Two more questions for partisans

[Freewill]

I agree that it is very troubling watching what is going on in our country, it appears that the hate mongers are winning at times. The constant demonizing of a duly elected president has never happened to this extent.

There are parallels in history, the rise of the third reich, Mao's rise to power, Stalin and Mussolini, Pol Pot, the Iranian ayatollahs. In every case the would-be rulers controlled the media and the message and engaged in wide spread indoctrination of the masses.

The question is whether the majority of americans will see through and reject it.

At this point I see zero (0) reason to believe that we'll rise en masse and reject this, because of the very nature of the problem.

The crazed wings have all the passion & energy (due to the fact that they're crazed), and therefore will most likely retain control of the conversation. And if I'm right that more and more people are becoming radicalized, that will only feed on itself.

It's bad enough that the problem has gotten this bad. But worse, when something becomes this deeply cultural, fixing it becomes much tougher.
.

I am hopeful that the recent congressional votes are an indicator that the radicals are losing influence and that sanity is returning. If I am wrong, this country is headed to another civil war, secessions, break up, or worse.

My general guess (and I'm horrible at guessing at political stuff, stipulated) is that this is more of a last gasp than it is a macro change in direction. That's not a slam, but I'm not seeing the Republicans lifting one finger to address the coming demographic shift.

Maybe there's a plan somewhere, a strategy in place to change minds from where we're probably going. And that kind of leads back to the point of the thread.
.

Why does a demographic shift need addressed? Do Mexicans, or any other group, want something other then a place to work and live? And what exactly are the things that need addressed? More welfare? What exactly? Is that the future you predict for America, more catering to a demographic change, whatever that means, more so then just keeping the playing field level? Which I really believe is the case today.

It used to be in America that immigrants assimilated into America.

I understand the argument. And you may be right, that minorities will change their political trajectory on their own. To this point, though, (and as a person with a pretty rainbow-like family myself), I don't see how that happens on a large enough scale for the GOP.
.

So answer the question, what is it that the "rainbow" wants it is not getting?

 

[Correll]

I agree that it is very troubling watching what is going on in our country, it appears that the hate mongers are winning at times. The constant demonizing of a duly elected president has never happened to this extent.

There are parallels in history, the rise of the third reich, Mao's rise to power, Stalin and Mussolini, Pol Pot, the Iranian ayatollahs. In every case the would-be rulers controlled the media and the message and engaged in wide spread indoctrination of the masses.

The question is whether the majority of americans will see through and reject it.

At this point I see zero (0) reason to believe that we'll rise en masse and reject this, because of the very nature of the problem.

The crazed wings have all the passion & energy (due to the fact that they're crazed), and therefore will most likely retain control of the conversation. And if I'm right that more and more people are becoming radicalized, that will only feed on itself.

It's bad enough that the problem has gotten this bad. But worse, when something becomes this deeply cultural, fixing it becomes much tougher.
.

I am hopeful that the recent congressional votes are an indicator that the radicals are losing influence and that sanity is returning. If I am wrong, this country is headed to another civil war, secessions, break up, or worse.

My general guess (and I'm horrible at guessing at political stuff, stipulated) is that this is more of a last gasp than it is a macro change in direction. That's not a slam, but I'm not seeing the Republicans lifting one finger to address the coming demographic shift.

Maybe there's a plan somewhere, a strategy in place to change minds from where we're probably going. And that kind of leads back to the point of the thread.
.

Why does a demographic shift need addressed? Do Mexicans, or any other group, want something other then a place to work and live? And what exactly are the things that need addressed? More welfare? What exactly? Is that the future you predict for America, more catering to a demographic change, whatever that means, more so then just keeping the playing field level? Which I really believe is the case today.

It used to be in America that immigrants assimilated into America.

I understand the argument. And you may be right, that minorities will change their political trajectory on their own. To this point, though, (and as a person with a pretty rainbow-like family myself), I don't see how that happens on a large enough scale for the GOP.
.

Don't think of it as "for the GOP", think of it as "for the nation".

Unless you like the idea of a defacto one party state run by a political alliance built on racial politics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe because unlike you, they studied the problem and rightfully shared the blame with the Democrats instead of running around like a maniac screaming BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

Democrats weren't in charge of the agencies that allowed that Crash to happen. Bush was. Mostly because the housing bubble gave the illusion that his economic policies were working.

But I'm sure by "studying it", you mean that someone on Hate Radio told you Barny Frank had sex with a guy who worked at Fannie Mae or something.

No, but we've had this discussion before so I'm not going to get into detail and derail the subject. But I posted videos, I posted articles, others have joined in and did the same when this was a discussion, and you refused to look or read any of them. You put the palms of your hands to your ears and sang aloud.

So in short, I'm telling you this one more time: The Democrats started all this by lowering banks standards so minorities, poor and any other likely Democrat voter could get a home loan. Without that, the housing collapse would have never happened.

 

[JoeB131]

At this point I see zero (0) reason to believe that we'll rise en masse and reject this, because of the very nature of the problem.

The crazed wings have all the passion & energy (due to the fact that they're crazed), and therefore will most likely retain control of the conversation. And if I'm right that more and more people are becoming radicalized, that will only feed on itself.

Yawn, Mac... the problem is, you start off with these crazy premises and then pretend they are right.

Okay. 2016. The Republican DID nominated a "crazed" person. Trump screamed open racism compared to the subtle racism of Jeb! and won the nomination. The democrats didn't. They could have nominated Commie Bernie and appealed to their crazed wing. They instead nominated the boring, mainstream candidate that no one was enthused about.

Now, here's the thing, everyone expected the Republicans to do the same thing. They didn't. Jeb! raised millions from the usual suspects and lost, badly.

All that said, and I know you don't respond to any arguments that don't accept your premise, I do think that the rise of Bernie and Trump DO indicate a bigger problem. Not that there is "Extreme Partisanship", but that there is extreme frustration with the status quo.

one party nominated a Nazi, the other one came damned close to nominating a Communist. And we all collectively forgot enough history to remember why those were REALLY BAD IDEAS! But people are tired of professional politicians who don't get any of the problems solved.

 

[Freewill]

At this point I see zero (0) reason to believe that we'll rise en masse and reject this, because of the very nature of the problem.

The crazed wings have all the passion & energy (due to the fact that they're crazed), and therefore will most likely retain control of the conversation. And if I'm right that more and more people are becoming radicalized, that will only feed on itself.

Yawn, Mac... the problem is, you start off with these crazy premises and then pretend they are right.

Okay. 2016. The Republican DID nominated a "crazed" person. Trump screamed open racism compared to the subtle racism of Jeb! and won the nomination. The democrats didn't. They could have nominated Commie Bernie and appealed to their crazed wing. They instead nominated the boring, mainstream candidate that no one was enthused about.

Now, here's the thing, everyone expected the Republicans to do the same thing. They didn't. Jeb! raised millions from the usual suspects and lost, badly.

All that said, and I know you don't respond to any arguments that don't accept your premise, I do think that the rise of Bernie and Trump DO indicate a bigger problem. Not that there is "Extreme Partisanship", but that there is extreme frustration with the status quo.

one party nominated a Nazi, the other one came damned close to nominating a Communist. And we all collectively forgot enough history to remember why those were REALLY BAD IDEAS! But people are tired of professional politicians who don't get any of the problems solved.

Could you quote the screaming Trump did about racism?

 

[JoeB131]

No, but we've had this discussion before so I'm not going to get into detail and derail the subject. But I posted videos, I posted articles, others have joined in and did the same when this was a discussion, and you refused to look or read any of them. You put the palms of your hands to your ears and sang aloud.

Because they were all crap, and not worth my time. Point of the matter is, Bush could have prevented 2008. He had both houses of congress, the courts and all the regulatory agencies. He could have passed any damned law he wanted to. Instead, he made it easier for the banks to get away with exactly what they did.

You see, what you don't seem to get is that Recessions that make life worse for people like you aren't a bug of Republican philosophy, it's a design feature.

So in short, I'm telling you this one more time: The Democrats started all this by lowering banks standards so minorities, poor and any other likely Democrat voter could get a home loan. Without that, the housing collapse would have never happened.

Horseshit. The collapse didn't happen because poor people were buying sensible houses in city neighborhoods. The collapse happened because middle class dumb as shit white people were watching HGTV and thinking they could flip that McMansion for a big profit.

In fact, of the 25 banks that collapsed, only one made CRA loans.

 

[JoeB131]

Could you quote the screaming Trump did about racism?

I could, but then you'd deny he said what he obviously said. So what would be the point, really?

 

[JoeB131]

Think back a bit. Obama was attacked, for lack of a better word, by the right as should be expected. They brought up BS stuff about where he was born, his associates, and his lack of written words when at Harvard. All BS issues that really hurt nothing, so what BS.

But what we are seeing with Trump is a D list comedian holding up a likeness of a detached head of the president. We are seeing Republicans being attacked while playing softball. We are seeing Congress actually supporting bills to have the president's mental capacity verified not to mention the many impeachment pipe dreams.

IMO we are seeing a different kind of viciousness coming from the left.

First, stupid, there was just as much stupidity coming from the right. I'll match your Kathy Griffin and raise you a Ted Nugent threatening to shoot Obama.

And yes, given Trump tirades about Mika's bleeding face, I think it's about time someone evaluated his mental state.

 

[Mac1958]

So answer the question, what is it that the "rainbow" wants it is not getting?

It's really fairly simple. Look at what got us to this point - one party has gone over the top in approaching (and sure, you can certainly use the term "pandering to", that's fine) minorities and other identity groups. Is that a cynical way to play politics, does it divide people, does it condition entire groups of people, generations of them, into an entitlement mentality? You bet your ass to all of that.

But, the fact remains, we are where we are. It is what it is. So now what?

If I were a Republican, I'd want to approach these disparate groups by at least meeting them half way. Standing there with your arms folded and saying "it's up to you to figure out how wonderful we are" just isn't gonna cut it, I guarantee you. This is just a guess, but I would go after the hyphenated-American shit. While the Left is highlighting our differences, the Right could highlight our similarities - and make it abundantly clear that's what they're doing. But yeah, that would mean approaching and addressing the various identity groups individually, and the GOP has to decide if it's willing to bend and do that. Up to them.
.

 

[JoeB131]

My response was, the writing has been on the wall for DECADES, and only a drooling moron would be surprised.

By and large, this nation is STILL living in a multicultural fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows and the wake up call won't come until it is too late.

Actually, it will be a good day when people are treated equally according to their skin color... not sure why that scares you so much, Cleetus.

 

[Marion Morrison]

So based on that, I think I can understand the Left's view more than the Right's. But that's just me. That's why I wonder what "victory" would actually look like.

do you really wonder that, or do you really just want to pontificate about how much smarter you are.

Victory for either side is how much of their agenda they can enact.

I know what I would like to see as policy.

Single Payer Health Care

Fair and equitable wealth distribution. No one should work 40 hours a week and still have a hard time putting food on the table.

Reasonable protections for workers and consumers against corporate greed.

The problem with discussions with the right is that they don't really know what they want. I again, use my example of my friend who is City of Chicago garbageman. He makes $70K a year and has good benefits. Yet because he listens to Hate Radio every day in his truck, he thinks that's normal. If the people he supported ever got their way, he'd be replaced with a private contractor making $18.00 an hour with no pension. And they probably wouldn't consider his 50+ fat ass for that kind of position.

But the GOP has managed to pluck his strings hating the blacks and the gays, who are really in the same boat he's in.

Egads, you're such a Commie.

Single payer healthcare without fixing the root of the problem would just enable government to have more control

and wealth through graft and corruption, with the people getting royally screwed.

Congress is the problem with healthcare. Them being able to legally take bribes

and insider trade is the problem. They can take a big bribe from say..Schiff, or an insurance company, then

vote on a bill that favors them after investing heavily into their stock. Until that

gets fixed, and term limits are applied, there will be no relief.

Trump did real good with prohibiting lobbying by former govt employees for a

period of 5 years.

Definitely a small step in the right direction, however, it was by EO, which can

be written over by another president so inclined to do so.

Wealth redistribution? Seriously? I don't want what's not mine

, neither should anyone else.

Should people have a better opportunity to work their way up? Absolutely. I look

around today and thank God for

the opportunities I had when I was a teenager.

We need to get back to that, not forcefully redistributing someone else's money,

that will always end up with the

cream getting skimmed off the top.



As for unions. Do you know what unions do? They take dues from the workers

then throw them under the bus

and run off with the money. This is 2017, there's no need for unions these days,

save very few instances.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If I were a Republican, I'd want to approach these disparate groups by at least meeting them half way. Standing there with your arms folded and saying "it's up to you to figure out how wonderful we are" just isn't gonna cut it, I guarantee you.

How can you meet people like that half way?

Read the recent discussion between Joe and I about the housing crash. I'm perfectly willing to admit Bush and the Republicans are partly responsible, but Joe will have nothing to do with it. He blames everything that happened on Bush alone. So again, how do you meet people like Joe half way when they don't budge an inch or even entertain the very idea that their party is partly wrong?

 

[Mac1958]

At this point I see zero (0) reason to believe that we'll rise en masse and reject this, because of the very nature of the problem.

The crazed wings have all the passion & energy (due to the fact that they're crazed), and therefore will most likely retain control of the conversation. And if I'm right that more and more people are becoming radicalized, that will only feed on itself.

It's bad enough that the problem has gotten this bad. But worse, when something becomes this deeply cultural, fixing it becomes much tougher.
.

I am hopeful that the recent congressional votes are an indicator that the radicals are losing influence and that sanity is returning. If I am wrong, this country is headed to another civil war, secessions, break up, or worse.

My general guess (and I'm horrible at guessing at political stuff, stipulated) is that this is more of a last gasp than it is a macro change in direction. That's not a slam, but I'm not seeing the Republicans lifting one finger to address the coming demographic shift.

Maybe there's a plan somewhere, a strategy in place to change minds from where we're probably going. And that kind of leads back to the point of the thread.
.

Why does a demographic shift need addressed? Do Mexicans, or any other group, want something other then a place to work and live? And what exactly are the things that need addressed? More welfare? What exactly? Is that the future you predict for America, more catering to a demographic change, whatever that means, more so then just keeping the playing field level? Which I really believe is the case today.

It used to be in America that immigrants assimilated into America.

I understand the argument. And you may be right, that minorities will change their political trajectory on their own. To this point, though, (and as a person with a pretty rainbow-like family myself), I don't see how that happens on a large enough scale for the GOP.
.

Don't think of it as "for the GOP", think of it as "for the nation".

Unless you like the idea of a defacto one party state run by a political alliance built on racial politics.

Different people have different opinions on what is best for the nation.

If the GOP feels it can continue to win elections amidst the demographic changes, that's up to them.
.

 

[Mac1958]

If I were a Republican, I'd want to approach these disparate groups by at least meeting them half way. Standing there with your arms folded and saying "it's up to you to figure out how wonderful we are" just isn't gonna cut it, I guarantee you.

How can you meet people like that half way?

Read the recent discussion between Joe and I about the housing crash. I'm perfectly willing to admit Bush and the Republicans are partly responsible, but Joe will have nothing to do with it. He blames everything that happened on Bush alone. So again, how do you meet people like Joe half way when they don't budge an inch or even entertain the very idea that their party is partly wrong?

There are people like that on both ends of the spectrum. For all I know, they're hopeless, unless and until they find a way to crawl out of their ideological bubble.

It's the vast middle the GOP should be concerning itself with, and that includes demographic changes. As I've said, if the GOP thinks it can just fold its arms and wait for minorities to realize how wonderful they are, that's up to them. Maybe you're right. I just don't see it.
.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Egads, you're such a Commie.

Single payer healthcare without fixing the root of the problem would just enable government to have more control

Uh, no. every country that has single payer doesn't have the problems we have.

To wit. We spend 17% of our GDP on Health Care, and we still have millions without health insurance.

Most other industrialized democracies spend 8-11% of their GDP on health care, with single payer or some other form of universal coverage, and they cover everyone.

They have lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies.

It's the vast middle the GOP should be concerning itself with, and that includes demographic changes. As I've said, if the GOP thinks it can just fold its arms and wait for minorities to realize how wonderful they are, that's up to them. Maybe you're right. I just don't see it.

Because there is no vast middle. A vast middle would imply that there is a huge variance. The GOP gets anywhere from 45%-51% and the Democrats get anywhere from 48- 55%. Where's the Middle there?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If I were a Republican, I'd want to approach these disparate groups by at least meeting them half way. Standing there with your arms folded and saying "it's up to you to figure out how wonderful we are" just isn't gonna cut it, I guarantee you.

How can you meet people like that half way?

Read the recent discussion between Joe and I about the housing crash. I'm perfectly willing to admit Bush and the Republicans are partly responsible, but Joe will have nothing to do with it. He blames everything that happened on Bush alone. So again, how do you meet people like Joe half way when they don't budge an inch or even entertain the very idea that their party is partly wrong?

There are people like that on both ends of the spectrum. For all I know, they're hopeless, unless and until they find a way to crawl out of their ideological bubble.

It's the vast middle the GOP should be concerning itself with, and that includes demographic changes. As I've said, if the GOP thinks it can just fold its arms and wait for minorities to realize how wonderful they are, that's up to them. Maybe you're right. I just don't see it.
.

Then that begs the question: what's wrong with treating all people the same instead of special things for special groups of people?

The biggest problem I have with Democrats is their vote buying. They create policies and laws that specifically benefit their voters who in turn benefit them--not most or all people in the country.

Commie Care was designed to benefit Democrat voters. It did not benefit most or all people in the country. In fact, many like myself were several damaged by the policy, but french fry makers and shelf stockers were thrilled. They vote Democrat.

This week, the Republican Congress passed Kate's law. Kate's law does benefit everybody in the country because it will help keep foreign felons out of our country. Who could be against that......right? Well the Democrats can. Why? Because again, they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in our country, and they don't care how many Americans die of overdoses, how many Americans get killed, how many Americans that become a victim of violent crime from these foreigners. They don't care. They only care about benefiting the Democrat party. If you don't believe that, watch how the vote pans out in the Senate on the bill.

 

[Marion Morrison]

.

Egads, you're such a Commie.

Single payer healthcare without fixing the root of the problem would just enable government to have more control

Uh, no. every country that has single payer doesn't have the problems we have.

To wit. We spend 17% of our GDP on Health Care, and we still have millions without health insurance.

Most other industrialized democracies spend 8-11% of their GDP on health care, with single payer or some other form of universal coverage, and they cover everyone.

They have lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies.

It's the vast middle the GOP should be concerning itself with, and that includes demographic changes. As I've said, if the GOP thinks it can just fold its arms and wait for minorities to realize how wonderful they are, that's up to them. Maybe you're right. I just don't see it.

Because there is no vast middle. A vast middle would imply that there is a huge variance. The GOP gets anywhere from 45%-51% and the Democrats get anywhere from 48- 55%. Where's the Middle there?

They don't have the crooked Congressional problems we have, either.

So, when did you first read Das Kapital?

 

[JoeB131]

Read the recent discussion between Joe and I about the housing crash. I'm perfectly willing to admit Bush and the Republicans are partly responsible, but Joe will have nothing to do with it. He blames everything that happened on Bush alone. So again, how do you meet people like Joe half way when they don't budge an inch or even entertain the very idea that their party is partly wrong?

Because your argument is bullshit.

I'm perfectly willing to blame democrats for things that actually have some control of. For instance, our middle east policy of sticking our dicks in a hornets nest and complaining about getting stung is truly bipartisan stupidity.

But the 2008 crash, you can't make that argument. Bush owned that. If anything, he removed the firewalls democrats put into place to keep that exact sort of thing from happening.

 

[JoeB131]

They don't have the crooked Congressional problems we have, either.

So, when did you first read Das Kapital?

Are you some kind of fucking retard? I have to ask, because usually I take special care with the "special" people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Read the recent discussion between Joe and I about the housing crash. I'm perfectly willing to admit Bush and the Republicans are partly responsible, but Joe will have nothing to do with it. He blames everything that happened on Bush alone. So again, how do you meet people like Joe half way when they don't budge an inch or even entertain the very idea that their party is partly wrong?

Because your argument is bullshit.

I'm perfectly willing to blame democrats for things that actually have some control of. For instance, our middle east policy of sticking our dicks in a hornets nest and complaining about getting stung is truly bipartisan stupidity.

But the 2008 crash, you can't make that argument. Bush owned that. If anything, he removed the firewalls democrats put into place to keep that exact sort of thing from happening.

Thanks for proving my point Joe. Well done.