The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 07:16 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 05:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... Marx correctly diagnosed the problem, but his way of solving the problem was a badly flawed failure which virtually no one is eager to repeat.  Even the Chinese Communist Party is working hand in hand with the capitalists these days.  This doesn't mean the problems of a grossly profiteering elite don't need to be solved.  Government for the few rather than the many is a problem.

It's hard to know what Marx would have done, if he had the opportunity to enact his own ideas. We only know what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did with their shot.  Following the Soviets, the other Marxist nations tried their versions too.  But none were already advance industrial nations, as Marx assumed.  None have seen the state fade away either -- quite to the contrary.  On the other hand, it doesn't take a genius to see that capitalism is at a crossroad.  The power of labor is already fading fast, and it's too easy for capital to take advantage.  

When all jobs are gig jobs, we'll become a true oligarchy or a massive change will occur.  It would be better for it to happen earlier, but we're Americans: we try everything else first.

Marx was likely a Myers Briggs Thinker. The best leader types tend to be Feelers. He was likely just better at writing books about abstract theory than he was at leading men.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 05:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Again, Marx correctly diagnosed the problem, but his way of solving the problem was a badly flawed failure which virtually no one is eager to repeat.  Even the Chinese Communist Party is working hand in hand with the capitalists these days.  This doesn't mean the problems of a grossly profiteering elite don't need to be solved.  Government for the few rather than the many is a problem.

Well, maybe the Boogaloo Bois.

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2020, 06:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-31-2020, 01:38 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(05-30-2020, 10:16 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You do realize that if you assign a description to everyone, that description becomes essentially useless?  

What would you know about integrity if you commonly describe those who disagree with you in ways which don't fit in the least?

I realize it but do you realize it? I ask because you describe us as racist and associate us with racism all the time. It's pretty much useless with us but that hasn't stopped you and others here from doing it. I assume that it's not useless with the minority voters on your side which is why you and others keep using it as much as you and others do.

Socialism works for the Republicans because it fits and it's now supported by most of the Democrats because the Democrats understand that they can't win without the support of those who either want it/believe in it. Now, socialism may not be your cup of tea but you're stuck with the term because the Democratic party is now open as far as socialism these days vs hiding it's association with it like it did for years.

No.  I only apply racism to racists.

Actually, the schtick of calling Democrats Socialist and Republicans fascist has faded somewhat.  A few die hard partisans such as yourself, Eric and Pbrower are still stuck a few decades back.

Some article pointed out recently that Trump is not quite the same as the fascists of 80-100 years ago, because while the fascists set up an efficient state and imposed total control, Trump is mainly an agent of chaos and destruction, and that's what his voters wanted. Needless to say his style of governing is totally inefficient. On the other hand, it is certainly racist, although less overt about it than the fascists; but they have that in common.

The two major Parties are moving farther apart today, and the conflict remains what it was a few decades back, and has intensified, only because no progress has been made on the same issues for 40 years, and regression has occurred. The issues don't go away just because they are not addressed. They get worse. That's what the authors said about a 4T; issues are not dealt with during a 3T, so they file up. There are no issues that have come up recently that are not those that were around a few decades back. The schticks happen because we are "schtuck."

I get that riots stoked by extremists and trouble makers on the left and the right can cause destruction, and that this might be counterproductive, and is not fair to the business owners caught in the middle. I get it Classic Xer that you are a neo-liberal free-market conservative, very hung up on this dominant Republican ideology that handouts are against the virtue of self-reliance, and that they cost you tax money which you and others don't want to spend on those who get them. And it's convenient to gloss over the fact that you and other conservatives see that the people who get these handouts are predominantly from certain disadvantaged ethnic groups.

But what is it, Classic, that accounts for you not mentioning, even once that I can see, the outrage of a policeman wantonly and without cause suffocating an innocent and unarmed black man to death? Even Trump deplored this murder. If you don't, that says something about you. You seem to have no concern about it. If you were not a racist, you would have some concern about this. Do you? Are gross violations of our human rights OK as long as the victim is black?

As JFK put it back in June 1963, is America the land of the free, except for the Negroes?

Democratic city authorities are not permitting the riots to continue. So you right-wingers don't need to be concerned that antifa is taking over our country. That is not the case. Socialism means different things to different people. The right-wing is always concerned that any concession to socialist ideas will lead to full-blown state ownership and control. I disagree with you on that. Sanders is not an advocate of the government of North Korea. He admires the governments of Scandinavia. But conflating this mixed-economy type of capitalism/socialism with totalitarian communism is a convenient slogan that induces fear among uneducated white people.

from wikipedia:
Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist"[7] and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights,[8][9] saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote."[10] He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism but rather describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_...ie_Sanders

Left and Right in the USA today, for whatever reason, disagree primarily today on the value of these "extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes." And, I might add, that has not changed in 124 years.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN has the Pentagon worried that the President seems to want the military to dominate the US battle space.  Rachel Maddow seemed to be quite confused about that the President tried to order, did order, or what he can clearly order regarding the use of the military to do police work with the US.  She had several military lawyers as guests, and it seems a great muddle and not a great idea.

There are two very old laws that apply.  One is Posse Comitatus act of 1878, passed at the end of the Reconstruction period, which forbids federal troops from acting as law enforcement without the governor in question requesting it.  The under text of that one was that Jim Crow got to prey upon blacks in the south and the federals would be in no position to do anything about it.  Since then the FBI has given the federals another enforcement arm.

The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807.  It allows the president to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.  It requires an invitation by the state governor, or that it becomes impracticable to enforce the federal laws, or if the states are unable to safeguard its inhabitant’s civil rights.

The mayor of St. Paul reports talking to his governor, who said that he has explicitly not invited the military in.  I don't know of any governor who has.

Right now Trump seems to have done something.  He brought the military into DC.  He removed peaceful protestors from a park near the White House.  He ticked of a bishop by holding a photo op by his church.  But it is not clear under what authority he did any of the above.

A new act in the saga of Trump.

[Eric the Green]

(06-01-2020, 09:56 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN has the Pentagon worried that the President seems to want the military to dominate the US battle space.  Rachel Maddow seemed to be quite confused about that the President tried to order, did order, or what he can clearly order regarding the use of the military to do police work with the US.  She had several military lawyers as guests, and it seems a great muddle and not a great idea.

There are two very old laws that apply.  One is Posse Comitatus act of 1878, passed at the end of the Reconstruction period, which forbids federal troops from acting as law enforcement without the governor in question requesting it.  The under text of that one was that Jim Crow got to prey upon blacks in the south and the federals would be in no position to do anything about it.  Since then the FBI has given the federals another enforcement arm.

The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807.  It allows the president to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.  It requires an invitation by the state governor, or that it becomes impracticable to enforce the federal laws, or if the states are unable to safeguard its inhabitant’s civil rights.

The mayor of St. Paul reports talking to his governor, who said that he has explicitly not invited the military in.  I don't know of any governor who has.

Right now Trump seems to have done something.  He brought the military into DC.  He removed peaceful protestors from a park near the White House.  He ticked of a bishop by holding a photo op by his church.  But it is not clear under what authority he did any of the above.

A new act in the saga of Trump.

Those two Acts seem a bit ambiguous. Trump will interpret any law as he sees fit, and it would be easy for him to claim that the states are not safeguarding their inhabitants' civil rights. I guess the FBI can't quell a riot, though.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN has an article on Republican senators defending the president's clearing out peaceful protestors for security purposes by using tear gas.

That has me wondering about the right of the people to peacefully assemble?  Is there a civil rights violation there?  Do you charge only the person who ordered it, or any officer that followed an illegal order to violate the Constitution?

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2020, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN has an article on Republican senators defending the president's clearing out peaceful protestors for security purposes by using tear gas.

That has me wondering about the right of the people to peacefully assemble?  Is there a civil rights violation there?  Do you charge only the person who ordered it, or any officer that followed an illegal order to violate the Constitution?

Of course it's a violation. Even the pro-Trump, anti-lockdown protesters with guns were not treated this way. Trump defies legal subpoenas, which I think alone is an impeachable offence, and was charged for this by the House. Others go to jail for this. He fires IGs and makes illegal executive orders. He is an aspiring dictator, and he promised in his 2016 campaign that those who demonstrate would be carried out on a stretcher. He has no respect for the Constitution or even any knowledge of it.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN reports that AG Barr had requested Nation Guard from several nearby states, but the support has been denied.  In at least one state, that the troops would be under White House command rather than the Mayor's was a factor.  So was Trumps desire to escalate thought unwise.  Cuomo in New York stated that he wanted the NY guard available for NY, and was disinclined to send them away at this time.

[pbrower2a]

(06-02-2020, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN has an article on Republican senators defending the president's clearing out peaceful protestors for security purposes by using tear gas.

That has me wondering about the right of the people to peacefully assemble?  Is there a civil rights violation there?  Do you charge only the person who ordered it, or any officer that followed an illegal order to violate the Constitution?

A church is a House of God, and not a political prop. 

(CNN now recognizes that the National Guard did not use tear gas or rubber bullets to give the President access to a church). 

I am not a religious person, but I can say that it would be far better if the President found Jesus and spend more time in prayer and less tweeting his stream-of-conscience tirades. That said, I would rather that he did some gardening or bowling than making those awful tweets that disfigure the Presidency.

[Bob Butler 54]

Again, this time in Florida, a police officer shoved a peaceful minority protestor and turned a peaceful crowd into a confrontation. He has been removed from any contact with the public, and the attorney general has opened an investigation.

That has got to become the expected norm. If the police are the ones to instigate the violence, the system has got to respond to end it.

[Bob Butler 54]

Florida again.  CNN reports Video captures police officer in Florida kneeling on a black man's neck during an arrest.  Again an investigation has resulted, though there is not additional action yet.

[David Horn]

We may be witnessing a change of heart. Why George Floyd's death has gotten traction, and not the many others that preceded it, is hard to understand, but it appears to be the case.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-04-2020, 09:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: We may be witnessing a change of heart.  Why George Floyd's death has gotten traction, and not the many others that preceded it, is hard to understand, but it appears to be the case.

Cameras are part of it.  There are just too many people with cell phones along with a habit of using them when they see something wrong.

But there is also a repetition.  It has been a few generations since the civil rights movement.  That resulted in a big change.  Still, it did not solve the problem in all aspects.  Black Lives Matter did not appear with George Floyd's death.  Each time clear videos surfaced, the protests got louder.  They may finally be getting loud enough.

[Bob Butler 54]

Pushing back, CNN tells of Buffalo officers quit special team after 2 officers suspended for allegedly shoving 75-year-old to ground.

First report lately of the police resisting the new drive for them to reduce excessive use of force.

Let them quit?  Fire them completely?

[Bob Butler 54]

Maddow had the mayor of Buffalo on as a guest.  He characterized the police union there as being a major obstacle to reform, a long term problem.  Some officers just want to use violence.  Buffalo would have to get in the habit of firing people until that culture is gone.  The mayor characterized the police as being on the wrong side of history.

Trump is presented as walking away from the COVID crisis, making the election about how well he is using violence to fight the people's protest for equality.  I think he too is on the wrong side of history, of going with violence rather than paying attention with the people.  As I said of China as well as Trump, you listen to the people instead of using violence to try to suppress them.

[pbrower2a]

(06-04-2020, 09:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-04-2020, 09:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: We may be witnessing a change of heart.  Why George Floyd's death has gotten traction, and not the many others that preceded it, is hard to understand, but it appears to be the case.

Cameras are part of it.  There are just too many people with cell phones along with a habit of using them when they see something wrong.

But there is also a repetition.  It has been a few generations since the civil rights movement.  That resulted in a big change.  Still, it did not solve the problem in all aspects.  Black Lives Matter did not appear with George Floyd's death.  Each time clear videos surfaced, the protests got louder.  They may finally be getting loud enough.

Back in 1984 I saw one commentator on a news program explain why, despite all the surveillance present then (you really have no privacy in a store, as hidden cameras are everywhere in case you should try to shoplift) suggest that even if Big Brother is watching us, we are watching Big Brother, too. And I do not mean the TV show!

What Orwell missed in his dystopian novel was that a surveillance-driven State would need armies of watchers. Most of what we do isn't interesting. So someone is watching cat videos. Yawn! So someone sends an e-mail giving a recipe for stuffing to go with the Thanksgiving turkey. Yawn! Most of what we do does not merit attention. Note well that a stealthily-hidden 'shower-cam' offends practically everyone and suggests a user in contempt of normal decencies in public life. We have no obligation to tolerate that sort of surveillance.

So I don't consider my trip to the all-in-one store a high point of my existence. I am there to get some groceries and perhaps pick up prescriptions, or an occasional 'sundry' such as a magazine or a video... but I know enough to not try to sneak out with something. I have done so by accident but returned to rectify the situation by returning the item. I have also left stuff behind.    

OK. Most of us know that the shoplifter is not our friend. If police radar catches someone going 74 in a 45 zone, then don't ask me for any sympathy. 

Obviously, stores and the police are not the only ones to have cameras. Getting caught doing a crime while a news camera rolls is a very bad idea because the news media and law enforcement often work together -- to get stories. Some stories are for the Six O'Clock or Eleven O'Clock News, but it it is of crime... news media and law enforcement  have cause to share information about a disgusting crime. There is no privacy if one is caught on a news camera. 

We have smart-phones that contain still and video cameras, and they can catch all sorts of crimes. So if someone in front of me on "Neil Armstrong Boulevard" happens to be driving in ways suggesting a drunk or drugged driver, I might pull over and take some video... and turn it over to the local police. Maybe the police might not be able to catch the fellow as an impaired driver, but the police can pay a visit to the owner of a Ford Taurus with licence plates 5XXX9999 and warn that the car has been driven in a suspicious manner.  

And note well -- cameras are just the thing to record police brutality, too. Some police forces now have running cameras in all squad cars. 

Tough luck, crooks, whatever side you are of the badge... "Little Sister" is watching you, too.

[David Horn]

(06-05-2020, 06:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Pushing back, CNN tells of Buffalo officers quit special team after 2 officers suspended for allegedly shoving 75-year-old to ground.

First report lately of the police resisting the new drive for them to reduce excessive use of force.

Let them quit?  Fire them completely?

Self selection has to occur if the anti-social cops need to move on. The alternative is mass firings, and that seems unlikely.  Even NYC and LA, both with histories of bad cops, will opt for ease out over throw out.  Change a few policies, and let the bad to marginal cops decide to comply or quit.  If firing is needed, keep it rare.

[Eric the Green]

(06-06-2020, 07:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-05-2020, 06:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Pushing back, CNN tells of Buffalo officers quit special team after 2 officers suspended for allegedly shoving 75-year-old to ground.

First report lately of the police resisting the new drive for them to reduce excessive use of force.

Let them quit?  Fire them completely?

Self selection has to occur if the anti-social cops need to move on. The alternative is mass firings, and that seems unlikely.  Even NYC and LA, both with histories of bad cops, will opt for ease out over throw out.  Change a few policies, and let the bad to marginal cops decide to comply or quit.  If firing is needed, keep it rare.

I think it needs to go faster than that. Cops who defend brutality and veiled racism should be fired. Police unions should be handcuffed so they are representing the economic interest of police workers and not defending brutality. I salute the police chiefs and mayors who have said that we don't need these cops on the force. Those who can be educated and retrained might be able to stay.

It's true the bad cops need to be replaced, and that could take a while, but it should not take too long.

Crime is higher in ethnic poor communities, and that creates fear and stress on police. Neighborhood policing by the people who live there is key. More social workers is key. Education of young black guys needs to improve too. Schools in poor ethnic neighborhoods are underfunded. Obviously, these schools should teach students that crime and violence is never justified no matter how poor we are, as well as to teach the real possibilities to succeed in life and help provide the tools. Black musicians, rap artists, actors and athletes need to teach that lesson through their work too. They are upper class now, and have a responsibility to teach young people to respect the law, as well as to fight the necessary battles against racism, criminal injustice, and class oppression, and the deprivation that happens through Reaganomics.

[Eric the Green]

(06-03-2020, 07:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Again, this time in Florida, a police officer shoved a peaceful minority protestor and turned a peaceful crowd into a confrontation.  He has been removed from any contact with the public, and the attorney general has opened an investigation.

That has got to become the expected norm.  If the police are the ones to instigate the violence, the system has got to respond to end it.

Exactly so.

[Bob Butler 54]

I also note many cities have removed curfews. This removes an excuse for violent police and federals to attack peaceful protestors. The protestors are no longer violating curfew if the curfew is not there, but clearly exercising their right to assemble for the redress of grievences. That's one way to curb the violence.