic if you are trying to avoid use of force.

I would add that representative democracy is itself a problem.  The representatives want to become elites, and over represent the elites.  This could be fixed with direct vote democracy over the net, by getting rid of the representatives, but at this point security is a problem that has not been solved adequately for that.

[David Horn]

(02-11-2020, 12:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, that is one more perspective.  I should add, there are lots of perspectives.  Not as simple a problem as one can reduce it to only one important perspective.

Yes, a lot of the slavery compromises are still in place, including the senate, the electoral college, and the amendment process.  As a result, the conservatives have more than their share of power.  This is more reasons the progressives should look hard at the old methods for regulating weapons owners, and use the tools which they do have.  They have just been trying to push a perspective that the militia no longer exists, therefore the right does not.  Now that an individual right has been recognized and some point at the militia being well defined in the US Code and existing, this argument is pretty much gone.  They might as well abandon it and try to regulate the militia as the Founders intended.  

The bit about the progressives trying to change the culture by force is problematic if you are trying to avoid use of force.

I would add that representative democracy is itself a problem.  The representatives want to become elites, and over represent the elites.  This could be fixed with direct vote democracy over the net, by getting rid of the representatives, but at this point security is a problem that has not been solved adequately for that.

I think you missed my point entirely. The 2nd is only a symptom of a truly huge problem: we have a governing document written in the waning days of the Agricultural Age that barely functioned in the Industrial Age and is a potential existential threat in the Information Age. The modus operandi of careful and deliberate debate with constraints everywhere is an impossible model when the default is set to "do nothing". Worse, the default is enforced by supermajority rules, such as overcoming filibusters, that add to the imbalances I discussed previously. Yet here we are, with the "do nothing" party actively hostile to actions that require even a small sacrifice by the PTB. For example, how, exactly, is AGW addressed? It requires diligence and has a long time horizon.

Dealing with the archaic 2nd is small potatoes, frankly.

[beechnut79]

(02-11-2020, 03:48 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 12:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, that is one more perspective.  I should add, there are lots of perspectives.  Not as simple a problem as one can reduce it to only one important perspective.

Yes, a lot of the slavery compromises are still in place, including the senate, the electoral college, and the amendment process.  As a result, the conservatives have more than their share of power.  This is more reasons the progressives should look hard at the old methods for regulating weapons owners, and use the tools which they do have.  They have just been trying to push a perspective that the militia no longer exists, therefore the right does not.  Now that an individual right has been recognized and some point at the militia being well defined in the US Code and existing, this argument is pretty much gone.  They might as well abandon it and try to regulate the militia as the Founders intended.  

The bit about the progressives trying to change the culture by force is problematic if you are trying to avoid use of force.

I would add that representative democracy is itself a problem.  The representatives want to become elites, and over represent the elites.  This could be fixed with direct vote democracy over the net, by getting rid of the representatives, but at this point security is a problem that has not been solved adequately for that.

I think you missed my point entirely.  The 2nd is only a symptom of a truly huge problem: we have a governing document written in the waning days of the Agricultural Age that barely functioned in the Industrial Age and is a potential existential threat in the Information Age.  The modus operandi of careful and deliberate debate with constraints everywhere is an impossible model when the default is set to "do nothing".  Worse, the default is enforced by supermajority rules, such as overcoming filibusters, that add to the imbalances I discussed previously.  Yet here we are, with the "do nothing" party actively hostile to actions that require even a small sacrifice by the PTB.  For example, how, exactly, is AGW addressed?  It requires diligence and has a long time horizon.

Dealing with the archaic 2nd is small potatoes, frankly.

Don't you think that before long the time will come when vast sacrifices will be required in order to right the ship? That giving up chocolate for Lent won't be nearly enough?

[David Horn]

(02-11-2020, 04:02 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 03:48 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 12:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, that is one more perspective.  I should add, there are lots of perspectives.  Not as simple a problem as one can reduce it to only one important perspective.

Yes, a lot of the slavery compromises are still in place, including the senate, the electoral college, and the amendment process.  As a result, the conservatives have more than their share of power.  This is more reasons the progressives should look hard at the old methods for regulating weapons owners, and use the tools which they do have.  They have just been trying to push a perspective that the militia no longer exists, therefore the right does not.  Now that an individual right has been recognized and some point at the militia being well defined in the US Code and existing, this argument is pretty much gone.  They might as well abandon it and try to regulate the militia as the Founders intended.  

The bit about the progressives trying to change the culture by force is problematic if you are trying to avoid use of force.

I would add that representative democracy is itself a problem.  The representatives want to become elites, and over represent the elites.  This could be fixed with direct vote democracy over the net, by getting rid of the representatives, but at this point security is a problem that has not been solved adequately for that.

I think you missed my point entirely.  The 2nd is only a symptom of a truly huge problem: we have a governing document written in the waning days of the Agricultural Age that barely functioned in the Industrial Age and is a potential existential threat in the Information Age.  The modus operandi of careful and deliberate debate with constraints everywhere is an impossible model when the default is set to "do nothing".  Worse, the default is enforced by supermajority rules, such as overcoming filibusters, that add to the imbalances I discussed previously.  Yet here we are, with the "do nothing" party actively hostile to actions that require even a small sacrifice by the PTB.  For example, how, exactly, is AGW addressed?  It requires diligence and has a long time horizon.

Dealing with the archaic 2nd is small potatoes, frankly.

Don't you think that before long the time will come when vast sacrifices will be required in order to right the ship? That giving up chocolate for Lent won't be nearly enough?

I doubt we escape without huge sacrifice, though the sacrifice will almost certainly be shared very unevenly.  It would be nice if, just once, the gougers are the ones who get gouged.   Wishful thinking, I know.

[Marypoza]

(02-11-2020, 04:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 04:02 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 03:48 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 12:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, that is one more perspective.  I should add, there are lots of perspectives.  Not as simple a problem as one can reduce it to only one important perspective.

Yes, a lot of the slavery compromises are still in place, including the senate, the electoral college, and the amendment process.  As a result, the conservatives have more than their share of power.  This is more reasons the progressives should look hard at the old methods for regulating weapons owners, and use the tools which they do have.  They have just been trying to push a perspective that the militia no longer exists, therefore the right does not.  Now that an individual right has been recognized and some point at the militia being well defined in the US Code and existing, this argument is pretty much gone.  They might as well abandon it and try to regulate the militia as the Founders intended.  

The bit about the progressives trying to change the culture by force is problematic if you are trying to avoid use of force.

I would add that representative democracy is itself a problem.  The representatives want to become elites, and over represent the elites.  This could be fixed with direct vote democracy over the net, by getting rid of the representatives, but at this point security is a problem that has not been solved adequately for that.

I think you missed my point entirely.  The 2nd is only a symptom of a truly huge problem: we have a governing document written in the waning days of the Agricultural Age that barely functioned in the Industrial Age and is a potential existential threat in the Information Age.  The modus operandi of careful and deliberate debate with constraints everywhere is an impossible model when the default is set to "do nothing".  Worse, the default is enforced by supermajority rules, such as overcoming filibusters, that add to the imbalances I discussed previously.  Yet here we are, with the "do nothing" party actively hostile to actions that require even a small sacrifice by the PTB.  For example, how, exactly, is AGW addressed?  It requires diligence and has a long time horizon.

Dealing with the archaic 2nd is small potatoes, frankly.

Don't you think that before long the time will come when vast sacrifices will be required in order to right the ship? That giving up chocolate for Lent won't be nearly enough?

I doubt we escape without huge sacrifice, though the sacrifice will almost certainly be shared very unevenly.  I would be nice if, just once, the gougers are the who get gouged.   Wishful thinking, I know.

-- u just might get your wish if the guillotines come out

[pbrower2a]

(02-10-2020, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 11:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'd be wary of making Constitutional changes through a Constitutional convention while the hard Right still has great power. The Hard Right would love to commit us to a Christian and Corporate state that represents economic and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else, and uses a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian ethics as a mechanism of enforcing a plutocratic order.

That would merely be a replay of the Gilded Age, when the company clerics spoon-fed religiosity to the working class to benefit the owners.  It worked then and may again.

Such would be a nightmarish world, basically a Marxist stereotype of capitalism. It would require a populace barely literate as was so in America during the Gilded Age. Say what you want about the intellectual mediocrities that flock to Trump -- many other Americans do not. 

I would expect the economic elites to be as evil as ever, making hypocritical displays of fraudulent simulations of piety only to return to their indulgence and cruelty. So how does the Establishment cut the norm of education to the elementary level? One would have to replace PBS with pro wrestling on TV... there are limits to dumbing-down of public life.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-11-2020, 09:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 11:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'd be wary of making Constitutional changes through a Constitutional convention while the hard Right still has great power. The Hard Right would love to commit us to a Christian and Corporate state that represents economic and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else, and uses a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian ethics as a mechanism of enforcing a plutocratic order.

That would merely be a replay of the Gilded Age, when the company clerics spoon-fed religiosity to the working class to benefit the owners.  It worked then and may again.

Such would be a nightmarish world, basically a Marxist stereotype of capitalism. It would require a populace barely literate as was so in America during the Gilded Age. Say what you want about the intellectual mediocrities that flock to Trump -- many other Americans do not. 

I would expect the economic elites to be as evil as ever, making hypocritical displays of fraudulent simulations of piety only to return to their indulgence and cruelty. So how does the Establishment cut the norm of education to the elementary level? One would have to replace PBS with pro wrestling on TV... there are limits to dumbing-down of public life.

And yet I have wondered if it is perspective.  It is not evil to try to get one’s best for one’s company.  To do something once is not special.  It becomes evil when as a group or a class one seeks dominion over another, for the robber barons to leave the people with no left over choice.

And yet these are the same thing.  You have to ban the acts of individual companies in such a way to limit the acts of all corporations or classes.

I think this has a good deal with how the red and blue groups perceive things.

[David Horn]

(02-17-2020, 01:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 09:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 11:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'd be wary of making Constitutional changes through a Constitutional convention while the hard Right still has great power. The Hard Right would love to commit us to a Christian and Corporate state that represents economic and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else, and uses a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian ethics as a mechanism of enforcing a plutocratic order.

That would merely be a replay of the Gilded Age, when the company clerics spoon-fed religiosity to the working class to benefit the owners.  It worked then and may again.

Such would be a nightmarish world, basically a Marxist stereotype of capitalism. It would require a populace barely literate as was so in America during the Gilded Age. Say what you want about the intellectual mediocrities that flock to Trump -- many other Americans do not. 

I would expect the economic elites to be as evil as ever, making hypocritical displays of fraudulent simulations of piety only to return to their indulgence and cruelty. So how does the Establishment cut the norm of education to the elementary level? One would have to replace PBS with pro wrestling on TV... there are limits to dumbing-down of public life.

And yet I have wondered if it is perspective.  It is not evil to try to get one’s best for one’s company.  To do something once is not special.  It becomes evil when as a group or a class one seeks dominion over another, for the robber barons to leave the people with no left over choice.

And yet these are the same thing.  You have to ban the acts of individual companies in such a way to limit the acts of all corporations or classes.

I think this has a good deal with how the red and blue groups perceive things.

It’s okay to believe in Santa Claus, unless you assume he’ll be there to keep you afloat. After all, there is a limit to irrationality.  I’m afraid half the country has equated irrational and correct. That makes a lot of things existential that shouldn’t be.  DJT has played on that theme since The Apprentice. So far, it’s working for him.  Nothing has fallen apart so far. He’s hoping it lasts until late in his second term, at least.  So he bows-out a winner, and we get to clean up aisle 4. 

Worse: Don Jr. is waiting in the wings — worse than dad, I suspect.

[pbrower2a]

(02-17-2020, 09:17 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-17-2020, 01:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-11-2020, 09:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 11:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'd be wary of making Constitutional changes through a Constitutional convention while the hard Right still has great power. The Hard Right would love to commit us to a Christian and Corporate state that represents economic and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else, and uses a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian ethics as a mechanism of enforcing a plutocratic order.

That would merely be a replay of the Gilded Age, when the company clerics spoon-fed religiosity to the working class to benefit the owners.  It worked then and may again.

Such would be a nightmarish world, basically a Marxist stereotype of capitalism. It would require a populace barely literate as was so in America during the Gilded Age. Say what you want about the intellectual mediocrities that flock to Trump -- many other Americans do not. 

I would expect the economic elites to be as evil as ever, making hypocritical displays of fraudulent simulations of piety only to return to their indulgence and cruelty. So how does the Establishment cut the norm of education to the elementary level? One would have to replace PBS with pro wrestling on TV... there are limits to dumbing-down of public life.

And yet I have wondered if it is perspective.  It is not evil to try to get one’s best for one’s company.  To do something once is not special.  It becomes evil when as a group or a class one seeks dominion over another, for the robber barons to leave the people with no left over choice.

And yet these are the same thing.  You have to ban the acts of individual companies in such a way to limit the acts of all corporations or classes.

I think this has a good deal with how the red and blue groups perceive things.

It’s okay to believe in Santa Claus, unless you assume he’ll be there to keep you afloat. After all, there is a limit to irrationality.  I’m afraid half the country has equated irrational and correct. That makes a lot of things existential that shouldn’t be.  DJT has played on that theme since The Apprentice. So far, it’s working for him.  Nothing has fallen apart so far. He’s hoping it lasts until late in his second term, at least.  So he bows-out a winner, and we get to clean up aisle 4. 

Worse: Don Jr. is waiting in the wings — worse than dad, I suspect.

Some perspectives really are evil. People have been able to rationalize anything from child molestation to organized crime to slavery. Some perspectives indulge a minority while depending upon the abuse or exploitation of others. Anything that depends upon a huge proletariat of helpless people who exist solely for the indulgence and gain of others must die as an ethos if Humanity is to survive. 

Such is Crisis talk, and it is the sort that reverberated as slave-owning planters tried to convince  small businessmen and yeoman farmers Up North that slavery was a good thing while the intellectual leaders of the North saw slavery as contrary to humane values that those people saw mandatory consequences of Christianity or Judaism. (Such Jews as there were were on the abolitionist side; they saw chattel slavery as an abomination). 

The last Crisis Era started as a struggle between Gilded-like elites who saw profit as the only measure of economic success and workers as mere tools for the achievement of that success. The economic reality of the 1929-1932 meltdown required that the little man get some modicum of economic certainty (deposit insurance, right to organize unions and get collective bargaining, and old-age pensions) followed by a struggle against extreme manifestations of the worst demons in western civilization (if Japan wasn't quite Western it had adopted many of the worst features of the West in the 1930's). The Crisis before that  was between freedom and slavery. The one before that was between civic institutions already in place and a  King reasserting through his madness manifestations of Divine Right; even if it was called the American Revolution it was not against the Massachusetts General Court (now the oldest, continuing elected legislative body in the world) or the Virginia House of Burgesses. 

Two sets of ideas on how to organize society conflict, and when compromise fails as happens when one side gets unduly arrogant and intolerant, one must die or at least lose its relevance. The current ethos that the only people who matter are the asset-owners and a bureaucratic elite attached to those asset-owners either falls or entrenches itself in an order of extreme authoritarianism -- Gilded plutocracy with a Soviet-style nomenklatura. Most of us have no stake in that. The elites have sought to transform Americans other than themselves into a helpless proletariat who must submit to all demands of that elite if they are to get the privilege of survival. Those elites have an ideology close to mirror-image Marxism -- that the common man is simply a conduit of of money between elites and that that common man is to earn that status with his toil in the name of survival. 

One must admit that the economic elites have a coherent philosophy, one that elevates elite indulgence as the highest of virtues. The worker is to overpay for rent where the economic opportunity is and buy (or even rent) consumer schlock of rapidly-declining value. When exhausted from working two jobs simply to earn bare sustenance and the vicarious delight of seeing elites wallow in opulent splendor (through the Idiot Screen and pulp reading) -- he goes onto the post-industrial scrap heap. 

What passes as the Left has largely been shut out. We see the dehumanizing individualism that Reagan introduced with steady erosion of the New Deal consensus has become a monstrosity in Donald Trump, a refutation even of rationality. (Another ideology refutes rationality in practice: fascism). To be sure, nobody can live on pure reason; with pure reason alone we would never love, we would never appreciate nature, and we would never appreciate the arts. I might be as rational as anyone, but even I know the need for theater, music, art, and natural beauty... and were I writing a song lyric to fit a commonplace need, then it would boil down to "I need TO love").

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-17-2020, 11:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some perspectives really are evil. People have been able to rationalize anything from child molestation to organized crime to slavery. Some perspectives indulge a minority while depending upon the abuse or exploitation of others. Anything that depends upon a huge proletariat of helpless people who exist solely for the indulgence and gain of others must die as an ethos if Humanity is to survive. 

Such is Crisis talk, and it is the sort that reverberated as slave-owning planters tried to convince  small businessmen and yeoman farmers Up North that slavery was a good thing while the intellectual leaders of the North saw slavery as contrary to humane values that those people saw mandatory consequences of Christianity or Judaism. (Such Jews as there were were on the abolitionist side; they saw chattel slavery as an abomination). 

The last Crisis Era started as a struggle between Gilded-like elites who saw profit as the only measure of economic success and workers as mere tools for the achievement of that success. The economic reality of the 1929-1932 meltdown required that the little man get some modicum of economic certainty (deposit insurance, right to organize unions and get collective bargaining, and old-age pensions) followed by a struggle against extreme manifestations of the worst demons in western civilization (if Japan wasn't quite Western it had adopted many of the worst features of the West in the 1930's). The Crisis before that  was between freedom and slavery. The one before that was between civic institutions already in place and a  King reasserting through his madness manifestations of Divine Right; even if it was called the American Revolution it was not against the Massachusetts General Court (now the oldest, continuing elected legislative body in the world) or the Virginia House of Burgesses. 

Two sets of ideas on how to organize society conflict, and when compromise fails as happens when one side gets unduly arrogant and intolerant, one must die or at least lose its relevance. The current ethos that the only people who matter are the asset-owners and a bureaucratic elite attached to those asset-owners either falls or entrenches itself in an order of extreme authoritarianism -- Gilded plutocracy with a Soviet-style nomenklatura. Most of us have no stake in that. The elites have sought to transform Americans other than themselves into a helpless proletariat who must submit to all demands of that elite if they are to get the privilege of survival. Those elites have an ideology close to mirror-image Marxism -- that the common man is simply a conduit of of money between elites and that that common man is to earn that status with his toil in the name of survival. 

One must admit that the economic elites have a coherent philosophy, one that elevates elite indulgence as the highest of virtues. The worker is to overpay for rent where the economic opportunity is and buy (or even rent) consumer schlock of rapidly-declining value. When exhausted from working two jobs simply to earn bare sustenance and the vicarious delight of seeing elites wallow in opulent splendor (through the Idiot Screen and pulp reading) -- he goes onto the post-industrial scrap heap. 

What passes as the Left has largely been shut out. We see the dehumanizing individualism that Reagan introduced with steady erosion of the New Deal consensus has become a monstrosity in Donald Trump, a refutation even of rationality. (Another ideology refutes rationality in practice: fascism). To be sure, nobody can live on pure reason; with pure reason alone we would never love, we would never appreciate nature, and we would never appreciate the arts. I might be as rational as anyone, but even I know the need for theater, music, art, and natural beauty... and were I writing a song lyric to fit a commonplace need, then it would boil down to "I need TO love").

The problem is not the elites.  Oh, I suppose they are evil enough.  I suppose they have diverted too many resources to too few people.  Go ahead, really, and preach against them as much as you like.

The problem in the US at least is that the elites have convinced enough people in the center of the country to buy into their faux reality.  There simply are not enough elite votes to win anything in and of themselves.  They have to ally with or fool some large enough group, often populist, often more than one.  These forces are strong enough that even the elites may be just one of them.  Say, the Tea Party could have already rejected the elites on the surface, but the rest of the issues may be strong enough to have winning impact without obvious elite support.  The faux reality could continue without allowing a regeneracy, an overwhelming take over by the new values.

The old values?  Racism.  Shifting money away from minorities supposedly, from Xers and Millennials by accident.  Voodoo economics.  A habit of collapsing the economy.  Two Republican White House terms of stimulating in good times and bad, followed be two more responsible Democratic terms to recover, rinse and repeat.  Belief that the people who shifted jobs abroad can or will ship them back.  Small government, tax cuts, which translates again to making the Xers and Millennials too poor to save for retirement.  A strong military, which diverts off from domestic spending and tempts one into folly.

The elites are a key.  You cannot solve all of the above without attacking elites and the division of wealth.  The elites have extra extraordinary influence in government which has kept the other issues alive.  I do not see how to seek victory in most of the issues above without going after the elites and division of wealth.  

But you aren’t going to defeat the elites without hitting some of the other issues.  You have to expose the flaws in the Republican policies, to take away the elite’s votes.

It comes back to convincing someone like Classic Xer.  He is just a proxy for his 'Americans'.  He doesn’t think much of the elites.  In fact, he puts them in the liberal camp somehow.  But if you don’t convince people who think like him to let go of the other issues, you get nowhere.

[pbrower2a]

(02-17-2020, 12:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-17-2020, 11:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some perspectives really are evil. People have been able to rationalize anything from child molestation to organized crime to slavery. Some perspectives indulge a minority while depending upon the abuse or exploitation of others. Anything that depends upon a huge proletariat of helpless people who exist solely for the indulgence and gain of others must die as an ethos if Humanity is to survive. 

Such is Crisis talk, and it is the sort that reverberated as slave-owning planters tried to convince  small businessmen and yeoman farmers Up North that slavery was a good thing while the intellectual leaders of the North saw slavery as contrary to humane values that those people saw mandatory consequences of Christianity or Judaism. (Such Jews as there were were on the abolitionist side; they saw chattel slavery as an abomination). 

The last Crisis Era started as a struggle between Gilded-like elites who saw profit as the only measure of economic success and workers as mere tools for the achievement of that success. The economic reality of the 1929-1932 meltdown required that the little man get some modicum of economic certainty (deposit insurance, right to organize unions and get collective bargaining, and old-age pensions) followed by a struggle against extreme manifestations of the worst demons in western civilization (if Japan wasn't quite Western it had adopted many of the worst features of the West in the 1930's). The Crisis before that  was between freedom and slavery. The one before that was between civic institutions already in place and a  King reasserting through his madness manifestations of Divine Right; even if it was called the American Revolution it was not against the Massachusetts General Court (now the oldest, continuing elected legislative body in the world) or the Virginia House of Burgesses. 

Two sets of ideas on how to organize society conflict, and when compromise fails as happens when one side gets unduly arrogant and intolerant, one must die or at least lose its relevance. The current ethos that the only people who matter are the asset-owners and a bureaucratic elite attached to those asset-owners either falls or entrenches itself in an order of extreme authoritarianism -- Gilded plutocracy with a Soviet-style nomenklatura. Most of us have no stake in that. The elites have sought to transform Americans other than themselves into a helpless proletariat who must submit to all demands of that elite if they are to get the privilege of survival. Those elites have an ideology close to mirror-image Marxism -- that the common man is simply a conduit of of money between elites and that that common man is to earn that status with his toil in the name of survival. 

One must admit that the economic elites have a coherent philosophy, one that elevates elite indulgence as the highest of virtues. The worker is to overpay for rent where the economic opportunity is and buy (or even rent) consumer schlock of rapidly-declining value. When exhausted from working two jobs simply to earn bare sustenance and the vicarious delight of seeing elites wallow in opulent splendor (through the Idiot Screen and pulp reading) -- he goes onto the post-industrial scrap heap. 

What passes as the Left has largely been shut out. We see the dehumanizing individualism that Reagan introduced with steady erosion of the New Deal consensus has become a monstrosity in Donald Trump, a refutation even of rationality. (Another ideology refutes rationality in practice: fascism). To be sure, nobody can live on pure reason; with pure reason alone we would never love, we would never appreciate nature, and we would never appreciate the arts. I might be as rational as anyone, but even I know the need for theater, music, art, and natural beauty... and were I writing a song lyric to fit a commonplace need, then it would boil down to "I need TO love").

The problem is not the elites.  Oh, I suppose they are evil enough.  I suppose they have diverted too many resources to too few people.  Go ahead, really, and preach against them as much as you like.

Basically they have made the common man nothing more than a conduit from moneyed interest to another. If we are compliant and competent enough we might get to enjoy a little more of the action. But our enjoyment is usually transitory. 

Quote:The problem in the US at least is that the elites have convinced enough people in the center of the country to buy into their faux reality.  There simply are not enough elite votes to win anything in and of themselves.  They have to ally with or fool some large enough group, often populist, often more than one.  These forces are strong enough that even the elites may be just one of them.  Say, the Tea Party could have already rejected the elites on the surface, but the rest of the issues may be strong enough to have winning impact without obvious elite support.  The faux reality could continue without allowing a regeneracy, an overwhelming take over by the new values.

Deluding people into accepting a fake reality and then exploiting people for their acquiescence in such is evil. It is evil to push a cancerweed habit with the words "Alive with Pleasure" when the ultimate end is "Dead from cancer". So it is with "fake news" (really, propaganda that denies provable reality). Such claims include that easy access to firearms is an essential freedom even if such results in pointless deaths. (Several countries have stringent laws against firearms and still have good records on human rights and civil liberties). Anthropogenic global warming? Action against it would require reduction in vehicle emissions -- but the President "digs coal" and supports the petroleum industry. If I must ride a train instead of drive a car to prevent the inundation of Bangladesh, then such is a good deal. 

But let Trump get his way and we would get a fake regeneracy -- one probably with politicized youth groups closely linked to the partisan ends of those in power, elections in which the winner (Guess who?) gets 90% or higher majorities, much pageantry to celebrate the wonders of the Leadership, and maybe a secret police that enforces what Classic Xer calls an "American" agenda. After all, Germany got a sort of regeneracy in 1933. It took twelve years to remove all question that such was the wrong sort of regeneracy -- with you-know-who putting a pistol into his mouth and pulling the trigger while in a bunker as the Red Army closed in.

I'm not saying that there would be a Holocaust or anything quite near that. I can imagine some wars for profit that go badly for a debased America.          

Quote:The old values?  Racism.  Shifting money away from minorities supposedly, from Xers and Millennials by accident.  Voodoo economics.  A habit of collapsing the economy.  Two Republican White House terms of stimulating in good times and bad, followed be two more responsible Democratic terms to recover, rinse and repeat.  Belief that the people who shifted jobs abroad can or will ship them back.  Small government, tax cuts, which translates again to making the Xers and Millennials too poor to save for retirement.  A strong military, which diverts off from domestic spending and tempts one into folly.

Or as David DuKKKe put it, "the more we feed (them) the more they breed". (It isn't even true; the highest birth rates arise in the places in which famine and death rates of children are high). 

Unlike Dubya, Trump has not yet successfully promoted a speculative boom sure to collapse. Most of us have a memory of the Double-Zero Decade that offered Dubya's "Opportunity Economy" -- the opportunity to buy housing that one really could not afford. Still, economic inequality is at record levels because wages fail to keep up with productivity. Such itself portends ill consequences. Economic imbalance tends to correct itself with economic meltdowns.    

Quote:The elites are a key.  You cannot solve all of the above without attacking elites and the division of wealth.  The elites have extra extraordinary influence in government which has kept the other issues alive.  I do not see how to seek victory in most of the issues above without going after the elites and division of wealth.

But you aren’t going to defeat the elites without hitting some of the other issues.  You have to expose the flaws in the Republican policies, to take away the elite’s votes.

 
The Right knows enough to scare people on 'gun-grabbing', immigrants, homosexuality, "Cultural Marxism", and abortion. If you want a defense against the usual dimwit burglar who will steal your silverware to melt it down, then a dog will do the trick. Immigrants are more of a problem where they are least encountered, which is generally the most depressed parts of America. There is no reasonable expectation of rescission of Obergfell v. Hedges. "Cultural Marxism"? The people complaining about such seem to lack a culture worth passing down, and if I must choose between "cultural Marxism" unable to enforce terror and Marxism-Leninism in power and capable of enforcing state terror, then I will go with the former. Abortion? Roe v. Wade isn't going away. 

As for Marxism -- the countries that underwent Marxist takeovers as the result of proletarian revolutions did not have admirable capitalist orders. It's best to keep democracy intact even if -- maybe especially if -- it proves inconvenient to elites. It is best to not stay in the early stage of industrialism, to not over-concentrate industry in a few places while leaving the rest of the country backward, and to not have a corrupt social order incapable of having a meaningful defense in bad times. We need to revitalize American democracy; we need to spread the wealth into more parts of the country; and we need to root out corruption in all forms. It's up to us to vote the bums out.       

Quote:But you aren’t going to defeat the elites without hitting some of the other issues.  You have to expose the flaws in the Republican policies, to take away the elite’s votes.

True. 

Quote:It comes back to convincing someone like Classic Xer.  He is just a proxy for his 'Americans'.  He doesn’t think much of the elites.  In fact, he puts them in the liberal camp somehow.  But if you don’t convince people who think like him to let go of the other issues, you get nowhere.

I think that he has, like many on the Right, a safe distance between himself and the elites. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. I see President Trump as an extreme liar, itself inexcusable. He may be more a fool than a liar. Trump fails to recognize that his trade war can hurt people who usually vote Republican. He fails to recognize that his attempt to blackmail a foreign leader is what John Bolton calls  "a drug deal". He probably thinks that Trump's vulgarity indicates an alliance with him. (Surely you remember my thread on "dictatorial style"). 

For me the written word is enough to convince me if the argument is logical and credible.I do not have to have been in Bangladesh to realize that it is mostly at or near sea level, that it has rich soil that can support well over 100 million people until saltwater overtakes it... and that global warming will do that. We will need to reduce vehicle emissions, which will happen first by banning the internal-combustion engine and then pricing motor fuels so high that people will be unable to afford to use a car with an internal-combustion engine.

[David Horn]

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:The elites are a key.  You cannot solve all of the above without attacking elites and the division of wealth.  The elites have extra extraordinary influence in government which has kept the other issues alive.  I do not see how to seek victory in most of the issues above without going after the elites and division of wealth.  

But you aren’t going to defeat the elites without hitting some of the other issues.  You have to expose the flaws in the Republican policies, to take away the elite’s votes.

It comes back to convincing someone like Classic Xer.  He is just a proxy for his 'Americans'.  He doesn’t think much of the elites.  In fact, he puts them in the liberal camp somehow.  But if you don’t convince people who think like him to let go of the other issues, you get nowhere.

Of course, you’re correct in arguing for enticing away elite supporters who are not among the elite themselves. Sadly, they believe they have more in common with the rich and powerful, because they think the opposition supports slackers and whiny beggars. Never mind that this is wrong, and the real whiners tend to be the ones they idolize. Just look at our “hardworking corporate farmers” who’ve been rewarded with more tax money than we used for the equally scummy auto bailouts. They see it and they just don’t care.

It doesn’t help that many in the progressive avant-garde reinforce their stereotypes. It takes a Michael Moore to get through to them, and he’s not available in quantity.

[pbrower2a]

The economic elites depend upon fear to keep their economic power. They exploit the fear of Marxism-Leninism (any compromise of plutocracy is a step to the Gulag of the Soviet Union or the Killing Fields of Cambodia), the loss of white privilege (as if that does anyone any good any more except to be able to dress like a slob to go shopping).

Remember well that if minorities are transformed into pariahs, then white people will be less likely to see them as potential lovers or spouse; this will prevent the 'horror' of miscegenation.

The elites are also adept at making sure that the common man gets a few scraps when there are tax cuts.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-17-2020, 09:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: Of course, you’re correct in arguing for enticing away elite supporters who are not among the elite themselves. Sadly, they believe they have more in common with the rich and powerful, because they think the opposition supports slackers and whiny beggars. Never mind that this is wrong, and the real whiners tend to be the ones they idolize. Just look at our “hardworking corporate farmers” who’ve been rewarded with more tax money than we used for the equally scummy auto bailouts. They see it and they just don’t care.

It doesn’t help that many in the progressive avant-garde reinforce their stereotypes. It takes a Michael Moore to get through to them, and he’s not available in quantity.

At the moment, the Democratic candidates are busy securing the nomination. In a while, there will be one, and they will have to channel their inner Michael Moore.

[David Horn]

(02-18-2020, 06:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-17-2020, 09:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: Of course, you’re correct in arguing for enticing away elite supporters who are not among the elite themselves. Sadly, they believe they have more in common with the rich and powerful, because they think the opposition supports slackers and whiny beggars. Never mind that this is wrong, and the real whiners tend to be the ones they idolize. Just look at our “hardworking corporate farmers” who’ve been rewarded with more tax money than we used for the equally scummy auto bailouts. They see it and they just don’t care.

It doesn’t help that many in the progressive avant-garde reinforce their stereotypes. It takes a Michael Moore to get through to them, and he’s not available in quantity.

At the moment, the Democratic candidates are busy securing the nomination.  In a while, there will be one, and they will have to channel their inner Michael Moore.

The primary process is starting to look like a circular firing squad. First, they winnow the field in two remarkably unrepresentative states. To aid in this selection, several shoot-from-the-hip debates are held, each with a cast of thousands. No one gets to stand out, so it’s open to media hype more is typical. So far, there is a rotating cast of characters keeping the process media friendly. 

I hope you’re right and the next two contests start to focus on a final candidate, but I’m skeptical. With Mike Bloomberg out there, this could go all the way to the convention. That doesn’t bode well for the party of cats.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-17-2020, 09:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:The elites are a key.  You cannot solve all of the above without attacking elites and the division of wealth.  The elites have extra extraordinary influence in government which has kept the other issues alive.  I do not see how to seek victory in most of the issues above without going after the elites and division of wealth.  

But you aren’t going to defeat the elites without hitting some of the other issues.  You have to expose the flaws in the Republican policies, to take away the elite’s votes.

It comes back to convincing someone like Classic Xer.  He is just a proxy for his 'Americans'.  He doesn’t think much of the elites.  In fact, he puts them in the liberal camp somehow.  But if you don’t convince people who think like him to let go of the other issues, you get nowhere.

Of course, you’re correct in arguing for enticing away elite supporters who are not among the elite themselves. Sadly, they believe they have more in common with the rich and powerful, because they think the opposition supports slackers and whiny beggars. Never mind that this is wrong, and the real whiners tend to be the ones they idolize. Just look at our “hardworking corporate farmers” who’ve been rewarded with more tax money than we used for the equally scummy auto bailouts. They see it and they just don’t care.

It doesn’t help that many in the progressive avant-garde reinforce their stereotypes. It takes a Michael Moore to get through to them, and he’s not available in quantity.

Micheal Moore is a joke. He knows it which is why he means nothing and he's basically powerless today. The dude lied for a living and he made millions off you guys while doing it.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-10-2020, 04:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 08:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 04:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

You could stick a picture of yourself in the mirror. I guess it would apply then.

We liberals will continue to advocate for this agenda, and we think it will make much progress in this next decade now starting.

How are you going to accomplish that without American support? How are you going to fund liberal schools without American students and American tax dollars? How are you going to feed illegals and American born who prefer the system that their parents had their native countries and loves the legal system that clearly favors them over the American folks that it was clearly intended to help advance. You think that might cause some serious racial/ethnic issues for you to deal with in the next decade. Like I said, a racist is the only person who would call a white a racist to their face. Guess what, if the Neo Nazi's slit her throat, I'm not going to care. If a Blood or Crypt, gun them down, I'm not going to care. If a group of nasty Hispanics beat you death on some street or some hall way or in your home, I'm not going to care. Like I said, half the country hates your guts and a quarter could give two shits less about you and the liberals these days. That's where you're at right now and its not going to get any better or easier  for the  liberals from here on.

"disagree with on most issues that are relevant to them and their way of life"

Now that's funny. Owning a gun is not relevant to anyone's way of life. And yet you guys focus on that and are all hung up on that and support the gun lobby that opposes all sensible gun regulations.

The blue Americans are the real Americans. 52% of Americans disapprove of Trump's job in office, and 54% have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the real clear politics average (and if anything that website leans right). These blue Americans pay most of the taxes that you red Americans spend on useless make-work military bases. Illegals earn their way; they don't need to be "fed." If you Republicans didn't send all our jobs overseas for decades now, perhaps companies wouldn't be giving jobs to illegals.

If you support racist policies, which you do, then what does that make you? It doesn't matter what anyone calls you. What you support defines you. Calling hispanics nasty people who beat other people is racist. In CA, hispanics do most of the work. They have done work for me. They are doing well and don't need to beat me up. But that you think they do, shows what you think about them. And when you point fingers, there are three of your own fingers pointing back at yourself.

When you violently rebel, it will be you guys that don't have it easy.

Are the good Hispanics going take on the bad Hispanics or run and hide and leave you to fend for yourself? The majority of the Hispanics are passive like most third world peasants. Yes, the Hispanics do the bulk of the work for people like you these days. Liberals love their money and power and love the idea of someone else paying for them too. So, we'll get to see how generous they really are these days? Oh, if what you said about the finger pointing was true, you would be in a much stronger position than you are today.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-18-2020, 08:45 AM)David Horn Wrote: The primary process is starting to look like a circular firing squad. First, they winnow the field in two remarkably unrepresentative states. To aid in this selection, several shoot-from-the-hip debates are held, each with a cast of thousands. No one gets to stand out, so it’s open to media hype more is typical. So far, there is a rotating cast of characters keeping the process media friendly. 

I hope you’re right and the next two contests start to focus on a final candidate, but I’m skeptical. With Mike Bloomberg out there, this could go all the way to the convention. That doesn’t bode well for the party of cats.

It must suck having Bloomberg in the mix today. I mean Bloomberg represents everything about the elites that you guys claim to hate. I mean, an actual oligarch running to be your president who has the money to buy and influence every politician/lawmakers on your side with the exception of Bernie maybe.

[pbrower2a]

(02-18-2020, 01:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-18-2020, 08:45 AM)David Horn Wrote: The primary process is starting to look like a circular firing squad. First, they winnow the field in two remarkably unrepresentative states. To aid in this selection, several shoot-from-the-hip debates are held, each with a cast of thousands. No one gets to stand out, so it’s open to media hype more is typical. So far, there is a rotating cast of characters keeping the process media friendly. 

I hope you’re right and the next two contests start to focus on a final candidate, but I’m skeptical. With Mike Bloomberg out there, this could go all the way to the convention. That doesn’t bode well for the party of cats.

It must suck having Bloomberg in the mix today. I mean Bloomberg represents everything about the elites that you guys claim to hate. I mean, an actual oligarch running to be your president who has the money to buy and influence every politician/lawmakers on your side with the exception of Bernie maybe.

I do not remember seeing you complain that Donald Trump was in the political mix in 2016. This man offended plenty of conservative sensibilities between his sexual conduct, his serial divorces, his predatory character as a businessman, and his contempt for formal learning. With Trump we have someone who lives for his indulgence, self-esteem, and his image. He believes in nothing but himself. 

If it takes an oligarch to get America on the right track, then so be it. FDR was an outright patrician, which is far better than being a poltroon like Trump. FDR wanted to save the system from its worst tendencies -- and that is exactly what he did.