The Partisan Divide on Issues

[mamabug]

He won't be convicted because there is literally no upside for most GOP senators to vote that way. I realize this offends the Boomer/Millenial black v. white thinking that is 110% certain of the morality of it's proclamations but, in the words of a great unknown Gen X philosopher - whatever.

Pretty sure, at this point, that the average Republican representative and voter cares jack and squat about the concern trolling people who hate them are doing.

[David Horn]

(02-01-2021, 11:36 AM)mamabug Wrote: He won't be convicted because there is literally no upside for most GOP senators to vote that way.  I realize this offends the Boomer/Millenial black v. white thinking that is 110% certain of the morality of it's proclamations but, in the words of a great unknown Gen X philosopher - whatever.

Pretty sure, at this point, that the average Republican representative and voter cares jack and squat about the concern trolling people who hate them are doing.

They might remember the words of another anonymous source: what goes around, comes around. There will wailing in the streets if the same degree of opposition to GOP plans happens in a few years.

[pbrower2a]

(02-01-2021, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 11:36 AM)mamabug Wrote: He won't be convicted because there is literally no upside for most GOP senators to vote that way.  I realize this offends the Boomer/Millenial black v. white thinking that is 110% certain of the morality of it's proclamations but, in the words of a great unknown Gen X philosopher - whatever.

Pretty sure, at this point, that the average Republican representative and voter cares jack and squat about the concern trolling people who hate them are doing.

They might remember the words of another anonymous source: what goes around, comes around. There will wailing in the streets if the same degree of opposition to GOP plans happens in a few years.

The best attack against evil: "It would be just as wrong if we did it".

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-01-2021, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 11:36 AM)mamabug Wrote: He won't be convicted because there is literally no upside for most GOP senators to vote that way.  I realize this offends the Boomer/Millenial black v. white thinking that is 110% certain of the morality of it's proclamations but, in the words of a great unknown Gen X philosopher - whatever.

Pretty sure, at this point, that the average Republican representative and voter cares jack and squat about the concern trolling people who hate them are doing.

They might remember the words of another anonymous source: what goes around, comes around. There will wailing in the streets if the same degree of opposition to GOP plans happens in a few years.

After years of argument and obstruction, you have to start solving problems again.  The Republicans have put themselves in a place where they can't.  The turnings turn.

[Eric the Green]

(02-01-2021, 11:36 AM)mamabug Wrote: He won't be convicted because there is literally no upside for most GOP senators to vote that way.  I realize this offends the Boomer/Millenial black v. white thinking that is 110% certain of the morality of it's proclamations but, in the words of a great unknown Gen X philosopher - whatever.

Pretty sure, at this point, that the average Republican representative and voter cares jack and squat about the concern trolling people who hate them are doing.

Why should a reasonably-intelligent guy like you support someone who wants to overthrow our democracy because he wants to stay in office regardless of the election?

It is not a matter of whether Republicans are concerned about whether some people hate them. It is about the hate, lies and ignorance that motivated Trump and his followers to organize a violent, deadly attack on the Capitol, and about Republicans who defend lies that threaten the free exercize of democracy.

As Senator Romney, a red-state Republican who voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, said, if organizing a violent insurrection on the Capitol is not an impeachable offense, then I don't know what is.

[Eric the Green]

(01-31-2021, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 10:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

If he isn't convicted, a bunch of Republican senators will have discredited themselves in the general election.  If he is convicted, we will be rid of Trump.  It is worth putting up with a little theater.

The only Republican senators running the risk of being discredited and removed from contention are the five who are directly associated with another Democratic run shit show.

They are the heroes in this affair.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2021, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 10:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

If he isn't convicted, a bunch of Republican senators will have discredited themselves in the general election.  If he is convicted, we will be rid of Trump.  It is worth putting up with a little theater.

The only Republican senators running the risk of being discredited and removed from contention are the five who are directly associated with another Democratic run shit show.

Seems to me that they are mostly discredited already, will lose the primary if they fight Trump, will lose the general election if they don't, and are somehow traveling up (expletive deleted) Creek without a paddle.

[pbrower2a]

(02-02-2021, 11:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 10:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

If he isn't convicted, a bunch of Republican senators will have discredited themselves in the general election.  If he is convicted, we will be rid of Trump.  It is worth putting up with a little theater.

The only Republican senators running the risk of being discredited and removed from contention are the five who are directly associated with another Democratic run shit show.

Seems to me that they are mostly discredited already, will lose the primary if they fight Trump, will lose the general election if they don't, and are somehow traveling up (expletive deleted) Creek without a paddle.

It will take a long time for the Republican party to redeem itself of its complicity with the sordid behavior of Donald Trump. Democrats never compromised with Trump's worst deeds, and can repudiate about everything that Trump has done except for appointments to the US Supreme Court, cutting and running from Syria, and of course the mass death from COVID-19. On the latter it is impossible to repudiate death of the deceased so that the dearly-departed can return to life.  

Maybe we will have some conservative barriers to radical reforms that will not work out well, or the inevitable tendency toward local incidences of unchecked  corruption and incompetence. Maybe in the meantime the GOP goes the way of the Federalists and Whigs. We could see the Democratic Party become an unwieldy Big Tent before it divides into some two parties -- something like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in Germany?

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN seems to have echoed an idea of a three way struggle among the remnants of the Republican Party.  There are three contenders: Trump followers, the establishment and the true conservatives.  They mention the true conservatives as the long term best choice, but likely to end the long dominance of the conservatives in the short term.

[David Horn]

(02-02-2021, 11:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 10:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

If he isn't convicted, a bunch of Republican senators will have discredited themselves in the general election.  If he is convicted, we will be rid of Trump.  It is worth putting up with a little theater.

The only Republican senators running the risk of being discredited and removed from contention are the five who are directly associated with another Democratic run shit show.

Seems to me that they are mostly discredited already, will lose the primary if they fight Trump, will lose the general election if they don't, and are somehow traveling up (expletive deleted) Creek without a paddle.

I think that's why McConnell has finally decided that taking the hit now beats taking it just prior to an election.  He's praying that 17 Republicans will purge the party of Trump.  If the Dems were as cynical as McConnell has been, they would sit on their hands, and force a majority of Reps to 'convict' before they finish the job.

And you're right.  No matter what they do, the Reps lose in some fashion.

[David Horn]

(02-03-2021, 08:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN seems to have echoed an idea of a three way struggle among the remnants of the Republican Party.  There are three contenders: Trump followers, the establishment and the true conservatives.  They mention the true conservatives as the long term best choice, but likely to end the long dominance of the conservatives in the short term.

I never thought I would cheer the Patriots, but Trump's Patriots may be just the ticket to clear away some dead wood in our democracy.  If they split the GOP, make the remnants unelectable and the Dems get a supermajority, they should move decisively and quickly to enact as many changes as possible.  I doubt it will last long enough to change the Constitution, but maybe ...

[Einzige]

(02-03-2021, 11:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 08:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN seems to have echoed an idea of a three way struggle among the remnants of the Republican Party.  There are three contenders: Trump followers, the establishment and the true conservatives.  They mention the true conservatives as the long term best choice, but likely to end the long dominance of the conservatives in the short term.

I never thought I would cheer the Patriots, but Trump's Patriots may be just the ticket to clear away some dead wood in our democracy.  If they split the GOP, make the remnants unelectable and the Dems get a supermajority, they should move decisively and quickly to enact as many changes as possible.  I doubt it will last long enough to change the Constitution, but maybe ...

This was, basically, the logic of Weimar liberals with respect to the NSDAP: "If they steal votes from the DNVP, so much the better."

[David Horn]

(02-03-2021, 11:44 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 11:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 08:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN seems to have echoed an idea of a three way struggle among the remnants of the Republican Party.  There are three contenders: Trump followers, the establishment and the true conservatives.  They mention the true conservatives as the long term best choice, but likely to end the long dominance of the conservatives in the short term.

I never thought I would cheer the Patriots, but Trump's Patriots may be just the ticket to clear away some dead wood in our democracy.  If they split the GOP, make the remnants unelectable and the Dems get a supermajority, they should move decisively and quickly to enact as many changes as possible.  I doubt it will last long enough to change the Constitution, but maybe ...

This was, basically, the logic of Weimar liberals with respect to the NSDAP: "If they steal votes from the DNVP, so much the better."

There is never a guarantee of success, but playing a losing game by the same rules decade after decade is Einstein's definition of insanity.  We need to try something new. The old model is broken.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-03-2021, 11:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 08:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN seems to have echoed an idea of a three way struggle among the remnants of the Republican Party.  There are three contenders: Trump followers, the establishment and the true conservatives.  They mention the true conservatives as the long term best choice, but likely to end the long dominance of the conservatives in the short term.

I never thought I would cheer the Patriots, but Trump's Patriots may be just the ticket to clear away some dead wood in our democracy.  If they split the GOP, make the remnants unelectable and the Dems get a supermajority, they should move decisively and quickly to enact as many changes as possible.  I doubt it will last long enough to change the Constitution, but maybe ...

There are still enough votes for the Republicans to be obstructionist if they do not kill the filibuster, but I think the mood is to solve problems.  The Republicans would be shooting themselves in the foot if they tried to continue to make the Democrats look bad by preventing solutions to problems.  Too many people can suddenly see real problems.  Two reconciliations.  Two bills.  One of them looks to be COVID relief.  

Will the Republicans try to continue to obstruct racial injustice?  Not really a budget related bill, so not the ideal target for reconciliation.  If the Democrats are out to kill the filibuster, racial justice would be a good issue to press.

I am doubtful about amendments.  There are too many tiny states.  

We will see where we are after the Republicans finish their power struggle.  I see Trump leading the racists, McConnell leading the elitists, and the Lincoln Project is trying to focus the true conservatives in the rear.  BLM hit the racists, perhaps critically, nobody likes the elites, but the true conservatives are well lagging at the moment.

Pass the popcorn please?

[Einzige]

(02-03-2021, 12:06 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 11:44 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 11:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 08:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN seems to have echoed an idea of a three way struggle among the remnants of the Republican Party.  There are three contenders: Trump followers, the establishment and the true conservatives.  They mention the true conservatives as the long term best choice, but likely to end the long dominance of the conservatives in the short term.

I never thought I would cheer the Patriots, but Trump's Patriots may be just the ticket to clear away some dead wood in our democracy.  If they split the GOP, make the remnants unelectable and the Dems get a supermajority, they should move decisively and quickly to enact as many changes as possible.  I doubt it will last long enough to change the Constitution, but maybe ...

This was, basically, the logic of Weimar liberals with respect to the NSDAP: "If they steal votes from the DNVP, so much the better."

There is never a guarantee of success, but playing a losing game by the same rules decade after decade is Einstein's definition of insanity.  We need to try something new. The old model is broken.

 
A Keynesian welfare capitalism is still part of the old model.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-03-2021, 12:09 PM)Einzige Wrote: A Keynesian welfare capitalism is still part of the old model.

The Republican combination of elitist money and racist votes during the unraveling was a problem.  The crisis is looking to trash both.  Not possible to go back to when America was great, but it is possible to go back into another progressive era such as the New Deal through Great Society.  I think solving the crisis problems could do it.

Again, democratic societies can change culture in the Information Age through protest and legislation.  Violence may still be necessary in autocratic cultures.  They just ignore the people.  We'll see how well Putin does with that.  Anyway, you'd be better off trying to sell your vision of living off the welfare of the state while declining real work in autocracies, but I doubt it will get far.

[Einzige]

Quote:The Republican combination of elitist money and racist votes during the unraveling was a problem.  The crisis is looking to trash both.  Not possible to go back to when America was great, but it is possible to go back into another progressive era such as the New Deal through Great Society.  I think solving the crisis problems could do it.

Probably it is. But the New Deal and the Great Society did, in fact, set the stage for this collapse. Welfare did undermine the traditional family unit - a historical necessity. It did create a military industrial complex under the guise of works projects. These things were deliberate. Capitalist progressivism will always perpetuate capitalism, which will always lead to greater crises down the line.

[David Horn]

(02-03-2021, 12:09 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 12:06 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 11:44 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 11:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-03-2021, 08:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN seems to have echoed an idea of a three way struggle among the remnants of the Republican Party.  There are three contenders: Trump followers, the establishment and the true conservatives.  They mention the true conservatives as the long term best choice, but likely to end the long dominance of the conservatives in the short term.

I never thought I would cheer the Patriots, but Trump's Patriots may be just the ticket to clear away some dead wood in our democracy.  If they split the GOP, make the remnants unelectable and the Dems get a supermajority, they should move decisively and quickly to enact as many changes as possible.  I doubt it will last long enough to change the Constitution, but maybe ...

This was, basically, the logic of Weimar liberals with respect to the NSDAP: "If they steal votes from the DNVP, so much the better."

There is never a guarantee of success, but playing a losing game by the same rules decade after decade is Einstein's definition of insanity.  We need to try something new. The old model is broken.

 
A Keynesian welfare capitalism is still part of the old model.

Keynes is vastly more modern than Marx, who had an industrial focus. There is a diversity in today's economy that vastly exceeds anything either man contemplated, but Keynes never worried about 'the means of production', so his model seems more suited to today. Ownership can remain in private hands if it is distributed widely and fairly, and opposed by a public sphere that keeps it in check.  Integrating all that under one umbrella guarantees tyranny (e.g. the Soviet or Maoist models) or chaos and bedlam (if the state 'withers away').  Let ownership devolve to a sovereign wealth fund, created by taxing corporations through stock rather than money.  Small mom-and-pop operations would be more hobby than business, why bother with them?

[Einzige]

Quote:  Keynes is vastly more modern than Marx, who had an industrial focus.

Marx anticipated the integration of computers into the economy and the transition to an Information Economy through his correspondence with Charles Babbagee (c.f. "Fragment on Machines", Grundrisse. Moreover, there were advocates for fiat money-financed social spending before Keynes, and Marx dealt with them often - e.g. the Lassalleans.

Quote:There is a diversity in today's economy that vastly exceeds anything either man contemplated.

Again, Marx speculated about the computerization of the economy four years after the American Civil War.

Quote:Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.

... But, once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form, and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.

Labor is labor. We still exist in an industrial economy; the idea of a "service economy" is a myth. The only distinction is that industry is now computerized, and the workers are conscious linkages between machines.

Quote:Ownership can remain in private hands if it is distributed widely and fairly, and opposed by a public sphere that keeps it in check.

It can, but it won't.

Quote:Integrating all that under one umbrella guarantees tyranny (e.g. the Soviet or Maoist models) or chaos and bedlam (if the state 'withers away').  Let ownership devolve to a sovereign wealth fund, created by taxing corporations through stock rather than money.  Small mom-and-pop operations would be more hobby than business, why bother with them?

Because this is all basically deterministic. Small mom and pop shops play no role at all in the real economy. Small business will always be squeezed out at a regular and increasing tempo, and the demands of small proprietors for wealth redistribution to their class will increasingly resemble demands for redistribution of land in third world countries.

[David Horn]

(02-03-2021, 12:32 PM)Einzige Wrote:

Quote:  Keynes is vastly more modern than Marx, who had an industrial focus.

Marx anticipated the integration of computers into the economy and the transition to an Information Economy through his correspondence with Charles Babbagee (c.f. "Fragment on Machines", Grundrisse. Moreover, there were advocates for fiat money-financed social spending before Keynes, and Marx dealt with them often - e.g. the Lassalleans.

Quote:There is a diversity in today's economy that vastly exceeds anything either man contemplated.

Again, Marx speculated about the computerization of the economy four years after the American Civil War.

Quote:Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.

... But, once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form, and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.

Labor is labor. We still exist in an industrial economy; the idea of a "service economy" is a myth. The only distinction is that industry is now computerized, and the workers are conscious linkages between machines.

Quote:Ownership can remain in private hands if it is distributed widely and fairly, and opposed by a public sphere that keeps it in check.

It can, but it won't.

Quote:Integrating all that under one umbrella guarantees tyranny (e.g. the Soviet or Maoist models) or chaos and bedlam (if the state 'withers away').  Let ownership devolve to a sovereign wealth fund, created by taxing corporations through stock rather than money.  Small mom-and-pop operations would be more hobby than business, why bother with them?

Because this is all basically deterministic. Small mom and pop shops play no role at all in the real economy.

Feel free to shout, but it makes no noticeable difference.  What we call productivity today is only lightly tied to actual physical production.  Marx had an industrial-centric view of the economy that is no longer truly valid, and his  sociology is simply unworkable.  Full credit: he understood that all value originates from labor.  That may be changing now.