Bernie, Trump, and trying to look at the bright side of all this

[Mac1958]

It's not that hard to find the silver lining. People have woken up to the fact that they're getting fucked every minute of every day by a bunch of crooked, fraudulent assholes who come to DC to get rich instead of do their actual jobs.

And that's a lot of it. There actually can be common ground, and maybe this shit storm will reveal that.

Some will refuse to admit it, of course, but you never know - maybe we can attain some kind of momentum.
.

Yes, if people can reprogram away from "they're evil" maybe.

These same jerkoffs have been very, very good at the politics of division, again for their benefit not ours, and the last few years we've seen that ratchet up to all time highs.

We need to get away from that shit. Hell, it's to the point that the other side is dehumanized, not even human beings with lives and families just living their lives.

"Holy shit uncle Bill I didn't realize you had feelings and emotions and shit....that you do want a decent life for your kids and family, and you're not an evil moron."

That'd be a good place to start right there.

Yeah. You never know what the impetus could be. As long as there IS one.
.

 

[Confounding]

It's not that hard to find the silver lining.

People have woken up to the fact that they're getting fucked every minute of every day by a bunch of crooked, fraudulent assholes who come to DC to get rich instead of do their actual jobs.

Damn straight.

Bernie and Trump actually do their jobs as politicians. They go in and represent the people that voted for them. A rare thing indeed these days.

 

[Mac1958]

How do they work together, Mac, when there is a gulf that stretches to uranus? We have a clear delineation in front of us. One is a socialist/marxist. One is a capitalist. One is globalist. One is for national sovereignty.

You start by looking for areas of agreement. I've pointed some out.

You also detach yourself from the binary "us vs. them" mentality that is paralyzing us. Concentrate on creating something new via collaboration, communication and innovation. Like our Constitution.

Some will have the ability to do this, some won't. Those who have the ability, however, should be allowed to exercise it without interference.
.

 

[dblack]

It really isn't difficult to see the similarities between Bernie 2020 and Trump 2016, in terms of the passionate support of their "bases". In both cases, each man represents a great deal of anger and frustration that has been building within their bases over time, and each man is essentially an animation of a primal scream, the bull in the china shop, the human hand grenade in "the system".

Can we possibly have an interesting, calm conversation about what this means?

While on one hand I worry about the increasing divisions happening in this country, on the other hand both groups have perfectly valid points about "the system". I've even seen Bernie fans referring to a "deep state", holy crap. People clearly sense a general unfairness on a macro scale, and they've had enough.

So I guess I'm wondering this: Could this all be a good thing in the long run? Is there some point in this mess in which the two political ends find a lot of common ground?

Maybe this shit storm can and will channel itself in a positive direction, at some point. Thoughts?
.

The only hope I can see is that, if we survive the two of them, voters might finally conclude that the two-party system is a mistake - and demand that it change.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's not that hard to find the silver lining. People have woken up to the fact that they're getting fucked every minute of every day by a bunch of crooked, fraudulent assholes who come to DC to get rich instead of do their actual jobs.

And that's a lot of it. There actually can be common ground, and maybe this shit storm will reveal that.

Some will refuse to admit it, of course, but you never know - maybe we can attain some kind of momentum.
.

There is no doubt that all the politicians in DC are self interested pieces of shit, but that has been the case for decades. This country has been on a inevitable slide to the left which began early in the last century, and will continue until the government can’t borrow more money to give away.


A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

― Alexander Fraser Tytler

 

[Mac1958]

The only hope I can see is that, if we survive the two of them, voters my finally conclude that the two-party system is a mistake - and demand that it change.

Yeah, that might be a part of it. But extending my "silver lining" notion, maybe we could reach a point where sanity has returned to both ends and our need for a third party has decreased somewhat.
.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How do they work together, Mac, when there is a gulf that stretches to uranus? We have a clear delineation in front of us. One is a socialist/marxist. One is a capitalist. One is globalist. One is for national sovereignty.

You start by looking for areas of agreement. I've pointed some out.

You also detach yourself from the binary "us vs. them" mentality that is paralyzing us. Concentrate on creating something new via collaboration, communication and innovation. Like our Constitution.

Some will have the ability to do this, some won't. Those who have the ability, however, should be allowed to exercise it without interference.
.

Well, I agree. I also agree that the toxicity of division will be our ending.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

How do they work together, Mac, when there is a gulf that stretches to uranus? We have a clear delineation in front of us. One is a socialist/marxist. One is a capitalist. One is globalist. One is for national sovereignty.

You start by looking for areas of agreement. I've pointed some out.

You also detach yourself from the binary "us vs. them" mentality that is paralyzing us. Concentrate on creating something new via collaboration, communication and innovation. Like our Constitution.

Some will have the ability to do this, some won't. Those who have the ability, however, should be allowed to exercise it without interference.
.

The first thing every person should do is drop their party affiliation. But we are a long way from feeling enough pain and anger to change the system. Creating something new like our Constitution takes a lot of energy, and that energy is the outcome of a lot of hardship. I don’t sense near enough hardship to inspire that kind of energy.

 

[dblack]

The only hope I can see is that, if we survive the two of them, voters my finally conclude that the two-party system is a mistake - and demand that it change.

Yeah, that might be a part of it. But extending my "silver lining" notion, maybe we could reach a point where sanity has returned to both ends and our need for a third party has decreased somewhat.
.

That would be temporary respite - but not a fix. There are key, structural components to our elections that promote two dominant parties and hobble third party challenges. Some of these have been tacked on by lawmakers, some are baked into the voting process. We need changes that actually encourage consensus government. The two most productive changes we could make, in my estimation, would be 1) changing the voting process to instant-runoff, or ranked-choice, voting and 2) multi-representative districts. Both of these would provide sane incentives for candidates to seek broad consensus, rather than a slim partisan plurality.

 

[Mac1958]

The only hope I can see is that, if we survive the two of them, voters my finally conclude that the two-party system is a mistake - and demand that it change.

Yeah, that might be a part of it. But extending my "silver lining" notion, maybe we could reach a point where sanity has returned to both ends and our need for a third party has decreased somewhat.
.

That would be temporary respite - but not a fix. There are key, structural components to our elections that promote two dominant parties and hobble third party challenges. Some of these have been tacked on by lawmakers, some are baked into the voting process. We need changes that actually encourage consensus government. The two most productive changes we could make, in my estimation, would be 1) changing the voting process to instant-runoff, or ranked-choice, voting and 2) multi-representative districts. Both of these would provide sane incentives for candidates to seek broad consensus, rather than a slim partisan plurality.

I think that ranked-choice thing is pretty interesting. Those other ideas certainly deserve to be looked at.
.