Defying reason

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, Hodad said:

As for a way back from the brink, I think a Republicans are going to have to cut off the gangrenous bits and rebuild by appealing to moderates and independents. They're going to have to be willing to lose some elections to save the republic. They can't just keep courting and catering to the crazies to stay competitive numerically. It's not a winning strategy and only doom lies down that road. Frankly, a rebuild wouldn't take all that long. They just need to find the backbone to make the hard choice.

Please.

"The way back to bipartisan normalicy is for the republicans to surrender and bow to our will".

This is why the US cannot have nice things.  The dems are every bit as bad as the republicans. When did the republicans create a fake dossier about a democrat president and spend 4 years falsely insisting that guy colluded with russians and was an illegitimate  president.? Pelosi lied her ass off to stir up the people.  Republicans dont' generally go around talking about about how a sizeable hunk of ameria are 'deplorables', and they were horrified that trump suggested hillary should go to jail, meanwhile they're bending every rule and pushing as hard as possible to ACTUALLY put trump in jail (and failing so far).

But its the republicans who have to change.  For sure. The dems have done nothing wrong at all.

Trump stands a good chance of winning the next election. Aftar that, the republicans will likely pick a leader with a different direction. But as long as the dems are crazy the republicans will likely be as well.  It becomes a race to the bottom.

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Manifesto is not 'liberal'.  It doesn't reflect Consumer Culture but a Europe that was in shock from the industrial revolution.  I'm not sure where you got that piece but it seems to just be an attempt to make centre-leftish parties appear to be close to Communism.  It's a non-starter for me, sorry.  Every bit as rabble-rousing and emotional as the original tract. 

Edited to add: People are already trying to say that the problem is with the 'other' side or that certain parties should be banned etc.  Maybe that's a valid opinion, I don't know, but it's not helpful to the discussion here bc there's nothing to add.

While those opinions aren't exactly nonsense, I don't see the point in adding to those branches of the discussion here.

Wait...the Communist Manifesto is not liberal?

Ok...

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Really? Like what? I see a LOT of helping the downtrodden get back on their feet. Like affordable medical care. And SNAP.

SNAP?

Yes you Libbies are real good at creating generational government dependence. A self-feeding cycle.

Oh goodie.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

1. Something has fundamentally broken on the Republican side of the aisle.
 

1. Your post is extremely articulate, however I have to think when the problems are this deep then the issue is deeper than one side.  If the Republicans are indeed so defective why aren't the Democrats trouncing them in every election ?  How is the US at such a stalemate in all of this ?  I am not discounting your perspective on the Republican party at all, but I think the problem may be with the public - which is not the same as saying the problem is with the people.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Wait...the Communist Manifesto is not liberal?

Ok...

No.  Liberals want economic and personal freedom, small 'l', not the abolishment of private property.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Quote

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.^[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion,^{[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} constitutional government and privacy rights.^[11] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.^{[12][13]: 11}

 

[myata]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

And a good chunk of the party--the "normal" Republicans-- know that it's broken, but have no idea how to fix it. And worse, they have perverse motivation not to fix it, as they need to cater to those broken voters to be competitive in elections.

The only logical and conscientious choice is to abandon that cannot be repaired. Sucks for the history and proud tradition, but if it lost the reason and conscience to produce failures of this magnitude, it has run its course. I'm not American, don't cheer or have interest in any one party, but that's just seems the only logical and moral direction that can be taken. History has shown again and again that collaborating with mobs gone insane, for any imagined or plausible causes, never works. Never.

[Deluge]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so a one-party Republican state would be better, with diversity of opinion reflected within the Republican party.

Interesting.

Nope - we still keep the two parties, but we take it back to before wokeness sunk its claws into the country. The 1980's would probably do it. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Nope - we still keep the two parties, but we take it back to before wokeness sunk its claws into the country. The 1980's would probably do it. 

I asked you if the Democrats should be abolished and you said "without even a discussion" 
 

 

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I asked you if the Democrats should be abolished and you said "without even a discussion" 
 

 

Today's democrats, yes. Without question. 

Most of today's democrats are part of the wokeness infestation. They're the scumbags that turned the Democratic Party into the democrat party - there's nothing democratic about today's democrat party. 

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Today's democrats, yes. Without question. 

Most of today's democrats are part of the wokeness infestation. They're the scumbags that turned the Democratic Party into the democrat party - there's nothing democratic about today's democrat party. 

So, specifically wokeness is about support for transgenderism ?  Or more than that ?

[Deluge]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So, specifically wokeness is about support for transgenderism ?  Or more than that ?

Much more than that. Wokeness is like a steaming pile of shit. 

Of course, transgenderism is currently at the top of that pile of shit, so that's probably why you lemmings ask such narrow, pin headed questions. You only really see what is most prominent. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Much more than that.  

Well what else then ?

[Deluge]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well what else then ?

Well you have the rest of the alphabet soup (LGBTQ), you have race hustling in the guise of "systemic racism", you have climate hysteria etc...

Now, I get that you're just chomping at the bit to tell me about the origins of "woke" but that won't be necessary. The definition has expanded. Woke has now become another word for Leftism. If you're Left, then you're woke. 

I hope that helps. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Deluge

[myata]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Trump stands a good chance of winning the next election.

Look who's getting prepped up to get cozy with the Lying Clown, just in case. No principles; no integrity; no facts; everything is relative. Just let us get to the trough and it'll be good for you. We promised.

Edited August 26, 2023 by myata

[myata]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Nope - we still keep the two parties, but we take it back to before

This is actually a good question. The founding fathers thought that two party will keep each other sane, from going over the edge of sanity. But the reality turned out more complicated: under the strain of extreme partisanship, they can go there together, each its own way. Wokeism without any bounds of reason all love lgb++ whatever just because we said so is just as bad, irrational and overboard as trumpism. They do not at all prevent the leap, but on the contrary, feed and encourage each other.

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Well you have the rest of the alphabet soup (LGBTQ), you have race hustling in the guise of "systemic racism", you have climate hysteria etc...

Now, I get that you're just chomping at the bit to tell me about the origins of "woke" but that won't be necessary. The definition has expanded. Woke has now become another word for Leftism. If you're Left, then you're woke. 

I hope that helps. 

Lesbian Gay and Queer too ?  And Climate ?

Well Conservatives were all about climate in the 1980s so you kind of lost me there.  I never understood when people include climate in wokism.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

SNAP?

Yes you Libbies are real good at creating generational government dependence. A self-feeding cycle.

Oh goodie.

They ONLY depend on government aid because CAPITALISM FAILED to offer them jobs. Duh

Thing is, capitalism ONLY WORKS by creating a shortage of jobs, so the workers have to COMPETE for them.

When there are so many jobs that employers have to compete for workers, a recession is engineered to put the employers back in CONTROL.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Your post is extremely articulate, however I have to think when the problems are this deep then the issue is deeper than one side.  If the Republicans are indeed so defective why aren't the Democrats trouncing them in every election ?  How is the US at such a stalemate in all of this ?  I am not discounting your perspective on the Republican party at all, but I think the problem may be with the public - which is not the same as saying the problem is with the people.

Democrats USED TO trounce Republicans. They controlled the HOUSE for 40 straight years.

Then came FOS LIES, which was founded to ensure there would never be another Watergate, according to Nixon buddy Roger Ailes.

Now they keep Republicans in power by vilifying Democrats with their LIES. Most recently that Democrats stole the election from Trump.

Despite the FACT that Trump never had approval ratings greater than 50%, the MAGA CULT believes that LIE. ?

[robosmith]

Voters Share Almost No Political Beliefs, but They Agree on One Thing: We’re Failing as a Nation

Quote

There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on. But one area where a significant share of each party finds common ground is a belief that the country is headed toward failure.

Overall, 37 percent of registered voters say the problems are so bad that we are in danger of failing as a nation, according to the latest New York Times/Siena College poll.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said we are in danger of such failure. This kind of outlook is more common among voters whose party is out of power. But it’s also noteworthy that fatalists, as we might call them, span the political spectrum. Around 20 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they feel the same way.

 

[Deluge]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Lesbian Gay and Queer too ?  And Climate ?

2. Well Conservatives were all about climate in the 1980s so you kind of lost me there.  I never understood when people include climate in wokism.

1. Yes, all of it. 

2. Conservatives were all about clean air - it was out of control - especially in LA. 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. Yes, all of it. 

2. Conservatives were all about clean air - it was out of control - especially in LA. 

1.  What would you change about L&G rights ?  Seems like there's no more to be done there ?
2. Also climate change and the ozone layer.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[myata]

Switch to proportional system. Have a normal parliament where parties represent interests and challenges in the society. With 30 some real parties, there's no ground for extreme partisanship as new alliances formed regularly. The president will be an arbiter, not a polarizing figure.

[Michael Hardner]

 

[Hodad]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Your post is extremely articulate, however I have to think when the problems are this deep then the issue is deeper than one side.  If the Republicans are indeed so defective why aren't the Democrats trouncing them in every election ?  How is the US at such a stalemate in all of this ?  I am not discounting your perspective on the Republican party at all, but I think the problem may be with the public - which is not the same as saying the problem is with the people.

Oh, there's definitely something wrong with the people. They aren't very smart (average IQ is a touch over 100). They aren't well informed because they are lazy--and the ones who aren't lazy are busy-really they all have other priorities. They are social animals, prone to tribalism and groupthink. Basically, they're people.

Conditions and context matter, and leadership matters. Hitler is an easy example because everyone is familiar and the outcome was so extreme. Life was hard in Germany after WWI, people were primed for something to change that, but it hadn't occurred to the average German that they should murder millions of their neighbors to improve the situation. They didn't walk down the street, spot a Jewish family eating dinner and think "my life would be better if I went over and shot each of them in the head." But cynical forces exploited all of the things that are wrong with people (above) to create a narrative of victimhood until enough people could be convinced that their team was under threat not from circumstances and hardship, but from "the other." And after that was done a charismatic leader could get them to do almost anything. Still, in isolation, the average German didn't want to murder their Jewish neighbor, but they could be convinced of almost anything in defense of the tribe. And they were.

We have conditions here that are psychologically challenging. In the post-war white picket fence era, being a straight white man used to be half the recipe for a good life--at the expense of others, of course. Education could get you ahead, but you didn't need it. Unions protected the working class. A factory job was a ticket to a middle-class life and that was good enough.  Now, we're in an increasingly knowledge and skills based economy and things aren't as easy as they once were for uneducated white men.  What worked for their parent's generation isn't working for them.

So, who can they blame for the difficulties they are facing? For decades Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have been making a lot of money selling the idea that it's not an economic and cultural trend, but that "the other" is out to get them and to literally destroy America. Instead of Jews (though sometimes also Jews!) they blame immigrant labor for putting pressure on unskilled wages, they blame the "elites in their ivory towers." They blame the higher-earning knowledge workers for driving up the price of housing. They blame scientists and environmentalists for being annoying, asking everyone to care about other factors while their tribe is in distress. They begrudge women for pursuing equality, working more and doting less. They begrudge marginalized groups for the same. They begrudge the erosion of privilege.

The scapegoating is really shoddy thinking, but it's easy to package and sell--and incredibly lucrative. And it creates conditions of which politicians can take advantage, increasingly leaning into that narrative to score easy votes. Primary candidates one-up each other to secure that disaffected voting bloc, the conversation drifts, talking points become platforms and before you know it you have a stage full of wealthy ivy-league lawyers trying to prove who hates "the elites" the most. 

And the day after the debates MAGA John wakes up and sees his Democrat neighbor Sally climb into her aging Subaru and putter off to school where she will teach John's kids how to read and count--all for $50K per year. Maybe they wave.

You know what he doesn't think? "There goes that b*tch off on her mission to destroy America. Democrats are evil and should be eliminated." -- But he might post that on a message board after work tonight, because extreme rhetoric proves how devoted you are to "the team."

^^This post is both too long for a forum (on my phone, no less) and too short to tell the full story. It's neither comprehensive nor universal. There are lots of Republicans who don't fall into that disaffected class and who haven't been swept up in the extremism, who are rational and most interested in policy and governance, but I'm describing what I see as the cause of the extremist drift. But it's a two party system and the weirdest things are conflated and bundled together because they have to fit in one box or another.

So, to circle back, yes there is something wrong with the people, but that's the point of leadership. Trump cynically played into the worst of everything to collect those votes, even courting dark corners of the right that had previously been unacceptable in polite society. The conversation has shifted. The damage is done. Something has broken.

That's where leadership comes in. At the debate the other night, you saw a stage full of people who think that they should be president instead of Trump. They want to be leaders, ostensibly to solve problems and help people. And yet they timidly cozy up to the same scapegoating and divisiveness, and spite and hate because they are worried about losing the extremist vote. How could they not stand up in unison and say that what happened under Trump is wrong? That Mike Pence is not a traitor to this country? That Trump broke the law and may face consequences? --  Leaders don't just follow the people into the drift, their job is too lead the people out of it. So again, I place the blame on the Republican leadership--or lack thereof.  They need more than one person to step forward and say that the better, brighter future everyone wants lies in other direction.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

They ONLY depend on government aid because CAPITALISM FAILED to offer them jobs. Duh

Thing is, capitalism ONLY WORKS by creating a shortage of jobs, so the workers have to COMPETE for them.

When there are so many jobs that employers have to compete for workers, a recession is engineered to put the employers back in CONTROL.

Capitalism failed?

Good grief...