The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(10-29-2020, 12:32 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 10:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yet, you support packing the courts with Liberal judges and turning the Supreme Court into a legislative branch right.

But I am not claiming some kind of bogus originalist doctrine that is only a slogan and escuse for your conservative idiots to declare rulings regardless of what they mean for our country.

I'd rather have a Conservative judge that goes by the rule of law than a Liberal judge who views themself as being above the law and able to change laws as they please. You're playing with fire and you're going to get burned. If you're willing to place everything  on the line and  die for abortion, be my guest.

I'd rather have all of you idiots voted out permanently and this country returned to the rule of law and decency, instead of burning up and flooding the country and taking away our democracy as your court is doing. You are willing to see your land flooded and burned, and you are going to get burned. The antifa and BLM are going to come fer ya, take yer guns, take yer air condishning, and burn your house down.

You're seeing the ugly results of having people like us voted out permanently. Like I said, it's a race to the bottom and the Democratic side is winning and we're going to keep it that way.

Nothing would be more beautiful or work as well as having you guys voted out permanently.

[pbrower2a]

(10-29-2020, 12:32 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 10:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yet, you support packing the courts with Liberal judges and turning the Supreme Court into a legislative branch right.

But I am not claiming some kind of bogus originalist doctrine that is only a slogan and escuse for your conservative idiots to declare rulings regardless of what they mean for our country.

I'd rather have a Conservative judge that goes by the rule of law than a Liberal judge who views themself as being above the law and able to change laws as they please. You're playing with fire and you're going to get burned. If you're willing to place everything  on the line and  die for abortion, be my guest.

I'd rather have all of you idiots voted out permanently and this country returned to the rule of law and decency, instead of burning up and flooding the country and taking away our democracy as your court is doing. You are willing to see your land flooded and burned, and you are going to get burned. The antifa and BLM are going to come fer ya, take yer guns, take yer air condishning, and burn your house down.

You're seeing the ugly results of having people like us voted out permanently. Like I said, it's a race to the bottom and the Democratic side is winning and we're going to keep it that way.

So how are Germany, Italy, and Japan 'ruined' by no longer having the fascist Parties that got them into apocalyptic war? 

Your side has taken its power and abused it, using it to 'stick it' to people who will never support them politically. That is not how American politics has ever achieved anything lasting. Donald Trump has solved nothing, and he has bungled the response to COVID-19, which is killing Americans about like the Civil War did.

No, Classic X'er... you can live with a social-market economy quite well. You will pay higher taxes, but you will also have better opportunities to succeed in your honest business. If more people in the Twin Cities can afford to buy and maintain air conditioning because America is more prosperous for people other than the gatekeepers of opportunity, then you will do fine. 

Global warming, which your President denies as a possibility will make people need air conditioning in the Twin Cities as the climate of such a place as Kansas City or St. Louis (both of which have brutal summers) comes your way, probably in your lifetime. Let us hope that either we stop global warming before hundreds of millions starve due to inundation or desertification of prime farmland.  I am less certain about rainfall than about rising sea level and  rising temperatures. Global warming is one of the most reckless risks that Humanity has ever known, short perhaps only of global thermonuclear war. Global warming could cause even greater loss of life than global thermonuclear war, and in view of human nature in the shadow of pointless death I can imagine global warming leading to genocidal wars that make World War II seem tame by contrast. 

You may not be a cruel person under ordinary circumstances, but you seem to stand for a President whose cruelty is a huge part of his character. Most Americans know the difference between Good and Evil and recognize that distinction as the most important in human existence. Toying with evil is like provoking a bear; it can maul and even kill you. Evil offers nobody anything except quick gain easily lost and sadistic delight that wears thin and that can be turned against you when the most evil people turn against you for their own sadistic delight once you become helpless.

[Eric the Green]

Democrats have a lot to do if they win. It's hard to remember it all. Here's just a taste.

1. Reverse all of Drumpshit's executive orders, such as keeping out "feriners," polluting our environment and climate, destroying our government, and destroying education.

2. Rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, Arms Control, realistic Middle East peace negotiations, full backing for our NATO allies, and end the funding for deadly, useless wars like the one in Yemen. Reduce the absurd size of the military budget.

3. End gerrymandering across the country so Republicans or any party can no longer ruthlessly require that legislators choose their voters rather than the other way around. We need a democracy with power given to the people, not to a bunch of "republicans" who think some people deserve to have more power than others.

4. Remove the filibuster, at least as long as we have a bunch of crazy reactionaries like Classic Xer block every damn thing the people want.

5. Once that is done, DC and Puerto Rico and maybe Guam too need to be given representation in the Senate and the House, so that our constitution does not automatically give Republicans an easy chance to give all power to a relatively few parochial, provincial idiot white redneck voters from out in the sticks and the boondocks, every time that young people get bored or frustrated and fail to vote in a midterm election. The House has already passed DC statehood. Eventually, work around or eliminate the Electoral College.

6. The Supreme Court needs to be reformed so that it is not a political vehicle for a right-wing extremist minority who want to implant their regressive policies upon the nation for generations at a time. That may involve term limits, limits on how many judges a president can appoint per term, and at least for now, adding liberal justices. And with the other reforms, at least there's a better chance that another Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump won't be back to do the same thing to us. Demographically, the extreme right wing is on the way out. And we could put things back the way they were once this cold-civil war anomaly has past.

7. The Supreme Court has already begun to throw out climate legislation, and will throw out more. This must be totally reversed, and subsidies for fossil fuels must end and be replaced with funding for building recharging stations and alternative energy that is truly green. Regulations on emissions must be restored and increased right away.

8. The new John Lewis voting rights act must be passed right away, and passed again and again until we get a supreme court that respects what he put his life on the line for at the old Edmund Pettis Bridge. The same goes for campaign finance reform and counter-acting all the effects of the Citizens United decision and all similar decisions based on the idiotic notion that wealth equals free speech.

9. Economic restructuring must begin. It can start with raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour, and raising taxes on those making over $400,000 a year. And realistically that figure may need to be lowered a ways. And higher minimums need to be considered for wealthier states and businesses. Our economy is being roboticized and people are losing their jobs due to this and free trade. The few who own the machines should not get all the benefit from them. Raise taxes on wealthy corporations so that more income support can be given to workers, and better safety nets for those who can't find work or who work in non-profit and creative pursuits.

10. I'll leave it at 10 for now, and I won't discuss gun control, abortion, women's and gay rights, trade, workers' rights, consumer rights, unions, regulating speculation, infrastructure, housing, and education here, etc., but health care and the pandemic is on everyone's mind. Trump and the repugs have slashed funding and programs for disease control and research, and it must be restored at once, including full plans to control the current and future pandemics. Health care reform must proceed with plans to move toward a medicare for all system.

[David Horn]

(10-30-2020, 01:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats have a lot to do if they win. It's hard to remember it all. Here's just a taste...

10. I'll leave it at 10 for now, and I won't discuss gun control, abortion, women's and gay rights, trade, workers' rights, consumer rights, unions, regulating speculation, infrastructure, housing, and education here, etc., but health care and the pandemic is on everyone's mind. Trump and the repugs have slashed funding and programs for disease control and research, and it must be restored at once, including full plans to control the current and future pandemics. Health care reform must proceed with plans to move toward a medicare for all system.

Eras take a long time coming to fruition, and this one will be no exception (assuming it begins soon).

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-31-2020, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-30-2020, 01:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats have a lot to do if they win. It's hard to remember it all. Here's just a taste...

10. I'll leave it at 10 for now, and I won't discuss gun control, abortion, women's and gay rights, trade, workers' rights, consumer rights, unions, regulating speculation, infrastructure, housing, and education here, etc., but health care and the pandemic is on everyone's mind. Trump and the repugs have slashed funding and programs for disease control and research, and it must be restored at once, including full plans to control the current and future pandemics. Health care reform must proceed with plans to move toward a medicare for all system.

Eras take a long time coming to fruition, and this one will be no exception (assuming it begins soon).  This one will be no different.

Agreed. The last progressive era ended when the racist vote turned out to be stronger than the black vote. We wound up with the conservatives dominant as a result. We have talked about the shifting demographics all through the unraveling, but that is a slow process. I suspect Trump will be the catalyst that brings America over the top, that a progressive victory Tuesday could result in a period that lasts for decades.

Crises seem inevitably to be between a conservative stay the same faction and a progressive solve the problem one. It does not seem prudent to predict this will change. But the issues last time were government regulation of the economy and containing autocratic dictators. That is quite different from COVID and structural racism, the two hottest issues now. I see no reason to expect the next crisis to have similar issues to this one.

Alas, we won't see.

[Eric the Green]

(10-31-2020, 01:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-31-2020, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-30-2020, 01:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats have a lot to do if they win. It's hard to remember it all. Here's just a taste...

10. I'll leave it at 10 for now, and I won't discuss gun control, abortion, women's and gay rights, trade, workers' rights, consumer rights, unions, regulating speculation, infrastructure, housing, and education here, etc., but health care and the pandemic is on everyone's mind. Trump and the repugs have slashed funding and programs for disease control and research, and it must be restored at once, including full plans to control the current and future pandemics. Health care reform must proceed with plans to move toward a medicare for all system.

Eras take a long time coming to fruition, and this one will be no exception (assuming it begins soon).  This one will be no different.

Agreed.  The last progressive era ended when the racist vote turned out to be stronger than the black vote.  We wound up with the conservatives dominant as a result.  We have talked about the shifting demographics all through the unraveling, but that is a slow process.  I suspect Trump will be the catalyst that brings America over the top, that a progressive victory Tuesday could result in a period that lasts for decades.

Crises seem inevitably to be between a conservative stay the same faction and a progressive solve the problem one.  It does not seem prudent to predict this will change.  But the issues last time were government regulation of the economy and containing autocratic dictators.  That is quite different from COVID and structural racism, the two hottest issues now.  I see no reason to expect the next crisis to have similar issues to this one.

Alas, we won't see.

When I talk about a progressive era, like we have had in the past, I generally mean a decade. Sometimes it can last for a turning. Usually, a 4T is progressive, but a battle. Afterward, there is a pulling back during the first turning because people want domestic peace and are happy to conform. This time, I expect progressive movements to continue into the first turning, partly because that's what I see in the cycles. Our 4T contained much that was still 3T, and so there is a lag. However, I expect a more-fully 1T mood to take hold in the late 2030s. Still, 1T conservatism, apart from some extreme reactions, is generally moderate. Ike, Grant, Washington. The Awakening will follow, which will bring progressive movements of our time since the sixties to greater fruition. So, in that sense, we will see a generally progressive era, with ups and downs, through the 2050s. Much will come to fruition, but all problems are never solved and new ones come up. It's the human condition. But we progress and unfold, if we continue to live up to who we are as humans.

Conservatives made something of a comeback after 1968, but it was a partial one, and after Watergate it went away. Many reform movements continued in the 1970s with important results. The conservative era, which had its forerunners in the mid and late sixties (during a progressive time), really began with Reagan. He instituted trickle-down economics, aka neo-liberalism, which is a racist dog whistle, but is not entirely racist. It appeals to economic libertarians. It was anti-taxation and regulation. Wholly unnecessary, it was brought about because big interests found the movements of the Awakening like consumerism and environmentalism cutting into their bottom line. They hired Reagan to deceive people into following them. He was a master communicator and a brilliant faux-macho charming actor whom Gen X grew up with, and they absorbed the lies and have stuck with him through Bush, Gingrich, Bush Jr., Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump. Many Silents and Boomers were persuaded to give up their sixties and seventies idealism and join in the greedy fun. Strauss and Howe called the 1984 victory an all-generational acquiescence into indulgence.

So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

True, but the elites are few and they need to address some issue focused around the common people to get power. In this case, it was the racist vote. I suspect most Republicans were not so interested in weakening the influence of the worker, in increasing elite power, but the elites and racists made an unholy alliance.

[pbrower2a]

(10-31-2020, 03:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

True, but the elites are few and they need to address some issue focused around the common people to get power.  In this case, it was the racist vote.  I suspect most Republicans were not so interested in weakening the influence of the worker, in increasing elite power, but the elites and racists made an unholy alliance.

Question: who can do more good for the lily-white part of the American elite: racists who achieve little, have much potential for destructiveness and political disruption... or the well-behaved, creative, learned, successful leaders within the Model Minorities?  The racists and the Model Minorities have nothing in common, and they can never be in the same political coalition. 

It is one of the common observations of Marxists that racism often exists as a means of pitting segments of the working class against each other to lead to a race to the bottom in pay and working conditions that allows classic, pointless (but lucrative!) exploitation. This is one of the few obvious and sound observations of Marxist analysis of capitalism. (Yes, there always are sordid capitalists who sacrifice any moral stricture to enhance profits.

[Eric the Green]

(10-31-2020, 03:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

True, but the elites are few and they need to address some issue focused around the common people to get power.  In this case, it was the racist vote.  I suspect most Republicans were not so interested in weakening the influence of the worker, in increasing elite power, but the elites and racists made an unholy alliance.

I don't assume that the common people are focused on racism. Some of them are. But it is also the neo-liberal vote. This is not an ideology for elites, even though it was originally created by them. It is the most popular ideology out there. Just give tax breaks and relaxed regulations to the rich, and the benefits will trickle down, so the government won't interfere in my business and I can pay less taxes. Some followers of this neo-liberal ideology are closet or out-of-closet racists, and some are just economic libertarians who don't like to pay taxes. Reagan introduced this ideology to the people, instituted it and made it popular until today, along with his successors I have named.

Lower taxes, combined with religious fundamentalism and gun rights, plus a strong dash of militarist patriotism, make up the right-wing Republican appeal to the common people, along with racism, xenophobia, and closet-versions thereof. Some people do say that this racism and neo-liberalism combo has the aim of white people hogging the wealth. 

The Republicans are definitely interested in weakening the influence of the worker, and passed legislation to this effect. Neo-liberalism respects entrepreneurs, not workers. It is the Party of business-boosters, and the people are deceived by the tempting promise to reduce government (who likes government? It diminishes "freedom" and creates "dependency"), and that giving breaks to "job creaters" will trickle-down. This appeal has been most attractive to the common people in red states and counties, including deceived workers. Anything less than wholesale neo-liberalism in all its aspects is effectively denounced as "socialism" or "communism." It is NOT an elite ideology; it is even mistakenly called "populism." The Tea Party was the most recent neo-liberal movement.

[David Horn]

(10-31-2020, 01:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Crises seem inevitably to be between a conservative stay the same faction and a progressive solve the problem one.  It does not seem prudent to predict this will change.  But the issues last time were government regulation of the economy and containing autocratic dictators.  That is quite different from COVID and structural racism, the two hottest issues now.  I see no reason to expect the next crisis to have similar issues to this one.

Alas, we won't see.

Sad, but we've elected to ignore issues that won't go away. We have AGW that is totally immune to cycles other than its own.  There may be others out there awaiting as well. For example, over population may still revive in a different form.  The wonderful world without walls guarantees more disease spread, as well as invasive species creating havoc everywhere.  Our issues, or at least the ones we've decided to address, are small potatoes in the grand scheme of things -- not unimportant, surely, but human and addressable by humans if we decide to do it.

On the other hand, politics, vicious and other wise, will endure.

[David Horn]

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Conservatives made something of a comeback after 1968, but it was a partial one, and after Watergate it went away. Many reform movements continued in the 1970s with important results. The conservative era, which had its forerunners in the mid and late sixties (during a progressive time), really began with Reagan. He instituted trickle-down economics, aka neo-liberalism, which is a racist dog whistle, but is not entirely racist. It appeals to economic libertarians. It was anti-taxation and regulation. Wholly unnecessary, it was brought about because big interests found the movements of the Awakening like consumerism and environmentalism cutting into their bottom line. They hired Reagan to deceive people into following them. He was a master communicator and a brilliant faux-macho charming actor whom Gen X grew up with, and they absorbed the lies and have stuck with him through Bush, Gingrich, Bush Jr., Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump. Many Silents and Boomers were persuaded to give up their sixties and seventies idealism and join in the greedy fun. Strauss and Howe called the 1984 victory an all-generational acquiescence into indulgence.

So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

Where you live, I think you're right. Where I live, not so much.  Here, and many places less urban than the Blue Coasts, there was a fascination with all things Southern starting with the Nixon era, but really gaining speed under Carter (or perhaps, Carter was another example of the trend).  It's only beginning to wane today.  

Baked-in culture is much harder to dislodge than more superficial and temporary fads, and we baked in that culture for decades.  Of course the 3T ran overly long.  A lot of it was the immense anti-hippie backlash, and some is more mundane, like religion.  But the prime motivator was a fear of an uncertain future ... of progress itself. Moving that toward another belief structure will be many decades in the making.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-01-2020, 08:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Conservatives made something of a comeback after 1968, but it was a partial one, and after Watergate it went away. Many reform movements continued in the 1970s with important results. The conservative era, which had its forerunners in the mid and late sixties (during a progressive time), really began with Reagan. He instituted trickle-down economics, aka neo-liberalism, which is a racist dog whistle, but is not entirely racist. It appeals to economic libertarians. It was anti-taxation and regulation. Wholly unnecessary, it was brought about because big interests found the movements of the Awakening like consumerism and environmentalism cutting into their bottom line. They hired Reagan to deceive people into following them. He was a master communicator and a brilliant faux-macho charming actor whom Gen X grew up with, and they absorbed the lies and have stuck with him through Bush, Gingrich, Bush Jr., Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump. Many Silents and Boomers were persuaded to give up their sixties and seventies idealism and join in the greedy fun. Strauss and Howe called the 1984 victory an all-generational acquiescence into indulgence.

So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

Where you live, I think you're right. Where I live, not so much.  Here, and many places less urban than the Blue Coasts, there was a fascination with all things Southern starting with the Nixon era, but really gaining speed under Carter (or perhaps, Carter was another example of the trend).  It's only beginning to wane today.  

Baked-in culture is much harder to dislodge than more superficial and temporary fads, and we baked in that culture for decades.  Of course the 3T ran overly long.  A lot of it was the immense anti-hippie backlash, and some is more mundane, like religion.  But the prime motivator was a fear of an uncertain future ... of progress itself. Moving that toward another belief structure will be many decades in the making.

Some of it was future shock.  Enough changed in the 1960s that there was a rejection of more change.  But I think the blue idea was debated endlessly and enough throughout the unravelling that we will slip into it easy enough.

[Eric the Green]

(11-01-2020, 09:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-01-2020, 08:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Conservatives made something of a comeback after 1968, but it was a partial one, and after Watergate it went away. Many reform movements continued in the 1970s with important results. The conservative era, which had its forerunners in the mid and late sixties (during a progressive time), really began with Reagan. He instituted trickle-down economics, aka neo-liberalism, which is a racist dog whistle, but is not entirely racist. It appeals to economic libertarians. It was anti-taxation and regulation. Wholly unnecessary, it was brought about because big interests found the movements of the Awakening like consumerism and environmentalism cutting into their bottom line. They hired Reagan to deceive people into following them. He was a master communicator and a brilliant faux-macho charming actor whom Gen X grew up with, and they absorbed the lies and have stuck with him through Bush, Gingrich, Bush Jr., Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump. Many Silents and Boomers were persuaded to give up their sixties and seventies idealism and join in the greedy fun. Strauss and Howe called the 1984 victory an all-generational acquiescence into indulgence.

So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

Where you live, I think you're right. Where I live, not so much.  Here, and many places less urban than the Blue Coasts, there was a fascination with all things Southern starting with the Nixon era, but really gaining speed under Carter (or perhaps, Carter was another example of the trend).  It's only beginning to wane today.  

Baked-in culture is much harder to dislodge than more superficial and temporary fads, and we baked in that culture for decades.  Of course the 3T ran overly long.  A lot of it was the immense anti-hippie backlash, and some is more mundane, like religion.  But the prime motivator was a fear of an uncertain future ... of progress itself. Moving that toward another belief structure will be many decades in the making.

Some of it was future shock.  Enough changed in the 1960s that there was a rejection of more change.  But I think the blue idea was debated endlessly and enough throughout the unravelling that we will slip into it easy enough.

Yes, Dixie went reactionary fairly soon, especially culturally, but overall some progress continued in the 1970s in the environmental and consumer movements and women's and gay rights, and war lost its appeal and momentum for a while. But huge spending to reduce poverty went out of style fairly quickly I must admit. It continued to some extent, with jobs programs continuing, and then was reversed in the 1980s and from then on.

[David Horn]

(11-01-2020, 01:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-01-2020, 09:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-01-2020, 08:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Conservatives made something of a comeback after 1968, but it was a partial one, and after Watergate it went away... Many Silents and Boomers were persuaded to give up their sixties and seventies idealism and join in the greedy fun. Strauss and Howe called the 1984 victory an all-generational acquiescence into indulgence.

So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

Where you live, I think you're right. Where I live, not so much.  Here, and many places less urban than the Blue Coasts, there was a fascination with all things Southern starting with the Nixon era, but really gaining speed under Carter (or perhaps, Carter was another example of the trend).  It's only beginning to wane today.  

Baked-in culture is much harder to dislodge than more superficial and temporary fads, and we baked in that culture for decades.  Of course the 3T ran overly long.  A lot of it was the immense anti-hippie backlash, and some is more mundane, like religion.  But the prime motivator was a fear of an uncertain future ... of progress itself. Moving that toward another belief structure will be many decades in the making.

Some of it was future shock.  Enough changed in the 1960s that there was a rejection of more change.  But I think the blue idea was debated endlessly and enough throughout the unravelling that we will slip into it easy enough.

Yes, Dixie went reactionary fairly soon, especially culturally, but overall some progress continued in the 1970s in the environmental and consumer movements and women's and gay rights, and war lost its appeal and momentum for a while. But huge spending to reduce poverty went out of style fairly quickly I must admit. It continued to some extent, with jobs programs continuing, and then was reversed in the 1980s and from then on.

As long as dog whistles still work, we're changing nothing.  Trump ran up a huge Latinx vote in Miami-Dade county Florida, by screaming SOCIALISM! It worked, and sill continue to work on the fearful many who still remain -- mostly older folks, though not all.  Socialism has been used as a battle cry for over a century, and it still has that old magic for enough to make it useful.

[Bob Butler 54]

The theory suggests different moods, different styles of action. In the unravelling there is a lot of talk, compromise, arguing and stalemate. In the crisis there is a lot of effort to solve problems, and you let go of those values which cause problems. In the high, you worship the solutions that worked, suppress the values that caused the problems while building infrastructure.

One angle to look at the situation is that there are too many people fond of the old values so it is impossible to solve the problems. Biden can change the tone. Unless he has two houses of Congress backing him up, he can’t solve the problems alone.

A part of the problem is an unwillingness to compromise. We elected a black president. This resulted in a racist unwillingness to compromise. Apart from Obamacare, we have not moved much since. As things are looking, if the red continue this obstruction, the blue will be unable to get anything through congress, and the veto will prevent them from getting anything through congress. What results is like it or not a continuation of the unravelling. The problems don’t get solved.

That does not make a lot of sense. That seems the way we could be heading.

An answer would be to solve problems. What it would take is that on each issue a handful of red congressmen would have to care more about America than maintaining the party lockstep. On the blue side, it would take respecting red values and goals enough to not try to crush them. The unravelling mentality is to refuse to compromise. The crisis mentality is to solve problems, which seems to require compromise.

It means giving up the things the other guys want most in order to get what you want most.

One issue is the bug. We want a federal over reaching plan. We want to drive the bug down until we can test, trace and reopen the economy effectively. Is it possible to find a handful of Republican congressmen who want what is best for America?

One issue is racist violent policing. The reds blocked any federal solution. Do the reds want the protest and the looters, boogaloo boys, and militias to continue the violence, or will a handful of congress let go of the lockstep.

The founding fathers did not conceive of weapons that the people shouldn’t have. It is fairly obvious that there are some. Can we get rid of the justification phrase with its mention of the militia, make the individual right to bear civilian arms absolute and unquestionable, and distinguish military arms by such things as multi shots per trigger pull, power per shot and magazine size? Can we reach a reasonable compromise, or will the insistence on total extreme solutions mean the problem is left unsolved?

Trump would encourage violence. He saw it to his advantage to divide. Does anyone want that to become part of the culture? Can we agree that everybody should cut it out?

I could go on. One problem at a time. Start solving problems. If the culture of party obstruction being more important than America continues, the unraveling could effectively continue. If the extremists insist on total wins of their point of view, what we will get is deadlock.

[Eric the Green]

(11-04-2020, 06:04 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The theory suggests different moods, different styles of action.  In the unravelling there is a lot of talk, compromise, arguing and stalemate.  In the crisis there is a lot of effort to solve problems, and you let go of those values which cause problems.  In the high, you worship the solutions that worked, suppress the values that caused the problems while building infrastructure.

One angle to look at the situation is that there are too many people fond of the old values so it is impossible to solve the problems.  Biden can change the tone.  Unless he has two houses of Congress backing him up, he can’t solve the problems alone.

A part of the problem is an unwillingness to compromise.  We elected a black president.  This resulted in a racist unwillingness to compromise.  Apart from Obamacare, we have not moved much since.  As things are looking, if the red continue this obstruction, the blue will be unable to get anything through congress, and the veto will prevent them from getting anything through congress.  What results is like it or not a continuation of the unravelling.  The problems don’t get solved.

That does not make a lot of sense.  That seems the way we could be heading.

An answer would be to solve problems.  What it would take is that on each issue a handful of red congressmen would have to care more about America than maintaining the party lockstep.  On the blue side, it would take respecting red values and goals enough to not try to crush them.  The unravelling mentality is to refuse to compromise.  The crisis mentality is to solve problems, which seems to require compromise.

It means giving up the things the other guys want most in order to get what you want most.

One issue is the bug.  We want a federal over reaching plan.  We want to drive the bug down until we can test, trace and reopen the economy effectively.  Is it possible to find a handful of Republican congressmen who want what is best for America?

One issue is racist violent policing.  The reds blocked any federal solution.  Do the reds want the protest and the looters, boogaloo boys, and militias to continue the violence, or will a handful of congress let go of the lockstep.

The founding fathers did not conceive of weapons that the people shouldn’t have.  It is fairly obvious that there are some.  Can we get rid of the justification phrase with its mention of the militia, make the individual right to bear civilian arms absolute and unquestionable, and distinguish military arms by such things as multi shots per trigger pull, power per shot and magazine size?  Can we reach a reasonable compromise, or will the insistence on total extreme solutions mean the problem is left unsolved?

Trump would encourage violence.  He saw it to his advantage to divide.  Does anyone want that to become part of the culture?  Can we agree that everybody should cut it out?

I could go on.  One problem at a time.  Start solving problems.  If the culture of party obstruction being more important than America continues, the unraveling could effectively continue.  If the extremists insist on total wins of their point of view, what we will get is deadlock.

I hope we start someday. I thought we would. The worst thing is the fires, floods and droughts. No-one is safe from these anymore, and they were in our power to stop. Now I'm not so sure. It is possible, given the planetary and other cycles I see, that just as the 3T mindset has continued into what is certainly a 4T, perhaps a 4T mindset will get some activism done during the 1T. Neptune only enters activist Aries and leaves escapist Pisces in 2025-26. By then and starting in about 2029 maybe things may get done during what is usually a period of recovery, stagnation, conformity and sometimes greed, but can also be a time of consensus, progress, building and accomplishment. Either we are just blowing it, which is very possible, and probably means a destroyed or much-diminished civilization on Earth, or we are just up to speed with the cycle.

[Eric the Green]

(11-04-2020, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-01-2020, 01:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-01-2020, 09:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-01-2020, 08:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-31-2020, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Conservatives made something of a comeback after 1968, but it was a partial one, and after Watergate it went away... Many Silents and Boomers were persuaded to give up their sixties and seventies idealism and join in the greedy fun. Strauss and Howe called the 1984 victory an all-generational acquiescence into indulgence.

So it was more than the racist vote versus the black vote. There are a lot of concerns around which our current polarization has developed.

Where you live, I think you're right. Where I live, not so much.  Here, and many places less urban than the Blue Coasts, there was a fascination with all things Southern starting with the Nixon era, but really gaining speed under Carter (or perhaps, Carter was another example of the trend).  It's only beginning to wane today.  

Baked-in culture is much harder to dislodge than more superficial and temporary fads, and we baked in that culture for decades.  Of course the 3T ran overly long.  A lot of it was the immense anti-hippie backlash, and some is more mundane, like religion.  But the prime motivator was a fear of an uncertain future ... of progress itself. Moving that toward another belief structure will be many decades in the making.

Some of it was future shock.  Enough changed in the 1960s that there was a rejection of more change.  But I think the blue idea was debated endlessly and enough throughout the unravelling that we will slip into it easy enough.

Yes, Dixie went reactionary fairly soon, especially culturally, but overall some progress continued in the 1970s in the environmental and consumer movements and women's and gay rights, and war lost its appeal and momentum for a while. But huge spending to reduce poverty went out of style fairly quickly I must admit. It continued to some extent, with jobs programs continuing, and then was reversed in the 1980s and from then on.

As long as dog whistles still work, we're changing nothing.  Trump ran up a huge Latinx vote in Miami-Dade county Florida, by screaming SOCIALISM! It worked, and will continue to work on the fearful many who still remain -- mostly older folks, though not all.  Socialism has been used as a battle cry for over a century, and it still has that old magic for enough to make it useful.

Indeed, along with slogans about guns and abortion. It would be good to get the Cuba issue off the table. If Biden and maybe Secretary of State Rice (?) can open up to Cuba again, and nudge them to at least gradually respect human rights and democracy more, if not the greedy capitalism many of those refugees favored and miss, they will be ameliorated and maybe they will go home again. Many of them are already young people who were never in Cuba, and yet they can be hypnotized and deceived by that slogan.

Only in the USA is socialism such a dirty word. It is the heritage of our red scares, principally at 30-year intervals in the 1920s, 50s and 80s and the tea-party 2010s too. The USA led the Cold War, and socialism and communism was the enemy. But socialism brought good government to Milwaukee, as a PBS doc showed. It can be a mixed economy and a democracy and it does not lead to tyranny. Many governments have been socialist to a degree, including ours from 1933 to 1981. Socialism is part of our revolutionary heritage that has liberated humanity to some degree since 1789, in the three great phases of which it was the second. It is essential, if not sufficient, to progress.

[David Horn]

(11-04-2020, 06:04 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The theory suggests different moods, different styles of action.  In the unravelling there is a lot of talk, compromise, arguing and stalemate.  In the crisis there is a lot of effort to solve problems, and you let go of those values which cause problems.  In the high, you worship the solutions that worked, suppress the values that caused the problems while building infrastructure.

One angle to look at the situation is that there are too many people fond of the old values so it is impossible to solve the problems.  Biden can change the tone.  Unless he has two houses of Congress backing him up, he can’t solve the problems alone.

A part of the problem is an unwillingness to compromise.  We elected a black president.  This resulted in a racist unwillingness to compromise.  Apart from Obamacare, we have not moved much since.  As things are looking, if the red continue this obstruction, the blue will be unable to get anything through congress, and the veto will prevent them from getting anything through congress.  What results is like it or not a continuation of the unravelling.  The problems don’t get solved.

That does not make a lot of sense.  That seems the way we could be heading.

I read a short piece about historical context earlier today.  One of the commenters made the argument that this is the 1850s.  I've always believed that the 1850s were fully a part of the ACW Crisis period (not a lot of support for that, but it's still my view).  We can't have a sectional war this time., because the sections are all intertwined, but that doesn't eliminate anarchic violence, and I think we may have put ourselves there two days ago. 

My county went Trump 3 to1. I'm not surprised, but still can't understand the attraction.  Most of my neighbors are white, educated and financially comfortable.  They're still all-in for the Orange One.  I understand the resentment faction, with declining opportunities and stressed lives. What's with the others like my neighbors?  Is it all 401k, and screw everything else?

[pbrower2a]

(11-05-2020, 01:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-04-2020, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote: As long as dog whistles still work, we're changing nothing.  Trump ran up a huge Latinx vote in Miami-Dade county Florida, by screaming SOCIALISM! It worked, and will continue to work on the fearful many who still remain -- mostly older folks, though not all.  Socialism has been used as a battle cry for over a century, and it still has that old magic for enough to make it useful.

Indeed, along with slogans about guns and abortion. It would be good to get the Cuba issue off the table. If Biden and maybe Secretary of State Rice (?) can open up to Cuba again, and nudge them to at least gradually respect human rights and democracy more, if not the greedy capitalism many of those refugees favored and miss, they will be ameliorated and maybe they will go home again. Many of them are already young people who were never in Cuba, and yet they can be hypnotized and deceived by that slogan.

Only in the USA is socialism such a dirty word. It is the heritage of our red scares, principally at 30-year intervals in the 1920s, 50s and 80s and the tea-party 2010s too. The USA led the Cold War, and socialism and communism was the enemy. But socialism brought good government to Milwaukee, as a PBS doc showed. It can be a mixed economy and a democracy and it does not lead to tyranny. Many governments have been socialist to a degree, including ours from 1933 to 1981. Socialism is part of our revolutionary heritage that has liberated humanity to some degree since 1789, in the three great phases of which it was the second. It is essential, if not sufficient, to progress.

Trump runs on fear.  The economic orthodoxy in America is now absolute plutocracy -- or at lest as absolute that is just short of causing ugly consequences in plain sight, like children with distended bellies.  Trump is highly reflective of his class except for a proletarian vulgarity that is his supposed ability to relate to the common man. The Koch brothers at the least sponsored classical music -- something that I hardly expect Trump's supporters to find compatible with their tastes. 

Trump appeals to mass ignorance as if such is benefice. (It would be better if people had more learning so that they would be more competent, independent, and economically viable, but that is itself a different story).

[Bob Butler 54]

While this thread is primarily about red against blue, the struggle for control of the Republican Party has begun.  I will say a little about that.

The establishment - elitist - obstructionist - McConnell wing of the party is beginning to distance itself from Trump.  With control of the senate and the Supreme Court, they are in a position to block the Democrats and take the lead by legislating from the bench.

The Trumpets - base - racist - former Tea Party wing is still Trump’s.  It is not clear that he will loose influence with the 2020 defeat.  The Tea Party in the primaries to 2016 showed how they could block the establishment, and I have no reason to believe they will not eat any establishment candidate that goes against Trump.  I applaud them turning against the establishment, abhor their turning to the biggest alligator in the swamp, and note that they were enamored of Palin before they swapped to Trump.  Will they look to someone else?  Was the establishment dumping Trump mistaken?

The third faction is the Lincoln Project - Republicans Against Trump - Vote Vets - Never Trumpers.  They talk some about having burned their bridges, about their never being hired by a Republican candidate or organization again.  Still, they have not gone away.  They are attempting to rebuild a party, without elitist influence, without a Trump racist influence.

For the sake of the red, I hope it is the Never Trumpers that comes out on top, but I suspect that the Trump base has the most to run with, while the establishment is in the position of doing the most harm.