Who Can Beat Trump?

[Bad Dog]

Here's the video about how which part of America needs to go...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiIhOY6DCBQ

And, the book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0061QB16Y/ref...TF8&btkr=1

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2018, 10:50 AM)Bad Dog Wrote: I'm still trying to see the words "Trump", and "Grey Champion" in the same sentence....

Must need new glasses again.

 it is easy.  Try the sentence "Trump will not be generally accepted as the Grey Champion".  

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2018, 07:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Incidentally that quoted passage was said by my own Uncle who regularly calls me a honkey loving uncle tom ass coon.

Sounds like you're uncle is one astute dude. More astute than your daddy anyway.

[pbrower2a]

(08-25-2018, 10:50 AM)Bad Dog Wrote: I'm still trying to see the words "Trump", and "Grey Champion" in the same sentence....

Must need new glasses again.

Donald Trump having bungled the Presidency so badly in so many ways, America will be ready to accept a successor very different from him as the Grey Champion with a mandate to undo the damage that he and other right-wingers have done.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-24-2018, 02:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You can call me a Republican voter because that's what I am and what I have been for a long time. You can call me rich because that's what I am compared to PB, a typical member of the blue working class or a low end blue voter surviving off government subsidies. As far us ( the two of us), we are equals whether you like it or not. As you know, I have no love for the Democrats and I place no value on the Democratic party of today whatsoever. Some day, if you happen to live long enough, you will find out how accurate my view of things are pertaining the blues, the blue system, its opportunistic  use of multiple values pertaining to multiple groups of people and the future of blue America as a whole.

I see a period of the past some call the Agricultural Age.  It featured slaves, kings and serfs.  War was cost effective.  Weapons were weak enough that the strong could prey on the weak and the system flourished.  The S&H crises of the Industrial Age in Western Civilization each ended one aspect of the Agricultural Age values.  Some can pretend that this is an accident.  The victors write the histories.  There is no arrow of progress.  Noting happened of note.  I do not believe it.  With the printing press, steam power, democracy, human rights and chemical weapons the Agricultural Age became obsolete.

Now this is not to say all conservatives favor slavery and kings.  Some battles have been fought, won and are in the past.  However, in any given crisis, there are conservatives who benefit from the status quo who resist change, who resist anything good happening for anyone else.  They justify it.  They will say that things like kings or slavery existed and are the cornerstone of all civilization.  They will say that changing what has always been will lead to disaster.

But whenever I see anything political that feels like racism, sexism and privilege I see the remnants of the Agricultural Age.  I am an enemy of the Agricultural Age.

Now that doesn't mean one must oppose everything conservative.  One can see where parts of the country respect independence, others strong communities.  Some see the good that comes from members of the primary community being armed, of good guys having the edge over bad guys, while others seek arms prohibition.  There are many things to be respected from conservative thinking.

But...

A new age is coming.  They haven't agreed on a name yet, on what is important.  Some have called it the Information Age.  Some post scarcity.  At any rate, the computer, nuclear weapons and renewable energy are changing things.  Global Warming will someday have to be addressed fully.  We will have to take care of waste.  Nuclear war would no longer be cost effective.  War has never been moral.  Working everybody hard will no longer be as necessary with the increase in productivity.

Conservatives seem ready to ignore these problems, to let them build, to say if the existing culture was good enough in the recent past, perfection has been reached and there is no need to address changes.

These problems can be put off in my time.  These problems can be ignored by the older generations, but will come to a head in some living people's lifetimes.  Given the slowness of change in human cultures, I am unwilling to wait.  Global Warming in particular is a problem.  The symptoms will not hit conservatives over the head hard enough until it is too late.

This makes me progressive.  This does not make me a good little Democrat.  My perspective is too long for that.  I look back to the Agricultural Age, and forward to what comes next.  Most Democrats are fighting today's issues with a narrower time window.  Most do not see the need for upheaval as much as I do, but they are much much closer.

So whenever I see a group that is looking to hoard resources from other groups, I see remnants of Agricultural Age thinking.  This is something to be fought.  That is pure selfishness.  That seems to have too strong a place in the Republican agenda.   It is easy to see that kings and slaves are wrong.  It is harder to see that one's own values, the issues of the current turning, are just as wrong, that the arrow of progress is real and relevant.  What one is fighting for may be viewed very much as evil by people of the new values.  What is traditional today is no longer acceptable tomorrow.

This hardly means the Democrats are right on every issue, or that conservatives are automatically wrong.  However, I am more often with the progressives.

[David Horn]

(08-24-2018, 12:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-24-2018, 11:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: I see an entire administration lining its pockets.  Note: none are Democrats.  Where its the Betsy DeVos of the left?  Or Wilber Ross, for that matter? And that is peanuts in comparison to the guy at the top.

I could go down the line, but why bother.  You won't agree anyway.

You most likely voted for a woman who was lining her pockets for years as the First Lady and an elected or appointed GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. I don't care  if Trump made a fortune as a private citizen within the private sector, as a high end real estate developer for decades. Me, I see obvious signs associated with doing something big on a whim and operating a shoe string budget with no support from the Republican establishment that's in the process of being eliminated or pushed out or being replaced by a temporary Democrat.

The Clintons are no paragons of virtue, but both were smart enough to wait until they were out of office to hit the lecture circuit.  Trump, on the other hand, is doing business while in office, and much of it with foreign governments.  There is an emoluments clause in the constitution that specifically prohibits that … but whatever.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2018, 10:59 AM)Bad Dog Wrote: Here's the video about how which part of America needs to go...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiIhOY6DCBQ

And, the book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0061QB16Y/ref...TF8&btkr=1

Well said, and once again as in 1860 we are confronted with the power of Dixie in a 4T, and what to do about it. And now Dixie certainly extends to the other rednecks in the plains and mountains.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-26-2018, 01:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-25-2018, 10:59 AM)Bad Dog Wrote: Here's the video about how which part of America needs to go...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiIhOY6DCBQ

And, the book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0061QB16Y/ref...TF8&btkr=1

Well said, and once again as in 1860 we are confronted with the power of Dixie in a 4T, and what to do about it. And now Dixie certainly extends to the other rednecks in the plains and mountains.

Where the population density is lower, problems seem less.  When people live further apart, they place their own problem solving above distant communities.  I know I just said why I am generally with the progressives and why, but the conservatives have good reason sometimes for what they hold true. Sometime the great issues are not in play. Sometimes it is just inertia that determines approach, or the mythical common sense. One should at least listen.

[David Horn]

(08-26-2018, 04:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Where the population density is lower, problems seem less.  When people live further apart, they place their own problem solving above distant communities.  I know I just said why I am generally with the progressives and why, but the conservatives have good reason sometimes for what they hold true.  Sometime the great issues are not in play. Sometimes it is just inertia that determines approach, or the mythical common sense.  One should at least listen.

I live in a very Red area, and the rules of political discourse are firm and inviable: Red viewpoints can and should be stated loudly and proudly; contrary viewpoints are fighting words.  It makes political discourse impossible.  Since I live in a pseudo-enclave around a recreational lake, there are people from outside the area living here as well.  If they come from the north, or even northern Virginia, they experience some degree of culture shock pretty quickly -- even if they consider themselves to be conservatives.  It's less politics than culture, and culture doesn't change easily.

[Eric the Green]

(08-26-2018, 04:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2018, 01:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-25-2018, 10:59 AM)Bad Dog Wrote: Here's the video about how which part of America needs to go...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiIhOY6DCBQ

And, the book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0061QB16Y/ref...TF8&btkr=1

Well said, and once again as in 1860 we are confronted with the power of Dixie in a 4T, and what to do about it. And now Dixie certainly extends to the other rednecks in the plains and mountains.

Where the population density is lower, problems seem less.  When people live further apart, they place their own problem solving above distant communities.  I know I just said why I am generally with the progressives and why, but the conservatives have good reason sometimes for what they hold true.  Sometime the great issues are not in play. Sometimes it is just inertia that determines approach, or the mythical common sense.  One should at least listen.

Sometimes they think they have good reasons for what they hold true, but often those reasons are based on having been deceived and locked in old values, worldviews and prejudices. We blues can listen to them if we can, and be respectful if we can. That doesn't mean that communication is possible. Only if someone is ready and interested to start with, can an idea be communicated to that person.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-27-2018, 10:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2018, 04:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Where the population density is lower, problems seem less.  When people live further apart, they place their own problem solving above distant communities.  I know I just said why I am generally with the progressives and why, but the conservatives have good reason sometimes for what they hold true.  Sometime the great issues are not in play. Sometimes it is just inertia that determines approach, or the mythical common sense.  One should at least listen.

I live in a very Red area, and the rules of political discourse are firm and inviable: Red viewpoints can and should be stated loudly and proudly; contrary viewpoints are fighting words.  It makes political discourse impossible.  Since I live in a pseudo-enclave around a recreational lake, there are people from outside the area living here as well.  If they come from the north, or even northern Virginia, they experience some degree of culture shock pretty quickly -- even if they consider themselves to be conservatives.  It's less politics than culture, and culture doesn't change easily.

More culture than politics is bad, but because the problem exists for many red does not justify it for the blue.

[pbrower2a]

Maybe we will be in the Regeneracy once and for all when quality matters more than identity. We have plenty to solve, beginning with poverty. We have much obsolete infrastructure. If you want to speak of highways, then I can think of plenty of highway projects, including transforming one of the busiest rural expressways in America from two lanes in both directions to three, and replacing one of its cloverleaf interchanges (horrible accident waiting to happen when a truck jackknives going too fast for conditions, which can result from some fool cutting off an eighteen-wheeler). If I tell you what state and part of the state it is in I will give much away.

We are going to need more water and more energy. Solar power, anyone?



I can think of something far better than some wall resembling the Berlin Wall wall along our border: a freeway along US 83 which would connect a big chunk of America badly served by current highways. Rural freeways stimulate local development along them; urban expressways can wreck urban areas.

[pbrower2a]

You must read down in the article to see this, but it is worth the read.

Quote:Some of McCain’s protégés, however, also included the ranks of lobbyists. McCain had a strange blindness to their presence, which could be most charitably described as fierce loyalty. At the same time as he sincerely railed against influence-peddlers—and presented himself as a successor to Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive-era crusading—his inner circle contained the very forces he decried. One of these loyalists was the man who eventually managed his campaign in the 2008 presidential race, Rick Davis. For nearly a decade, Davis was the named partner in Paul Manafort’s lobbying firm, called Davis, Manafort.

All the intramural squabbling that made McCain’s inner circle so entertaining to cover also makes it hard to clearly decipher. Rival McCainland tribes often posit competing narratives of events. Best I can tell, Paul Manafort viewed McCain’s 2008 campaign as an easy mark. He hoped to leverage his relationship with Rick Davis to enrich himself and to endear his firm to clients. One of his first ploys was to create a business (called 3eDC) that would sell the campaign proprietary software to manage websites and online fundraising—which earned Manafort a lucrative contract with the McCain operation. (After aides complained to McCain about 3eDC, he canceled the contract, although the campaign had already spent $1 million on it.) Evidence from Manafort’s recent troubles with the law have shown his inability to convert a PDF document to Microsoft Word, which makes it hard to believe that he once presented himself as a tech entrepreneur.

The most prized client of Manafort’s and Davis’s lobbying firm in 2006 was the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, one of the richest men in the world. At the time, Deripaska had the esteem and ear of Vladimir Putin, who considered him one of his most important proxies. Davis and Manafort helped Deripaska rub shoulders with McCain. They introduced McCain to Deripaska at a party in Davos in 2007; seven months later, they brought McCain to Deripaska’s yacht, which was anchored off Montenegro, where the oligarch hosted a seventieth birthday party for the Arizona senator. (The actress Anne Hathaway also attended those festivities.) This story is fully told in an outstanding investigative piece, published by The Nation.

What The Nation described is a sort of tangled relationship with lobbyists that McCain so eloquently denounced in other contexts; it also showed McCain getting perilously close to an ally of the Kremlin, even as he denounced Vladimir Putin. McCain should have seen these dangers earlier, and he should have reacted more furiously upon discovering them. Davis’s rivals in the campaign had denounced Davis so often and for so long that perhaps it caused McCain to discount their warnings about Manafort.

McCain took these complaints seriously only after Davis’s rivals charged Manafort with owning an apartment in Trump Tower, allegedly purchased by Oleg Deripaska. (There’s no evidence that I have seen to bolster that allegation, although Manafort was, indeed,  in the midst of further entangling himself with the Russian oligarch in various other business ventures.) As McCain considered these allegations, he began to articulate the menace represented by Paul Manafort. One McCain aide told me the candidate instructed Davis and Manafort to cease their firm’s ties with its pro-Russian clients—an edict that Manafort apparently ignored.

According to McCain aides, the crucial moment came in the planning for the 2008 convention. I was told that Manafort lobbied desperately to become manager of the Republican National Convention, to take on the role of orchestrating the show. This was the sort of job that he held several times before. It represented the sort of behind-the-scenes power that he sought his entire career.  Because of his relationship with Davis, and because of his resume, he thought of the job as something close to his birthright. But McCain didn’t want any further association with Manafort, so he denied him the job, a rejection that sent Manafort into a fit of rage and depression. All the evidence for rejecting Paul Manafort as a man of dubious character was amply available in 2008—and McCain acted upon it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...rt/568600/

Winning an election with the aid of Manafort would have gotten John McCain a tainted Presidency. Some elections are not worth winning. The best thing for the GOP would have been a victory for Hillary Clinton even if that came with some Democratic wins of Senate seats (knocking out Senators in Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) because Republicans would have made easy marks of Democratic senators such as Democrats up for re-election in 2018. Democrats might have knocked off Toomey in Pennsylvania and Johnson in Wisconsin -- who are both awful  -- only to lose perhaps as many as eight Senators in a 2018 wave. A Republican wave, instead of a Democratic wave.

I remember John McCain correcting Dubya for saying that he looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and seeing a wonderful person... and all that McCain could see were the letters КГБ. Those transliterate to KGB in Latin script. I suspect that as a POW he met some and without relish.

The Soviet Union could make few deals with American politicians because most are well connected to the capitalist system that the Soviet Union sought to destroy. It got some sell-out spies in quid pro quo deals, but it could never appeal to the political and economic elites of America. But to want its sort of political change one had to be sympathetic to the Commie agenda. The current Russian Federation does not need people who serve some agenda hostile to capitalist wealth and power. Putin can work with vain grifters and grafters like Donald Trump as someone like Brezhnev never could.

[David Horn]

(08-27-2018, 12:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-27-2018, 10:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2018, 04:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Where the population density is lower, problems seem less.  When people live further apart, they place their own problem solving above distant communities.  I know I just said why I am generally with the progressives and why, but the conservatives have good reason sometimes for what they hold true.  Sometime the great issues are not in play. Sometimes it is just inertia that determines approach, or the mythical common sense.  One should at least listen.

I live in a very Red area, and the rules of political discourse are firm and inviable: Red viewpoints can and should be stated loudly and proudly; contrary viewpoints are fighting words.  It makes political discourse impossible.  Since I live in a pseudo-enclave around a recreational lake, there are people from outside the area living here as well.  If they come from the north, or even northern Virginia, they experience some degree of culture shock pretty quickly -- even if they consider themselves to be conservatives.  It's less politics than culture, and culture doesn't change easily.

More culture than politics is bad, but because the problem exists for many red does not justify it for the blue.

There is a point where everyone feels put-upon.  The Red culture seems to have reached this point decades ago -- if not longer.  Religion certainly plays a part, but patriarchy is just as important.  There is a reverence for the Red Elites (for lack of a better description), and a rock-rib belief in the sanctity of work (unless you belong to the elite class, of course).  Hence, a man who works two or three jobs, is never home and often dies young is honored, but working smart is considered sloth.  This is one of the bugaboos Red culture has against Blue culture: they're "lazy".  Add atheism (assumed) and communism (they want hand-outs instead of work) and you have a belief system that can't be breached.  

I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

[pbrower2a]

(08-28-2018, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-27-2018, 12:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-27-2018, 10:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2018, 04:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Where the population density is lower, problems seem less.  When people live further apart, they place their own problem solving above distant communities.  I know I just said why I am generally with the progressives and why, but the conservatives have good reason sometimes for what they hold true.  Sometime the great issues are not in play. Sometimes it is just inertia that determines approach, or the mythical common sense.  One should at least listen.

I live in a very Red area, and the rules of political discourse are firm and inviable: Red viewpoints can and should be stated loudly and proudly; contrary viewpoints are fighting words.  It makes political discourse impossible.  Since I live in a pseudo-enclave around a recreational lake, there are people from outside the area living here as well.  If they come from the north, or even northern Virginia, they experience some degree of culture shock pretty quickly -- even if they consider themselves to be conservatives.  It's less politics than culture, and culture doesn't change easily.

More culture than politics is bad, but because the problem exists for many red does not justify it for the blue.

There is a point where everyone feels put-upon.  The Red culture seems to have reached this point decades ago -- if not longer.  Religion certainly plays a part, but patriarchy is just as important.  There is a reverence for the Red Elites (for lack of a better description), and a rock-rib belief in the sanctity of work (unless you belong to the elite class, of course).  Hence, a man who works two or three jobs, is never home and often dies young is honored, but working smart is considered sloth.  This is one of the bugaboos Red culture has against Blue culture: they're "lazy".  Add atheism (assumed) and communism (they want hand-outs instead of work) and you have a belief system that can't be breached.  

I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

The man who is working three jobs is hurting his children who will miss his influence. Working smart is wise, and good for personal well-being. It is to be done if at all possible, as such allows one to work one job and be adequately rewarded. That's why we have colleges, trade schools, and formal apprenticeships. Raw labor has always been ill-rewarded and treated callously in every society that has ever existed, which may even explain why people become capitalists.

Machines can work dumb, and they are taking away the unskilled and semi-skilled industrial and labor jobs.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-28-2018, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote: There is a point where everyone feels put-upon.  The Red culture seems to have reached this point decades ago -- if not longer.  Religion certainly plays a part, but patriarchy is just as important.  There is a reverence for the Red Elites (for lack of a better description), and a rock-rib belief in the sanctity of work (unless you belong to the elite class, of course).  Hence, a man who works two or three jobs, is never home and often dies young is honored, but working smart is considered sloth.  This is one of the bugaboos Red culture has against Blue culture: they're "lazy".  Add atheism (assumed) and communism (they want hand-outs instead of work) and you have a belief system that can't be breached.  

I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

Well, are there bigoted blues who rock down believe that Reds are religious, patriarchic, reverent believers in 3 jobs and opponents of communism and atheism?  Does this describe the reds we see on this board?  Are all blues this rock down bigoted?

Now, I do believe in hating the Agricultural Age premises, in hating elites, greed, in solving problems, in the Enlightenment values of democracy, human rights and equality.  This has noting to do with the Red vision of Blues as communist, atheist, addicts into handouts.  Everybody has their vile stereotypes, dark projections of what the other guys are like.  You just covered a common Red one, and went so far as to say it is nigh on universal in some parts of America.  At the same time, you illustrated a Blue bigotry in not addressing the true reasons that Reds advocate things like small government, reduced regulation and lower taxes.  They have their point.  They should make their point.  You can respect many points.  But in the best of possible worlds, we will still end up with government, regulation and taxes.

I would say these vile stereotypes are often inaccurate, and the problem is a great degree in how hard people cling to the stereotypes.  Blues have to speak clearly about what Blues really stand for and puncture these Red stereotypes, and vice versa.  We ought to be centered on what everyone really believes, not on the garbage stereotypes.  As is, people are into the stereotypes, not the reality.

If we could dump the stereotypes, if we could deal with the real values, we might combine things into something that could be respected by both sides.  I think building that could result in a regeneracy.

[David Horn]

(08-29-2018, 05:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-28-2018, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote: There is a point where everyone feels put-upon.  The Red culture seems to have reached this point decades ago -- if not longer.  Religion certainly plays a part, but patriarchy is just as important.  There is a reverence for the Red Elites (for lack of a better description), and a rock-rib belief in the sanctity of work (unless you belong to the elite class, of course).  Hence, a man who works two or three jobs, is never home and often dies young is honored, but working smart is considered sloth.  This is one of the bugaboos Red culture has against Blue culture: they're "lazy".  Add atheism (assumed) and communism (they want hand-outs instead of work) and you have a belief system that can't be breached.  

I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

Well, are there bigoted blues who rock down believe that Reds are religious, patriarchic, reverent believers in 3 jobs and opponents of communism and atheism?  Does this describe the reds we see on this board?  Are all blues this rock down bigoted?

Now, I do believe in hating the Agricultural Age premises, in hating elites, greed, in solving problems, in the Enlightenment values of democracy, human rights and equality.  This has noting to do with the Red vision of Blues as communist, atheist, addicts into handouts.  Everybody has their vile stereotypes, dark projections of what the other guys are like.  You just covered a common Red one, and went so far as to say it is nigh on universal in some parts of America.  At the same time, you illustrated a Blue bigotry in not addressing the true reasons that Reds advocate things like small government, reduced regulation and lower taxes.  They have their point.  They should make their point.  You can respect many points.  But in the best of possible worlds, we will still end up with government, regulation and taxes.

I live in the epicenter of Red America, but Reds live many places other than here. I grew-up in upstate New York, which is also conservative though less dogmatic. That doesn't lessen the impact that Trumpism has had on the entire Red tribe. He's toxic in a way that no other politician has been in a long time. So yes, there is received dogma that is unique to the Red tribe and this time in history. Is it universal? Nearly, though not totally. We may get a glimpse of how completely the Kool-Aid diet has been absorbed after the November election.

Bob Butler Wrote:I would say these vile stereotypes are often inaccurate, and the problem is a great degree in how hard people cling to the stereotypes.  Blues have to speak clearly about what Blues really stand for and puncture these Red stereotypes, and vice versa.  We ought to be centered on what everyone really believes, not on the garbage stereotypes.  As is, people are into the stereotypes, not the reality.

If we could dump the stereotypes, if we could deal with the real values, we might combine things into something that could be respected by both sides.  I think building that could result in a regeneracy.

I agree that we all tend to fight the demons in our minds, rather than our true opponents in our midst. No one is listening to anyone not inside their own tribe, because they get roasted by both sides for doing it. As it stands, the Red tribe has much more to lose and much fewer resources to draw-on for solutions. To add to the fire, the Blue tribe is out of patience with the Red tribe, so generosity is not likely to be in the cards.

It's a safe assumption that things will get even more ugly before they improve.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-29-2018, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

I agree that each vile stereotype could be considered unique, and that Trump's recent stereotype of the Blue is worse and more pervasive than many, but that does not not excuse in my view the holders and actors upon other vile stereotypes.  Many reds have something real to say.  The complaints that they are being shut out are real and meaningful.

(08-29-2018, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: I agree that we all tend to fight the demons in our minds, rather than our true opponents in our midst.  No one is listening to anyone not inside their own tribe, because they get roasted by both sides for doing it.  As it stands, the Red tribe has much more to lose and much fewer resources to draw-on for solutions.  To add to the fire, the Blue tribe is out of patience with the Red tribe, so generosity is not likely to be in the cards.  

It's a safe assumption that things will get even more ugly before they improve.

A very safe assumption, especially if no one is listening.

[David Horn]

(08-29-2018, 11:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

I agree that each vile stereotype could be considered unique, and that Trump's recent stereotype of the Blue is worse and more pervasive than many, but that does not not excuse in my view the holders and actors upon other vile stereotypes.  Many reds have something real to say.  The complaints that they are being shut out are real and meaningful.

I'm sure the Red message is much fainter in Very Blue Massachusetts, but the opposite is true where I live. I hear the Red message all the time, and most of it comes down to either resentment of others for their success or 'otherism' due to color, gender identity or simple philosophical bent. The South is still largely unreconstructed.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: I agree that we all tend to fight the demons in our minds, rather than our true opponents in our midst.  No one is listening to anyone not inside their own tribe, because they get roasted by both sides for doing it.  As it stands, the Red tribe has much more to lose and much fewer resources to draw-on for solutions.  To add to the fire, the Blue tribe is out of patience with the Red tribe, so generosity is not likely to be in the cards.  

It's a safe assumption that things will get even more ugly before they improve.

A very safe assumption, especially if no one is listening.

Listening is not hearing, but, equally true, wisdom is not the product of opinionizing. Having an opinion that is inherently bad, for whatever reason, is still a bad opinion no matter how earnestly felt.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-30-2018, 12:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 11:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: I just don't see that kind of bullheaded nonsense in the Blue world.  Are many Blues misguided?  Of course, but not to the point of taking up arms: an integral part of Red world if you are allowed to see it.  Since Trump, it's openly on display.

I agree that each vile stereotype could be considered unique, and that Trump's recent stereotype of the Blue is worse and more pervasive than many, but that does not not excuse in my view the holders and actors upon other vile stereotypes.  Many reds have something real to say.  The complaints that they are being shut out are real and meaningful.

I'm sure the Red message is much fainter in Very Blue Massachusetts, but the opposite is true where I live.  I hear the Red message all the time, and most of it comes down to either resentment of others for their success or 'otherism' due to color, gender identity or simple philosophical bent.  The South is still largely unreconstructed.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: I agree that we all tend to fight the demons in our minds, rather than our true opponents in our midst.  No one is listening to anyone not inside their own tribe, because they get roasted by both sides for doing it.  As it stands, the Red tribe has much more to lose and much fewer resources to draw-on for solutions.  To add to the fire, the Blue tribe is out of patience with the Red tribe, so generosity is not likely to be in the cards.  

It's a safe assumption that things will get even more ugly before they improve.

A very safe assumption, especially if no one is listening.

Listening is not hearing, but, equally true, wisdom is not the product of opinionizing.  Having an opinion that is inherently bad, for whatever reason, is still a bad opinion no matter how earnestly felt.

Here is a CNN article saying that in certain red areas, an endorsement by Trump is still a big deal, wins you a lot of votes.  This seems to confirm the allegation that certain areas are big into Trump like politics, very much opposed to the coastal CNN blue image of Trump as inept.