a shory list of requirements for the next president
1. far enough to the right to pass the Republican primary
2. far enough to the left to pass the Democratic primary
3. capable to clean up Trump's mess
4. must increase jobs and pay of working class while Wall st fights against it
5. fix health care while Wall st fights against it
you can add to this list, but is there anyone that can manage this short list?
I think some of those things are contradictory, e.g, #1 & #4.
I'm still not convinced there will ever be a "next" president. But then, I'm a pessimist, so I'm likely wrong.
Quote from: fencerider on May 15, 2017, 06:53:58 PM
a shory list of requirements for the next president
1. far enough to the right to pass the Republican primary
2. far enough to the left to pass the Democratic primary
3. capable to clean up Trump's mess
4. must increase jobs and pay of working class while Wall st fights against it
5. fix health care while Wall st fights against it
you can add to this list, but is there anyone that can manage this short list?
We could always dig up Millard Fillmore ;-)
Is he buried in Grant's tomb?
Quote...but is there anyone that can manage this short list?
I'm too young to run, unfortunately.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 16, 2017, 07:13:45 PM
I'm too young to run, unfortunately.
You could take up jogging ;-)
Maybe a Kenyan could run - they seem quite good at it...
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 07:41:33 PM
Maybe a Kenyan could run - they seem quite good at it...
Unfortunately for Obama, he isn't Kenyan, but developed in a CIA germ warfare experiment.
And a successful experiment, I might add!
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2017, 07:47:01 PM
And a successful experiment, I might add!
The only successful experiments, are the one's that fail. So he failed? I think so ... even if he decided to be tranny and got his ... cut off to show his solidarity with one of the smallest oppressed minorities on the planet.
Quote from: fencerider on May 15, 2017, 06:53:58 PM
a shory list of requirements for the next president
1. far enough to the right to pass the Republican primary
2. far enough to the left to pass the Democratic primary
3. capable to clean up Trump's mess
4. must increase jobs and pay of working class while Wall st fights against it
5. fix health care while Wall st fights against it
you can add to this list, but is there anyone that can manage this short list?
It's either #1 OR #2, both seems illogical. Seth Moulton is the future, I hope. Pragmatic, smart and likable. The Dems better start grooming the next generation of leaders, Pelosi and Schumer don't cut it with the young voters. Too much old school. You need fresh ideas and fresh people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLeDKiKpNOk
No one that 'wants' to be president is actually qualified to be the president.
We know who will probably be the GOP candidate, barring the unforeseen. What we don't know is who will be the DEM candidate as the DNC wiped the slate clean in order to make room for their chosen candidate and deliberately kept everyone down who might oppose her. Both parties are in disarray in terms of leadership, but while the GOP has 8 years to fix their house the DEM has only 4 years.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 17, 2017, 01:16:10 AM
the DEM candidate as the DNC wiped the slate clean in order to make room for their chosen candidate and deliberately kept everyone down who might oppose her [Hillary].
I don't know if this was orchestrated or just a result of everyone assuming Hillary would be next (as determined by polls), causing potential candidates to avoid wasting time and money competing with a political powerhouse.
I don't know what actually goes on in the smoke filled rooms behind closed doors, but I have been told much of it is orchestrated. Is the orchestration done by unbiased strategists or outright promoters? These concepts are near interchangeable, but if the promoters carry the day, it could fail the best interests of the party, because "the people" will still demand a say. Ideology, obviously takes a back seat to financial backing. And throughout all this, everyone is assuming that the party will slam dunk the next election so selecting the most inspiring candidate doesn't carry as much weight as it should.
Or perhaps Hillary was simply the strongest candidate the Democrats could muster. I doubt this, however. There are likely many others that could have done better. Bernie Sanders, I think may have, but in the end, the primary election decides who gets the nomination. So in the end, much of the responsibility for the choice of candidate falls on the voters.
I have to admit that even uninspired as I was for the last eight years, I've been making a borderline subconscious assumption that the only viable Democrat out there was Hillary. But given the number of potential candidates available, that seems like some kind of conditioned and thoughtless response. Bernie surprised me doing as well as he did. A relative unknown with strong liberal leanings running as a Democrat. How he made it through the orchestrations (assuming they do exist) is a mystery, but I think we may have seen the last of Sanders now.
Quote from: SGOS on May 17, 2017, 04:45:47 AM
I don't know if this was orchestrated or just a result of everyone assuming Hillary would be next (as determined by polls), causing potential candidates to avoid wasting time and money competing with a political powerhouse.
I don't know what actually goes on in the smoke filled rooms behind closed doors, but I have been told much of it is orchestrated. Is the orchestration done by unbiased strategists or outright promoters? These concepts are near interchangeable, but if the promoters carry the day, it could fail the best interests of the party, because "the people" will still demand a say. Ideology, obviously takes a back seat to financial backing. And throughout all this, everyone is assuming that the party will slam dunk the next election so selecting the most inspiring candidate doesn't carry as much weight as it should.
Or perhaps Hillary was simply the strongest candidate the Democrats could muster. I doubt this, however. There are likely many others that could have done better. Bernie Sanders, I think may have, but in the end, the primary election decides who gets the nomination. So in the end, much of the responsibility for the choice of candidate falls on the voters.
I have to admit that even uninspired as I was for the last eight years, I've been making a borderline subconscious assumption that the only viable Democrat out there was Hillary. But given the number of potential candidates available, that seems like some kind of conditioned and thoughtless response. Bernie surprised me doing as well as he did. A relative unknown with strong liberal leanings running as a Democrat. How he made it through the orchestrations (assuming they do exist) is a mystery, but I think we may have seen the last of Sanders now.
Everything about the Clintons is deliberate. Sanders was nixed by choosing the new DNC chair ... who is a Clinton cuck. The voters only choose in primaries, as they are manipulated by the DNC/RNC. Though this last time, I think the RNC was incompetent ... JEB was their man.
Reasonist ... aren't you Canadian? What you you mean about ... we? Are you interfering in our elections, you Putin you?
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2017, 05:38:37 AM
Everything about the Clintons is deliberate. Sanders was nixed by choosing the new DNC chair ... who is a Clinton cuck. The voters only choose in primaries, as they are manipulated by the DNC/RNC. Though this last time, I think the RNC was incompetent ... JEB was their man.
Reasonist ... aren't you Canadian? What you you mean about ... we? Are you interfering in our elections, you Putin you?
Hahaha! Where did you read the 'we'? I wrote YOU need fresh ideas and fresh people. But anyhow, unfortunately your groper in chief has an adverse effect on other countries, even Canada. The first layoffs have begun at saw mills in Quebec, more to come for sure. I hope this clown gets impeached before the damage is irreversible on both sides.
I asked my parents when I was young 'how come so many people could be so stupid as not to see what's coming from Hitler?' Listening to his speeches it is crystal clear what his intentions were. The answer was that it was a time of utter economic depression, no jobs, no food, no clothes to buy. Hitler promised jobs (albeit mostly in the armament industry) and blamed all the ills on the Jews. Seemed like a plausible explanation for the millions in the streets in March 1938 when Hitler annexed 'his homeland into the German Reich', waving swastikas and raising their right arms with enthusiasm. But when Trump promised jobs and making America great again, the unemployment rate was 4.8% which is full employment for any economist. Poverty rate was at 17% down from 38% in 1999. So what was he talking about and why did it resonate among voters?
But at least I have an answer now how so many people can be so stupid, looking at the Trump boot lickers of today. Nothing has changed, the brown shirts are alive and well, resurrected and willingly lead to the altar for sacrifice.
Quote from: reasonist on May 17, 2017, 01:26:46 PM
But at least I have an answer now how so many people can be so stupid, looking at the Trump boot lickers of today. Nothing has changed, the brown shirts are alive and well, resurrected and willingly lead to the altar for sacrifice.
I like to stay away from comparing US Presidents to Hitler, not because the comparisons aren't applicable (sometimes they are), but mostly because it's so cliché. Every president from both parties is compared to Hitler at sometime or other during his presidency. It's what we do.
Thankfully, there are some safeguards in the Constitution to keep this from happening. Not that the Constitution couldn't be trashed by congress (it has provisions that allow that too), but no single president can step into our government and just take over the place. Trump would like to, but his approval from both the public and congress just keeps going down, so he's losing power, rather than gaining it.
But your parent's pretty much nailed it. When times get hard, as they are for many people now, people start acting crazy, grabbing for straws, and are ready to embrace just about any charlatan that promises the moon. Throw in some terrorism, and suddenly there's a nefarious Muslim hiding behind every bush with a bomb, and people feel threatened. More promises and they feel like someone is making them safer. It's the ugly side of hope, which is supposed to be a wonderful thing, but is really just some bullshit on the order of faith. That's what the German's must have felt in the promise of jobs, security, and a scapegoat minority to hold responsible.
Your parents explained the underlying dynamic for why people can lose control of their minds and act in opposition to their best interests. And human nature is such that this dynamic isn't just a one time fluke. It's always just under the service, and there is always some self serving politician waiting around to use it for his own ends when people start to exhibit the symptoms of hopelessness.
Of course in the end, things didn't work out so well for the Germans. Hope, security, and phony explanations ended in unconditional defeat and humiliation. No one would do that to themselves, right? Nope! That dynamic is built into our species. Maybe we want leaders to give it to us. When people are frustrated and have no control over their lives (or just believe this is so), having someone give it to you seems like the only option, and you will start grabbing at people who are willing to promise what you think you want.
I think you mistook my purpose. I didn't compare Trump with Hitler. I compared the die hard followers of Trump with the die hard brown shirts of the 30's. I understand the dynamics of longing for a strong hand, especially during hard times, but do not comprehend how so many can be so blind NOW! The economy is in fine shape, not perfect but better than in Europe, poverty is down, everybody can own a gun, even the mentally ill, but yet 62 million voters wanted a cartoon character as their leader! The guy laid out all his intentions and let everybody know that he is a pathological liar, sexual predator, ruthless businessman, and so much more; he didn't make it a secret and change his skin after the election. No! He was very open about it all and yet...look what happened. And after three months of chaos and dilettantism, of constant lies and cover ups, 96% still stick with this man-child! This is perverse, really!
Quote from: SGOS on May 17, 2017, 04:45:47 AM
Or perhaps Hillary was simply the strongest candidate the Democrats could muster. I doubt this, however. There are likely many others that could have done better. Bernie Sanders, I think may have, but in the end, the primary election decides who gets the nomination. So in the end, much of the responsibility for the choice of candidate falls on the voters.
To be fair, and I did vote Bernie in the primary, Sanders was never a Democrat before the '16 campaign, and he's still an independent who caucuses with the Dems, not a Democratic Senator. So Hillary was the strongest actual
Democrat in the field.
I'm not sure who I'm looking to in '20. I wouldn't mind seeing Howard Dean have another go, although by then he'll be 72, and I'd much rather see him and some Obama '08 veterans pushing the 50 State Strategy again. I could cheerily vote Al Franken, but he will be nearing 70 himself by then. I wouldn't mind seeing my own senator, Sherrod Brown, have a go.
I have a feeling our '20 contender is going to be someone that makes a name over the next couple years, rather than someone who already is one. The only other potential candidate I can think of would be Julián Castro, Obama's HUD secretary and former mayor of San Antonio.
Quote from: reasonist on May 17, 2017, 02:46:11 PMThe economy is in fine shape, not perfect but better than in Europe, poverty is down
Yeah, but that's only because of job creators. They selflessly hook up a ton of people with jobs and only ask for a tiny cut of the profits. They're entitled to that. But these anti-american commies want to increase their taxes, causing these noble souls to flee the country they love. It'll be just like Atlas Shrugged, just you watch.
Quoteeverybody can own a gun, even the mentally ill
Just as Jesus intended when he wrote the constitution. It's simple: more guns = more safe. But the (D)emons want to take away all the guns. Sure, they say they just want to do this restriction or that restriction. Some gun show something or another, blah blah blah. Each restriction is a just another chink in the armor of freedom and a mile marker on the road to complete pacification, enabling the evil government's military (which I normally revere) to run roughshod over American citizens.
QuoteThe guy laid out all his intentions and let everybody know that he is a pathological liar, sexual predator, ruthless businessman
I think you meant to say flexible thinker, alpha male, and successful businessman.
Quote96% still stick with this man-child! This is perverse, really!
Nope. He ordered some people to drop a bomb half the world away. It takes real courage to do that. Trump became President that day. Finally, a manly man to look up to. A real role model for the kids.
@Resonist : I was thinking along the lines of the similar dynamics that brought Hitler to power. They were more intense, but the feeling of hopelessness, real or imagined, sets the same stage. It's the dynamics that allow this to happen. People get a little nuts. Perhaps hysterical is a better word.
As to the shape of the economy, it's not as bad as the Third Reich, but right now, the government defines the economy on criteria like the stock market, which serves the interests of a few. Most people I know can't afford stocks, and they are not participating in the improved economy. As for guns, the advocates always fear losing them, and are constantly being told the government is going to take them away. There is a whole different feel in the country than 30 years ago, with the wealthy having a field day, while the proletariat worries. And things don't have collapse entirely for people to worry, and when people worry or long for some past that is no longer available, the dynamic sets in.
I find the whole thing interesting. I'm old enough not to worry about my personal future. If I died tomorrow, I wouldn't miss much of my life, and after I'm gone, I won't worry about anything. That may sound crass, but it's honest. I can afford to observe. I've done my part to try to make things better. I've been deeply involved in grass roots efforts to make small changes in our approach to the environment. I haven't accomplished much, even though I have worked my ass off, but at least I can leave this place with a clear conscience. It's not like I've been detached from this or the mess we are in.
Remember the justification for supporting Trump? "He tells it like it is." Fits rather well on a bumper sticker, and means about as much. Actually, he just blurts out his own thoughtless remarks. He certainly does tell it. Like it is? Not so much. Come on. It's worth a chuckle at least. But your parents are right. They explained the basics of the dynamics at play. There should be some closure in that, if only closure of understanding.
I'm sorry to hear that Canada is already being affected. That's not a good thing. And I get no joy from that. Economists were predicting trade would be affected negatively for all countries. They also predicted a short bounce for the US, before the negatives hit here. I don't know what's true or what's going to happen, however.
Quote from: trdsf on May 17, 2017, 03:34:49 PM
To be fair, and I did vote Bernie in the primary, Sanders was never a Democrat before the '16 campaign, and he's still an independent who caucuses with the Dems, not a Democratic Senator. So Hillary was the strongest actual Democrat in the field.
I'm not sure who I'm looking to in '20. I wouldn't mind seeing Howard Dean have another go, although by then he'll be 72, and I'd much rather see him and some Obama '08 veterans pushing the 50 State Strategy again. I could cheerily vote Al Franken, but he will be nearing 70 himself by then. I wouldn't mind seeing my own senator, Sherrod Brown, have a go.
I have a feeling our '20 contender is going to be someone that makes a name over the next couple years, rather than someone who already is one. The only other potential candidate I can think of would be Julián Castro, Obama's HUD secretary and former mayor of San Antonio.
I think it will be an unknown in 2020, also. Hillary is done, and all we've been hearing for the last 8 years was Hillary, so it's mostly just unknowns to choose from. For some reason, this gives me some hope. Maybe just because it gets us off this Hillary fixation. And I'm not saying Hillary would have been a bad president, just not the type that would take us out of this slow decline and wretched political division that has taken hold of the country. Maybe no one can. I think an unknown gives me hope, because I don't know anyone that might. So it almost has to be an unknown, to me anyway. Not that I'm even remotely aware of all the material that's out there.
And then there still is "we the people" not often heard from, but it was we the people that changed the country's position towards gay marriage. Congress talked about it, but didn't do much. Obama thought long and hard before saying he thought it would be OK. In other words, he was watching the polling data of the people. The courts decided it, but changing demographics of "we the people" played a huge part in that. I'll give that one to the little people, who got that through with out many key players in the leadership having to do much but talk about it and keep their asses out of the line of fire by not having it on their voting record.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 17, 2017, 04:00:00 PM
Yeah, but that's only because of job creators. They selflessly hook up a ton of people with jobs and only ask for a tiny cut of the profits. They're entitled to that. But these anti-american commies want to increase their taxes, causing these noble souls to flee the country they love. It'll be just like Atlas Shrugged, just you watch.
Just as Jesus intended when he wrote the constitution. It's simple: more guns = more safe. But the (D)emons want to take away all the guns. Sure, they say they just want to do this restriction or that restriction. Some gun show something or another, blah blah blah. Each restriction is a just another chink in the armor of freedom and a mile marker on the road to complete pacification, enabling the evil government's military (which I normally revere) to run roughshod over American citizens.
I think you meant to say flexible thinker, alpha male, and successful businessman.
Nope. He ordered some people to drop a bomb half the world away. It takes real courage to do that. Trump became President that day. Finally, a manly man to look up to. A real role model for the kids.
Funny! That made me laugh!!!
Quote from: trdsf on May 17, 2017, 03:34:49 PMTo be fair, and I did vote Bernie in the primary, Sanders was never a Democrat before the '16 campaign, and he's still an independent who caucuses with the Dems, not a Democratic Senator. So Hillary was the strongest actual Democrat in the field.
True, but policywise, Sanders has far more in common with Democrats (the rank-and-file Dems if not the DNC) than a lot of actual Democrat politicians, some of whom have waffled on healthcare and increasing the minimum wage. This apparent discrepancy between Democrats and their representatives does not bode well for the future of the party.
Quote from: reasonist on May 17, 2017, 02:46:11 PM
I think you mistook my purpose. I didn't compare Trump with Hitler. I compared the die hard followers of Trump with the die hard brown shirts of the 30's. I understand the dynamics of longing for a strong hand, especially during hard times, but do not comprehend how so many can be so blind NOW! The economy is in fine shape, not perfect but better than in Europe, poverty is down, everybody can own a gun, even the mentally ill, but yet 62 million voters wanted a cartoon character as their leader! The guy laid out all his intentions and let everybody know that he is a pathological liar, sexual predator, ruthless businessman, and so much more; he didn't make it a secret and change his skin after the election. No! He was very open about it all and yet...look what happened. And after three months of chaos and dilettantism, of constant lies and cover ups, 96% still stick with this man-child! This is perverse, really!
And if it were Hillary, 96% would stick with her too. Sorry, America is toast. Better learn Russian or Chinese ... this country has no future at all. And sorry, I don't see Europe as better ... different ... but not better. Society is criminogenic, all of them, not just Germany in the 1930s. There is no place to retire to that would be better, with the top million sociopaths (and occasional psychopaths) in charge. The ancient Greeks had a saying ... count no man happy until he is dead. I am beginning to think they were right.
Quote from: trdsf on May 17, 2017, 03:34:49 PM
To be fair, and I did vote Bernie in the primary, Sanders was never a Democrat before the '16 campaign, and he's still an independent who caucuses with the Dems, not a Democratic Senator. So Hillary was the strongest actual Democrat in the field.
I'm not sure who I'm looking to in '20. I wouldn't mind seeing Howard Dean have another go, although by then he'll be 72, and I'd much rather see him and some Obama '08 veterans pushing the 50 State Strategy again. I could cheerily vote Al Franken, but he will be nearing 70 himself by then. I wouldn't mind seeing my own senator, Sherrod Brown, have a go.
I have a feeling our '20 contender is going to be someone that makes a name over the next couple years, rather than someone who already is one. The only other potential candidate I can think of would be Julián Castro, Obama's HUD secretary and former mayor of San Antonio.
I would give Al Franken a go ... for the chuckles. I like him, don't care if he is a Constitutional a-hole lawyer or not.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 17, 2017, 04:43:45 PM
True, but policywise, Sanders has far more in common with Democrats (the rank-and-file Dems if not the DNC) than a lot of actual Democrat politicians, some of whom have waffled on healthcare and increasing the minimum wage. This apparent discrepancy between Democrats and their representatives does not bode well for the future of the party.
Oh, absolutely. He reminds me of the party before the DLC took over and shifted the party to the right. Labor -- or at least what's left of the labor movement -- has been largely abandoned by the modern party, as has the working class, organized or otherwise. Hopefully Bernie is the start of reversing that.
The next president just needs to be a better liar and not have the initials MP.
By the way, anyone else have the feeling Pencil Mike is about to get the grand tour of the bottom of the bus?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 17, 2017, 04:43:45 PM
True, but policywise, Sanders has far more in common with Democrats (the rank-and-file Dems if not the DNC) than a lot of actual Democrat politicians, some of whom have waffled on healthcare and increasing the minimum wage. This apparent discrepancy between Democrats and their representatives does not bode well for the future of the party.
Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2017, 09:44:09 AM
Oh, absolutely. He reminds me of the party before the DLC took over and shifted the party to the right. Labor -- or at least what's left of the labor movement -- has been largely abandoned by the modern party, as has the working class, organized or otherwise. Hopefully Bernie is the start of reversing that.
As far as I'm concerned, this part of the discussion could be a brief summary of the most significant aspect of American politics over the last 40 years. Thirty years ago, I would have protested it as the wrong direction. Today I would add that it has been a grave failure.
I presume the strategy was to strengthen the Democratic Party by moving as close to the Republicans as possible thereby abandoning the base in an attempt to capture the undecided who might support what was then the R Party. This would pick up enough votes to win at least some elections, hopefully all of them. The base, having nowhere to go, would still vote D as the lesser of two evils. It makes sense on paper if you don't mind the eventual outcome and disregard potential negative consequences.
The republicans reacted to the strategy, not by coming closer to the middle, but by turning farther to the right, because they had the foresight to understand that compromise didn't win elections. Separation of ideology and demonization of the opposition is the key, which maintains the perception that the choices are clear, while pointing out the devastating consequences of the "wrong" choice.
The Democrats countered by running even faster to the right, but still hoping that the base would not abandon them, which most haven't really, because it's still about the lesser of evils. BUT the unintended consequence is that a portion of the base is feeling disenfranchised, beaten, unrepresented, and consequently, losing interest, and with their stuffings knocked out of them by their own party, unresponsive.
A few years ago, right here in this forum, I heard members (now gone) talking about the brilliance of the Democratic strategy; Push the Republicans so far to the right that they fall off the cliff. That made no sense to me. There was no cliff, just a sea of ignorance and fear yet untapped to draw new voters into the right. And when you consider the big picture (I guess the point of the big picture would be a goal of helping America), the picture has taken a back seat to winning elections. Helping America has either been lost, or maybe it was just always a fantasy. What good does winning elections do, when there is no benefit other than a temporary rush one can feel when the home team wins a football game? Winning in politics should result in accomplishing goals. Not to say the Democrats haven't accomplishing some goals, but nothing truly dramatic, and quite a few that are what the Republicans want anyway.
Now the Democrats are in a kind of nowhere and their only strategy left is to focus on refranchising the disenfranchised. But it doesn't seem to be working because the disenfranchised don't have much left to be franchised about. They remain unrepresented, abandoned, and in near despair, except for some table scraps now and then. And the flaw in chasing after the Republican votes is that most Republicans are conditioned to vote Republican even if it ends up hurting them. The Democrats can be as right wing as they want, but they bear the unshakeable name of the "Democratic Party," guaranteed to strike fear and distain into the rightwing, the very voters the Democrats are trying to curry.
In the end, nothing changes because both parties represent 90% of America, probably always have (America being that 1% that holds 90% of the wealth). They represent America's wealth more than it's demographics. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. It is what it is, I suppose. But it's not something that excites me.
These are just my perceptions, somewhat exaggerated at times. Just me trying to make my point in the way I usually do in my ranting sort of way. We can quibble about the details. Don't get me wrong. I believe we need the Democratic Party to be a counterpoint to the Right. But I don't want them to mirror the Right. If that's what this is, then I guess we only need one party, and we could drop all the rancor and have a love in, doing our American stuff to the wonder of the rest of the world.
Do I dare click on the post button? What the fuck. I'll just do it. <thunk>
I'm just hoping Cookie Muncher decides to run again.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 18, 2017, 11:24:43 AM
I'm just hoping Cookie Muncher decides to run again.
Are you old enough to remember Alfred E. Newman? Now there was a notable campaign, with the unforgettable Newman slogan on T-shirts and bumper stickers: "What? Me worry?"
I wish he would run again. I think he could beat Trump. But his biggest asset is that he wouldn't worry if he didn't.
This. I used to be a Democrat, when it still meant something other than triangulation with Republican policy and Republican donors. The DNC/RNC has established a one party state, which serves the owners, not the people. I first noted the betrayal with Bill Clinton after I voted for him in 92. Nixon was to the Left of all D-party Presidential candidates and Presidents since Bill Clinton.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2017, 11:08:43 AM
As far as I'm concerned, this part of the discussion could be a brief summary of the most significant aspect of American politics over the last 40 years. Thirty years ago, I would have protested it as the wrong direction. Today I would add that it has been a grave failure.
I won't argue that point at all. Also, forty years ago, we would have never dreamed that the conservative movement would so quickly recover from the Republican
Götterdämmerung of Watergate. I certainly felt comfortably heading into 1980 that this nation was far too intelligent to ever allow someone as ill-informed as Ronald Reagan near the levers of power -- at the time, I was sufficiently disillusioned with Carter (for reasons that I now know were not entirely of his own doing) that I was preparing myself for the prospect of supporting (I was then still too young to vote) either John Anderson (preferably) or Bush Sr, who was an attractive candidate pre-Reagan, before the Kool-Ade got him -- remember "voodoo economics"? He was absolutely right about that.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2017, 11:08:43 AM
I presume the strategy was to strengthen the Democratic Party by moving as close to the Republicans as possible thereby abandoning the base in an attempt to capture the undecided who might support what was then the R Party. This would pick up enough votes to win at least some elections, hopefully all of them. The base, having nowhere to go, would still vote D as the lesser of two evils. It makes sense on paper if you don't mind the eventual outcome and disregard potential negative consequences.
And a complete miscalculation of both how vicious the then-ascendent religious right-wing was,
and of how appealing to voters that kind of an appeal could be. I don't think the full impact of Nixon's Southern Strategy was appreciated, and I think they assumed the old Solid South would hold for at least another couple elections. But by then, the party of Lincoln had very much become the party of Jefferson Davis, and they were not only perfectly willing, but demonstrably able to play on religious and racial fears and bigotry -- and to the shame not only of our nation but of our
species, that works on many, many people.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2017, 11:08:43 AM
The republicans reacted to the strategy, not by coming closer to the middle, but by turning farther to the right, because they had the foresight to understand that compromise didn't win elections. Separation of ideology and demonization of the opposition is the key, which maintains the perception that the choices are clear, while pointing out the devastating consequences of the "wrong" choice.
The Democrats countered by running even faster to the right, but still hoping that the base would not abandon them, which most haven't really, because it's still about the lesser of evils. BUT the unintended consequence is that a portion of the base is feeling disenfranchised, beaten, unrepresented, and consequently, losing interest, and with their stuffings knocked out of them by their own party, unresponsive.
And this is where we've ended up, with the leftmost of the two parties being what would be the mainstream center-right or conservative party in any Western European democracy, and the rightmost comparable only to extremist minor and fringe parties that border on organized hate groups -- and sometimes border on them from the inside rather than from the outer, slightly saner edges. The modern GOP resembles UKIP far more than it does the Tories. And unfortunately, the modern Democrats resemble the Tories more than they do Labour.
No point in addressing your other points, I think you're essentially on the mark.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2017, 11:08:43 AMA few years ago, right here in this forum, I heard members (now gone) talking about the brilliance of the Democratic strategy; Push the Republicans so far to the right that they fall off the cliff.
It wasn't that long ago that I would've naively supported that. One would assume that with a midway position, the Democrat would bleed off conservative voters from the Republicans without alienating their own liberal base. Deprived of much of their support, the Republicans would simply wither away.
This has not been the case. Republicans have gone further to the Right and tapped into a vast, seemingly endless parade of imbeciles and reprobates. Who knows how many of them started out that way and how many of them willingly followed far-right pundits into their current ideological cesspool.
And worse, Democrats have alienated some of their own base by leaning too far to the right.
I remember when I was younger listening to many of the lower class individuals around me and thinking, who on Earth would let them vote? They are so bigoted, ignorant, and prideful. Years later, I see they had voted in their very own mascot.
As much as I think the Constitution was a really good idea, it left out one very important detail -- ensuring an educated voter base. Casting a vote without any intelligence is about as practical as voting for a politician based on the color of his tie.
Quote from: Aletheia on May 19, 2017, 08:41:25 PM
I remember when I was younger listening to many of the lower class individuals around me and thinking, who on Earth would let them vote? They are so bigoted, ignorant, and prideful. Years later, I see they had voted in their very own mascot.
As much as I think the Constitution was a really good idea, it left out one very important detail -- ensuring an educated voter base. Casting a vote without any intelligence is about as practical as voting for a politician based on the color of his tie.
Free public education is supposed to take care of that. But education doesn't supply any ideology.
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2017, 11:10:07 PM
Free public education is supposed to take care of that. But education doesn't supply any ideology.
Or rational thought and good judgement :-)
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2017, 11:10:07 PM
Free public education is supposed to take care of that. But education doesn't supply any ideology.
There's more to education than just being taught from textbooks while in school. In the case of the voter, there is an extreme gap in knowledge about how the political system truly works and who the candidates are beyond their names and a brief summary of their political alliance. Rather, appeals to emotions are made to potential voters but information needed to make informed decisions is not readily supplied to the public. One must scrounge the internet to find the facts from multiple sources to get anything resembling a clear picture, when it'd be much more efficient and beneficial to have such information provided easily and comprehensively to the taxpaying public.
Lastly, the public's knowledge needs to be tested or else we'd be in a similar predicament as we currently find ourselves.
Quote from: Aletheia on May 20, 2017, 01:09:59 AMThere's more to education than just being taught from textbooks while in school. In the case of the voter, there is an extreme gap in knowledge about how the political system truly works and who the candidates are beyond their names and a brief summary of their political alliance.
Pssh, I wish they could give a brief summary. The state of education is so bad that we could be embroiled in a military conflict in a country for 3 years and only a little over a third of respondents could find it on a map (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10640690/Americans-surveyed-misunderstood-misrepresented-or-ignorant.html). You could ask people if they want to bomb Agrabah (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/18/political-ignorance-and-bombing-agrabah/) and a somewhat sizable number of them would say yes.
This level of ignorance wouldn't be so bad if it weren't often combined with a disinterest in actually knowing the facts. That and the sheer persistence of disinformation, like the idea that vaccines cause autism.
QuoteRather, appeals to emotions are made to potential voters but information needed to make informed decisions is not readily supplied to the public. One must scrounge the internet to find the facts from multiple sources to get anything resembling a clear picture, when it'd be much more efficient and beneficial to have such information provided easily and comprehensively to the taxpaying public.
Yeah, it doesn't help that the clear picture is cut up into a hundred soundbites and broadcast with so little context that it's more likely to mislead than inform. Or that some little blurb is then proceeded by a "discussion panel" (with false balance, of course) consisting of histrionic adult-children with such a low combined IQ that it'd be illegal to execute them in most states.
Wow, venting feels really nice.
Quote from: Aletheia on May 20, 2017, 01:09:59 AM
There's more to education than just being taught from textbooks while in school. In the case of the voter, there is an extreme gap in knowledge about how the political system truly works and who the candidates are beyond their names and a brief summary of their political alliance. Rather, appeals to emotions are made to potential voters but information needed to make informed decisions is not readily supplied to the public. One must scrounge the internet to find the facts from multiple sources to get anything resembling a clear picture, when it'd be much more efficient and beneficial to have such information provided easily and comprehensively to the taxpaying public.
Lastly, the public's knowledge needs to be tested or else we'd be in a similar predicament as we currently find ourselves.
If people understood (including people who post here) how politics actually works, you would never vote again. You might even take up armed resistance ;-( So it is important for fake voting and fake peace be maintained ... so that the peasants can be fleeced. See my new post ... UK, like China, will give you all the Internet fit for you to read ... no posts allowed, unless vetted by a government official first (and only if you are a government employee and that is your job).
Athens sucked, this is Sparta!
Quote from: reasonist on May 20, 2017, 12:06:56 AM
Or rational thought and good judgement :-)
Ape men don't do that. An irrational and self destructive species. Wait for the next sentient to evolve.
there have been a few vaccines capable of causing problems like autism because they use mercury to keep them sterile. (if you're trusting the A.M.A. to tell you the truth you're just another sheople; the american medical association is just an advertising agency for big pharma)
trsdf - agree with everything you said. Every year this country goes farther to the right; probably because thems that have the gold makes the rules.... I was really surprised to hear people calling Sanders and Warren far left when they sound like centrists to me.
I heard before that Reagan is too far to the left to pass the Republican primary, but it's the first time I heard about Nixon not being able to pass.
fyi Sanders was not an unknown figure. Only people that weren't paying attention would say that. Sanders has been answering questions on the radio since 2003. The way he talks hasn't changed in all that time.
If you look at voter turn-out, you have to conclude that a great many uneducated people are not voting. As for the people that did vote, talking about voting based on the color of the candidates tie is not far off. They hand-out these little cards in churches that say who to vote for if you're a republican... no thinking required, just vote for the one that stands against abortion and gays and you did your job until next time
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2017, 11:10:07 PM
education doesn't supply any ideology.
don't worry DeVos will fix that
Education. What does that mean? Why do authoritarian governments refer to brain washing as re-education? When they say, "We are sending you to a re-education camp," people are alarmed, and for good reason. "We are sending you to school," doesn't sound so bad, but "We are sending you to be re-schooled," implies something is critically wrong with the schooling. You went to school, but you learned bad things, which the government sees fit to correct at all costs. No one shows that kind of commitment to learning except zealots. Creepy!
Quote from: SGOS on May 20, 2017, 09:44:54 AM
Education. What does that mean? Why do authoritarian governments refer to brain washing as re-education? When they say, "We are sending you to a re-education camp," people are alarmed, and for good reason. "We are sending you to school," doesn't sound so bad, but "We are sending you to be re-schooled," implies something is critically wrong with the schooling. You went to school, but you learned bad things, which the government sees fit to correct at all costs. No one shows that kind of commitment to learning except zealots. Creepy!
1. First you learn from your family ... and that doesn't suite the authorities
2. Second you learn from the authorities ... but they screw up everything
3. Third you are re-educated ... because of #2 ... rinse and repeat ... not your hair, you brain
4. Real education is none of that, but we won't go there ... you have to be a skeptic without being a nihilist, and that doesn't suit your family, your authorities, your society
Quote from: Baruch on May 20, 2017, 06:52:44 AM
Ape men don't do that. An irrational and self destructive species. Wait for the next sentient to evolve.
I sense resignation...so we know what the problem is but we have options. We can wallow in cynicism (or idealism) or we can work on real solutions. It's our choice. We know that our pre-frontal cortex is too small and our Adrenalin glands are to big, but we have bright, pacifist people among us who do have the capacity to lead us into a better and more peaceful future. Neil deGrasse Tyson comes to mind for example or Lawrence Krauss. That's the people who should lead us into the future. Scientists without ideological baggage not lawyers should be in power positions. People who have no self serving interests but intellectual advancement of our species. This is not an idealistic approach but a necessary one! Our two prime instincts are survival and reproduction, let's concentrate more on the first and less on the second.
Quote from: reasonist on May 20, 2017, 01:54:37 PM
I sense resignation...so we know what the problem is but we have options. We can wallow in cynicism (or idealism) or we can work on real solutions. It's our choice. We know that our pre-frontal cortex is too small and our Adrenalin glands are to big, but we have bright, pacifist people among us who do have the capacity to lead us into a better and more peaceful future. Neil deGrasse Tyson comes to mind for example or Lawrence Krauss. That's the people who should lead us into the future. Scientists without ideological baggage not lawyers should be in power positions. People who have no self serving interests but intellectual advancement of our species. This is not an idealistic approach but a necessary one! Our two prime instincts are survival and reproduction, let's concentrate more on the first and less on the second.
The real solution is ... Caligula. Kill all the other people, or kill yourself. I choose to do neither, so real solutions can just go do themselves. The Dao is ... the art of getting things done, by doing nothing.
People evolve very slowly (but genetic engineering ala Brave New World will solve that). Individuals develop, they don't evolve. A criminal species has no need for common good ... other than as a means to fool people into complacency. Survival? Doing it .. by exploiting other species, including other people. Survival is part of our problem, not part of our solution.
I suspect Trump will decide that resigning will be the better option in the face of many investigations that will damage his businesses. But, since he cares nothing for politics, he will do it at just the right time to truly mess up the Republicans who put up with him in time for the 2018 mid-term elections.
Quote from: Baruch on May 20, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
The real solution is ... Caligula. Kill all the other people, or kill yourself. I choose to do neither, so real solutions can just go do themselves. The Dao is ... the art of getting things done, by doing nothing.
People evolve very slowly (but genetic engineering ala Brave New World will solve that). Individuals develop, they don't evolve. A criminal species has no need for common good ... other than as a means to fool people into complacency. Survival? Doing it .. by exploiting other species, including other people. Survival is part of our problem, not part of our solution.
You are right, we evolve slowly but look how far we've come in only a few centuries (a blip in evolutionary terms). Not so long ago we were very inventive when it came to torture people for mostly 'crimes' that are not even chargeable today. Literally millions have been tortured for adultery, sodomy, heresy, blasphemy and 'sexual union with Satan' for example. Especially medieval christendom was a culture of cruelty. Even minor crimes were punished by breaking on the wheel, pulling apart by horses, impalement through the rectum, slow disembowelment and such. Pope Innocent IV (not so aptly named) institutionalized the sadistic killings during the inquisitions and witch hunts. A suspected witch was tied up and thrown into a lake. If she floated, she was a witch and then be hanged, if she sank and drowned it proved that she was innocent!!!
And although torture exists to this day, even sanctioned by democratic elected presidents (W.Bush) it is not only mostly outlawed but also frowned upon by most.
Look at the human sacrifices in so many cultures in history from Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Chinese, Hindus, Aztecs, Greeks, Arabs, Israelites and many more. We have accomplished a remarkable transformation from barbaric and sadistic rituals that were culturally sanctioned and even encouraged or institutionalized, to having corporal and capital punishment mostly abolished, slavery has been outlawed and people have to a vast degree abandoned their thirst for cruelty. Beginning with the Age of Reason in the 17th century, we have come to a change in sensibilities. People began to sympathize with more of their fellow humans. We still have quite a way to go, especially in less developed countries, but compared to even 300 years ago, we are trending definitely more towards humanism, empathy and human rights.
Not fast enough you may say. Fair enough, but the direction we are moving is encouraging. So I don't see it as pessimistic as you do. Things could definitely move faster towards complete harmony and peaceful co-existence, but at least we are improving on all levels. Hopefully in time to avoid mutual extermination or even extirpation. But doing nothing as you suggested is not the answer. What could be more sinister than doing nothing in the face of evil and destruction?
Progressives think that progress has happened, hence they think it will continue. I don't see the iPhone as progress. I don't see modernity as some utopia. Life is always nasty, brutish and short ... at least for people under American drone bombardment. I don't see movement ... so optimism/pessimism doesn't describe me ... you have to see steady direction, as opposed to random walk to be either. When you boil a pot of water on the stove, does it all suddenly move to the next burner to the right? No, it is simply meaningless turbulence. That is history, meaningless turbulence ... as Macbeth said;
“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.â€
Quote from: Baruch on May 21, 2017, 11:23:14 PM
Progressives think that progress has happened, hence they think it will continue. I don't see the iPhone as progress.
Whatever it is that progressives value might even be debatable, but I doubt they include material objects like iPhones.
Quote from: SGOS on May 22, 2017, 08:09:52 AM
Whatever it is that progressives value might even be debatable, but I doubt they include material objects like iPhones.
Their self assessment of their moral superiority over contemporaries and ancestors? I don't accept self assessment. Too biased.
Quote from: Baruch on May 20, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
People evolve very slowly (but genetic engineering ala Brave New World will solve that).
That is a truth that I have had a hard time accepting. But I do think your are right. And because people evolve so slowly, so do our societies. And they seem to grow by the 2 step forward and one step back method. We seem to be in a step back mode and I find that frustrating.
Quote from: Baruch on May 20, 2017, 06:52:44 AM
Wait for the next sentient to evolve.
I've given that some thought. I wonder how much of our world will be discernible to their science? Will they discover our mistakes in time to prevent doing such things themselves? Future archeologists will have a field day looking at our fossil remains!
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 22, 2017, 09:01:28 PM
I've given that some thought. I wonder how much of our world will be discernible to their science? Will they discover our mistakes in time to prevent doing such things themselves? Future archeologists will have a field day looking at our fossil remains!
Well, I understand in 35 million years, California will have been subducted beneath the Aleutian Islands. So bye bye Hotel California ;-)
We have the ability to improve ourselves. And I don't mean genetic engineering (though that is certainly both possible soon and likely in the future. What I mean is that merely improving health, reproductive control, and education would go a long way to making a more sensible world.
Educated people with food, reproductive control, and health stability are not inclined to cause wars. Lack causes more war than ideology does. When Dickens showed the danger of the present as Want and Lack, he nailed it!
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2017, 09:26:10 PM
Well, I understand in 35 million years, California will have been subjected beneath the Aleutian Islands. So bye bye Hotel California ;-)
I think you meant to say "subducted," rather than "subjected," didn't you?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 24, 2017, 04:50:39 PM
I think you meant to say "subducted," rather than "subjected," didn't you?
Fixed it .. but works either way. In California, you are their "subjects" given the proposed tax increase. Governor Moon-beam should just raise it to 100% and declare CSSA ... the next Venezuela.
Joe Kennedy
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2017, 11:10:07 PM
Free public education is supposed to take care of that. But education doesn't supply any ideology.
If you're an optimist and naive.
Those who control the education control the content of the education. There is way too much temptation for politicians to stay out of the curriculum of a mandatory and taxpayer funded school. Plus said school uses tax money that people might have (but can no longer thanks to the public school) spend on a private school, and it crowds out any charity schools. Oh no, that is a setup for politicians to produce a populace that is only educated in what politicians think matters, and not any sort of actual education.
Do you think it is a mystery that people are taught about a two party system, and then graduate and only ever vote two party?
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 29, 2017, 01:00:04 AM
If you're an optimist and naive.
Those who control the education control the content of the education. There is way too much temptation for politicians to stay out of the curriculum of a mandatory and taxpayer funded school. Plus said school uses tax money that people might have (but can no longer thanks to the public school) spend on a private school, and it crowds out any charity schools. Oh no, that is a setup for politicians to produce a populace that is only educated in what politicians think matters, and not any sort of actual education.
Do you think it is a mystery that people are taught about a two party system, and then graduate and only ever vote two party?
I am too old to be naive, and too cynical to be an optimist. But you knew that. My comment was partly tongue in cheek. Well, being anti-State is a losing proposition ... but I agree that it should take a light hand to education, that is why local school boards are in charge in the US, not a centralized system like they have in Japan. The Japanese value social integrity more highly than the US does. By all means, if you can afford education independent of the political authorities, do so. Even at my state supported college (which later achieved a greater independence, because the state legislature was too stingy on the budget) we didn't get much indoctrination, though we certainly got it in public school. My college actually had a pro-Vietnam war demonstration. The current snowflakes would have been beaten up and expelled from my school. The cost of more independence from the legislature was ... we were allowed to charge out-of-state tuition on in-state students. Fortunately this happened after I graduated ;-)
But really, proper ideological public school should be run like the Hitler Youth or Komsomol. Boy Scouts was saved from this, because it is religiously sponsored. They are allowed to do what they want, as long as they aren't subversive. States understandably don't care for subversion. While I would support killing the Dept of Education at the Federal level, and at the State level ... I don't care as much now that my daughter is beyond public school, and won't be having any children. While I appreciate parochial school (and am a teacher myself, but to adults) .. the Internet is my biggest educator now.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 29, 2017, 01:00:04 AM
If you're an optimist and naive.
Those who control the education control the content of the education. There is way too much temptation for politicians to stay out of the curriculum of a mandatory and taxpayer funded school. Plus said school uses tax money that people might have (but can no longer thanks to the public school) spend on a private school, and it crowds out any charity schools. Oh no, that is a setup for politicians to produce a populace that is only educated in what politicians think matters, and not any sort of actual education.
Indeed, I agree with you. To the extent that "control the education control the content of the education". The decision is whether to give control to a secular and relatively neutral government or to those with serious non-factual and basically religious agendas.
I favor a neutral education strongly based on actual science, real international knowledge, and meaningful standardized tests.
And by "standardized tests" I don't mean who can cite the cubit length of Noah's Ark or explain how the Earth might be 6,000 years old. I mean, that school graduates should be able to explain (however briefly and even barely) the causes of WWII, the Cold War, the differences among several major world religions, general world exploration, and a basic understanding of their language. They should be able to read a paragraph and then summarize it. They should be able to identify the parts of their government. That's enough for me.
Not a complicated test, just something to show that they are dim-wiitted idiots.
Let those who can't, fail to get a high school degree. I want to identify those who fail and re-teach them for all our benefit.
Those who fail THAT can become telemarketers. Oh wait, they already do. LOL!
When you say "a secular and relatively neutral government", you make it clear that you are only concerned about religious mis-education and not statist mis-education. Both are worthy of concern.
The schools teach us we have a two party system. Then when students graduate they see no better choice than awful candidate A and awful candidate B, wish they could do something better, and finally decide between a turd sandwich or a giant douche. They are thoroughly educated in the religion of the state. Any actual education done comes after that, and as someone who lives in LA County I can tell you that there is damn little actual education after that in many schools.
I still support Bill Gates for President.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on June 03, 2017, 02:44:17 PM
I still support Bill Gates for President.
You only say that, because Cortana told you to ;-)
New bio on Barak ... Hillary and Donald aren't the only grifters ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/02/obama-a-hollow-man-filled-with-ruling-class-ideas/
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 31, 2017, 10:47:12 PM
When you say "a secular and relatively neutral government", you make it clear that you are only concerned about religious mis-education and not statist mis-education. Both are worthy of concern.
The schools teach us we have a two party system. Then when students graduate they see no better choice than awful candidate A and awful candidate B, wish they could do something better, and finally decide between a turd sandwich or a giant douche. They are thoroughly educated in the religion of the state. Any actual education done comes after that, and as someone who lives in LA County I can tell you that there is damn little actual education after that in many schools.
Candidates A and B are seldom equal. There is always one better than the other. I agree that you might think you like neither, but that's what 3rd parties are for. Sometimes 3rd parties become 1st parties.
Not lately, but that is because of Gerrymandering.