Citizens and politicians of conscience can restore values and meaning to democratic politics

[myata]

3 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

I gave you the context which explains it.

No. You gave a very narrow interpretation of it, while ignoring, purposefully and deliberately a much broader factual one. This is an individual who already tried to undermine, and allegedly, overturn a democratic election. He expressed admiration for authoritarian dictators many times over. Now he hints that people won't have to vote again because it'll be fixed beautifully. Could Putin have said that? Could Maduro? People who think and care about their democracy should certainly take a note.

[Five of swords]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

His repeatedly announced admiration for every single "tough" thug in the world.

Very factual attempts to overturn a democratic election, by sheer invention of the "fraud" that never happened in the reality.

How can this not be a valid and very factual context to his ramblings?

So he says stuff? What has he ever done? Did he pardon any Jan 6th people? That was fully in his power to do...

[myata]

56 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

What has he ever done?

Yes he has.

56 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Did he pardon any Jan 6th people?

Probably would have, just didn't make it.

[Five of swords]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Yes he has.

Probably would have, just didn't make it.

Would have. That's all you got.

 

Well if you take into account all of the things Trump actually didn't do, but would have done, he seems like one of the most meek and harmless presidents in us history. 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

Trump actually didn't do

and those he did ...

[Five of swords]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

and those he did ...

Like what?

[myata]

Memory problems?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

 

Probably would have, just didn't make it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/12/trump-january-6-pardons

Says he will...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/12/trump-january-6-pardons

Says he will...

Yeah but he said he'd put hillary on trial too so,  IDK

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/12/trump-january-6-pardons

Says he will...

Good, many of them have been rail roaded by this DOJ. 

[myata]

Just think about it this way: imagine every one of the future presidents would do what he did; all of it; and a bit more, nothing too much only to stretch it. Because they can - and why wouldn't they?

Tried that? How do you like it, that way?

[CouchPotato]

Here is an example of a Democrat not participating in the insanity. I don't know whether Rep. Jared Golden is right that Trump will win, but his comments a few weeks ago are pretty level-headed.

Quote

“While I don’t plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I’m OK with that,” he wrote. “Democrats’ post-debate hand-wringing is based on the idea that a Trump victory is not just a political loss, but a unique threat to our democracy. I reject the premise. Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system.”

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/maine-dem-predicts-trump-will-win-election-democracy-will-be-just-fine-rep-jared-golden-d-maine-austin-theriault-donald-trump-president-joe-biden-2024-presidential-election-politics-democrat-republican

[User]

26 minutes ago, myata said:

Just think about it this way: imagine every one of the future presidents would do what he did; all of it; and a bit more, nothing too much only to stretch it. Because they can - and why wouldn't they?

Tried that? How do you like it, that way?

Do what... exactly? Exactly what it is you are taking issue with here. 

 

 

[myata]

Maduro had 35% in the exit poll, ended up with 51%. Someone has found "those votes". They didn't have to vote in Venezuela since 1998. Think about it now.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/27/2024 at 9:31 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Hear hear.  Identity politics and its companion (advertising) have reduced everything to us vs them.

People need to be principled and think in terms of ideas and empirical tests on the policies that result from them.

Remember when we tried to treat everyone primarily as an individual human being instead of just their race or gender or sexual orientation etc?  Good times those were.

If we want to break people down into groups then those groups are going to fight for power and dominance.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Remember when we tried to treat everyone primarily as an individual human being instead of just their race or gender or sexual orientation etc?  Good times those were.

If we want to break people down into groups then those groups are going to fight for power and dominance.

It is the nature of tribalism. 

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

If we want to break people down into groups then those groups are going to fight for power and dominance.

The thing is... Everyone is doing this. Turn on the smart analysis shows that talk about the elections... They're just a bunch of marketing analysts saying this demographic will vote there, that state will vote on this issue.. 

It feels like.... No one has had a fresh idea in years.

 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/27/2024 at 10:57 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Principles are higher order concepts.

For example, defunding the police might be a discussion centered around the principles of good governance of Public services, respect for public order, obligations of the community towards the mentally ill. 

Like that.

Maybe instead of focusing on how we can erode (or "defund") the police, maybe we should focus on and how we can make the police and other services better?

Instead of focusing on how Canada is such a crappy colonial project with crappy parts of its history, maybe we should focus on the things we've done well and how we can make it better for everyone?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Maybe instead of focusing on how we can erode (or "defund") the police, maybe we should focus on and how we can make the police and other services better?

2. Instead of focusing on how Canada is such a crappy colonial project with crappy parts of its history, maybe we should focus on the things we've done well and how we can make it better for everyone?

1. I just used that as an example of how you can break a controversial issue into the principles that might govern the discussion. I don't care about the issue itself much either way. In fact, it's probably out of the public eye right now.. 

2. You're not framing it in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you would start a discussion on this topic.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

The thing is... Everyone is doing this. Turn on the smart analysis shows that talk about the elections... They're just a bunch of marketing analysts saying this demographic will vote there, that state will vote on this issue.. 

It feels like.... No one has had a fresh idea in years.

That's just not true 

Harper didn't.  He just ran the country the way he thought it should be run based on what he thought the gov'ts job was.  And things went pretty well.  Justin said he wouldn't but then did, his entire time in office was about seperating people into groups,  pp says he won't i guess we'll see. 

As for 'new ideas'  what the hell would you want new ideas for?  What we want is responsible gov't, and being responsible isn't supposed to be 'new'.  Keep the budget in line. Provide for our defense and promote the general welfare. Administrate our resources where necessary and keep business growing.  Get a few trade deals in if you can. 

Gov't isn't supposed to be about radical innovation, it should be boring and run of the mill and do it's job while providing people a fertile ground for them to live their lives they way they want. 

[Moonlight Graham]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing is... Everyone is doing this. Turn on the smart analysis shows that talk about the elections... They're just a bunch of marketing analysts saying this demographic will vote there, that state will vote on this issue.. 

It feels like.... No one has had a fresh idea in years.

Kamala is a black woman.  That's all that matters apparently and why she was nominated as VP.  Does anyone even know or care what her ideas are?

Maybe its all just branding and marketing now.  Politicians on the shelf next to Coca-Cola and Mr Clean.  Read the ingredients or just buy based on the commercial?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's just not true 

Harper didn't.  He just ran the country the way he thought it should be run based on what he thought the gov'ts job was.  And things went pretty well.  Justin said he wouldn't but then did, his entire time in office was about seperating people into groups,  pp says he won't i guess we'll see. 

As for 'new ideas'  what the hell would you want new ideas for?  What we want is responsible gov't, and being responsible isn't supposed to be 'new'.  Keep the budget in line. Provide for our defense and promote the general welfare. Administrate our resources where necessary and keep business growing.  Get a few trade deals in if you can. 

Gov't isn't supposed to be about radical innovation, it should be boring and run of the mill and do it's job while providing people a fertile ground for them to live their lives they way they want. 

Keep posting without the rabies froth and I might respond more. 

So... yes, good points here... You're right about Harper, he was actually a throwback to a better era in terms of governance. But he did somewhat use the polls to appease certain segments of his supporters, I'm pretty sure. I can't prove it. Of course, any more than anyone can prove what goes on in the Trudeau " Brain Trust"... but he definitely does it.  That's the Liberal superpower... 

 

As to whether we need newer ideas or not: I would say we do because the problems we have faced of late are monumental turns in how the political economy works. Technology, geopolitics, and demographics are behaving quite chaotically. 

But that's just an opinion.

And you have consistently expressed a different opinion on that in the past. I believe I recorded it in my club thread. Not to say that your prediction being wrong would be evidence of anything, or mine being right would mean either one of us are prescient. At best, these are informed guesses.

Thanks 

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Kamala is a black woman.  That's all that matters apparently and why she was nominated as VP.  Does anyone even know or care what her ideas are?

2. Maybe its all just branding and marketing now.  Politicians on the shelf next to Coca-Cola and Mr Clean.  Read the ingredients or just buy based on the commercial?

1. Like I say, ideas are a bygone aspect of politics. You'll just alienate people if you bring them up. This has been said of both sides. But I have heard the Democrat strategists comment that she's not playing up the black woman thing because it's obvious. Instead she will have to come up with something that fits. Who knows what that will be....

2. Well yes... But they've only been doing this since 1960.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Keep posting without the rabies froth and I might respond more. 

quit being an ignorant dishonest jackass and there's no need for rabid replies  

 

Quote

So... yes, good points here... You're right about Harper, he was actually a throwback to a better era in terms of governance. But he did somewhat use the polls to appease certain segments of his supporters, I'm pretty sure. I can't prove it. Of course, any more than anyone can prove what goes on in the Trudeau " Brain Trust"... but he definitely does it.  That's the Liberal superpower... 

I don't think there's any such thing as a politician who doesn't pay attention to public opinion, and that's appropriate enough in moderation. Interestingly it works both for and against the base.  For example - he ran on calling a vote on 'gay marriage', but he heard from a lot of conservatives and a lot of liberals that reopening that was not what most people wanted so he backed off and that was the end of it. 

But - lets compare chretien to Martin for example to eliminate any hint of partisanship.  Chretien listened to polls, for sure, but he basically did whatever he wanted and whatever he thought was best. And while he was deposed in the end he got a pretty solid long term out of it.  Where as martin didn't make a move without polling results and that often lead to weak positions and flip flops. 

 

Quote

As to whether we need newer ideas or not: I would say we do because the problems we have faced of late are monumental turns in how the political economy works. Technology, geopolitics, and demographics are behaving quite chaotically. 

The math might be different but the solutions basically aren't. We've seen this before. You focus on sound fiscal management, you focus on core responsibliities and get rid of the fluff, and you attract and provide fertile ground for business and skilled people.  And keep immigration to sustainable levels. 

it's going to take time but i don't know that it'll require a lot of innovation. IT's more about getting back to the basics and delivering. 

Quote

 

And you have consistently expressed a different opinion on that in the past. I believe I recorded it in my club thread. Not to say that your prediction being wrong would be evidence of anything, or mine being right would mean either one of us are prescient. At best, these are informed guesses.

Thanks 

 

I'm pretty sure i've consistently said there's nothing 'hard' about any of the solutions necessary here. Get back to the core responsibilities, deliver good governance and things will improve substantially apace.  It will be a ong time to fully undue the damage but things will get better steadily (more or less) over that time. 

 

Quote

1. Like I say, ideas are a bygone aspect of politics. You'll just alienate people if you bring them up. This has been said of both sides. But I have heard the Democrat strategists comment that she's not playing up the black woman thing because it's obvious. Instead she will have to come up with something that fits. Who knows what that will be....

She needs this to be all about trump. She's got 4 months, that is not enough time to come up with a solid plan, take it to the public and introduce herself properly and sell a new plan with confidence.  That might work if the election was in a year, or if it was next week and you could drum up some instant mega hype and people would just get swept up in it. But the timing is wrong. 

Instead she does need to put something out there but mostly she needs to have people talking about how scary and evil trump is.  IF this is a referendum on the democrats and her, she loses.  If it's a referendum on trump and his actions she wins. 

[myata]

51 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Instead of focusing on how Canada is such a crappy colonial project with crappy parts of its history, maybe we should focus on the things we've done well and how we can make it better for everyone?

The will for a change has to come from somewhere and accumulate and focus into real, tangible change. Words, talking is not change in itself. That may be the answer to your question: sure change is possible; but Canadians, as Americans will have to gather the desire; intent; will and power to effect it. This is only the test of the evolution: change costs. And the other side, the entropy one is very clear: bread and circuses, unknown iteration only this time: with nukes.

The bottom line: nothing lasts forever. No guarantees or promises. Move ahead or fade and perish. Only the evolution.