The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(12-07-2019, 02:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I was thinking though, given the effectiveness of the Lichtman Keys, and one of them is domestic unrest, that if it happens before Nov.2020 that could turn a key against Trump. So if the blacks get riled again by another police shooting or two, or if some antifas manage to arouse a huge uprising, or just enough demonstrations about gun violence and climate change happen to raise the temperature enough, maybe that could be effective after all if it turns a Lichtman Key!

By the way I would still consider you far right, Classic Xer, even though you are not at today's looney extreme. Anyone who so passionately accepts the trickle-down philosophy that has been rejected everywhere else in the world outside Red America, is far right. Anyone opposed to a fair immigration system and fearful of tax money going to welfare, is extreme right. 

It was extreme right in 1964, with Barry Goldwater as the standard bearer. It was known as extreme right then. The problem is that not only is the USA a center-right country to begin with, relative to the rest of the world, it's right wing has gone off the scales and taken over the Republican Party increasingly since then, so that America has regressed instead of progressed since the sixties.

My crystal ball says this is going to change now. But the right-wing has erected formidable barriers to progress that will not easily or quickly be taken down. But taken down, they must be. Many reforms are on the agenda. 

I hope we can get a lot more immigrants in our country, despite the walls Trump and the Republicans are erecting; more latinos who will have lots of kids and vote Democratic for a while. And make you squirm and complain, and cause a few of your red states to leave our country through secession, leaving us with a secure hold on the USA.

Your crystal ball? What if your crystal ball is off because your not reading it correctly or it's biassed? I don't go by crystal balls, especially your crystal ball. You have two choices dude, you can do what the British made the mistake and failed at doing twice or you can do what the Confederates tried and failed at doing by trying to do it a different way this time. Hmm.. A modern day Civil War being fought with rules of decency and also being fought without any rules at all with modern day weaponry and so forth doesn't sound very wise or pleasant to me. Who would eventually win? Well, America would win of course.  We both know that Red America wants a clear separation from Blue America at this point. I hate to bust your bubble dude but you are viewed as foreigners by us these days and the US Constitution already belongs to us so you would have to figure out you own or adopt some foreign countries.

Question??? Would you let go of Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Milwaukee in exchange for all your voters/people that currently live there legally/illegally and all the illegals we quickly round up once some Liberal laws are changed and social stigmas/barriers pertaining to social involvement are lifted. I mean, issues can be addressed quickly without Liberals getting in the way, using nasty terms dissuade public involvement and undermining the authority of law enforcement. I know that would seem racist, fascist, mean, heartless, evil and so forth to Liberals. But to Americans, it would be viewed as the way American Law Enforcement should be able work. You see, Liberal preference should not be able to legally interfere with American Law Enforcement. Dude, I mentioned before, the Liberals are free to fuck up their own world but they aren't free to fuck up ours too. Does your crystal ball see solid lines ( a clear social boundary/separations) eventually drawn like I see unless things change. According to Dave, the Reds by him don't care about much of anything he has to say, like me and others here which means its that way across that entire country and I bet its like that in portions of your state too.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Man the 2020 election is going to shock BOTH sides. Notably the probable collapse of the DNC and the rise of independent candidates and platforms that neither Eric or Classic see coming. The problem with the liberal side is that they support unwanted high taxation and high social/economic regulations. Why can't the government limit itself to national defense/maintaining infrastructure/maintainng financial solvency? Repeal glass-steagal too; if you guys are genuinely interested in making things better. The conservative side''s problem is that they have supported endless war although that is trying to be addressed by trump. Currently the conservatives are somewhat better in the quality of popular involvement because the RNC ultimately respected the will and consent of the voters in 2016, even though the voters choice contradicted the power brokers preference, while the DNC ultimately did not (the DNC shoved it's preferences down the voters throats and appears to be doing the same for 2020)

Regarding a roundup of illegal's that would occur eventually in order to restore social cohesion but I'm perplexed at why classic mentioned Midwestern areas: Most illegal Mexicans and others live in either the southwest (especially california), florida, texas, and the northeast big cities. The midwest doesn't really have a large immigrant population except in the chicago area.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-07-2019, 07:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-07-2019, 06:21 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(12-07-2019, 05:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-07-2019, 05:32 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(12-07-2019, 05:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think it takes such a massacre to turn the "domestic unrest" key. I'm not sure what it takes. I have stated here and elsewhere many times that gun massacres will continue to increase as long as meaningful gun control is not enacted, which it hasn't been. So it's not a matter of what I want; I want gun control and bans of semi-automatic weapons and an end to massacres, but obviously that's not going to happen this year, and so the question is whether a mass uprising even surpassing the march for our lives will arise from further massacres that would be enough to turn the Lichtman Key, or other uprisings against such things as police shootings, climate change and so on, which as long as Trump and the Republicans control our government will continue to get exponentially worse, and if this Key IS turned it could end the reign of Trump and the Republicans which could in fact be the first and most-necessary step toward ending these outrages. But I don't think riots will convince the convinced Republican voters such as yourself to change sides or make any change; it will be up to a few independent voters to make that change, seeing how fast the country is going downhill, and this means Lichtman Keys turning. 

I don't know if it will happen. It could happen, but I am not on the record predicting it to happen in 2020. So it will be no use for you to crow on November 4th 2020 that you were right and your side won instead of mine, because I have not made any such prediction that my side will win in 2020 to begin with.

I am the true American, because the true Americans now are the Quasi-Socialists and Greens and liberals of all stripes, while your side has betrayed everything this USA is supposed to represent at its core. If you are stronger than me, congratulations. The only issue is whether enough swing voters in those 3 normally-blue states in the upper mid-west come back to their senses and have "buyers" remorse of what they did to America in 2016. You are not one of those voters in one of those states, and there's nothing you can do about that.

Sorry Eric, But Most Americans Hate unrestrained free-trade unrestrained Immigration and Unrestrained globalist Polices. They are two Options available for 2020: Trump Gets reelected or Trump Loses to a Berniecrat. If the DNC nominates an Establishment Candidate, one can call 2020 Election right then and there at the convention and it would be a Trump Reelection. Only if a Berniecrat gets nominated would the actual election be actually decided in November. If an establishment candidate is rammed down the peoples throat the the election would effectively be over in the summer and the actual vote in november would just be a formality pretty much.

Ha ha. You don't know what most Americans hate. 

I am not in love with unrestrained globalism; borders don't need to be entirely open, though I do recognize that we are essentially members of one planet and not of one nation. But that does not mean I support so-called free trade; that is part of neo-liberalism, which I oppose. Trade needs to be negotiated so that countries on more or less the same level of regulation and wages can trade freely while those on a lower level need to have some leveling tariffs applied so that our own domestic jobs, companies and workers are not hollowed out as they have been these last 40-plus years.

I would prefer the Berniecrat (preferably Bernie himself) be the nominee, myself. I know there is impassioned dissension from berniebros against establishment Democrats, since I encounter this on facebook all the time. I don't have the confidence to predict that defection by berniecrats would cause the Democrats to lose, or to split up. It seems just as likely, or even more so, that moderate Democrats would defect from a berniecrat nominee. I am just looking at the facts as I see them. And probably neither defection would be decisive to the outcome.

What I learn from my esoteric crystal-ball investigations, and it's therefore something anyone can observe who sees the history and the scores, is that only skilled candidates ever win presidential elections in the USA. So the Democrats's success in 2020, if it happens at all, is going to turn not on whether they nominate Bernie or Biden, but on whether they nominate either of those, or Warren or Buttigieg. The latter two do not have the skills to win against the skilled demagogue Drumpface. It will be the person nominated, not the ideology chosen, that will determine whether Democrats have a chance to win in November. Either Biden or Bernie can win, although whether they will actually win is undetermined at this point.

It doesn't take a genius or a prophet to observe that the Democratic candidates who were skilled, like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, were the ones who won, while less-skilled Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Michael Dukakis did not. Obama and Bill Clinton are universally recognized as skilled, confident, cool and charismatic candidates who connected with the people. Bernie can fill that bill; Elizabeth cannot. The nerdie policy wonks do not win. That's how it works in the USA.

All the existing frontrunner candidates have moved in favor of globalist ways of doing things except Trump. Even Bernie has been cowed compared to 2016. Americans want an American Just like them to be in the white house. We are tired of being ruled by globalist control freaks. We are tired of the tyranny, It doesn't matter if you think doing something or the other is the "right thing" you need the citizenry's permission to do things. The choice between doing good and evil is not up for you to decide for me; for example it is purely up to me. Globalist establishment control freaks want to impose their view of the world on the mass of the populace.

From your past posts, it was clear to all here that you favored tyranny and war. Have you changed your mind?

What if John Lennon was right, and he was "not the only one" who dreamed of a "brotherhood of man" in a world with no separate countries or religions? What if the continued popularity of that song among millennials shows he is still not the only one? What if consciousness is rising among the people that national borders are mere imaginary lines on a map, and that people are just people? What if, therefore, globalism as an ideal is not something establishment boomer control freaks are imposing on the masses, but something the masses favor?

What if globalism could be regulated for the benefit of locals? What if globalism was not administered by corporations and their government lackeys for their own benefit and control, but negotiated for the mutual benefit of the peoples of the world-- including the end of wars between nations and needless racial and nationalist animosity stirred up by demagogues solely to take away peoples' rights and secure power and wealth for the oligarchy, as Trump and his fascist followers like Bolsonaro, Duterte, Johnson, Orman, Erdogen, Sisi, Assad, Duda, Netanyahu, Salman, Maduro and Morrison are doing all over the world now?

Well, anything is possible when your dreaming, it's a bummer when you wake up and realize that the world your tired of living in is still there.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-08-2019, 03:27 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Man the 2020 election is going to shock BOTH sides. Notably the probable collapse of the DNC and the rise of independent candidates and platforms that neither Eric or Classic see coming. The problem with the liberal side is that they support unwanted high taxation and high social/economic regulations. Why can't the government limit itself to national defense/maintaining infrastructure/maintainng financial solvency? Repeal glass-steagal too; if you guys are genuinely interested in making things better.

Regarding a roundup of illegal's that would occur eventually in order to restore social cohesion but I'm perplexed at why classic mentioned Midwestern areas: Most illegal Mexicans and others live in either the southwest (especially california), florida, texas, and the northeast big cities. The midwest doesn't really have a large immigrant population except in the chicago area.

I've seen it happen before, I voted for Ross Perot in 1992.  So, how long has Trump been running for President of America now? He's been running since 2016. Haven't you heard? We are already voting to Keep America Great now. I'm sorry to burst the Liberal's bubble but he defeated their strongest candidate back in 2016.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(12-08-2019, 05:33 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-08-2019, 03:27 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Man the 2020 election is going to shock BOTH sides. Notably the probable collapse of the DNC and the rise of independent candidates and platforms that neither Eric or Classic see coming. The problem with the liberal side is that they support unwanted high taxation and high social/economic regulations. Why can't the government limit itself to national defense/maintaining infrastructure/maintainng financial solvency? Repeal glass-steagal too; if you guys are genuinely interested in making things better.

Regarding a roundup of illegal's that would occur eventually in order to restore social cohesion but I'm perplexed at why classic mentioned Midwestern areas: Most illegal Mexicans and others live in either the southwest (especially california), florida, texas, and the northeast big cities. The midwest doesn't really have a large immigrant population except in the chicago area.

I've seen it happen before, I voted for Ross Perot in 1992.  So, how long has Trump been running for President of America now? He's been running since 2016. Haven't  you heard? We are already voting to Keep America Great now. I'm sorry to burst the Liberal's bubble but he defeated their strongest candidate back in 2016.

Bernie was the Stronger Candidate, Polls during the spring and early summer 2016 Showed Bernie Beating Trump But Hillary losing to Trump. Hillary was an establishment candidate who campaigned essentially on either "isn't everything just great now" or "White supremacists are everywhere" or "Russia, Russia Russia", the DNC establishment then forced fed her through the primary, which alienated Independents, Progressives and Moderates. Alot of those voters voted for Trump in retaliation voted third Party or Stayed Home. I voted third party during the last election. If a DNC force-feed is attempted again the DNC will disintegrate, Like the Whigs did in 1852. Therefore it is questionable whether there would be a DNC for President Trump to campaign against next Fall. That the DNC would still exist next fall during the general phase is NOT a done deal. A Bernie/Trump debate would have been focused on policy options regarding Economic/military/Foreign policy with the people deciding in favor of whatever was concluded to be the better option. This didn't happen, instead the democrats embraced circus politics this was most stark during the vice-presidential debate when Mike Pence was trying to debate actual policy options throughout the debate and Tim Kaine was talking establishment soundbites throughout the debate. The 2016 VP debate has largely been forgotten but it was a decisive moment toward Trump's win in my opinion.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-08-2019, 06:32 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Bernie was the Stronger Candidate, Polls during the spring and early summer 2016 Showed Bernie Beating Trump But Hillary losing to Trump. Hillary was an establishment candidate who campaigned essentially on either "isn't everything just great now" or "White supremacists are everywhere" or "Russia, Russia Russia", the DNC establishment then forced fed her through the primary, which alienated Independents, Progressives and Moderates. Alot of those voters voted for Trump in retaliation voted third Party or Stayed Home. I voted third party during the last election. If a DNC force-feed is attempted again the DNC will disintegrate, Like the Whigs did in 1852. Therefore it is questionable whether there would be a DNC for President Trump to campaign against next Fall. That the DNC would still exist next fall during the general phase is NOT a done deal. A Bernie/Trump debate would have been focused on policy options regarding Economic/military/Foreign policy with the people deciding in favor of whatever was concluded to be the better option. This didn't happen, instead the democrats embraced circus politics this was most stark during the vice-presidential debate when Mike Pence was trying to debate actual policy options throughout the debate and Tim Kaine was talking establishment soundbites throughout the debate. The 2016 VP debate has largely been forgotten but it was a decisive moment toward Trump's win in my opinion.

Well, he was the more honest candidate (better person) of the two back then. Of the Democratic candidates remaining, Tulsi is the one who sticks out and appeals to me the most as far the way she holds herself and so forth. She's borderline hot, she's no nonsense, she has a good head on shoulders, she's confident in herself, she seems comfortable in her own and she looks the gal next door. I think see would be a very good minority leader of the house to have negotiating on behalf of the moderate Democrats whose primary interests are very close to mine. I've been paying into Social Security and Medicare and paying my own way on everything else for almost forty years now. I hope Eric reads this and understands the situation the quasi socialists are going to be facing down the road. My advise, don't mess with the group of Americans who are approaching retirement because are old school (men and women alike) who's priorities are straight who's values are fixed who aren't going to get all choked over knowing illegal people of all kinds are being rounded up, American border walls being built and partially militarized and fellow citizens of the world being turned back or restricted or severely limited.

[Eric the Green]

(12-08-2019, 05:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-08-2019, 06:32 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Bernie was the Stronger Candidate, Polls during the spring and early summer 2016 Showed Bernie Beating Trump But Hillary losing to Trump. Hillary was an establishment candidate who campaigned essentially on either "isn't everything just great now" or "White supremacists are everywhere" or "Russia, Russia Russia", the DNC establishment then forced fed her through the primary, which alienated Independents, Progressives and Moderates. Alot of those voters voted for Trump in retaliation voted third Party or Stayed Home. I voted third party during the last election. If a DNC force-feed is attempted again the DNC will disintegrate, Like the Whigs did in 1852. Therefore it is questionable whether there would be a DNC for President Trump to campaign against next Fall. That the DNC would still exist next fall during the general phase is NOT a done deal. A Bernie/Trump debate would have been focused on policy options regarding Economic/military/Foreign policy with the people deciding in favor of whatever was concluded to be the better option. This didn't happen, instead the democrats embraced circus politics this was most stark during the vice-presidential debate when Mike Pence was trying to debate actual policy options throughout the debate and Tim Kaine was talking establishment soundbites throughout the debate. The 2016 VP debate has largely been forgotten but it was a decisive moment toward Trump's win in my opinion.

Well, he was the more honest candidate (better person) of the two back then. Of the Democratic candidates remaining, Tulsi is the one who sticks out and appeals to me the most as far the way she holds herself and so forth. She's borderline hot, she's no nonsense, she has a good head on shoulders, she's confident in herself, she seems comfortable in her own and she looks the gal next door. I think see would be a very good minority leader of the house to have negotiating on behalf of the moderate Democrats whose primary interests are very close to mine. I've been paying into Social Security and Medicare and paying my own way on everything else for almost forty years now. I hope Eric reads this and understands the situation the quasi socialists are going to be facing down the road. My advise, don't mess with the group of Americans who are approaching retirement because are old school (men and women alike) who's priorities are straight who's values are fixed who aren't going to get all choked over knowing illegal people of all kinds are being rounded up, American border walls being built and partially militarized and fellow citizens of the world being turned back or restricted or severely limited.

Tulsi does have those appealing qualities, which is reflected in her above average horoscope score and an even higher score for advantage in the party. However, her deceptions and failures have discredited her, and so her stock is falling. She made an unjustified slap at Buttigieg at the last debate, which revealed these tendencies again. She may hang on for a while in the current race because of her media appeal and borderline charisma, and so forth, but I don't see her anymore as a potential party leader, at least not for a long while. She has sabotaged herself badly.

Americans approaching retirement are not going to favor messing with social security and medicare, as Mitch, Donald and the other Republicans you vote for want to do. We all know how you, Mr. Classic, are a typical representative of those Americans whose priorities are keeping their guns, keeping immigrants out, keeping their taxes from going for welfare, as well as upholding outdated and phony Christian values. I am glad you are here to represent these views, but being a clear example of these distorted and deceptive priorities and values is also valuable as exhibiting how narrowly-focused on the wrong things your "red" Republican side is. And falling for Trump's ploy that immigrants are "militarized" or "terrorists" etc. just shows how easily duped you can be, sorry to say.

[Eric the Green]

(12-08-2019, 12:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-07-2019, 02:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I was thinking though, given the effectiveness of the Lichtman Keys, and one of them is domestic unrest, that if it happens before Nov.2020 that could turn a key against Trump. So if the blacks get riled again by another police shooting or two, or if some antifas manage to arouse a huge uprising, or just enough demonstrations about gun violence and climate change happen to raise the temperature enough, maybe that could be effective after all if it turns a Lichtman Key!

By the way I would still consider you far right, Classic Xer, even though you are not at today's looney extreme. Anyone who so passionately accepts the trickle-down philosophy that has been rejected everywhere else in the world outside Red America, is far right. Anyone opposed to a fair immigration system and fearful of tax money going to welfare, is extreme right. 

It was extreme right in 1964, with Barry Goldwater as the standard bearer. It was known as extreme right then. The problem is that not only is the USA a center-right country to begin with, relative to the rest of the world, it's right wing has gone off the scales and taken over the Republican Party increasingly since then, so that America has regressed instead of progressed since the sixties.

My crystal ball says this is going to change now. But the right-wing has erected formidable barriers to progress that will not easily or quickly be taken down. But taken down, they must be. Many reforms are on the agenda. 

I hope we can get a lot more immigrants in our country, despite the walls Trump and the Republicans are erecting; more latinos who will have lots of kids and vote Democratic for a while. And make you squirm and complain, and cause a few of your red states to leave our country through secession, leaving us with a secure hold on the USA.

Your crystal ball? What if your crystal ball is off because your not reading it correctly or it's biassed? I don't go by crystal balls, especially your crystal ball. You have two choices dude, you can do what the British made the mistake and failed at doing twice or you can do what the Confederates tried and failed at doing by trying to do it a different way this time. Hmm.. A modern day Civil War being fought with rules of decency and also being fought without any rules at all with modern day weaponry and so forth doesn't sound very wise or pleasant to me. Who would eventually win? Well, America would win of course.  We both know that Red America wants a clear separation from Blue America at this point. I hate to bust your bubble dude but you are viewed as foreigners by us these days and the US Constitution already belongs to us so you would have to figure out you own or adopt some foreign countries.

Question??? Would you let go of Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Milwaukee in exchange for all your voters/people that currently live there legally/illegally and all the illegals we quickly round up once some Liberal  laws are changed and social stigmas/barriers pertaining to social involvement are lifted. I mean, issues can be addressed quickly without Liberals getting in the way, using nasty terms dissuade public involvement and undermining the authority of law enforcement. I know that would seem racist, fascist, mean, heartless, evil and so forth to Liberals. But to Americans, it would be viewed as the way American Law Enforcement should be able work. You see, Liberal preference should not be able to legally interfere with American Law Enforcement. Dude, I mentioned before, the Liberals are free to fuck up their own world but they aren't free to fuck up ours too. Does your crystal ball see solid lines ( a clear social boundary/separations) eventually drawn like I see unless things change.  According to Dave, the Reds by him don't care about much of anything he has to say, like me and others here  which means its that way across that entire country and I bet its like that in portions of your state too.

No-one wants a civil war, but if states seceded, which side would fight to keep all the states in the union? My guess is that the blue side would say fine, good riddance, go try it your way, while the red side would fight and invade and try to keep blue seceding states in the union. Unconsciously, the red states know they could not go on without the blue states, who supply the financial support disproportionately to them. The red side is also the one that values American empire, and so a smaller USA does not appeal to them. It is clearly the blue side that values the constitution, whereas the red side only values its cult leader who violates it.

Republicans do not want to address any issues. They only want to stoke resentment and fear with the false slogans of keeping immigrants out, keeping citizens armed with military weapons, making abortion illegal and keeping tax money from going to welfare. Your side does not want to address the real issues of poverty and inequality, discrimination and police shootings, gun violence, sky-high national debt caused by war/defense spending, pollution and climate change, and erosion of democracy and human rights. You guys don't care about these issues. You only care about keeping America white, armed, neo-liberal and Christian. It's a losing battle even if you fight it.

[pbrower2a]

The problem would be in deciding what would be the Red States and what would be the Blue states. It might not be on the vote. Such a state as Nebraska or Utah gets good ("blue") social conditions with strongly-Republican ("red") politics. Some areas within some very "blue" states are very "red" (like eastern New Mexico) and some areas in very "red" states are very "blue" in their politics (Atlanta, Louisville, Memphis, Nashville, Birmingham, New Orleans, Texas' giant cities and border areas)...

Give America a dictatorial government that neglects or abuses the parts of America that did not vote for it for the indefinite future, and America could split much as Yugoslavia did, complete with rancor and bloodshed. Being on the wrong side of a borderline could make one a pariah or worse.

Civil wars over ethnicity are bad enough, but a civil war over the core principles of economics are even nastier. It is easy for me to characterize Donald Trump as standing for an economic order in which the vast majority of people have responsibilities to support the gain, indulgence and power of the rich-and-powerful irrespective of the misery that they are obliged to endure. It is also easy to see how people ordered to endure such could easily decide that they will not do so -- they will instead tax the easy money.

So one side is for a high-tech feudalism and the other is for freedom. How do you think that will work?

[Eric the Green]

(12-10-2019, 12:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The problem would be in deciding what would be the Red States and what would be the Blue states. It might not be on the vote.  Such a state as Nebraska or Utah gets good ("blue") social conditions with strongly-Republican ("red") politics. Some areas within some very "blue" states are very "red" (like eastern New Mexico) and some areas in very "red" states are very "blue" in their politics (Atlanta, Louisville, Memphis, Nashville, Birmingham, New Orleans, Texas' giant cities and border areas)...

Give America a dictatorial government that neglects or abuses the parts of America that did not vote for it for the indefinite future, and America could split much as Yugoslavia did, complete with rancor and bloodshed. Being on the wrong side of a borderline could make one a pariah or worse.

Civil wars over ethnicity are bad enough, but a civil war over the core principles of economics are even nastier. It is easy for me to characterize Donald Trump as standing for an economic order in which the vast majority of people have responsibilities to support the gain, indulgence and power of the rich-and-powerful irrespective of the misery that they are obliged to endure.  It is also easy to see how people ordered to endure such could easily decide that they will not do so -- they will instead tax the easy money.

So one side is for a high-tech feudalism and the other is for freedom. How do you think that will work?

There will be no agreement about how to divide the nation, if secession happens. Some states will just decide to do so, and then the rest will decide how to respond to this "illegal" act. And then, yes, it could be that portions of a seceding state will secede from the state and rejoin the union. It's hard to see how isolated cities could do that though. Classic thinks the residents of blue cities in red states can be rounded up and moved. Does not seem likely, but who knows how rancorous or oppressive our 4T could get.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-09-2019, 09:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No-one wants a civil war, but if states seceded, which side would fight to keep all the states in the union? My guess is that the blue side would say fine, good riddance, go try it your way, while the red side would fight and invade and try to keep blue seceding states in the union. Unconsciously, the red states know they could not go on without the blue states, who supply the financial support disproportionately to them. The red side is also the one that values American empire, and so a smaller USA does not appeal to them. It is clearly the blue side that values the constitution, whereas the red side only values its cult leader who violates it.

Republicans do not want to address any issues. They only want to stoke resentment and fear with the false slogans of keeping immigrants out, keeping citizens armed with military weapons, making abortion illegal and keeping tax money from going to welfare. Your side does not want to address the real issues of poverty and inequality, discrimination and police shootings, gun violence, sky-high national debt caused by war/defense spending, pollution and climate change, and erosion of democracy and human rights. You guys don't care about these issues. You only care about keeping America white, armed, neo-liberal and Christian. It's a losing battle even if you fight it.

If the Quasi Socialists valued the US Constitution as they often claim, the Quasi Socialists/Liberals/Progressives and their global citizens wouldn't always be talking about changing it in ways that either suit or serve their own interests. I hope this is written well enough for everyone to read and understand clearly because it's the truth.

I don't know about democracy eroding like you claim is happening but I do know that America will be voting again in 2020. I love the way that you and every other Quasi Socialist acts as if they have some sort of right to tell me what I care about and what I think/believe and what/who I am and so forth. Hint, don't ever do that in real life with anyone other than one of your own because they're about the only ones that people like you are free to do so with these days. Republicans don't need to address those issues that you need/want them to address because those issues aren't viewed as important or as prevalent by their base these day. Reds are pretty much content with whatever they've got, their lifestyle and so forth. I'd say the so called American Empire would be content with keeping what it already has right now. How much of your state is currently American owned vs globally/ foreign owned these days?

[Eric the Green]

(12-10-2019, 11:50 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-09-2019, 09:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No-one wants a civil war, but if states seceded, which side would fight to keep all the states in the union? My guess is that the blue side would say fine, good riddance, go try it your way, while the red side would fight and invade and try to keep blue seceding states in the union. Unconsciously, the red states know they could not go on without the blue states, who supply the financial support disproportionately to them. The red side is also the one that values American empire, and so a smaller USA does not appeal to them. It is clearly the blue side that values the constitution, whereas the red side only values its cult leader who violates it.

Republicans do not want to address any issues. They only want to stoke resentment and fear with the false slogans of keeping immigrants out, keeping citizens armed with military weapons, making abortion illegal and keeping tax money from going to welfare. Your side does not want to address the real issues of poverty and inequality, discrimination and police shootings, gun violence, sky-high national debt caused by war/defense spending, pollution and climate change, and erosion of democracy and human rights. You guys don't care about these issues. You only care about keeping America white, armed, neo-liberal and Christian. It's a losing battle even if you fight it.

If the Quasi Socialists valued the US Constitution as they often claim, the Quasi Socialists/Liberals/Progressives and their global citizens wouldn't always be talking about changing it in ways that either suit or serve their own interests. I hope this is written well enough for everyone to read and understand clearly because it's the truth.

There is nothing wrong with changing the constitution. It is a long process, but it has been done over 25 times. Perfectly legal and necessary. The electoral college and the second amendment are anachronisms. They should be abolished. It may not happen for a long time. But we need Democratic presidents to appoint justices who will interpret the 2nd the way it was for a century. Even without that, gun control and bans on military semi-automatic weapons are perfectly legal according to the justice who ruled that possession of guns was an individual right.

Quote:I don't know about democracy eroding like you claim is happening but I do know that America will be voting again in 2020. I love the way that you and every other Quasi Socialist acts as if they have some sort of right to tell me what I care about and what I think/believe and what/who I am and so forth. Hint, don't ever do that in real life with anyone other than one of your own because they're about the only ones that people like you are free to do so with these days. Republicans don't need to address those issues that you need/want them to address because those issues aren't viewed as important or as prevalent by their base these days. Reds are pretty much content with whatever they've got, their lifestyle and so forth. I'd say the so called American Empire would be content with keeping what it already has right now. How much of your state is currently American owned vs globally/ foreign owned these days?

You don't know democracy is eroding because you don't care that it is. Gerrymandering has become so extreme that it denies the right for the people to choose their representatives. The Citizens United ruling and others by this Republican Court have allowed big money to buy elections and force our representatives to call and email us 24/7 to ask us for money instead of doing their jobs. What good is voting for a congress person who then can't do their job? The Voting rights Act was watered down to let southern states off the hook for erecting barriers to black people for voting, and red and purple states have taken voters off the rolls or erected requirements to keep likely-Democrats from voting. Our president asks foreign governments to interfere in our elections with fake news, hacked emails and bogus investigations. The red states have the power to choose our president because of the out of date electoral college, in which the peoples' choice does not become president, and instead the 2 worst presidents in our history so far were allowed to take office. Yes indeed, our democracy is in severe peril, and these examples probably only scratch the surface. We have a president who would proclaim himself dictator if he could without a moment's hesitation, and he is a cult figure who has the blind loyalty of 45% of deceived Americans like you. I'd say that's a severe threat to democracy. And we have Patriot Acts and NSAs who spy on us with impunity and lock up people without cause in the USA and abroad, and tortures them with impunity. And a president who allows its navy seal soldiers to torture people. I'd say that's a threat to democracy too.

[Eric the Green]

(12-10-2019, 11:50 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I love the way that you and every other Quasi Socialist acts as if they have some sort of right t tell me what I care about and what I think/believe and what/who I am and so forth. Hint, don't ever do that in real life with anyone other than one of your own because they're about the only ones that people like you are free to do so with these days. Republicans don't need to address those issues that you need/want them to address because those issues aren't viewed as important or as prevalent by their base these day. Reds are pretty much content with whatever they've got, their lifestyle and so forth. I'd say the so called American Empire would be content with keeping what it already has right now. How much of your state is currently American owned vs globally/ foreign owned these days?

I did not tell you what you care about and believe in. I only summarized what you yourself said you care about and believe in. Own up to it and quit weasaling out of it and making threats. You guys are as un-American as you claim we are, and I have no hestitation to tell you or any of your fellow reds that score, if I feel it's necessary. You have a perfect right to tell us what you care about, and you as well as I have a perfect right to tell each other what we think the other side believes.

Thanks for confirming that your side does not care about the issues that face us today. That is the main problem.

The notion that impeachment is a distraction from the nation's business is thus extremely ludicrous.

Many red voters, especially in your part of the country, are not content at all. They are economically and emotionally challenged and frustrated, and misled into voting for someone whose only goal is to destroy the country and boost himself. Let's hope they wake up and vote correctly in their own interests in 2020. I don't know if they will.

The issue I raised is not whether the reds are content with keeping what the American Empire already has. The question I raised to you was whether the reds would compel blue states to remain in the union because they don't want the American Empire to be smaller. In this case the American Empire includes the 50 states, and it would have fewer states if some seceded and became a different state or group of states.

I think the reds would more likely fight to keep states in the union, because they don't want the size of America to be reduced. Reds as a group are interested in American imperialism and making their country great (again). They voted to expand it by approving Bush's imperialist wars in 2004. They want to win so often that they get tired of winning, and to build up the military to make sure it happens. The reds are the side that would fight, therefore, to keep blue states in the union, while the blue side would be willing to let red states go, and in fact would be happy to let them go.

[pbrower2a]

(12-10-2019, 11:50 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-09-2019, 09:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No-one wants a civil war, but if states seceded, which side would fight to keep all the states in the union? My guess is that the blue side would say fine, good riddance, go try it your way, while the red side would fight and invade and try to keep blue seceding states in the union. Unconsciously, the red states know they could not go on without the blue states, who supply the financial support disproportionately to them. The red side is also the one that values American empire, and so a smaller USA does not appeal to them. It is clearly the blue side that values the constitution, whereas the red side only values its cult leader who violates it.

Republicans do not want to address any issues. They only want to stoke resentment and fear with the false slogans of keeping immigrants out, keeping citizens armed with military weapons, making abortion illegal and keeping tax money from going to welfare. Your side does not want to address the real issues of poverty and inequality, discrimination and police shootings, gun violence, sky-high national debt caused by war/defense spending, pollution and climate change, and erosion of democracy and human rights. You guys don't care about these issues. You only care about keeping America white, armed, neo-liberal and Christian. It's a losing battle even if you fight it.

If the Quasi Socialists valued the US Constitution as they often claim, the Quasi Socialists/Liberals/Progressives and their global citizens wouldn't always be talking about changing it in ways that either suit or serve their own interests. I hope this is written well enough for everyone to read and understand clearly because it's the truth.

Valuing the Constitution does not mean that one has a certain view on social or cultural issues. Process and the relations between different branches of government or between state and federal governments, and the validity of decisions of the US Supreme Court are different matters. 

The Constitution does not preclude a socialist economic structure (whether such is wise is a matter for elections to resolve, and such is clear from the absence of a Socialist party reminiscent of Labour in Britain or Social Democrats in Germany. The Constitution was once compatible with chattel slavery. It is a living document in the sense that it can adapt to economic and technological change.   

Quote:I don't know about democracy eroding like you claim is happening   but I do know that America will be voting again in 2020.   I love the way that you and every other Quasi Socialist acts as if they have some sort of  right to  tell me what I care about and what I think/believe and what/who I am and  so forth. Hint, don't ever do that in real life with anyone other than one of  your own because they're about the only ones that  people like  you are free to do so with these days. Republicans don't need to address those issues that you need/want  them to address because those issues aren't viewed  as important or as prevalent by their base these day. Reds are pretty much content with whatever they've  got, their lifestyle and so forth. I'd say the so called American Empire would be  content with keeping what it already has right now. How much of your state is currently American owned vs globally/ foreign owned these days?

Donald Trump stands for socialism for the rich -- crony capitalism. Just like everyone else, you have your concern, and those may be as legitimate as mine. The Constitution grants us no inherent right to choose our economic condition, let alone the "lifestyles" . Many of us have found life an utter disappointment because of character traits not of our choosing. American capitalism seems now to operate on the assumption that it needs severe poverty as a cudgel to get people to make great sacrifices on behalf of an economic elite whose gain, indulgence, and power is the rightful purpose in all 'patriotic' American lives even if such means otherwise-pointless death, as from wars for profit.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-09-2019, 08:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tulsi does have those appealing qualities, which is reflected in her above average horoscope score and an even higher score for advantage in the party. However, her deceptions and failures have discredited her, and so her stock is falling. She made an unjustified slap at Buttigieg at the last debate, which revealed these tendencies again. She may hang on for a while in the current race because of her media appeal and borderline charisma, and so forth, but I don't see her anymore as a potential party leader, at least not for a long while. She has sabotaged herself badly.

Americans approaching retirement are not going to favor messing with social security and medicare, as Mitch, Donald and the other Republicans you vote for want to do. We all know how you, Mr. Classic, are a typical representative of those Americans whose priorities are keeping their guns, keeping immigrants out, keeping their taxes from going for welfare, as well as upholding outdated and phony Christian values. I am glad you are here to represent these views, but being a clear example of these distorted and deceptive priorities and values is also valuable as exhibiting how narrowly-focused on the wrong things your "red" Republican side is. And falling for Trump's ploy that immigrants are "militarized" or "terrorists" etc. just shows how easily duped you can be, sorry to say.

What deceptions and personal failures of hers are you speaking of? I don't know her personally and I'm not all that familiar with her politically either. What is the small time mayor of South Bend, Indiana doing running for President of the United States? No offense but that seems like a major leap to me. Is he viewed by the liberal establishment as someone extra special and therefore politically untouchable or something. What, can't a more independent Democratic woman like her take a swipe at a fellow Democratic gay guy who probably shouldn't be there in the first place? Did she or did she not deliver the blows that eliminated a US Senator? I'm sure if she's capable of doing that, she's capable of doing it to a city mayor. I'm also sure that blue beta women with power given to them by fake liberal alpha women/men who inherited their power are either directly threatened or extremely jealous of a more natural alpha type woman who looks better them without as much make up or high priced work done to their faces.

I don't think the Republicans are going to touch social security or medicare. I think they're more likely to strengthen it by accepting minor increases to the percentages and by eliminating all kinds of wasteful and needless spending at home and abroad to shore up there funding. Personally, I don't care if California and other blue states accept the full burden and the full responsibility for supporting its low end legal and low end illegal populations and forces every American Democratic voter and every Republican voter who live there to pay much higher taxes to completely pay for them all.

Dude, who do I have a problem with these days. The welfare recipient who has been taught to take advantage and accept whatever is available to them exclusively for basically nothing or the Quasi socialists promoting it as being best for America and the Quasi socialist system in charge of diving it up and redistributing the bulk of the wealth to themselves and then distributing the morsel of what's left to those that liberals claim to need it the most to live. You, you view it more as an insurance that prevents you from being killed, robbed or beaten by the worst minority or white groups of the lot so to speak. Guess what, the Quasi Socialists ain't dumb people either.

[pbrower2a]

(12-10-2019, 12:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-10-2019, 12:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The problem would be in deciding what would be the Red States and what would be the Blue states. It might not be on the vote.  Such a state as Nebraska or Utah gets good ("blue") social conditions with strongly-Republican ("red") politics. Some areas within some very "blue" states are very "red" (like eastern New Mexico) and some areas in very "red" states are very "blue" in their politics (Atlanta, Louisville, Memphis, Nashville, Birmingham, New Orleans, Texas' giant cities and border areas)...

Give America a dictatorial government that neglects or abuses the parts of America that did not vote for it for the indefinite future, and America could split much as Yugoslavia did, complete with rancor and bloodshed. Being on the wrong side of a borderline could make one a pariah or worse.

Civil wars over ethnicity are bad enough, but a civil war over the core principles of economics are even nastier. It is easy for me to characterize Donald Trump as standing for an economic order in which the vast majority of people have responsibilities to support the gain, indulgence and power of the rich-and-powerful irrespective of the misery that they are obliged to endure.  It is also easy to see how people ordered to endure such could easily decide that they will not do so -- they will instead tax the easy money.

So one side is for a high-tech feudalism and the other is for freedom. How do you think that will work?

There will be no agreement about how to divide the nation, if secession happens. Some states will just decide to do so, and then the rest will decide how to respond to this "illegal" act. And then, yes, it could be that portions of a seceding state will secede from the state and rejoin the union. It's hard to see how isolated cities could do that though. Classic thinks the residents of blue cities in red states can be rounded up and moved. Does not seem likely, but who knows how rancorous or oppressive our 4T could get.

...and that is precisely the point. The "red" areas produce the ores, foodstuffs, fuels, and natural fibers, but the "blue" areas have the ports, the large-scale processing units (of both data and of such things as steel  or cereal), and the financial services. Greater Chicago is the end of the line for many raw materials for processing  or the shipping point for huge quantities of Midwestern meat and grain. People in rural Illinois may see Chicago as a Sodom and Gomorrah... but they need its economic activity if they are to get tolerable prices for wheat or for pork bellies. 

We are obliged to use our imagination and vision to look for better if we are in or are approaching old age. We will need to make pragmatic decisions that recognize what works and what doesn't if we are in midlife. If we are old enough to do raw labor but still wet behind the years we will have to commit to changes not of our choosing.

The biggest trend that I see is the end of scarcity (except in something that a few can monopolize). We are not going to get happier just by having more stuff unless we have the commodity fetish that debases life. Making a good living just by making more stuff will not be the way to riches. Sure, we will need more grains, fibers, building materials, ores, and fuels just to accommodate a larger number of people in the world, but nobody is going to get rich off such who has not gotten rich already.

Experience will matter more than will totems. Being familiar with all fifteen string quartets of Dmitri Shostakovich will make life far richer than "I got drunk in (fifteen different places)". What may be socially intolerable at some point could be being a crashing bore.

[pbrower2a]

(12-08-2019, 12:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-07-2019, 02:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I was thinking though, given the effectiveness of the Lichtman Keys, and one of them is domestic unrest, that if it happens before Nov.2020 that could turn a key against Trump. So if the blacks get riled again by another police shooting or two, or if some antifas manage to arouse a huge uprising, or just enough demonstrations about gun violence and climate change happen to raise the temperature enough, maybe that could be effective after all if it turns a Lichtman Key!

By the way I would still consider you far right, Classic Xer, even though you are not at today's looney extreme. Anyone who so passionately accepts the trickle-down philosophy that has been rejected everywhere else in the world outside Red America, is far right. Anyone opposed to a fair immigration system and fearful of tax money going to welfare, is extreme right. 

It was extreme right in 1964, with Barry Goldwater as the standard bearer. It was known as extreme right then. The problem is that not only is the USA a center-right country to begin with, relative to the rest of the world, it's right wing has gone off the scales and taken over the Republican Party increasingly since then, so that America has regressed instead of progressed since the sixties.

My crystal ball says this is going to change now. But the right-wing has erected formidable barriers to progress that will not easily or quickly be taken down. But taken down, they must be. Many reforms are on the agenda. 

I hope we can get a lot more immigrants in our country, despite the walls Trump and the Republicans are erecting; more latinos who will have lots of kids and vote Democratic for a while. And make you squirm and complain, and cause a few of your red states to leave our country through secession, leaving us with a secure hold on the USA.

Your crystal ball? What if your crystal ball is off because your not reading it correctly or it's biassed? I don't go by crystal balls, especially your crystal ball. You have two choices dude, you can do what the British made the mistake and failed at doing twice or you can do what the Confederates tried and failed at doing by trying to do it a different way this time. Hmm.. A modern day Civil War being fought with rules of decency and also being fought without any rules at all with modern day weaponry and so forth doesn't sound very wise or pleasant to me. Who would eventually win? Well, America would win of course.  We both know that Red America wants a clear separation from Blue America at this point. I hate to bust your bubble dude but you are viewed as foreigners by us these days and the US Constitution already belongs to us so you would have to figure out you own or adopt some foreign countries.

Question??? Would you let go of Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Milwaukee in exchange for all your voters/people that currently live there legally/illegally and all the illegals we quickly round up once some Liberal  laws are changed and social stigmas/barriers pertaining to social involvement are lifted. I mean, issues can be addressed quickly without Liberals getting in the way, using nasty terms dissuade public involvement and undermining the authority of law enforcement. I know that would seem racist, fascist, mean, heartless, evil and so forth to Liberals. But to Americans, it would be viewed as the way American Law Enforcement should be able work. You see, Liberal preference should not be able to legally interfere with American Law Enforcement. Dude, I mentioned before, the Liberals are free to fuck up their own world but they aren't free to fuck up ours too. Does your crystal ball see solid lines ( a clear social boundary/separations) eventually drawn like I see unless things change.  According to Dave, the Reds by him don't care about much of anything he has to say, like me and others here  which means its that way across that entire country and I bet its like that in portions of your state too.

My interpretation holds that the domestic violence has already started in the form of domestic terrorism  such as the Pittsburgh and Poway shootings that President Trump mishandled. Likewise, the van from which an a lunatic mailed bombs was a veritable shrine to the President.  I contrast Ronald Reagan, who made undeniably clear his visceral disdain for KKK and neo-Nazi outrages. I need no crystal ball; I rely heavily on the teachings of history.

This is the wrong time in which to draw lines. The Mountain and Deep South may have been voting strongly for Trump -- but southern blacks are completely unreceptive to someone who has nothing to offer. A city like Atlanta is more like Chicago in its politics than it is like most of the rest of Georgia.

Last I knew, American law enforcement is responsible to elected officials and not to some political boss. We do not have a Gestapo, KGB, SAVAK, or Mukhabarat ultimately responsible to the top leader and to nobody else. Police forces have internal affairs bureaus to monitor the police in the event that the cops go bad  as in selling out to the mobsters or becoming criminals themselves (see Antoinette Frank in New Orleans). I have given up on the idea that crime is more a consequence of social conditions than of character. Sociopathy is as common among economic elites as among the destitute, as Enrob cheats and Jeffrey Epstein have shown. 

The world does not divide neatly into a "liberal" world and a "conservative" world. I am a very partisan Democrat, but I am very traditionalist on educational content, child protection, drugs, and law-and-order. I started supporting LGBT rights when I came to the conclusion that those were compatible with family safety and (because some moron misconstrued me as homosexual and threatened to beat me up for such) law and order. All that gays and lesbians had to do to convince me was that they were going to protect any children under their custody from abuse of any kind, at which they succeeded by denouncing the pedophiles of NAMBLA. (I am satisfied that a pair of lesbian mothers would show the ferocity of tigresses if some pervert tried to molest their sons -- that is enough for m). Gays protecting a daughter? Likewise!)

If you wonder... I see tradition as one safe haven for the protection of truth that goes out of vogue for the wrong reasons. I see Donald Trump as a melding of anti-female attitudes of Hugh Hefner with the economic elitism of Ayn Rand. Hefner succeeded at telling men to go ahead and not feel guilty about their sex drive that includes a desire to see bare breasts and buttocks on nubile females. Ayn Rand suggested a moral vision of every-man-for-himself in which the most successful predators would be justified in exploiting the weak and powerless. Hefner's attitudes toward women rubbed off on elite men who got to live their fantasy of casting off a middle-aged spouse who was no longer 'sexy' for a fresh trophy wife who looked somewhat like the Playmate of the Month so that he could get to relive his youth, if with such things as sports cars and overpriced quaffs. As a consequence of casting off a wife approaching middle-age he also stuck his wife with spoiled brats who learned how to treat women -- you guessed it -- in accordance with the Playboy lifestyle, if boys -- and as manipulative wenches if girls. On that I am closer to the late Jerry Falwell, who at least promoted the idea that family cohesion is worth having lasting loyalty between husband and wife. Ayn Rand's ideal looks all too much like the sort of political order on the brink of a Red revolution because the common man has no stake in its continuation. Add to that, the more that I see of Donald Trump the more I recognize the wisdom of our Founding Fathers (except on women's rights, slavery, and the treatment of First Peoples. Nobody is perfect). Donald Trump is everything that the Founding Fathers would have held in contempt.    

I do not accuse you of such -- but I certainly accuse Donald Trump. He represents many of the destructive trends of the Third Turning that lead to calamity.  A Fourth Turning has the unpleasant tendency to show many of us how wrong we can be.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-10-2019, 08:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-10-2019, 11:50 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-09-2019, 09:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No-one wants a civil war, but if states seceded, which side would fight to keep all the states in the union? My guess is that the blue side would say fine, good riddance, go try it your way, while the red side would fight and invade and try to keep blue seceding states in the union. Unconsciously, the red states know they could not go on without the blue states, who supply the financial support disproportionately to them. The red side is also the one that values American empire, and so a smaller USA does not appeal to them. It is clearly the blue side that values the constitution, whereas the red side only values its cult leader who violates it.

Republicans do not want to address any issues. They only want to stoke resentment and fear with the false slogans of keeping immigrants out, keeping citizens armed with military weapons, making abortion illegal and keeping tax money from going to welfare. Your side does not want to address the real issues of poverty and inequality, discrimination and police shootings, gun violence, sky-high national debt caused by war/defense spending, pollution and climate change, and erosion of democracy and human rights. You guys don't care about these issues. You only care about keeping America white, armed, neo-liberal and Christian. It's a losing battle even if you fight it.

If the Quasi Socialists valued the US Constitution as they often claim, the Quasi Socialists/Liberals/Progressives and their global citizens wouldn't always be talking about changing it in ways that either suit or serve their own interests. I hope this is written well enough for everyone to read and understand clearly because it's the truth.

Valuing the Constitution does not mean that one has a certain view on social or cultural issues. Process and the relations between different branches of government or between state and federal governments, and the validity of decisions of the US Supreme Court are different matters. 

The Constitution does not preclude a socialist economic structure (whether such is wise is a matter for elections to resolve, and such is clear from the absence of a Socialist party reminiscent of Labour in Britain or Social Democrats in Germany. The Constitution was once compatible with chattel slavery. It is a living document in the sense that it can adapt to economic and technological change.   

Quote:I don't know about democracy eroding like you claim is happening   but I do know that America will be voting again in 2020.   I love the way that you and every other Quasi Socialist acts as if they have some sort of  right to  tell me what I care about and what I think/believe and what/who I am and  so forth. Hint, don't ever do that in real life with anyone other than one of  your own because they're about the only ones that  people like  you are free to do so with these days. Republicans don't need to address those issues that you need/want  them to address because those issues aren't viewed  as important or as prevalent by their base these day. Reds are pretty much content with whatever they've  got, their lifestyle and so forth. I'd say the so called American Empire would be  content with keeping what it already has right now. How much of your state is currently American owned vs globally/ foreign owned these days?

Donald Trump stands for socialism for the rich -- crony capitalism. Just like everyone else, you have your concern, and those may be as legitimate as mine. The Constitution grants us no inherent right to choose our economic condition, let alone the "lifestyles" . Many of us have found life an utter disappointment because of character traits not of our choosing. American capitalism seems now to operate on the assumption that it needs severe poverty as a cudgel to get people to make great sacrifices on behalf of an economic elite whose gain, indulgence, and power is the rightful purpose in all 'patriotic' American lives even if such means otherwise-pointless death, as from wars for profit.

Well, all that I can try to tell you is that if you and others continue to vote to give the rich and your liberal representatives more power over you and your decisions and the power to widdel down and take away American choices and American rights. You may end up powerless and unable to vote to change anything or stop anything and end being rounded up like cattle and exterminated like those in Nazi Germany/Europe and else where beyond our American borders.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-11-2019, 10:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: My interpretation holds that the domestic violence has already started in the form of domestic terrorism  such as the Pittsburgh and Poway shootings that President Trump mishandled. Likewise, the van from which an a lunatic mailed bombs was a veritable shrine to the President.  I contrast Ronald Reagan, who made undeniably clear his visceral disdain for KKK and neo-Nazi outrages. I need no crystal ball; I rely heavily on the teachings of history.

This is the wrong time in which to draw lines. The Mountain and Deep South may have been voting strongly for Trump -- but southern blacks are completely unreceptive to someone who has nothing to offer. A city like Atlanta is more like Chicago in its politics than it is like most of the rest of Georgia.

Last I knew, American law enforcement is responsible to elected officials and not to some political boss. We do not have a Gestapo, KGB, SAVAK, or Mukhabarat ultimately responsible to the top leader and to nobody else. Police forces have internal affairs bureaus to monitor the police in the event that the cops go bad  as in selling out to the mobsters or becoming criminals themselves (see Antoinette Frank in New Orleans). I have given up on the idea that crime is more a consequence of social conditions than of character. Sociopathy is as common among economic elites as among the destitute, as Enrob cheats and Jeffrey Epstein have shown. 

The world does not divide neatly into a "liberal" world and a "conservative" world. I am a very partisan Democrat, but I am very traditionalist on educational content, child protection, drugs, and law-and-order. I started supporting LGBT rights when I came to the conclusion that those were compatible with family safety and (because some moron misconstrued me as homosexual and threatened to beat me up for such) law and order. All that gays and lesbians had to do to convince me was that they were going to protect any children under their custody from abuse of any kind, at which they succeeded by denouncing the pedophiles of NAMBLA. (I am satisfied that a pair of lesbian mothers would show the ferocity of tigresses if some pervert tried to molest their sons -- that is enough for m). Gays protecting a daughter? Likewise!)

If you wonder... I see tradition as one safe haven for the protection of truth that goes out of vogue for the wrong reasons. I see Donald Trump as a melding of anti-female attitudes of Hugh Hefner with the economic elitism of Ayn Rand. Hefner succeeded at telling men to go ahead and not feel guilty about their sex drive that includes a desire to see bare breasts and buttocks on nubile females. Ayn Rand suggested a moral vision of every-man-for-himself in which the most successful predators would be justified in exploiting the weak and powerless. Hefner's attitudes toward women rubbed off on elite men who got to live their fantasy of casting off a middle-aged spouse who was no longer 'sexy' for a fresh trophy wife who looked somewhat like the Playmate of the Month so that he could get to relive his youth, if with such things as sports cars and overpriced quaffs. As a consequence of casting off a wife approaching middle-age he also stuck his wife with spoiled brats who learned how to treat women -- you guessed it -- in accordance with the Playboy lifestyle, if boys -- and as manipulative wenches if girls. On that I am closer to the late Jerry Falwell, who at least promoted the idea that family cohesion is worth having lasting loyalty between husband and wife. Ayn Rand's ideal looks all too much like the sort of political order on the brink of a Red revolution because the common man has no stake in its continuation. Add to that, the more that I see of Donald Trump the more I recognize the wisdom of our Founding Fathers (except on women's rights, slavery, and the treatment of First Peoples. Nobody is perfect). Donald Trump is everything that the Founding Fathers would have held in contempt.    

I do not accuse you of such -- but I certainly accuse Donald Trump. He represents many of the destructive trends of the Third Turning that lead to calamity.  A Fourth Turning has the unpleasant tendency to show many of us how wrong we can be.

You mean the shootings that he acknowledged took place and expressed remorse for occurring and offered his condolences to family members and so forth that others like you over shadowed and completely ignored and turned political and used for political means and tried to blame him for and directly associate him with their murderers. As I've mentioned before, you better wise up and pay attention to those that you are now politically affiliated with these days. It's obvious to me that you need the Democratic party to survive much more than me at this point. As far as Trump and his personal, I could care less about his life or his lifestyle as a private citizen.

[David Horn]

(12-11-2019, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, all that I can try to tell you is that if you and others continue to vote to give the rich and your liberal representatives more power over you and your decisions and the power to widdel down and take away American choices and American rights.  You may end up powerless and unable to vote to change anything or stop anything and end being rounded up like cattle and exterminated like those in Nazi Germany/Europe and else where beyond our American borders.

At this moment in time, both parties are largely "owned" by the wealthy elites, but it's the GOP that is doing it's level best to make that even worse. Citizens United is the product of a conservative court, bent on protecting the rights of wealthy. The Dems are the second raters here. So wanting to escape the control of the overlords by supporting the GOP is the world's greatest exercise in futility.

Be aware of the actions not the words. The GOP cuts taxes on the rich and removes restrictions on how they can use their wealth. That enables the virtually unlimited right to use wealth to undermine democracy and we're already pretty far along on that journey. Next up: anarchy, because only the rich and powerful have control in a wide open game. Everyone else is one or two steps away from poverty -- you and me included. It's easy to control people who are at risk.