Is the American Experiment coming to an unfortunate end?
ConversazioniPro and Con
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
1Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-asks-amid-latest-jan-6-revelations-has-t...
Jake Tapper Asks, Amid Latest Jan. 6 Revelations: Has the ‘American Experiment’ Begun to Fail?
Final paragraph ~
“The American institutions have held, barely,” Tapper said, “but you can be forgiven for wondering, as our European allies are, whether our American Experiment will ultimately prove successful. Remember, it is the American Experiment. It is not the American Proven Theorum. Whether it succeeds, well, that’s up to us.”
***
How can a meeting of the minds take place between people who witnessed an insurrection (like everyone else on this planet) and people who claimed to have witnessed an unguided tour??? About 30 percent of Americans appear to prefer living in a Twilight Zone haze.
Jake Tapper Asks, Amid Latest Jan. 6 Revelations: Has the ‘American Experiment’ Begun to Fail?
Final paragraph ~
“The American institutions have held, barely,” Tapper said, “but you can be forgiven for wondering, as our European allies are, whether our American Experiment will ultimately prove successful. Remember, it is the American Experiment. It is not the American Proven Theorum. Whether it succeeds, well, that’s up to us.”
***
How can a meeting of the minds take place between people who witnessed an insurrection (like everyone else on this planet) and people who claimed to have witnessed an unguided tour??? About 30 percent of Americans appear to prefer living in a Twilight Zone haze.
2proximity1
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
... to find out, read Hunter Biden's laptop.
or this commentary
America Is More Fragile Than the Left Understands | Like a stunned adolescent whose reckless incompetence totaled the family car, the Left seems shocked that America proved so fragile after all. |
By Victor Davis Hanson | June 26, 2022
..."we have an accounting with nature’s limitations,"...
_______________________________________
Nature has no stake in the outcomes of its blind and haphazard processes: it neither "knows" nor "cares" which of many species thrive or die out. But, from a human perspective these ordinary blind processes can seem to hold basic value-laden "lessons"--by the light of human kind's evolving notions of morality and plain matter-of-fact correct reading of certain key "objective facts" of the natural world:
Nature may neither "punish" nor "reward" but it certainly does not favor or reward common stupidity (as we understand that) nor laziness in paying attention to natural phenomena and their implications for our prosperity, let alone survival.
If "we are stubbornly stupid", "Nature" shall exact a price for that stupidity; but it won't bother to record the debits in any accounting record.
3Doug1943
And how can people who think the violent riots of the summer of 2020 were 'mostly peaceful protests' be described as other than living in a Twilight Zone.
Look ... each side will justify and make excuses for its own people who go over the line. This is perfectly normal in a war, which is what we're approaching.
If I told you that once upon a time, some young men raped and murdered innocent women and children ... but were not punished by their government for doing so ... with the full support of its people ... you would probably think that those people were very wicked.
But the reality is, this is how all peoples behave, in a war -- they let their own soldiers get away with murder. They might not want this to happen, but if it does ... they don't want "their boys" to suffer for commiting these crimes.
This is how the Japanese feel about 'their boys' in WWII, how the Russians feel about theirs in that war, and in Ukraine. And its how Americans feel about their boys when they commit terrible crimes.
And it's how Leftists feel about AntiFa, and how Rightists feel about the 6 January rioters.
Why? Because both sides no longer see each other in the way we saw each other fifty years ago. It's not Nixon vs Kennedy, not Republicans vs Democrats.
Whether we use the word 'war' or not, we actually, most of us, hate the other side, despise them, wish they would vanish from the face of the earth.
This is unfortunate. It presages very dark times for the US, and actually for the rest of the world, which has benefitted very much from the existence of the US as a strong, powerful liberal democracy. (Oh yes, one which also committed crimes of its own. But everything in its context.)
It's too bad, but it's where we are now.
Look ... each side will justify and make excuses for its own people who go over the line. This is perfectly normal in a war, which is what we're approaching.
If I told you that once upon a time, some young men raped and murdered innocent women and children ... but were not punished by their government for doing so ... with the full support of its people ... you would probably think that those people were very wicked.
But the reality is, this is how all peoples behave, in a war -- they let their own soldiers get away with murder. They might not want this to happen, but if it does ... they don't want "their boys" to suffer for commiting these crimes.
This is how the Japanese feel about 'their boys' in WWII, how the Russians feel about theirs in that war, and in Ukraine. And its how Americans feel about their boys when they commit terrible crimes.
And it's how Leftists feel about AntiFa, and how Rightists feel about the 6 January rioters.
Why? Because both sides no longer see each other in the way we saw each other fifty years ago. It's not Nixon vs Kennedy, not Republicans vs Democrats.
Whether we use the word 'war' or not, we actually, most of us, hate the other side, despise them, wish they would vanish from the face of the earth.
This is unfortunate. It presages very dark times for the US, and actually for the rest of the world, which has benefitted very much from the existence of the US as a strong, powerful liberal democracy. (Oh yes, one which also committed crimes of its own. But everything in its context.)
It's too bad, but it's where we are now.
4John5918
>3 Doug1943:
Doug, you're in error on a couple of important points here.
each side will justify and make excuses for its own people who go over the line
No. Over the last century and a half the world has created rules of war, and many countries are trying to implement them, although of course there are many failures and holdouts. Increasingly we are seeing people being held accountable, including by their own side, for crimes they have committed during war.
As for crimes committed during protests within your country, firstly, despite your hyperbole, the USA is not at war with itself, and there are perfectly good laws to prosecute those who commit crimes, as we see happening. But secondly, it is a misrepresentation to suggest that all who might support the aims of AntiFa and BLM would also support the violent minority who marred the otherwise peaceful protests. Most peace-loving "leftists" were appalled at the violence and are happy to see the law take its course with anybody who committed a crime regardless of their political persuasion.
And I know it's been said before, but comparing popular protests in various parts of the country which were intended to be peaceful but which unfortunately produced some violence, which was roundly condemned by the organisers, with an organised and armed attack on the seat of government with the aim of subverting the democratic process and murdering the vice president, and which far from being condemned was praised by the organisers, is ludicrous.
we actually, most of us, hate the other side, despise them, wish they would vanish from the face of the earth
No. That's the mantra of the culture warriors. It might be true on your side of the political divide - I don't know, but I'll take your word that this is how you feel about me - but it's not the case for people who are steeped in the tradition of Gandhi, Mandela, Tutu, Martin Luther King and many other icons of the "left", nor indeed of Jesus who said, "Love your enemies". The goal is not to win, whatever that zero sum term means, nor to impose a political dispensation which favours my "side", whatever that divisive term means, but to create a better society for everyone.
Doug, you're in error on a couple of important points here.
each side will justify and make excuses for its own people who go over the line
No. Over the last century and a half the world has created rules of war, and many countries are trying to implement them, although of course there are many failures and holdouts. Increasingly we are seeing people being held accountable, including by their own side, for crimes they have committed during war.
As for crimes committed during protests within your country, firstly, despite your hyperbole, the USA is not at war with itself, and there are perfectly good laws to prosecute those who commit crimes, as we see happening. But secondly, it is a misrepresentation to suggest that all who might support the aims of AntiFa and BLM would also support the violent minority who marred the otherwise peaceful protests. Most peace-loving "leftists" were appalled at the violence and are happy to see the law take its course with anybody who committed a crime regardless of their political persuasion.
And I know it's been said before, but comparing popular protests in various parts of the country which were intended to be peaceful but which unfortunately produced some violence, which was roundly condemned by the organisers, with an organised and armed attack on the seat of government with the aim of subverting the democratic process and murdering the vice president, and which far from being condemned was praised by the organisers, is ludicrous.
we actually, most of us, hate the other side, despise them, wish they would vanish from the face of the earth
No. That's the mantra of the culture warriors. It might be true on your side of the political divide - I don't know, but I'll take your word that this is how you feel about me - but it's not the case for people who are steeped in the tradition of Gandhi, Mandela, Tutu, Martin Luther King and many other icons of the "left", nor indeed of Jesus who said, "Love your enemies". The goal is not to win, whatever that zero sum term means, nor to impose a political dispensation which favours my "side", whatever that divisive term means, but to create a better society for everyone.
5kiparsky
>3 Doug1943: And how can people who think the violent riots of the summer of 2020 were 'mostly peaceful protests' be described as other than living in a Twilight Zone.
It's actually not that hard, if you actually engage in the real world from time to time. Try it, you might actually find it's enjoyable. Certainly it's gotta be better than spending your time sucking on the back end of some blogger's digestive tract.
As an aside, I used to wonder why you hate your life so much, until I realized how much time you must spend absorbing bullshit from people whose goal in like is to be like Tucker Carlson... now I get it, I'd probably hate my life too too if I spent it the way you do. Get out more, you'll be a lot less miserable. Honestly, there's not that much on the internet that's worth bothering with - just look at the people who put it there, for pete's sake.
It's actually not that hard, if you actually engage in the real world from time to time. Try it, you might actually find it's enjoyable. Certainly it's gotta be better than spending your time sucking on the back end of some blogger's digestive tract.
As an aside, I used to wonder why you hate your life so much, until I realized how much time you must spend absorbing bullshit from people whose goal in like is to be like Tucker Carlson... now I get it, I'd probably hate my life too too if I spent it the way you do. Get out more, you'll be a lot less miserable. Honestly, there's not that much on the internet that's worth bothering with - just look at the people who put it there, for pete's sake.
6proximity1
... "and how Rightists feel about the 6 January rioters"...
It was tendentiously labelled a "riot" by the utterly biased and corrupt press which is a mouthpiece for the Pelosis, the Hoyers and their ilk. None, I repeat, _none_ of these "rioters" was armed with other than articles which came to hand by mere chance surroundings--sticks, etc. None carried any fire-arms. Claims to the contrary have been definitively debunked as the vicious and calculated lies of this same partisan media (See Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi essays on this point.)
A blatantly illegal and fraudulent attempt to certify a defrauded presidential-elector process was opposed by these people assembled at the Capitol that day in January. The actual criminal acts were going on within the Capitol's committee room where the certification was being conducted.
Lying about these facts, no matter how often repeated, cannot and does not change them in the slightest. The election so "certified" of Joe Biden is coming more and more each day to be revealed as the flagrant act of coordinated, conspiratorial fraud that it always was. That shall eventually become the true and generally-accepted view of the election of 2020: corruptly stolen from and its rightful victor and corruptly "certified" by the very elected officials who were deeply implicated in the fraud from its conception--no matter how these latter try to forestall that outcome.
..."It presages very dark times for the US," ...
"Presages" nothing! "Dark times" are indeed truly with us and appear to be likely to remain for some considerable time while a nation founders in a suicidal state of make-believe and denial. The stock-market hasn't fully caught up to these realities but there is no way that its whistling in the dark is going to see it through this ugly reality. When the recognition comes, it's going to bring great financial losses and ruin to many. They'll deserve that "market correction".
______________________________
Taibbi: Partisan echo chambers resulted in Wednesday’s violence at Capitol
_________________________
The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot | Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels. | Glenn Greenwald | Feb 17, 2021
It was tendentiously labelled a "riot" by the utterly biased and corrupt press which is a mouthpiece for the Pelosis, the Hoyers and their ilk. None, I repeat, _none_ of these "rioters" was armed with other than articles which came to hand by mere chance surroundings--sticks, etc. None carried any fire-arms. Claims to the contrary have been definitively debunked as the vicious and calculated lies of this same partisan media (See Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi essays on this point.)
A blatantly illegal and fraudulent attempt to certify a defrauded presidential-elector process was opposed by these people assembled at the Capitol that day in January. The actual criminal acts were going on within the Capitol's committee room where the certification was being conducted.
Lying about these facts, no matter how often repeated, cannot and does not change them in the slightest. The election so "certified" of Joe Biden is coming more and more each day to be revealed as the flagrant act of coordinated, conspiratorial fraud that it always was. That shall eventually become the true and generally-accepted view of the election of 2020: corruptly stolen from and its rightful victor and corruptly "certified" by the very elected officials who were deeply implicated in the fraud from its conception--no matter how these latter try to forestall that outcome.
..."It presages very dark times for the US," ...
"Presages" nothing! "Dark times" are indeed truly with us and appear to be likely to remain for some considerable time while a nation founders in a suicidal state of make-believe and denial. The stock-market hasn't fully caught up to these realities but there is no way that its whistling in the dark is going to see it through this ugly reality. When the recognition comes, it's going to bring great financial losses and ruin to many. They'll deserve that "market correction".
______________________________
Taibbi: Partisan echo chambers resulted in Wednesday’s violence at Capitol
_________________________
The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot | Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels. | Glenn Greenwald | Feb 17, 2021
7kiparsky
>6 proximity1: None, I repeat, _none_ of these "rioters" was armed with other than articles which came to hand by mere chance surroundings--sticks, etc.
Debunked.
Please try to keep up with the facts. If you have trouble reading all the big words, look at the pictures.
It was tendentiously labelled a "riot" by the utterly biased and corrupt press
... because when you have a howling bloodthirsty mob attacking a government building, baying for the blood of their enemies and assaulting those who get in their way, in several cases with deadly effect, "riot" is a pretty good word for that. The cops that were murdered on that day were defending this country from its enemies. That was their job, and that's who killed them.
And here we see that you will stand up, not for the cops who gave their lives for their country, but for the murdering thugs who assaulted our democracy.
I can understand why you're feeling the shame that stands out in your post, but denial will not help you get over what you're feeling about what happened, and about your part in that.
Debunked.
Please try to keep up with the facts. If you have trouble reading all the big words, look at the pictures.
It was tendentiously labelled a "riot" by the utterly biased and corrupt press
... because when you have a howling bloodthirsty mob attacking a government building, baying for the blood of their enemies and assaulting those who get in their way, in several cases with deadly effect, "riot" is a pretty good word for that. The cops that were murdered on that day were defending this country from its enemies. That was their job, and that's who killed them.
And here we see that you will stand up, not for the cops who gave their lives for their country, but for the murdering thugs who assaulted our democracy.
I can understand why you're feeling the shame that stands out in your post, but denial will not help you get over what you're feeling about what happened, and about your part in that.
8Molly3028
Luckily, billions of people on the globe have better eyesight and wiring than Prox, and his ilk, have.
9Doug1943
>4 John5918: John, I don't hate people on the Left. I was on the Left -- a very serious Marxist for 20 years -- and still have friends there. You can be on the Left for very honorable motivations. I consider some Leftists misguided, others muddle-headed, others weak and cowardly. But these are not reasons to hate anyone.
So, yes, there are plenty of people on the Left whom I despise ... they are weak, cowardly, dishonest, afraid to challenge the mob. I hope I don't 'hate' them though. Of course, if some anti-Fa scum throws a half-brick at me -- or at a Republican grandmother -- yes, I might feel a flash of hatred. Evolution has made us this way.
But generally, I try to keep emotions out of political analysis. If you can find something I have posted on this forum which expresses hatred for the person I'm arguing with, please point it out. I'm actually looking for converts, and expressing negative feelings towards them gets in the way of that.
I happen to agree with the liberal fellow who founded Pro and Con, in his guidance for how we should conduct ourselves here. Everyone should read it.
As for pacifists, etc. Who in the world could hate them? Very nice people, naive as hell, but ... it's their choice. If they want to stroke the poor hungry crocodile as it waddles towards them, or make friends with grizzley bears https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/harrowing-final-moments-couple-eaten-2176004... well, that's their choice.
What I'm describing is just the reality in America. Both sides increasingly hate each other. It's an interesting inversion of what happened in some European countries, like Austria and Spain, before WWII: there, there was a class divide, but the upper class/middle class was on the Right, and the lower/working class on the Left. Now in the US that configuration has reversed. The Leftist kiddies feel contempt for the non-college-educated.
We will have to disagree on the violent riots of the summer and the riot in Congress. You are sympathetic to the first, I to the second. Your description of the people who are sympathetic to AntiFa being 'appalled' by their violence made me smile. You're describing yourself, but not the American Left. (When an AntiFa supporter shot a patriot to death in Portland, the leftist mob, on hearing the news, cheered. https://policetribune.com/portland-protesters-cheer-after-man-in-wearing-right-w...
We're not naive fools, and have drawn the necessary conclusions.
Anyway, keep tuned. It's going to get interesting!
So, yes, there are plenty of people on the Left whom I despise ... they are weak, cowardly, dishonest, afraid to challenge the mob. I hope I don't 'hate' them though. Of course, if some anti-Fa scum throws a half-brick at me -- or at a Republican grandmother -- yes, I might feel a flash of hatred. Evolution has made us this way.
But generally, I try to keep emotions out of political analysis. If you can find something I have posted on this forum which expresses hatred for the person I'm arguing with, please point it out. I'm actually looking for converts, and expressing negative feelings towards them gets in the way of that.
I happen to agree with the liberal fellow who founded Pro and Con, in his guidance for how we should conduct ourselves here. Everyone should read it.
As for pacifists, etc. Who in the world could hate them? Very nice people, naive as hell, but ... it's their choice. If they want to stroke the poor hungry crocodile as it waddles towards them, or make friends with grizzley bears https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/harrowing-final-moments-couple-eaten-2176004... well, that's their choice.
What I'm describing is just the reality in America. Both sides increasingly hate each other. It's an interesting inversion of what happened in some European countries, like Austria and Spain, before WWII: there, there was a class divide, but the upper class/middle class was on the Right, and the lower/working class on the Left. Now in the US that configuration has reversed. The Leftist kiddies feel contempt for the non-college-educated.
We will have to disagree on the violent riots of the summer and the riot in Congress. You are sympathetic to the first, I to the second. Your description of the people who are sympathetic to AntiFa being 'appalled' by their violence made me smile. You're describing yourself, but not the American Left. (When an AntiFa supporter shot a patriot to death in Portland, the leftist mob, on hearing the news, cheered. https://policetribune.com/portland-protesters-cheer-after-man-in-wearing-right-w...
We're not naive fools, and have drawn the necessary conclusions.
Anyway, keep tuned. It's going to get interesting!
10Doug1943
>5 kiparsky: A very eloquent, intelligent reply.
11Doug1943
>6 proximity1: Whatever the truth about the riot, it was a bonehead move, and a huge gift to the Left. Of course, they will exploit it to the maximum, and so would we, if they had done something as stupid. When your enemy is down, you kick him.
Look -- even if the election had been stolen, that was not the way to respond.
We've got to be smart. We've got to understand that the battle with the Left is, first of all, a battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the broad middle of America. So long as they are not with us -- so long as we are 30 or 40% of society -- that has to be our main task.
The Left will help us in this!! They're bringing drag queens into the schools, to sexualize young children. They want to defund the police. They want to teach children that their country was born in racism, soaked in it, is deeply racist today ... so it should be despised.
Our job is to bring these efforts of the Left to the attention of ordinary people.
Many people on the Right whom I have followed on social media now say, "It was all a set-up. They were provoked into it!" They thereby acknowledge that it was something the Left would have liked our side to do. Therefore, it was something we should not have done.
Here's what we need: in France, where they have a lot of experience with mass demonstrations, the trade unions (and the old CP when it was a mass party) have formations they call the service d'ordre. They are organized, and appropriately equipped, and serve as stewards, who are on the edge of marches, and can deal with provocateurs and people who might attack the march or demonstration.
We need to start organizing such groups nationally. When we have demonstrations or rallies, we can expect them to be violently attacked by AntiFa. When we speak on college campuses, we can expect the Left to try to disrupt the talk and injure our speakers. We need an organized group, made up of veterans and similar men, trained, equipped, to deal with these attacks. We've got these people ... but we must organize them.
One note: some people on the Right think that the answer is to bring firearms to our demonstrations. A very bad idea! I won't go into why, but another thing we need is some elementary legal training in when you can, and cannot, legally use lethal force.
As America spirals down, we will face many challenges, and it will be easy for our side to get it wrong, to play into the hands of the Left. We must not do it.
Look -- even if the election had been stolen, that was not the way to respond.
We've got to be smart. We've got to understand that the battle with the Left is, first of all, a battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the broad middle of America. So long as they are not with us -- so long as we are 30 or 40% of society -- that has to be our main task.
The Left will help us in this!! They're bringing drag queens into the schools, to sexualize young children. They want to defund the police. They want to teach children that their country was born in racism, soaked in it, is deeply racist today ... so it should be despised.
Our job is to bring these efforts of the Left to the attention of ordinary people.
Many people on the Right whom I have followed on social media now say, "It was all a set-up. They were provoked into it!" They thereby acknowledge that it was something the Left would have liked our side to do. Therefore, it was something we should not have done.
Here's what we need: in France, where they have a lot of experience with mass demonstrations, the trade unions (and the old CP when it was a mass party) have formations they call the service d'ordre. They are organized, and appropriately equipped, and serve as stewards, who are on the edge of marches, and can deal with provocateurs and people who might attack the march or demonstration.
We need to start organizing such groups nationally. When we have demonstrations or rallies, we can expect them to be violently attacked by AntiFa. When we speak on college campuses, we can expect the Left to try to disrupt the talk and injure our speakers. We need an organized group, made up of veterans and similar men, trained, equipped, to deal with these attacks. We've got these people ... but we must organize them.
One note: some people on the Right think that the answer is to bring firearms to our demonstrations. A very bad idea! I won't go into why, but another thing we need is some elementary legal training in when you can, and cannot, legally use lethal force.
As America spirals down, we will face many challenges, and it will be easy for our side to get it wrong, to play into the hands of the Left. We must not do it.
12kiparsky
>11 Doug1943: a battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the broad middle of America
Oh, hadn't you heard? The Republicans lost that one years ago. And they know it, too - that's why they're spending so much effort preventing people from voting. The results are in, Americans hate Republican ideas, that's why Republicans can't get majorities.
A very eloquent, intelligent reply.
Thank you! And sincerely meant, as well, believe it or not.
Oh, hadn't you heard? The Republicans lost that one years ago. And they know it, too - that's why they're spending so much effort preventing people from voting. The results are in, Americans hate Republican ideas, that's why Republicans can't get majorities.
A very eloquent, intelligent reply.
Thank you! And sincerely meant, as well, believe it or not.
13prosfilaes
>9 Doug1943: I was on the Left -- a very serious Marxist for 20 years
There seems to be a pattern of people who are on the far left and then swing over to the far right. It does not inspire me to believe in their wisdom, more that they have a tendency to choose extreme positions unmoderated by facts.
If they want to stroke the poor hungry crocodile as it waddles towards them, or make friends with grizzley bears
Is your solution to kill rare endangered creatures if they come anywhere near you? If not, your analogy seems silly. If so, your analogy seems genocidal. People peacefully coexist with bears and crocodiles all the time, by giving them their space.
What I'm describing is just the reality in America.
As you see it.
not the American Left. (When an AntiFa supporter shot a patriot to death in Portland, the leftist mob, on hearing the news, cheered. https://policetribune.com/portland-protesters-cheer-after-man-in-wearing-right-w....
What a source. I invite everyone to listen to that video. Proof that a few people mildly cheered upon hearing the news is taken to be "the" leftist mob cheering, and then that is mapped back to the "American Left".
We will have to disagree on the violent riots of the summer and the riot in Congress. You are sympathetic to the first, I to the second.
I go back to my first comment. Marxists are the type of people who feel sympathetic to a bloody revolution. Patriots, real patriots, have their blood run cold when they hear that the Capitol was raided by people with the stated intentions of killing high-ranking elected officials. I take note of every free presidential election world round here on LT, because I'm tired of hearing about military coup and would like to hear more about nations consistently managing peaceful democratic transitions. All that American propaganda, you know, about freedom and democracy?
When 15-26 million people engage in protests, with around 19 deaths, about 1 per million, that's violent. But when 2000 engage in a protest, that ends in 1 to 5 deaths, depending on how you count, which is 500-2500 deaths per million, you withhold the word violent. You knock me over with your clear attempt at impartiality.
It's an interesting inversion of what happened in some European countries, like Austria and Spain, before WWII: there, there was a class divide, but the upper class/middle class was on the Right, and the lower/working class on the Left. Now in the US that configuration has reversed. The Leftist kiddies feel contempt for the non-college-educated.
Meh. https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.asp... offers some numbers (search for "Americans' Political Ideology by Subgroup, 2019"), and while, yes, only 26 percent of postgraduates consider themselves conservative compared to 41 percent of people with no college, there's 41% / 33% men/women, 26% / 46% 18-29 year olds/65+, 23%/41% Black/Non-Hispanic White and 32% / 41% East versus South. There's virtually zero difference by income, and the education division is strong, but so are a lot of other comparisons. This poll doesn't list a rural / urban divide, but looking at other sources, that may be even stronger than the ones mentioned. As an (ex-)Marxist, you focus on the class divide to the exclusion of the whole pattern.
>11 Doug1943: They're bringing drag queens into the schools, to sexualize young children.
Drag queens are all about gender, not sexuality.
They want to defund the police.
There is no mainstream Democratic support to defund the police.
They want to teach children that their country was born in racism, soaked in it, is deeply racist today ... so it should be despised.
Yeah, a bunch of white men, including many holding slaves in bondage justified on their race, created a new nation, that then spent 80 years with legalized race based slavery and where non-white people couldn't vote almost anywhere, while driving the Native Americans off their lands. We fought a civil war over this slavery, and after all the shouting was over, and the terrorist group known as the KKK had their way, black people still didn't have civil rights in much of this nation. I can go on and on, but these are facts.
I don't think that most on the Left would consider the US today "deeply racist", but certainly it is a continuing problem. Nor do most say it should be despised.
Our job is to bring these efforts of the Left to the attention of ordinary people.
Again, you're being an extremist who is looking for ways to fight battles, instead of discussing what's really going on. We could discuss how we treat the completely and blatantly factual history of racism in the US, or we could deny it.
When we have demonstrations or rallies, we can expect them to be violently attacked by AntiFa.
Whenever you have demonstrations chanting "the Jews will not replace us", it's possible the AntiFa will get violently involved. I don't know how "service d'ordre" are going to help, given that the demonstrators at those demonstrations tend to want to bash some heads. When the demonstrators aren't, you know, outright fascists, AntiFa doesn't seem to be a problem. Weird.
>10 Doug1943: A very eloquent, intelligent reply.
Talking to you doesn't seem to be very productive sometimes. You have this image of half of the US in your mind, and facts don't seem to go far to disturb it. You'll disengage, and then come back with the exact same stuff later, like you did with the Black Athena thing, where, again, you took something relatively minor and blew it up to represent the entire Left.
There seems to be a pattern of people who are on the far left and then swing over to the far right. It does not inspire me to believe in their wisdom, more that they have a tendency to choose extreme positions unmoderated by facts.
If they want to stroke the poor hungry crocodile as it waddles towards them, or make friends with grizzley bears
Is your solution to kill rare endangered creatures if they come anywhere near you? If not, your analogy seems silly. If so, your analogy seems genocidal. People peacefully coexist with bears and crocodiles all the time, by giving them their space.
What I'm describing is just the reality in America.
As you see it.
not the American Left. (When an AntiFa supporter shot a patriot to death in Portland, the leftist mob, on hearing the news, cheered. https://policetribune.com/portland-protesters-cheer-after-man-in-wearing-right-w....
What a source. I invite everyone to listen to that video. Proof that a few people mildly cheered upon hearing the news is taken to be "the" leftist mob cheering, and then that is mapped back to the "American Left".
We will have to disagree on the violent riots of the summer and the riot in Congress. You are sympathetic to the first, I to the second.
I go back to my first comment. Marxists are the type of people who feel sympathetic to a bloody revolution. Patriots, real patriots, have their blood run cold when they hear that the Capitol was raided by people with the stated intentions of killing high-ranking elected officials. I take note of every free presidential election world round here on LT, because I'm tired of hearing about military coup and would like to hear more about nations consistently managing peaceful democratic transitions. All that American propaganda, you know, about freedom and democracy?
When 15-26 million people engage in protests, with around 19 deaths, about 1 per million, that's violent. But when 2000 engage in a protest, that ends in 1 to 5 deaths, depending on how you count, which is 500-2500 deaths per million, you withhold the word violent. You knock me over with your clear attempt at impartiality.
It's an interesting inversion of what happened in some European countries, like Austria and Spain, before WWII: there, there was a class divide, but the upper class/middle class was on the Right, and the lower/working class on the Left. Now in the US that configuration has reversed. The Leftist kiddies feel contempt for the non-college-educated.
Meh. https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.asp... offers some numbers (search for "Americans' Political Ideology by Subgroup, 2019"), and while, yes, only 26 percent of postgraduates consider themselves conservative compared to 41 percent of people with no college, there's 41% / 33% men/women, 26% / 46% 18-29 year olds/65+, 23%/41% Black/Non-Hispanic White and 32% / 41% East versus South. There's virtually zero difference by income, and the education division is strong, but so are a lot of other comparisons. This poll doesn't list a rural / urban divide, but looking at other sources, that may be even stronger than the ones mentioned. As an (ex-)Marxist, you focus on the class divide to the exclusion of the whole pattern.
>11 Doug1943: They're bringing drag queens into the schools, to sexualize young children.
Drag queens are all about gender, not sexuality.
They want to defund the police.
There is no mainstream Democratic support to defund the police.
They want to teach children that their country was born in racism, soaked in it, is deeply racist today ... so it should be despised.
Yeah, a bunch of white men, including many holding slaves in bondage justified on their race, created a new nation, that then spent 80 years with legalized race based slavery and where non-white people couldn't vote almost anywhere, while driving the Native Americans off their lands. We fought a civil war over this slavery, and after all the shouting was over, and the terrorist group known as the KKK had their way, black people still didn't have civil rights in much of this nation. I can go on and on, but these are facts.
I don't think that most on the Left would consider the US today "deeply racist", but certainly it is a continuing problem. Nor do most say it should be despised.
Our job is to bring these efforts of the Left to the attention of ordinary people.
Again, you're being an extremist who is looking for ways to fight battles, instead of discussing what's really going on. We could discuss how we treat the completely and blatantly factual history of racism in the US, or we could deny it.
When we have demonstrations or rallies, we can expect them to be violently attacked by AntiFa.
Whenever you have demonstrations chanting "the Jews will not replace us", it's possible the AntiFa will get violently involved. I don't know how "service d'ordre" are going to help, given that the demonstrators at those demonstrations tend to want to bash some heads. When the demonstrators aren't, you know, outright fascists, AntiFa doesn't seem to be a problem. Weird.
>10 Doug1943: A very eloquent, intelligent reply.
Talking to you doesn't seem to be very productive sometimes. You have this image of half of the US in your mind, and facts don't seem to go far to disturb it. You'll disengage, and then come back with the exact same stuff later, like you did with the Black Athena thing, where, again, you took something relatively minor and blew it up to represent the entire Left.
14lriley
It’s funny when Prox claims none of the rioters came armed with weapons (though he does acknowledge that many used what they could find at hand) when one of the more infamous of those arrested Richard Barnett is seen the next day sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair, feet on her desk with a taser clearly visible in his possession.
Among those arrested at the riot with firearms—Mark Mazza from Indiana with a Taurus revolver, Samuel Fisher from New York, Christopher Alberts from Maryland, Guy Reffitt from Texas. It’s an incomplete list. There may be others also most of the rioters were allowed to leave afterwards and arrested later.
Also it is expected when the Oathkeepers conspiracy trial gets going that it will get into that group staging firearms nearby if and when the assault on the Capitol really kicked in. There certainly appears to be intent by them to bring death and destruction.
It is also a crime to bring firearms into the District of Columbia proper. Other arrested rioters did such and had weapons nearby. They included Lonnie Coffman of Alabama who had a number of Molotovs prepared along with a number of firearms including an AR-15 and also a crossbow. Nolan Cooke of Texas and Cleveland Meredith of North Carolina also had guns nearby in their respective cars. Others arrested with guns in the nights leading up to the riot who hoped to but never made it to the Capitol—Tim Wolfe and Chris Snell from Virginia, Thomas Gronek from New Jersey, Grant McHoyt Moore from Georgia, Leslie Grimes from Michigan and Harlan Boen from Colorado.
There were numerous other weapons from knives to baseball bats, a hockey stick, brass knuckles, tasers, batons, a hatchet, mace and bear spray which by the way Julian Khater of Pennsylvania and George Tanios from West Virginia doused police officer Sicknick in who had a reaction and died.
Hardly a peaceful demonstration when you have several fatalities and hundreds of injured cops and untold numbers of injured rioters.
Among those arrested at the riot with firearms—Mark Mazza from Indiana with a Taurus revolver, Samuel Fisher from New York, Christopher Alberts from Maryland, Guy Reffitt from Texas. It’s an incomplete list. There may be others also most of the rioters were allowed to leave afterwards and arrested later.
Also it is expected when the Oathkeepers conspiracy trial gets going that it will get into that group staging firearms nearby if and when the assault on the Capitol really kicked in. There certainly appears to be intent by them to bring death and destruction.
It is also a crime to bring firearms into the District of Columbia proper. Other arrested rioters did such and had weapons nearby. They included Lonnie Coffman of Alabama who had a number of Molotovs prepared along with a number of firearms including an AR-15 and also a crossbow. Nolan Cooke of Texas and Cleveland Meredith of North Carolina also had guns nearby in their respective cars. Others arrested with guns in the nights leading up to the riot who hoped to but never made it to the Capitol—Tim Wolfe and Chris Snell from Virginia, Thomas Gronek from New Jersey, Grant McHoyt Moore from Georgia, Leslie Grimes from Michigan and Harlan Boen from Colorado.
There were numerous other weapons from knives to baseball bats, a hockey stick, brass knuckles, tasers, batons, a hatchet, mace and bear spray which by the way Julian Khater of Pennsylvania and George Tanios from West Virginia doused police officer Sicknick in who had a reaction and died.
Hardly a peaceful demonstration when you have several fatalities and hundreds of injured cops and untold numbers of injured rioters.
15Molly3028
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/30/us-supreme-court-epa-decis...
The US supreme court just made yet another devastating decision for humanity by Peter Kalmus
The EPA ruling means it may now be mathematically impossible through available avenues for the US to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions goal
***
The damage Mitch and Trump have invited into the lives of Americans via SCOTUS is already adding up. The GOP appears to be thrilled to gift a majority of Americans health issues and make them despondent about their daily lives on planet earth. Prices go up, down and all around ~ health issues, on the other hand, have the bad habit of becoming chronic issues. Is this an example of their America First crapola???
The US supreme court just made yet another devastating decision for humanity by Peter Kalmus
The EPA ruling means it may now be mathematically impossible through available avenues for the US to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions goal
***
The damage Mitch and Trump have invited into the lives of Americans via SCOTUS is already adding up. The GOP appears to be thrilled to gift a majority of Americans health issues and make them despondent about their daily lives on planet earth. Prices go up, down and all around ~ health issues, on the other hand, have the bad habit of becoming chronic issues. Is this an example of their America First crapola???
16proximity1
>9 Doug1943:
you're far more advanced in insight and moral precepts than nearly all of those who are your detractors. You wouldn't point this out--so I do. However, much of this blather about "hatred" versus supposed "non-hatred" is just so much idle chatter. In most of the practical world, whether one does or doesn't "hate" others or, indeed, is "hated" by others is strictly irrelevant to practical affairs. That doesn't hinder the "Woke"'s obsession with "hate"--which, somehow, they apparently actually believe they've mastered, conquered, in themselves, having now moved on to imagine, in their amazing hubris, that with sufficient efforts, they are bound to seriously minimize or eliminate it in others. (in Communist zealots, this kind of fanaticism produced Stalin's "Great Purge" and all the worst of Mao Tse-tung's purges and Cultural Revolution) The lack of introspection of these people is more than breath-taking. And it's in just this self-delusion that they are really most dangerous.
Whatever one thinks about "pacifists", there are circumstances in which they and their precepts are very seriously dangerous to the short-term survival of others--who are being attacked and killed. WWII was one of many examples. Then, more than a few former pacifists had their lovely ideals shown to be utterly impractical--besides being socially dangerous.
Diplomacy didn't end with or in World War II. But it didn't bring about the end of hostilities, either. Only combat force did that. Diplomacy's contributions after the war were predicated on an allied victory.
Many among our fellow citizens are the moral and intellectual equivalent of toddlers. Again, whether this is "nice" to point out, or "friendly", is beside a different and more urgent point: that, as a fact, it has to be reckoned with and the matter of animus or comity, mutual or one-sided, in all that is really beside the point.
As for myself, I regard my own--and others'-- emotional component as a humanly necessary component of my own --and their own-- motivations--of every type. I no more want to definitively eliminate emotion from my intellectual make-up than I want to definitively eliminate "hunger" from my physiology's homeostatic working. I have no interest in or desire to smother my emotions; Star Trek's "Mr. Spock," so admired by so many naive people--now both youthful and over 60 years of age--was, let us remember, a character in a fantasy drama and, as a real human, which so many admirers hoped for as an evolutionary "advance" on real-world human nature, not fit for the human role-model so many fans took him to be. In our real world, he'd be not just a freak of human nature, he'd be at a number of serious disadvantages living in a human society. The world of life aboard the "starship Enterprise was part of this often quite silly and utterly unrealistic society--one which, as so many fans, then and now, failed and fail to notice, was replete with violent conflict in virtually every episode.
Basic human nature's very stubbornly persistent stupidity and naivete unfortunately got scant dramatic attention from the creative minds which wrote and produced Star Trek and, in that failing, those creative people helped saddle two and, now, three generations of fans with a load of moral hooey. These consequences are everywhere to be seen and these discussion fora are no exception.
>10 Doug1943:
Sarcasm?
>11 Doug1943:
On the contrary, the truth about what you concede to Leftist propagandists by describing as "the riot" is all about the very disputable matters of what actually happened, who did what, when, and with what motives and purposes on that day--just as is the judgement, very premature by my view of things, that the protest in and of itself was "a boneheaded move". All these aspects have been reduced to a media-fed simplistic and self-serving fantasy "mush" gobbled up by the "Woke".
If, as I believe, the facts shall eventually emerge showing that all the worst aspects of what's denounced as a "riot" were the work of left-wing agents provacateurs seeded in the crowd, then what comes to be regarded as "boneheaded", not to mention criminal, shall change dramatically in the eyes and views of the impartial public.
That misses the very point here: the intentions and identities of those who actually planned and instigated the rally's push to not just protest the congressional committee's fraudulent certification of electors but to make a violent attempt to storm the committee rooms. If that was a deliberate effort fostered by people in or aligned with the Biden camp, then the peaceful intentions of those others there, not part of this plan to foment a violent intrusion, were not going to materially change the day's unfolding.
but, below, you're observations are entirely apt:
Indeed. Having lived there and witnessed numerous such marches and rallies-- my own neighborhood was the parade/protest route's default site of passage!--I've personally witnessed these tactics and measures many times. (in the photo, you're looking East, to the Place de la Bastille, the traditional terminus for these protest marches. The monument column seen at the far end of the boulevard is in the center of the "Round point" (traffic circle) which dominates this site.)
The French do this. They are indeed very practiced in it. But that comes from years of trial and error and people whose experience is saved and passed on to younger apprentice-members of groups which are long-standing agents of political reform. The French--across the political spectrum--have the arts of public protest rallies down to a more or less fine art. They do less well when it comes to the harder part where the rallies actually win practical gains and these have to be put into long-term effect.
you're far more advanced in insight and moral precepts than nearly all of those who are your detractors. You wouldn't point this out--so I do. However, much of this blather about "hatred" versus supposed "non-hatred" is just so much idle chatter. In most of the practical world, whether one does or doesn't "hate" others or, indeed, is "hated" by others is strictly irrelevant to practical affairs. That doesn't hinder the "Woke"'s obsession with "hate"--which, somehow, they apparently actually believe they've mastered, conquered, in themselves, having now moved on to imagine, in their amazing hubris, that with sufficient efforts, they are bound to seriously minimize or eliminate it in others. (in Communist zealots, this kind of fanaticism produced Stalin's "Great Purge" and all the worst of Mao Tse-tung's purges and Cultural Revolution) The lack of introspection of these people is more than breath-taking. And it's in just this self-delusion that they are really most dangerous.
Whatever one thinks about "pacifists", there are circumstances in which they and their precepts are very seriously dangerous to the short-term survival of others--who are being attacked and killed. WWII was one of many examples. Then, more than a few former pacifists had their lovely ideals shown to be utterly impractical--besides being socially dangerous.
Diplomacy didn't end with or in World War II. But it didn't bring about the end of hostilities, either. Only combat force did that. Diplomacy's contributions after the war were predicated on an allied victory.
Many among our fellow citizens are the moral and intellectual equivalent of toddlers. Again, whether this is "nice" to point out, or "friendly", is beside a different and more urgent point: that, as a fact, it has to be reckoned with and the matter of animus or comity, mutual or one-sided, in all that is really beside the point.
As for myself, I regard my own--and others'-- emotional component as a humanly necessary component of my own --and their own-- motivations--of every type. I no more want to definitively eliminate emotion from my intellectual make-up than I want to definitively eliminate "hunger" from my physiology's homeostatic working. I have no interest in or desire to smother my emotions; Star Trek's "Mr. Spock," so admired by so many naive people--now both youthful and over 60 years of age--was, let us remember, a character in a fantasy drama and, as a real human, which so many admirers hoped for as an evolutionary "advance" on real-world human nature, not fit for the human role-model so many fans took him to be. In our real world, he'd be not just a freak of human nature, he'd be at a number of serious disadvantages living in a human society. The world of life aboard the "starship Enterprise was part of this often quite silly and utterly unrealistic society--one which, as so many fans, then and now, failed and fail to notice, was replete with violent conflict in virtually every episode.
Basic human nature's very stubbornly persistent stupidity and naivete unfortunately got scant dramatic attention from the creative minds which wrote and produced Star Trek and, in that failing, those creative people helped saddle two and, now, three generations of fans with a load of moral hooey. These consequences are everywhere to be seen and these discussion fora are no exception.
>10 Doug1943:
"A very eloquent, intelligent reply."
Sarcasm?
>11 Doug1943:
"Whatever the truth about the riot, it was a bonehead move, and a huge gift to the Left."
On the contrary, the truth about what you concede to Leftist propagandists by describing as "the riot" is all about the very disputable matters of what actually happened, who did what, when, and with what motives and purposes on that day--just as is the judgement, very premature by my view of things, that the protest in and of itself was "a boneheaded move". All these aspects have been reduced to a media-fed simplistic and self-serving fantasy "mush" gobbled up by the "Woke".
If, as I believe, the facts shall eventually emerge showing that all the worst aspects of what's denounced as a "riot" were the work of left-wing agents provacateurs seeded in the crowd, then what comes to be regarded as "boneheaded", not to mention criminal, shall change dramatically in the eyes and views of the impartial public.
Look--even if the election had been stolen, that was not the way to respond.
... ...
Many people on the Right whom I have followed on social media now say, "It was all a set-up. They were provoked into it!" They thereby acknowledge that it was something the Left would have liked our side to do. Therefore, it was something we should not have done.
That misses the very point here: the intentions and identities of those who actually planned and instigated the rally's push to not just protest the congressional committee's fraudulent certification of electors but to make a violent attempt to storm the committee rooms. If that was a deliberate effort fostered by people in or aligned with the Biden camp, then the peaceful intentions of those others there, not part of this plan to foment a violent intrusion, were not going to materially change the day's unfolding.
but, below, you're observations are entirely apt:
Here's what we need: in France, where they have a lot of experience with mass demonstrations, the trade unions (and the old CP when it was a mass party) have formations they call the service d'ordre. They are organized, and appropriately equipped, and serve as stewards, who are on the edge of marches, and can deal with provocateurs and people who might attack the march or demonstration.
We need to start organizing such groups nationally. When we have demonstrations or rallies, we can expect them to be violently attacked by AntiFa. When we speak on college campuses, we can expect the Left to try to disrupt the talk and injure our speakers. We need an organized group, made up of veterans and similar men, trained, equipped, to deal with these attacks. We've got these people ... but we must organize them.
Indeed. Having lived there and witnessed numerous such marches and rallies-- my own neighborhood was the parade/protest route's default site of passage!--I've personally witnessed these tactics and measures many times. (in the photo, you're looking East, to the Place de la Bastille, the traditional terminus for these protest marches. The monument column seen at the far end of the boulevard is in the center of the "Round point" (traffic circle) which dominates this site.)
The French do this. They are indeed very practiced in it. But that comes from years of trial and error and people whose experience is saved and passed on to younger apprentice-members of groups which are long-standing agents of political reform. The French--across the political spectrum--have the arts of public protest rallies down to a more or less fine art. They do less well when it comes to the harder part where the rallies actually win practical gains and these have to be put into long-term effect.
17Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-poll-whopping-68-of-fox-news-viewers-blame-jan...
NEW POLL: Whopping 68% of Fox News Viewers Blame Jan. 6 on ‘Left-Wing Protesters Trying To Make Trump Look Bad’
***
Murdoch's mind-game business model is unfortunately working like a charm on too many clueless Americans at a critical juncture in the country's history.
NEW POLL: Whopping 68% of Fox News Viewers Blame Jan. 6 on ‘Left-Wing Protesters Trying To Make Trump Look Bad’
***
Murdoch's mind-game business model is unfortunately working like a charm on too many clueless Americans at a critical juncture in the country's history.
18aspirit
”If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
— Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 1816
PolitiFact:"'There were no guns whatsoever' at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6." (July 13, 2021)
FactCheck.org: Capitol Protesters Were Armed With Variety of Weapons (March 2021)
"Conservative social media posts misleadingly claim the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was not an 'armed' insurrection"
Newsweek: Fact Check: Were There Armed Protesters at the Capitol on January 6? (June 13, 2022)
PBS News Hour on YouTube: WATCH: Jan. 6 committee shows new footage of Capitol attack (June 9, 2022)
Time.com: What Happened to the Jan. 6 Insurrectionists Arrested Since the Capitol Riot (last updated June 15, 2022) including those charged with assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon
— Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 1816
PolitiFact:"'There were no guns whatsoever' at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6." (July 13, 2021)
FactCheck.org: Capitol Protesters Were Armed With Variety of Weapons (March 2021)
"Conservative social media posts misleadingly claim the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was not an 'armed' insurrection"
Newsweek: Fact Check: Were There Armed Protesters at the Capitol on January 6? (June 13, 2022)
{Tucker} Carlson made the claim on the June 10, 2022, edition of his Fox News flagship cable news program; in what he claimed was an attempt to "be clear on terms," he said there were no firearms among protesters, meaning Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.(the bolding is mine)
However, not only is there substantial and clear evidence that there were protesters with guns, it's also not clear why Carlson and other commentators believe that guns are a defining character of an insurrection.{...}
{W}hile there is clear evidence showing that firearms were indeed brought into the January 6 march, the underlying claim itself is somewhat of a red herring, because it implies that possession of firearms is somehow a condition for an insurrection.
American politics expert Professor Angelia Wilson of the University of Manchester, told Newsweek that insurrection is an act of violent resistance against a civil authority or government, that may involve any weapon or hand-to-hand combat.{...}
On this count, there is also plenty of evidence that protesters were carrying other weapons and acted violently towards authorities.
Among the more than 800 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, more than 85 have been accused of using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
There were also the reports of pipe bombs found near the Capitol before January 6, though the investigation into who was behind them is still ongoing.
PBS News Hour on YouTube: WATCH: Jan. 6 committee shows new footage of Capitol attack (June 9, 2022)
Time.com: What Happened to the Jan. 6 Insurrectionists Arrested Since the Capitol Riot (last updated June 15, 2022) including those charged with assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon
19Doug1943
Okay, lots of interesting responses. Let's see what we can agree on.
I'm on the Right. I think 6 January was a huge gift to the Left. I think many on the Right tacitly agree with me, which is why they want to say it was actually a Leftist set-up. Leftists don't provoke conservatives into doing things that aid conservatism.
Whether or not provocateurs played a role in it -- I don't know. It's entirely possible. The police do these things in other places, often against trade unionists. But it doesn't matter. If you're a conservative, you ought to act in an intelligent manner and not walk into an obvious trap. And if it was entirely self-caused without any help from outsiders ...
Now, in a big crowd, fired up by emotion, it's not always easy to act in an intelligent manner. What is true for an individual considering what to do in the privacy of his own home, may not be true for 50 000 individuals in a crowd. Madness of crowds and all that.
So, we've got to have organized stewards. Simples.
Were there guns there? Probably. It's America. There will be guns in any crowd. Even liberals who live in big cities are starting to carry.
Was there an attempt to seize state power, which is what an insurrection is? (Or, with a bow to Mr Korzybski, how we should use the word 'insurrection' for maximum clarity.)
Well, if it was, it was the stupidest 'insurrection' in the history of insurrections. That's not how you do it. I've already directed any interested insurrectionists to the right books on the subject, available for free from our friends at Marxists.com. What did they think, that Congress was going to say, "Ohhhh...we're so frightened... okay, Trump can be President again."
Was it a "riot"? Let's not split hairs. If the Left had done something like this -- one of their "mostly peaceful protests", ha ha, we'd have called it a "riot". And if we could, we would have done just what they're doing now, in Congress. When your enemy makes a mistake, exploit it to the hilt. Our side screwed up, big time. Admit it, learn the lessons, take the hit, and move on.
We've got to win the broad middle. Yes, yes, as someone said, we have lost the broad middle, liberals will win all the coming elections, no need to get all excited ... in fact, my liberal friends, on election day, just go fishing or whatever you like to do. My guys are bound to lose.
Prox: I'd be interested in talking to you about your experiences in France. Not here, obviously.
Prosfilaes: I don't have time right now to give you the reply you deserve -- you're obviously a thoughtful person, and we ought to have a serious debate at some point.
I'll just say, I don't think everyone who is left of center is a hard-core Marxist, or other kind of hard-core Leftist. All human life is there, just as it is on the Right.
But there is a direction of motion, and nice well-meaning tolerant liberals get pushed by people who are more conscious, more radical, more committed to a complete change. Read Tom Wolfe's "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. He was ahead of his time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_%26_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers
But we'll have to argue about this in more detail -- I think I was right on the Black Athena thing and we can see that happening right now with the 1619 Project, Critical Race Theory, etc. But it deservers a thread of its own.
Oh yes, one point. You say, "Marxists are the type of people who feel sympathetic to a bloody revolution". Your phrasing is a bit awkward here, but I think you mean they are the type of people who positively WANT a bloody revolution, as opposed to a peaceful transition to socialism.
Well, that's not true. (It's actually what most of my fellow Righties think, and they're wrong.) There may be a few psychopaths among self-declared Marxists who actually look forward to a bloody revolution, just as there are definitely psychopaths on the Right who look forward to the coming civil war.
But almost all Marxists believe that a bloody revolution is likely, if not inevitable, not because of their wishes, but because of what my side would do should genuine socialism achieve a mass following and look like triumphing, even with 50%-plus-one support.
And you know what? They're right.
Most Americans don't know any history to speak of, but here on LibraryThing are the exceptions. So for those who have not read much about the Paris Commune, let me recommend John Merriman's {{Massacre -- the Life and Death of the Paris Commune}}. https://www.amazon.com/Massacre-Life-Death-Paris-Commune/dp/0465020178
Or almost anything about the Spanish Civil War and the events which preceded it. A good Leftist account is Paul Preston's The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-Century Spain
https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Holocaust-Inquisition-Extermination-Twentieth-Cen...
And nearer our own time, of course, is the legally, democratically, -elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. He probably had the support of about half of the population towards the end (although he won the presidential election with the support of a just over a third of the population, a proportion which is usually the case with serious Leftist political parties). But he was a serious socialist and was doing a lot of nationalizing and expropriation. And what happened? Read about it here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'etat
Now I know that America is exceptional and all that, God's chosen country, etc. .... but those Marxists who think that if they could succeed in winning the support of a majority of Americans for genuine socialism, that my side would not accept it and that there would inevitably be a bloody revolution, or to be precise, counter-revolution... you know, they're not so stupid!
In fact, it seems that FDR's government, hardly a socialist one, might have faced a serious coup attempt from businessmen who didn't like paying taxes. See here
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/coup-jan6-fdr-new-deal-b...
Anyway, as America spirals down, it would be nice if we could avoid shooting at each other along the way. An amicable separation, that's what we should aim at. Not at each other.
I'm on the Right. I think 6 January was a huge gift to the Left. I think many on the Right tacitly agree with me, which is why they want to say it was actually a Leftist set-up. Leftists don't provoke conservatives into doing things that aid conservatism.
Whether or not provocateurs played a role in it -- I don't know. It's entirely possible. The police do these things in other places, often against trade unionists. But it doesn't matter. If you're a conservative, you ought to act in an intelligent manner and not walk into an obvious trap. And if it was entirely self-caused without any help from outsiders ...
Now, in a big crowd, fired up by emotion, it's not always easy to act in an intelligent manner. What is true for an individual considering what to do in the privacy of his own home, may not be true for 50 000 individuals in a crowd. Madness of crowds and all that.
So, we've got to have organized stewards. Simples.
Were there guns there? Probably. It's America. There will be guns in any crowd. Even liberals who live in big cities are starting to carry.
Was there an attempt to seize state power, which is what an insurrection is? (Or, with a bow to Mr Korzybski, how we should use the word 'insurrection' for maximum clarity.)
Well, if it was, it was the stupidest 'insurrection' in the history of insurrections. That's not how you do it. I've already directed any interested insurrectionists to the right books on the subject, available for free from our friends at Marxists.com. What did they think, that Congress was going to say, "Ohhhh...we're so frightened... okay, Trump can be President again."
Was it a "riot"? Let's not split hairs. If the Left had done something like this -- one of their "mostly peaceful protests", ha ha, we'd have called it a "riot". And if we could, we would have done just what they're doing now, in Congress. When your enemy makes a mistake, exploit it to the hilt. Our side screwed up, big time. Admit it, learn the lessons, take the hit, and move on.
We've got to win the broad middle. Yes, yes, as someone said, we have lost the broad middle, liberals will win all the coming elections, no need to get all excited ... in fact, my liberal friends, on election day, just go fishing or whatever you like to do. My guys are bound to lose.
Prox: I'd be interested in talking to you about your experiences in France. Not here, obviously.
Prosfilaes: I don't have time right now to give you the reply you deserve -- you're obviously a thoughtful person, and we ought to have a serious debate at some point.
I'll just say, I don't think everyone who is left of center is a hard-core Marxist, or other kind of hard-core Leftist. All human life is there, just as it is on the Right.
But there is a direction of motion, and nice well-meaning tolerant liberals get pushed by people who are more conscious, more radical, more committed to a complete change. Read Tom Wolfe's "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. He was ahead of his time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_%26_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers
But we'll have to argue about this in more detail -- I think I was right on the Black Athena thing and we can see that happening right now with the 1619 Project, Critical Race Theory, etc. But it deservers a thread of its own.
Oh yes, one point. You say, "Marxists are the type of people who feel sympathetic to a bloody revolution". Your phrasing is a bit awkward here, but I think you mean they are the type of people who positively WANT a bloody revolution, as opposed to a peaceful transition to socialism.
Well, that's not true. (It's actually what most of my fellow Righties think, and they're wrong.) There may be a few psychopaths among self-declared Marxists who actually look forward to a bloody revolution, just as there are definitely psychopaths on the Right who look forward to the coming civil war.
But almost all Marxists believe that a bloody revolution is likely, if not inevitable, not because of their wishes, but because of what my side would do should genuine socialism achieve a mass following and look like triumphing, even with 50%-plus-one support.
And you know what? They're right.
Most Americans don't know any history to speak of, but here on LibraryThing are the exceptions. So for those who have not read much about the Paris Commune, let me recommend John Merriman's {{Massacre -- the Life and Death of the Paris Commune}}. https://www.amazon.com/Massacre-Life-Death-Paris-Commune/dp/0465020178
Or almost anything about the Spanish Civil War and the events which preceded it. A good Leftist account is Paul Preston's The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-Century Spain
https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Holocaust-Inquisition-Extermination-Twentieth-Cen...
And nearer our own time, of course, is the legally, democratically, -elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. He probably had the support of about half of the population towards the end (although he won the presidential election with the support of a just over a third of the population, a proportion which is usually the case with serious Leftist political parties). But he was a serious socialist and was doing a lot of nationalizing and expropriation. And what happened? Read about it here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'etat
Now I know that America is exceptional and all that, God's chosen country, etc. .... but those Marxists who think that if they could succeed in winning the support of a majority of Americans for genuine socialism, that my side would not accept it and that there would inevitably be a bloody revolution, or to be precise, counter-revolution... you know, they're not so stupid!
In fact, it seems that FDR's government, hardly a socialist one, might have faced a serious coup attempt from businessmen who didn't like paying taxes. See here
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/coup-jan6-fdr-new-deal-b...
Anyway, as America spirals down, it would be nice if we could avoid shooting at each other along the way. An amicable separation, that's what we should aim at. Not at each other.
20Molly3028
>18 aspirit:
Do the Fox News cult viewers actually believe the rioters carrying out Trump's call to action want left-wingers to get the credit for what they managed to pull off on 1/6???
Do the Fox News cult viewers actually believe the rioters carrying out Trump's call to action want left-wingers to get the credit for what they managed to pull off on 1/6???
21John5918
>19 Doug1943: those Marxists who think that if they could succeed in winning the support of a majority of Americans for genuine socialism
Do you seriously believe that there are any Marxists in the USA who are expecting to turn the country to "genuine socialism", other than perhaps a handful of absolute extremists who have no real following nor inluence? Your Democrats are not Marxists, they are not even left of centre, although they are to the left of Republicans. I don't see any serious politicians in the USA (nor indeed most of Europe) who are pushing for "genuine socialism". Most are simply arguing for a more moderate, humane and regulated form of capitalism which also has safety nets for the poor and marginalised.
Do you seriously believe that there are any Marxists in the USA who are expecting to turn the country to "genuine socialism", other than perhaps a handful of absolute extremists who have no real following nor inluence? Your Democrats are not Marxists, they are not even left of centre, although they are to the left of Republicans. I don't see any serious politicians in the USA (nor indeed most of Europe) who are pushing for "genuine socialism". Most are simply arguing for a more moderate, humane and regulated form of capitalism which also has safety nets for the poor and marginalised.
22Doug1943
Yes, I agree with everything you say.
Marxism in America has never had a mass following, unlike in Europe (where the communists could probably have taken power in France and Italy, had Stalin not restrained them).
The Communist Party in the US never had more than about 100 000 members, and maybe ten times that number of people who sympathyzed with it to one degree or another. It developed some agents inside the government, like Alger Hiss, had a lot of influence in Hollywood, and in certain college faculties, and most of all, in the American labor movement -- where at the height of its influence it controlled 11 national unions, 1/3 of the CIO.
It did what I think was good work in organizing the industrial working class, and fighting for Black rights -- all tainted by its subservience to Moscow and its approval of totalitarianism.
The people who joined it in the 1930s were, in my opinion, mainly misguided idealists -- influenced by the Depression and the growth of fascism, which only the Soviet Union seemed to be seriously opposing.
Small groups of seriously-committed people can have influence far beyond what their mere numbers might indicate. The Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party brought a sensible approach to anti-war work during the Vietnam War and had a lot of influence because of that, although they never had more than a few thousand members.
Read about it here:
https://www.amazon.com/Out-Now-Participants-Account-Movement/dp/0873489063
Today, it's popular on the Right to call current Leftists 'cultural Marxists' -- supposedly following Antonio Gramsci's advice to make 'the long march through the institutions'. I think that's wrong.
The current American Left has almost nothing in common with Marxism -- they'd shout Marx down if he tried to speak on a campus, assuming they knew what he really believed, which they don't.
The Democratic Socialists of America are growing in influence within the Democratic Party, pretty rapidly too. In theory, they are more than just the 'make capitalism nicer' sort of socialists, but not in practice.
Almost no sensible person believes in genuine socialism any more.
Von Mises and Hayek were right: the 'Socialist Calculation Problem' is irrefutable proof that a non-market economy cannot make rational allocations of scarce resources. So that argument's over.
Marxism in America has never had a mass following, unlike in Europe (where the communists could probably have taken power in France and Italy, had Stalin not restrained them).
The Communist Party in the US never had more than about 100 000 members, and maybe ten times that number of people who sympathyzed with it to one degree or another. It developed some agents inside the government, like Alger Hiss, had a lot of influence in Hollywood, and in certain college faculties, and most of all, in the American labor movement -- where at the height of its influence it controlled 11 national unions, 1/3 of the CIO.
It did what I think was good work in organizing the industrial working class, and fighting for Black rights -- all tainted by its subservience to Moscow and its approval of totalitarianism.
The people who joined it in the 1930s were, in my opinion, mainly misguided idealists -- influenced by the Depression and the growth of fascism, which only the Soviet Union seemed to be seriously opposing.
Small groups of seriously-committed people can have influence far beyond what their mere numbers might indicate. The Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party brought a sensible approach to anti-war work during the Vietnam War and had a lot of influence because of that, although they never had more than a few thousand members.
Read about it here:
https://www.amazon.com/Out-Now-Participants-Account-Movement/dp/0873489063
Today, it's popular on the Right to call current Leftists 'cultural Marxists' -- supposedly following Antonio Gramsci's advice to make 'the long march through the institutions'. I think that's wrong.
The current American Left has almost nothing in common with Marxism -- they'd shout Marx down if he tried to speak on a campus, assuming they knew what he really believed, which they don't.
The Democratic Socialists of America are growing in influence within the Democratic Party, pretty rapidly too. In theory, they are more than just the 'make capitalism nicer' sort of socialists, but not in practice.
Almost no sensible person believes in genuine socialism any more.
Von Mises and Hayek were right: the 'Socialist Calculation Problem' is irrefutable proof that a non-market economy cannot make rational allocations of scarce resources. So that argument's over.
23aspirit
>20 Molly3028: No, the viewers within the country don't sound anything like the English who try to support them. I have the impression from what I'm seeing on LibraryThing that people in other countries are even more confused about what happens in politics and media here than our conservative citizens are. The derogatory use of "fairy tale" comes to mind.
Many FOX News diehards have been acknowledging all along that it was a Trump- and "patriot"-led fight to prevent the certification of the election results. They seem annoyed that there's been so much legal resistance, from the police trying to prevent the break-in and attempted murders ("executions") to the courts not being fixed in their favor. The story told over and over before and immediately after the event was that only "Democrats"* are seen as criminals while Republicans are merely "defending America".
Note the language used in the quotes from Republican leaders (and instigators) in my previous post. Donald Trump, FOX News, and other celebrities encouraged the mob beforehand, publicly referred to it as "Our Side" the day of, and have defended its actions since.
There are, obviously, attempts to pretend all of Trump's supporters at the Capitol had peaceful intentions until they were suddenly caught up in a violent mob mentality... but it would take a considerable amount of closing one's eyes and sticking fingers in ears to not see that as false when actually living in this country.
FOX is now shifting blame to Trump, by the way. Even that disaster of a media company couldn't keep up their game forever. Too many people are watching the Jan 6. judiciary committee, even with much of their broadcasts buried.
* Republicans usually ignore how many Independents and people who can't register to vote (due to age, voter suppression efforts, citizenship status, etc.) attend the massive left-leaning protests that have been frequent for the past few years (as well as ignoring most of the protests). They talk as if half of the country's population is with the GOP while the other half are Democrats. The number of adult US Americans who identify as Democrats fluctuates between 25% to 30%, compared to the 20% to 30% identifying as Republicans. The larger group is 40% to 50% identifying as independents. I suspect the confusion comes from how close races between candidates of the two parties can be. (Reminder: In 2020, Donald Trump received over 74 million votes. Joe Biden received over 81 million.)
Many FOX News diehards have been acknowledging all along that it was a Trump- and "patriot"-led fight to prevent the certification of the election results. They seem annoyed that there's been so much legal resistance, from the police trying to prevent the break-in and attempted murders ("executions") to the courts not being fixed in their favor. The story told over and over before and immediately after the event was that only "Democrats"* are seen as criminals while Republicans are merely "defending America".
Note the language used in the quotes from Republican leaders (and instigators) in my previous post. Donald Trump, FOX News, and other celebrities encouraged the mob beforehand, publicly referred to it as "Our Side" the day of, and have defended its actions since.
There are, obviously, attempts to pretend all of Trump's supporters at the Capitol had peaceful intentions until they were suddenly caught up in a violent mob mentality... but it would take a considerable amount of closing one's eyes and sticking fingers in ears to not see that as false when actually living in this country.
FOX is now shifting blame to Trump, by the way. Even that disaster of a media company couldn't keep up their game forever. Too many people are watching the Jan 6. judiciary committee, even with much of their broadcasts buried.
* Republicans usually ignore how many Independents and people who can't register to vote (due to age, voter suppression efforts, citizenship status, etc.) attend the massive left-leaning protests that have been frequent for the past few years (as well as ignoring most of the protests). They talk as if half of the country's population is with the GOP while the other half are Democrats. The number of adult US Americans who identify as Democrats fluctuates between 25% to 30%, compared to the 20% to 30% identifying as Republicans. The larger group is 40% to 50% identifying as independents. I suspect the confusion comes from how close races between candidates of the two parties can be. (Reminder: In 2020, Donald Trump received over 74 million votes. Joe Biden received over 81 million.)
24jjwilson61
>22 Doug1943: "the 'Socialist Calculation Problem' is irrefutable proof that a non-market economy cannot make rational allocations of scarce resources. "
I suspect though that the capitalist definition of rational allocation isn't to each according to his needs.
I suspect though that the capitalist definition of rational allocation isn't to each according to his needs.
25prosfilaes
>22 Doug1943: Von Mises and Hayek were right: the 'Socialist Calculation Problem' is irrefutable proof that a non-market economy cannot make rational allocations of scarce resources. So that argument's over.
I don't know what "rational" means in that sentence. I rather suspect it means that a a non-market economy cannot make allocations of scarce resources in the same way a market economy will. I'd say that only non-market economies can make rational, thinking allocations of scarce resources; market economies allocate scarce resources in ways that no one thinking person would do so, therefore being irrational. Pure market economies would allocate supplies of enriched uranium to terrorists, as they are willing to put the highest price on it, the results of which would trash the market (if that's what one is measuring good by).
I think that it's clear that pure command economies don't successfully produce what society needs. At the same time, overly pure market economies tend to start producing unions and strikers and riots and mass shootings by those being revolted again; I suspect if the government didn't get involved, you'd see a bloody revolution. There's a reason why the wealthy nations of the world have various levels of mixed economies.
I don't know what "rational" means in that sentence. I rather suspect it means that a a non-market economy cannot make allocations of scarce resources in the same way a market economy will. I'd say that only non-market economies can make rational, thinking allocations of scarce resources; market economies allocate scarce resources in ways that no one thinking person would do so, therefore being irrational. Pure market economies would allocate supplies of enriched uranium to terrorists, as they are willing to put the highest price on it, the results of which would trash the market (if that's what one is measuring good by).
I think that it's clear that pure command economies don't successfully produce what society needs. At the same time, overly pure market economies tend to start producing unions and strikers and riots and mass shootings by those being revolted again; I suspect if the government didn't get involved, you'd see a bloody revolution. There's a reason why the wealthy nations of the world have various levels of mixed economies.
26Doug1943
>24 jjwilson61: No, it's not. And if we're talking Marxism, neither is it the socialist definition. (It's the description of how things will supposedly work in the stage following socialism, when socialism has fully developed the productive forces, i.e. communism.)
But by allocation, I didn't mean income. I meant setting rational prices. Without a market, that is not possible. There are other reasons socialism failed, but that's a central one.
If you can't set a rational price you can't make a rational choice of the most economic way to do something. You waste society's resources.
If you want to produce wealth, you need a market. Once you've got wealth, once the economy has grown, you now have something to re-distribute. Smart sociailsts know this, which is why, now, they simply seek to make capitalism a bit more 'fair' (from their viewpoint).
But by allocation, I didn't mean income. I meant setting rational prices. Without a market, that is not possible. There are other reasons socialism failed, but that's a central one.
If you can't set a rational price you can't make a rational choice of the most economic way to do something. You waste society's resources.
If you want to produce wealth, you need a market. Once you've got wealth, once the economy has grown, you now have something to re-distribute. Smart sociailsts know this, which is why, now, they simply seek to make capitalism a bit more 'fair' (from their viewpoint).
27Doug1943
>25 prosfilaes: Yes, of course. A pure market society without a state will sell uranium to terrorists, produce child pornography, etc. We certainly need a state, and regulation. And if they don't want a revolution, the wise capitalists will make sure that people are forced to act intelligently via forcing them to put some of their wages into a pension plan, health insurance etc. ... and maybe even redistributing some wealth from the successful to the unsuccessful.
I don't think any serious person today really argues against this -- although I suppose I'm defining 'serious' as someone who doesn't argue against it.
So, yes, there are a few Marxists at one end who still believe in the command economy, and the libertarians/minarchists at the other who would have a pure free market, with the state doing nothing enforcing contracts and providing military security.
But most people today believe in the boring old mixed economy, and we just argue about the mix.
I don't think any serious person today really argues against this -- although I suppose I'm defining 'serious' as someone who doesn't argue against it.
So, yes, there are a few Marxists at one end who still believe in the command economy, and the libertarians/minarchists at the other who would have a pure free market, with the state doing nothing enforcing contracts and providing military security.
But most people today believe in the boring old mixed economy, and we just argue about the mix.
28John5918
>27 Doug1943: most people today believe in the boring old mixed economy, and we just argue about the mix
Thank you. Which is what most of us have been saying all along, so why do you keep introducing hyperbole about Marxists, Leftists, trying to introduce pure socialism, etc?
Thank you. Which is what most of us have been saying all along, so why do you keep introducing hyperbole about Marxists, Leftists, trying to introduce pure socialism, etc?
29kiparsky
I agree with John, the constant battering of straw-man arguments doesn't really lead to any sort of rational argument.
Perhaps if Doug were to take his own arguments a little more seriously, he would find that others would follow suit, but when someone is leading off with the assumption that "the Left" monolitihically prefers a Soviet-style command economy, there's not a lot to really say to that.
the libertarians/minarchists at the other who would have a pure free market
No, they really wouldn't. They might say that's what they'd like, but if you ask them to go down the road of what that implies, they always jump off around the time you get to private fire departments and roads, if not sooner. (The ones with brains start hemming and hawing and changing the subject when you get to private traffic signals and air traffic controls, but even the ones with no brains at all can figure out that private development of roads is a complete nonstarter)
Show me a libertarian who believes in a pure free market, and I'll show you a libertarian who doesn't have any idea what that means.
there are a few Marxists at one end who still believe in the command economy
I honestly don't think I've met one of those either. I don't mean I run into people who think they believe in this, I mean I really haven't run into anyone who thought the Soviet model was the way to go since, I'm gonna guess, about 1992. Have you? I mean, really, Doug, have you actually met someone who believes that a command economy is the way to go, or is this something you're just supposing?
I don't say it's impossible that someone could believe this, of course. I'm just saying that when I'm out in the world and I talk to socialists, this is never the direction they go.
Perhaps if Doug were to take his own arguments a little more seriously, he would find that others would follow suit, but when someone is leading off with the assumption that "the Left" monolitihically prefers a Soviet-style command economy, there's not a lot to really say to that.
the libertarians/minarchists at the other who would have a pure free market
No, they really wouldn't. They might say that's what they'd like, but if you ask them to go down the road of what that implies, they always jump off around the time you get to private fire departments and roads, if not sooner. (The ones with brains start hemming and hawing and changing the subject when you get to private traffic signals and air traffic controls, but even the ones with no brains at all can figure out that private development of roads is a complete nonstarter)
Show me a libertarian who believes in a pure free market, and I'll show you a libertarian who doesn't have any idea what that means.
there are a few Marxists at one end who still believe in the command economy
I honestly don't think I've met one of those either. I don't mean I run into people who think they believe in this, I mean I really haven't run into anyone who thought the Soviet model was the way to go since, I'm gonna guess, about 1992. Have you? I mean, really, Doug, have you actually met someone who believes that a command economy is the way to go, or is this something you're just supposing?
I don't say it's impossible that someone could believe this, of course. I'm just saying that when I'm out in the world and I talk to socialists, this is never the direction they go.
30Doug1943
I actually have a very good friend, and some genial acquaintaces, who believe just that. Have a look here for one example: https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › David_McMullen (His book is well worth reading, by the way, whatever your political beliefs.)
There are a number of very intelligent people whom I do not know or have any connection to, who believe the same thing. Perhaps I'll draw up a list of weblinks to them later. And not just little sects.
But for the moment, I take your point.
When people use the word "capitalism", they mean capitalism. And when they use the word "socialism", they also mean capitalism.
Got it!
There are a number of very intelligent people whom I do not know or have any connection to, who believe the same thing. Perhaps I'll draw up a list of weblinks to them later. And not just little sects.
But for the moment, I take your point.
When people use the word "capitalism", they mean capitalism. And when they use the word "socialism", they also mean capitalism.
Got it!
31Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/news/mitt-romney-calls-out-americas-national-malady-of-...
Mitt Romney Calls Out America’s ‘National Malady of Denial’: Warns a Return to Trump Would Render it ‘Incurable’
.....Romney’s piece, however, was less focused on Trump and more concerned with the divisions within American domestic politics.
“The left thinks the right is at fault for ignoring climate change and the attacks on our political system,” wrote the Senator continuing, “The right thinks the left is the problem for ignoring illegal immigration and the national debt.”
Romney argued that regardless of political affiliation, the entire country is “in denial.”.....
.....The Senator then discussed President Joe Biden, who he argues “is a genuinely good man,” but has not yet been able to “break through our national malady of denial, deceit, and distrust.”
Romney also examines the other side saying that “a return of Donald Trump would feed the sickness, probably rendering it incurable.”.....
(the Op-Ed appeared in the Atlantic)
Mitt Romney Calls Out America’s ‘National Malady of Denial’: Warns a Return to Trump Would Render it ‘Incurable’
.....Romney’s piece, however, was less focused on Trump and more concerned with the divisions within American domestic politics.
“The left thinks the right is at fault for ignoring climate change and the attacks on our political system,” wrote the Senator continuing, “The right thinks the left is the problem for ignoring illegal immigration and the national debt.”
Romney argued that regardless of political affiliation, the entire country is “in denial.”.....
.....The Senator then discussed President Joe Biden, who he argues “is a genuinely good man,” but has not yet been able to “break through our national malady of denial, deceit, and distrust.”
Romney also examines the other side saying that “a return of Donald Trump would feed the sickness, probably rendering it incurable.”.....
(the Op-Ed appeared in the Atlantic)
32Doug1943
Now, c'mon guys!!!! Don't get taken in!
Not too long ago, you were calling this man a racist!
https://consortiumnews.com/2012/08/25/is-mitt-romney-a-racist/
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/mitt-romney-is-racist-6385776
https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/mitt-romneys-racist-appeals-how-race...
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a15269/mitt-romney-racist-ad-1164...
https://www.mic.com/articles/18495/mitt-romney-racist-paul-ryan-uses-white-supre...
Let's try to be consistent here! You don't want to associate racists, now, do you????
Not too long ago, you were calling this man a racist!
https://consortiumnews.com/2012/08/25/is-mitt-romney-a-racist/
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/mitt-romney-is-racist-6385776
https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/mitt-romneys-racist-appeals-how-race...
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a15269/mitt-romney-racist-ad-1164...
https://www.mic.com/articles/18495/mitt-romney-racist-paul-ryan-uses-white-supre...
Let's try to be consistent here! You don't want to associate racists, now, do you????
33aspirit
So that no one else unnecessarily duplicates the effort of searching, here's info on David McMullen's Bright Future: Abundance and Progress in the 21st Century (2007).
• fifteen years old but appears to not have been reviewed or referenced in any other work
• written by an Australian who appears to self-identify as a "socialist economist" and whose credentials are entirely unknown
• not entered in LibraryThing (no, not even a single copy to date)
• the book Doug is recommending?
• available from Amazon.com for about $50
• fifteen years old but appears to not have been reviewed or referenced in any other work
• written by an Australian who appears to self-identify as a "socialist economist" and whose credentials are entirely unknown
• not entered in LibraryThing (no, not even a single copy to date)
• the book Doug is recommending?
• available from Amazon.com for about $50
35Molly3028
>32 Doug1943:
We in Massachusetts never deemed Romney to be a racist. He was a successful governor in our state for 4 years. That was a different time and a different America. The state has had a number of moderate Republican governors over the years.
We in Massachusetts never deemed Romney to be a racist. He was a successful governor in our state for 4 years. That was a different time and a different America. The state has had a number of moderate Republican governors over the years.
36Doug1943
Yes, McMullen's book didn't get rave reviews, or any at all.
I thought it was pretty good, but that's probably not a recommendation here! It's also rather long in the tooth: more up-to-date statistics can be found at HumanProgress.org
I suspect he was/is not very sophisticated about the publicizing of his work.
And ... now I know NO ONE here will read it after I tell you this -- I think the reason he didn't get any publicity among the Left was that he was part of an Austalian Maoist group who -- There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy -- supported the American invasion of Iraq!
Their argument was that it would bring democracy to the country, paving the way for the socialist revolution. Let the Yankee imperialists do all the dangerous work of overthrowing Saddam.
When you think about it, that's really not very far from the traditional Communist view -- support the democratic capitalists against the undemocratic ones, as in WWII, or the Chinese Party's strategy in making the bourgeois-democratic revolution as the first stage on the way to socialism.
$50 is a bit much, though.
Anyone interested in seeing what these people have to say about the world now can look here: http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/
I thought it was pretty good, but that's probably not a recommendation here! It's also rather long in the tooth: more up-to-date statistics can be found at HumanProgress.org
I suspect he was/is not very sophisticated about the publicizing of his work.
And ... now I know NO ONE here will read it after I tell you this -- I think the reason he didn't get any publicity among the Left was that he was part of an Austalian Maoist group who -- There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy -- supported the American invasion of Iraq!
Their argument was that it would bring democracy to the country, paving the way for the socialist revolution. Let the Yankee imperialists do all the dangerous work of overthrowing Saddam.
When you think about it, that's really not very far from the traditional Communist view -- support the democratic capitalists against the undemocratic ones, as in WWII, or the Chinese Party's strategy in making the bourgeois-democratic revolution as the first stage on the way to socialism.
$50 is a bit much, though.
Anyone interested in seeing what these people have to say about the world now can look here: http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/
37Doug1943
>35 Molly3028: Yes, those times are past. I think that in general, at least so far as national-level politicians were concerned, the Americans had pretty decent men and women from both parties, for a long time, right up through Obama/Romney.
I'd make a partial exception for Richard Nixon, but he actually played a very progressive role, both in bringing in environmental regulations, and, more importantly, reversing our mad policy towards Communist China. Only a rightwinger could have done that, and not just a rightwinger, but someone totally unprincipled.
I had hoped that Mr Trump would do for Cuba, what Nixon did for China. All the Cubans would have had to do was offer him, under the table, a tremendously good deal on building, or taking over, resort hotels on the island. But would they? No. No imagination.
I'd make a partial exception for Richard Nixon, but he actually played a very progressive role, both in bringing in environmental regulations, and, more importantly, reversing our mad policy towards Communist China. Only a rightwinger could have done that, and not just a rightwinger, but someone totally unprincipled.
I had hoped that Mr Trump would do for Cuba, what Nixon did for China. All the Cubans would have had to do was offer him, under the table, a tremendously good deal on building, or taking over, resort hotels on the island. But would they? No. No imagination.
38kiparsky
>30 Doug1943:
I actually have a very good friend, and some genial acquaintaces, who believe just that.
Okay, cool. So if your evidence for "this is a general belief on the left" is "I know N >=3 people who believe it" maybe that's a little weak. How about we allow for the notion that there are many shades of opinion on "the left" and talk about particular points of view in a way that acknowledges that they may not be very representative? That way, you can have a bash at a particular idea, or propose better ones, and you're not ascribing views to people that they don't hold. 'Cause that can be taken as rude (as you may have noticed).
If you can stick with that for a bit, maybe you'll get a better reaction, and maybe we'll even get somewhere with this conversation.
But for the moment, I take your point.
When people use the word "capitalism", they mean capitalism. And when they use the word "socialism", they also mean capitalism.
Disregarding the snark, yeah, I think this is inadvertantly correct - and it's true of most people on the right as well as on the left. Most people live under a mixed economy and want to live under a mixed economy, and the real question is, what's the right mix and to what extent and in what ways should government regulate private enterprise. So if we accept that, then your aphorism is clearly correct but incomplete. You'd also want to add the converse: "when people say socialism, they mean socialism, and when they say capitalism they also mean socialism"
It's really quite astounding to me, sometimes, how many people rail against socialism as though it's something they don't live under, and it's always amusing to watch them flip right the fuck out when you suggest that you might take away some of their socialism. This is the "keep your filthy government hands off my Medicare" situation.
Basically, when we're talking about capitalism we're talking about private investment primarily for private benefit (producing some amount of public good, one hopes, as a side effect) and when we talk about socialism we're talking about public investment for public benefit (producing, by definition, private good in the process). And it's easy to see why we want both: I don't want to buy my coffee from the government, and I don't want private fire-fighting companies to try to get to fires on privately-owned roads. But in short, yes, most people's conception of "capitalism" includes a lot of socialism and vice versa. And the fact that people don't realize this and talk about the two as though they're mutually contradictory ideas is kind of a big problem.
As a side note, I recognize that some people prefer to use more pejorative or laudatory characterizations depending on their preferences, ie "Under socialism, all people are good to each other and there are puppies and roses for everyone, but capitalism makes people step on cute little kittens", or contrariwise "Socialism enslaves all human beings and grinds them under the boot of the state, but capitalism makes people free and tall and strong and better-looking". I hope we can dispense with that sort of flag-waving and try to stick to more useful and concrete definitions or characterizations.
I actually have a very good friend, and some genial acquaintaces, who believe just that.
Okay, cool. So if your evidence for "this is a general belief on the left" is "I know N >=3 people who believe it" maybe that's a little weak. How about we allow for the notion that there are many shades of opinion on "the left" and talk about particular points of view in a way that acknowledges that they may not be very representative? That way, you can have a bash at a particular idea, or propose better ones, and you're not ascribing views to people that they don't hold. 'Cause that can be taken as rude (as you may have noticed).
If you can stick with that for a bit, maybe you'll get a better reaction, and maybe we'll even get somewhere with this conversation.
But for the moment, I take your point.
When people use the word "capitalism", they mean capitalism. And when they use the word "socialism", they also mean capitalism.
Disregarding the snark, yeah, I think this is inadvertantly correct - and it's true of most people on the right as well as on the left. Most people live under a mixed economy and want to live under a mixed economy, and the real question is, what's the right mix and to what extent and in what ways should government regulate private enterprise. So if we accept that, then your aphorism is clearly correct but incomplete. You'd also want to add the converse: "when people say socialism, they mean socialism, and when they say capitalism they also mean socialism"
It's really quite astounding to me, sometimes, how many people rail against socialism as though it's something they don't live under, and it's always amusing to watch them flip right the fuck out when you suggest that you might take away some of their socialism. This is the "keep your filthy government hands off my Medicare" situation.
Basically, when we're talking about capitalism we're talking about private investment primarily for private benefit (producing some amount of public good, one hopes, as a side effect) and when we talk about socialism we're talking about public investment for public benefit (producing, by definition, private good in the process). And it's easy to see why we want both: I don't want to buy my coffee from the government, and I don't want private fire-fighting companies to try to get to fires on privately-owned roads. But in short, yes, most people's conception of "capitalism" includes a lot of socialism and vice versa. And the fact that people don't realize this and talk about the two as though they're mutually contradictory ideas is kind of a big problem.
As a side note, I recognize that some people prefer to use more pejorative or laudatory characterizations depending on their preferences, ie "Under socialism, all people are good to each other and there are puppies and roses for everyone, but capitalism makes people step on cute little kittens", or contrariwise "Socialism enslaves all human beings and grinds them under the boot of the state, but capitalism makes people free and tall and strong and better-looking". I hope we can dispense with that sort of flag-waving and try to stick to more useful and concrete definitions or characterizations.
39kiparsky
>36 Doug1943: I think the reason he didn't get any publicity among the Left was that he was part of an Austalian Maoist group
I think the sentence probably could have ended there if I'm perfectly honest. At least,to my ears that sounds more like an insomnia cure than anything else.
So, the guy exists, maybe he's in Australia, and nobody's read his book. Okay, I'm still willing to believe that there are several people who want to push for Soviet-style state communism, and I'll even allow that one of them might be in the US. Still not buying that they're anything like representative of "the Left", whether in the US, or globally, or in any particular country, state, city, or geographical region that you can identify.
I think the sentence probably could have ended there if I'm perfectly honest. At least,to my ears that sounds more like an insomnia cure than anything else.
So, the guy exists, maybe he's in Australia, and nobody's read his book. Okay, I'm still willing to believe that there are several people who want to push for Soviet-style state communism, and I'll even allow that one of them might be in the US. Still not buying that they're anything like representative of "the Left", whether in the US, or globally, or in any particular country, state, city, or geographical region that you can identify.
40aspirit
Wasn't Maoist China known for heavy book censorship? Ah, wait, so is the current China.
Interestingly, it's Republicans in the USA whose actions are most comparable. See Texas for an example. The governments of China and the State of Texas have even been going after the same books.
Attempts to address the legal threats to authors, library book purchasers, teachers, parents, and students have taken a variety of forms that includes book donations and free information online.
Yet a Maoist can't be bothered to put his supposedly socialist ideas online in an inexpensive ebook or digital library donation. Even rural Australia has some connection to internet. Have you heard of Schools of the Air?
This guy doesn't represents "the Left". That's ridiculous.
In the USA, many of us in very loose group of leftists, progressives, liberals, socialists, and Democrats are putting considerable work into maintaining and promoting easy access to a variety of books, to honest political discussions, and to factual education in general.
ETA: McMullen might have amazing ideas for all I know. It's just the claim that he has anything to do with the struggles of the democracy in the USA is ridiculous. There's no evidence of that. Few Americans could read his work even if that had any reason to want to in the past decade and a half, and for all we can see, his best buddies on this (the northern or the western) side of the world all identify as right-wing.
Interestingly, it's Republicans in the USA whose actions are most comparable. See Texas for an example. The governments of China and the State of Texas have even been going after the same books.
Attempts to address the legal threats to authors, library book purchasers, teachers, parents, and students have taken a variety of forms that includes book donations and free information online.
Yet a Maoist can't be bothered to put his supposedly socialist ideas online in an inexpensive ebook or digital library donation. Even rural Australia has some connection to internet. Have you heard of Schools of the Air?
This guy doesn't represents "the Left". That's ridiculous.
In the USA, many of us in very loose group of leftists, progressives, liberals, socialists, and Democrats are putting considerable work into maintaining and promoting easy access to a variety of books, to honest political discussions, and to factual education in general.
ETA: McMullen might have amazing ideas for all I know. It's just the claim that he has anything to do with the struggles of the democracy in the USA is ridiculous. There's no evidence of that. Few Americans could read his work even if that had any reason to want to in the past decade and a half, and for all we can see, his best buddies on this (the northern or the western) side of the world all identify as right-wing.
41Doug1943
Whoa, I can't count the number of times I have said to my fellow rightwingers, in online discussions, that all human life is there on the Left, just as it is with us. And, many of them are decent people with good motivations. Even the people who became apologists for Joseph Stalin in the 1930s did not do it out of the desire to put the world into a slave labor camp -- just the opposite, in fact.
But in a war, there is an advantage in demonizing your enemies. Should we have taught our soldiers, in WWII, that the people they would be trying to kill would be mainly frightened teen age conscripts, who were just doing their duty, as they saw it?
Yes, there are racists and white supremacists who are 'on the Right' (let's not get into semantic quibbles about what 'the Right' and 'the Left' mean). Most people on the Right are not 'racists' in any sense in which that term has any meaning, just as most people on the Left are not 'communists' in any sense in which that term has any meaning. But it's useful for each side to think so.
But here's the problem. When we're arguing/discussing informally like we are here, it's tedious to try to qualify every sentence completely.
So people on the Left use the term 'Trump supporters', and attribute various negative features to the whole collective. But we are as diverse as you are. You are, I assume, referring to the ones who explicitly are 'ethnic nationalists', who talk about 'hanging the traitors in Washington' (by which they mean Democrats), who think equate all Muslims with Islamist terrorists, and -- interestingly -- also hate Jews (which sometimes cancels out their anti-Muslim tendencies, since the Muslims are doing all the Jew-killing nowadays). But you probably believe that they set the tone for the whole Right ... or in any case have some reason for not, in your posts, differentiating among Trump voters.
I use the term 'the Left' in a similar way, and when I do, I'm really referring to what I regard as the worst of the Left. The ones who actually hate this country, want to defund the police, break up talks by conservatives on campus, physically attack our rallies and demonstrations, want to censor us wherever they can. That probably doesn't describe many people here. But I may be mistaken.
The question is, not so much, if we took a poll among Right and Left, how representative at the moment are our extremes, but .. in which direction are things moving?
I believe that the hard-core Left is pulling the whole Left in its direction. (And I acknowledget that there is a real possibility of the hard-core Far Right doing the same with the conservative movement ... but that hasn't happened yet.)
To take the example I know about best: young people who are on the Left no longer believe in free speech. Although the general American population still does, in theory ... in practice, on many college campuses, it's going ... going ... gone.
That one-time bastion of absolute committment to free speech, the ACLU (which I joined at the age of 16) is moving away from its traditional views on this issue. Give it a few more years, and its free speech committment will be history.
Genuine old-fashioned liberals may -- I say 'may' because I am not really sure -- be uneasy about this trend, but they won't do anything about it. This is especially true if Black militants are involved in suppressing free speech. Due to white guilt, white liberals are congenitally incapable of criticizing Black leftists/militants.
And the general wussiness identified by the liberal Jonathan Haidt no doubt also contributes to the situation.
{{The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure}}
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/073522491...
It's not where we are at, at the given moment, but the direction of motion.
So when I criticize 'the Left', I'm aiming at your trend-setters ... the ones who believe today what you will believe, or fear to oppose, tomorrow.
But in a war, there is an advantage in demonizing your enemies. Should we have taught our soldiers, in WWII, that the people they would be trying to kill would be mainly frightened teen age conscripts, who were just doing their duty, as they saw it?
Yes, there are racists and white supremacists who are 'on the Right' (let's not get into semantic quibbles about what 'the Right' and 'the Left' mean). Most people on the Right are not 'racists' in any sense in which that term has any meaning, just as most people on the Left are not 'communists' in any sense in which that term has any meaning. But it's useful for each side to think so.
But here's the problem. When we're arguing/discussing informally like we are here, it's tedious to try to qualify every sentence completely.
So people on the Left use the term 'Trump supporters', and attribute various negative features to the whole collective. But we are as diverse as you are. You are, I assume, referring to the ones who explicitly are 'ethnic nationalists', who talk about 'hanging the traitors in Washington' (by which they mean Democrats), who think equate all Muslims with Islamist terrorists, and -- interestingly -- also hate Jews (which sometimes cancels out their anti-Muslim tendencies, since the Muslims are doing all the Jew-killing nowadays). But you probably believe that they set the tone for the whole Right ... or in any case have some reason for not, in your posts, differentiating among Trump voters.
I use the term 'the Left' in a similar way, and when I do, I'm really referring to what I regard as the worst of the Left. The ones who actually hate this country, want to defund the police, break up talks by conservatives on campus, physically attack our rallies and demonstrations, want to censor us wherever they can. That probably doesn't describe many people here. But I may be mistaken.
The question is, not so much, if we took a poll among Right and Left, how representative at the moment are our extremes, but .. in which direction are things moving?
I believe that the hard-core Left is pulling the whole Left in its direction. (And I acknowledget that there is a real possibility of the hard-core Far Right doing the same with the conservative movement ... but that hasn't happened yet.)
To take the example I know about best: young people who are on the Left no longer believe in free speech. Although the general American population still does, in theory ... in practice, on many college campuses, it's going ... going ... gone.
That one-time bastion of absolute committment to free speech, the ACLU (which I joined at the age of 16) is moving away from its traditional views on this issue. Give it a few more years, and its free speech committment will be history.
Genuine old-fashioned liberals may -- I say 'may' because I am not really sure -- be uneasy about this trend, but they won't do anything about it. This is especially true if Black militants are involved in suppressing free speech. Due to white guilt, white liberals are congenitally incapable of criticizing Black leftists/militants.
And the general wussiness identified by the liberal Jonathan Haidt no doubt also contributes to the situation.
{{The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure}}
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/073522491...
It's not where we are at, at the given moment, but the direction of motion.
So when I criticize 'the Left', I'm aiming at your trend-setters ... the ones who believe today what you will believe, or fear to oppose, tomorrow.
42kiparsky
>41 Doug1943: So when I criticize 'the Left', I'm aiming at your trend-setters
Trend-setters like some random Australian Maoist that literally nobody ever heard of?
Nah, try again.
Trend-setters like some random Australian Maoist that literally nobody ever heard of?
Nah, try again.
44Molly3028
>43 proximity1:
A number of ex-SEALs are dangerous, limelight seeking narcissists who get way too much on-air time at FOX News and other right-wing outlets.
A number of ex-SEALs are dangerous, limelight seeking narcissists who get way too much on-air time at FOX News and other right-wing outlets.
45John5918
Carl Sagan's 1995 Prediction Of America's Future Is Worryingly Accurate (IFL Science)
Over 25 years ago, Dr Carl Sagan made an eerily prophetic prediction about the future, appearing to foretell the rise of big tech, misinformation, and astrology Twitter... In his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan explains how the scientific method has helped to illuminate many of the universe’s gloomiest corners. However, he believes that the pursuit of peace and truth is being undermined by humankind’s old friends: superstition and pseudoscience. Within a passage of the text that frequently goes viral, Sagan set outs his pessimistic vision of where the US will go if it loses its admiration for reason, rationality, and open-minded thinking. Worryingly, it looks like we might have already arrived at this dystopian destination...
“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness”...
46Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/news/alex-jones-infowars-set-to-make-800000-in-sales-on...
Alex Jones’ Infowars Set to Make $800,000 in Sales, One Week After Sandy Hook Trial
***
The clueless cult followers of Trumper dudes apparently have very active giving-money-to-the-super-rich genes in their DNA pools. Jones has probably hidden hundreds of millions of dollars in Mexican or Swiss banks. Trump, the billionaire, comes up with a new money-making con every single week.
Alex Jones’ Infowars Set to Make $800,000 in Sales, One Week After Sandy Hook Trial
***
The clueless cult followers of Trumper dudes apparently have very active giving-money-to-the-super-rich genes in their DNA pools. Jones has probably hidden hundreds of millions of dollars in Mexican or Swiss banks. Trump, the billionaire, comes up with a new money-making con every single week.
47Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tulsi-gabbard-on-fox-news-calls-trump-raid-weaponiza...
Tulsi Gabbard on Fox News Calls Trump Raid ‘Weaponization’ of DOJ, Decries ‘Hallmarks of Dictatorship’ Under ‘Biden Regime’
***
Trump and the Murdochs are on missions to increase their income streams. Trump is collecting big bucks from his desperate, clueless cult followers. The Murdochs are collecting big ad bucks thanks to their increased chaos-loving viewership buying into the rants of their lunatic prime-time personalities. MAGA-ism is rotting brains.
Now the majority of Americans have to be afraid that bringing a criminal to justice will upset the dude's gun-toting cult followers ~ the majority is being jerked around by a minority of loons. Reagan's "shining city on the hill" is disappearing into the mist at a very fast clip.
Tulsi Gabbard on Fox News Calls Trump Raid ‘Weaponization’ of DOJ, Decries ‘Hallmarks of Dictatorship’ Under ‘Biden Regime’
***
Trump and the Murdochs are on missions to increase their income streams. Trump is collecting big bucks from his desperate, clueless cult followers. The Murdochs are collecting big ad bucks thanks to their increased chaos-loving viewership buying into the rants of their lunatic prime-time personalities. MAGA-ism is rotting brains.
Now the majority of Americans have to be afraid that bringing a criminal to justice will upset the dude's gun-toting cult followers ~ the majority is being jerked around by a minority of loons. Reagan's "shining city on the hill" is disappearing into the mist at a very fast clip.
482wonderY
On a more positive note, Heather Cox Richardson’s most recent blog posting reminds us of the creation of the Social Security Act in 1935, and the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, who envisioned it and drove it through.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-13-2022?r=xi6oe&s=r&u...
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-13-2022?r=xi6oe&s=r&u...
49Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/laura-ingraham-says-country-might-be-ready-to-mov...
Laura Ingraham Says Country Might Be Ready to Move Past Trump: Americans Exhausted By the ‘Constant Battle’
***
Since Trump is merely running a "I'm pretending to think about running in order to part people from their money" scam, this would be the best outcome for us all. Also, I imagine the permanent White House staff (the plumbers in particular) never want to see him return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again!
Laura Ingraham Says Country Might Be Ready to Move Past Trump: Americans Exhausted By the ‘Constant Battle’
***
Since Trump is merely running a "I'm pretending to think about running in order to part people from their money" scam, this would be the best outcome for us all. Also, I imagine the permanent White House staff (the plumbers in particular) never want to see him return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again!
502wonderY
>49 Molly3028: Well, didn’t he privately refer to the White House as “a dump?” What did he expect from public housing?
51aspirit
>49 Molly3028:
Trump's friend said to Fox News:
And oh, wow. While this are not topics I know a great deal amount, I'm not completely unfamiliar.
Didn't Trump...
• severely escalate violence in Iraq through the increase in drone bombings and attacks on civilians?
• agree to hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban?
• retain his daughter, a part of Trump Organization and a supporter of China's involvement in US election security deals, as one of his presidential advisors?
• ignore the problems with the Remain in Mexico policy that included how people have been held against other policies (possibly illegally) in unsafe conditions on this side of the border, how immigrant children being detained were separated from their caretakers and went missing within the USA at the same time as businesses allowed to interact with the concentration camps appeared to be engaged in human trafficking and religious indoctrination programs, and that policies to reduce the need for international migration were not also administered?
None of this was morally acceptable. "American values" for conservatives as well as progressives/liberals used to be clear in that. The Republicans who try to cover up these actions and attempt to similar ones are unacceptable. So, yes, the following quote is true.
Trump's friend said to Fox News:
I don’t have a position on this one way or another, but the other problem is that it’s really not about Trump, right, this is about the views that Trump now brought to the floor for the Republican Party. They don’t like his views, they don’t like the fact that he called out the military for their failures, that he wanted us to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, that he wanted to treat China and our trade relationship with China in a much… it was smarter, but much different way than the globalists preferred. And they certainly didn’t like the fact that he sent all those illegal immigrants back to Mexico with that Remain in Mexico.
And oh, wow. While this are not topics I know a great deal amount, I'm not completely unfamiliar.
Didn't Trump...
• severely escalate violence in Iraq through the increase in drone bombings and attacks on civilians?
• agree to hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban?
• retain his daughter, a part of Trump Organization and a supporter of China's involvement in US election security deals, as one of his presidential advisors?
• ignore the problems with the Remain in Mexico policy that included how people have been held against other policies (possibly illegally) in unsafe conditions on this side of the border, how immigrant children being detained were separated from their caretakers and went missing within the USA at the same time as businesses allowed to interact with the concentration camps appeared to be engaged in human trafficking and religious indoctrination programs, and that policies to reduce the need for international migration were not also administered?
None of this was morally acceptable. "American values" for conservatives as well as progressives/liberals used to be clear in that. The Republicans who try to cover up these actions and attempt to similar ones are unacceptable. So, yes, the following quote is true.
Trump is a placeholder right now for the ire and fury of the left, but anyone who steps into that breach is gonna find the same... Find the same pain being thrust at him or her.
52Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-pentagon-chiefs-esper-mattis-pen-landmark-le...
Trump Pentagon Chiefs Esper, Mattis Pen Landmark Letter With 11 Ex-Military Leaders: Armed Forces Must Not Show ‘Fealty to an Individual’
Thirteen former leaders of the U.S. military penned a sharply worded letter on Tuesday reaffirming the “core principles” that dictate the civil-military relationship in the country – while sounding the alarm on the internal dangers facing American democracy.....
......The letter then goes on to list 16 principles the signatories believe are crucial to the survival of U.S. democracy......
Former Secretaries of Defense ~
Dr. Ashton Baldwin Carter
William Sebastian Cohen
Dr. Mark Thomas Esper
Dr. Robert Michael Gates
Charles Timothy Hagel
James Norman Mattis
Leon Edward Panetta
Dr. William James Perry
Former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ~
Gen. (ret.) Martin Edward Dempsey
Gen. (ret.) Joseph Francis Dunford Jr.
Adm. (ret.) Michael Glenn Mullen
Gen. (ret.) Richard Bowman Myers
Gen. (ret.) Peter Pace
Trump Pentagon Chiefs Esper, Mattis Pen Landmark Letter With 11 Ex-Military Leaders: Armed Forces Must Not Show ‘Fealty to an Individual’
Thirteen former leaders of the U.S. military penned a sharply worded letter on Tuesday reaffirming the “core principles” that dictate the civil-military relationship in the country – while sounding the alarm on the internal dangers facing American democracy.....
......The letter then goes on to list 16 principles the signatories believe are crucial to the survival of U.S. democracy......
Former Secretaries of Defense ~
Dr. Ashton Baldwin Carter
William Sebastian Cohen
Dr. Mark Thomas Esper
Dr. Robert Michael Gates
Charles Timothy Hagel
James Norman Mattis
Leon Edward Panetta
Dr. William James Perry
Former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ~
Gen. (ret.) Martin Edward Dempsey
Gen. (ret.) Joseph Francis Dunford Jr.
Adm. (ret.) Michael Glenn Mullen
Gen. (ret.) Richard Bowman Myers
Gen. (ret.) Peter Pace
532wonderY
>52 Molly3028: The military needs to look within its ranks. What is the test though to determine who still ranks the Constitution above an individual?
54Molly3028
>53 2wonderY:
Yes ~ people with questionable leanings end up in the military, in police forces and in elected positions. There are a lot of outliArs among us today.
Yes ~ people with questionable leanings end up in the military, in police forces and in elected positions. There are a lot of outliArs among us today.
55Molly3028
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/most-americans-see-trumps-maga-as-threat...
Most Americans see Trump's MAGA as threat to democracy: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the two-day poll - including one in four Republicans - said Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement is threatening America's democratic foundations.
Most Americans see Trump's MAGA as threat to democracy: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the two-day poll - including one in four Republicans - said Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement is threatening America's democratic foundations.
56aspirit
>55 Molly3028: Only about 25% of Republicans did. 🙄
In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 60% of Republicans reported they "don't think Trump's MAGA movement represents the majority of the party." Yet the majority of them either have fallen for The Big Lie in support of Trump or think it doesn't matter for elections. That suggests they are in actuality represented by the movement.
In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 60% of Republicans reported they "don't think Trump's MAGA movement represents the majority of the party." Yet the majority of them either have fallen for The Big Lie in support of Trump or think it doesn't matter for elections. That suggests they are in actuality represented by the movement.
57Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/john-roberts-hits-back-at-critics-questioning-...
John Roberts Hits Back at Critics Questioning Supreme Court’s ‘Legitimacy’ After Kamala Harris Blasts ‘Activist Court’
***
Clueless John Roberts doesn't appear to realize that SCOTUS is no longer under his control ~ it is now the Trump/Federalist Society Court because the three newest members gained seats after lying about Roe to Americans during their confirmation hearings. The outcome of Roe is most likely just the beginning of a pattern to come ~ five of the members are on a rights-subtraction mission.
John Roberts Hits Back at Critics Questioning Supreme Court’s ‘Legitimacy’ After Kamala Harris Blasts ‘Activist Court’
***
Clueless John Roberts doesn't appear to realize that SCOTUS is no longer under his control ~ it is now the Trump/Federalist Society Court because the three newest members gained seats after lying about Roe to Americans during their confirmation hearings. The outcome of Roe is most likely just the beginning of a pattern to come ~ five of the members are on a rights-subtraction mission.
58lriley
>57 Molly3028: I've read some further comments by Roberts in another article. He contends the court is apolitical in its decision making. He goes on to say after they come to a decision no matter who thinks what they all sit down and have a meal talk together and not about business. He goes on prattling about the collegiality of the group. He felt bad about all the barriers that had to be put up to protect them. What world is he living in? Alito and his not enough people are religious anymore. So fucking what.
After reading that I was like I don't give a fuck about your eating together or this business about collegiality. His contention that their decisions are made apolitically is one massive load of bs. As if 6 of them weren't members of and vetted by the very right wing Federalist Society and then vetted again by the likes of people like Mitch McConnell......and as if Clarence Thomas's wife wasn't knee deep with the insurrectionists of Jan. 6, 2021 and trying very very hard before and after that date to overturn a legitimate election. She should go to fucking prison......maybe her husband too.
After reading that I was like I don't give a fuck about your eating together or this business about collegiality. His contention that their decisions are made apolitically is one massive load of bs. As if 6 of them weren't members of and vetted by the very right wing Federalist Society and then vetted again by the likes of people like Mitch McConnell......and as if Clarence Thomas's wife wasn't knee deep with the insurrectionists of Jan. 6, 2021 and trying very very hard before and after that date to overturn a legitimate election. She should go to fucking prison......maybe her husband too.
59kiparsky
If Roberts thinks that Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Rapey Brett are doing anything but what they were put there to do, he's clearly not competent to serve on any body that requires an ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.
60Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/news/doomsday-poll-half-of-republicans-believe-a-total-...
DOOMSDAY POLL: Half of Republicans Believe ‘A Total Breakdown of Law and Order’ and Civil War is Imminent
***
Trump is keeping the country in an upheaval as he promised his voters he would ~ they, in turn, are fulfilling their roles in the "Trump show" by answering polls in this manner. Many Dems fear that Trump's plan is going to succeed in the long haul. IF the GOP takes control of the House, the county will be halfway there.
DOOMSDAY POLL: Half of Republicans Believe ‘A Total Breakdown of Law and Order’ and Civil War is Imminent
***
Trump is keeping the country in an upheaval as he promised his voters he would ~ they, in turn, are fulfilling their roles in the "Trump show" by answering polls in this manner. Many Dems fear that Trump's plan is going to succeed in the long haul. IF the GOP takes control of the House, the county will be halfway there.
61Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/more-than-half-of-republican-house-members-in-...
More Than Half of Republican House Members in Next Congress Will Be Election Deniers, Predicts FiveThirtyEight
.....“In the House, many of these election deniers look poised to win. Using the latest data from FiveThirtyEight’s 2022 midterm election forecast, we can see that 118 election deniers and eight election doubters have at least a 95 percent chance of winning. Several additional candidates who have denied the election are in competitive races,” notes FiveThirtyEight.
The site’s forecast for the House shows the GOP with a 74 in 100 chance of retaking the House, with the majority of the outcomes landing somewhere between a majority of 240 to 218 seats.....
***
Nate Silver has had a very good record when it comes to election forecasting.
More Than Half of Republican House Members in Next Congress Will Be Election Deniers, Predicts FiveThirtyEight
.....“In the House, many of these election deniers look poised to win. Using the latest data from FiveThirtyEight’s 2022 midterm election forecast, we can see that 118 election deniers and eight election doubters have at least a 95 percent chance of winning. Several additional candidates who have denied the election are in competitive races,” notes FiveThirtyEight.
The site’s forecast for the House shows the GOP with a 74 in 100 chance of retaking the House, with the majority of the outcomes landing somewhere between a majority of 240 to 218 seats.....
***
Nate Silver has had a very good record when it comes to election forecasting.
62Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-embraces-qanon-storm-is-coming-meme-its-...
Trump Embraces QAnon ‘Storm is Coming’ Meme: ‘It’s Almost Like He’s Trying to Tell Us Something’
Ex-president Donald Trump went on a “Retruthing” spree on Truth Social Monday night into Tuesday that prominently included a QAnon meme featuring his image, wearing a Q pin on his lapel, over the messages “the storm is coming” and “WWG1WGA.”
His retruth (the Truth Social equivalent of a retweet) is his most direct embrace of QAnon’s conspiracy theory focusing on him since the launch of his Truth Social.
***
He is always using sh*t like this to test the GOP's regard for him and his ability to keep voters in its cult.
Trump Embraces QAnon ‘Storm is Coming’ Meme: ‘It’s Almost Like He’s Trying to Tell Us Something’
Ex-president Donald Trump went on a “Retruthing” spree on Truth Social Monday night into Tuesday that prominently included a QAnon meme featuring his image, wearing a Q pin on his lapel, over the messages “the storm is coming” and “WWG1WGA.”
His retruth (the Truth Social equivalent of a retweet) is his most direct embrace of QAnon’s conspiracy theory focusing on him since the launch of his Truth Social.
***
He is always using sh*t like this to test the GOP's regard for him and his ability to keep voters in its cult.
63Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/news/biden-hits-back-at-critics-of-his-maga-threat-to-d...
Biden Hits Back at Critics of His MAGA ‘Threat to Democracy’ Tear In Michigan Speech: They’re ‘Destroying American Democracy’
Extreme Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security, they embrace political violence. Just look at January 6th — what they’re saying. They refuse to accept the will of the people. Look at them pushing the Big Lie, continually.
They threaten our very democracy. I get criticized — I’m not going to take the time, but I got criticized for saying they’re a threat to democracy. Well, a threat to democracy can almost be defined by saying: If you call for political violence or you defend it, and you don’t allow for the legitimate transfer of power, that’s when democracy is at risk.
To this day, they defend those who stormed the Capitol on January the 6th. Folks, you can’t be pro-ex- — pro- insurrection and pro-democracy.
You can’t say you support law enforcement — (applause). You can’t say you support law enforcement and say the people who attacked — the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th are patriots. A number of cops ended up dying.
That’s why those who love this country — Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans — we got to be stronger, more determined, more committed to saving American democracy than the extreme MAGA Republicans are to destroying American democracy. We have to organize, we have to mobilize, and we have to vote. Get out and vote. (Applause.)
Biden Hits Back at Critics of His MAGA ‘Threat to Democracy’ Tear In Michigan Speech: They’re ‘Destroying American Democracy’
Extreme Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security, they embrace political violence. Just look at January 6th — what they’re saying. They refuse to accept the will of the people. Look at them pushing the Big Lie, continually.
They threaten our very democracy. I get criticized — I’m not going to take the time, but I got criticized for saying they’re a threat to democracy. Well, a threat to democracy can almost be defined by saying: If you call for political violence or you defend it, and you don’t allow for the legitimate transfer of power, that’s when democracy is at risk.
To this day, they defend those who stormed the Capitol on January the 6th. Folks, you can’t be pro-ex- — pro- insurrection and pro-democracy.
You can’t say you support law enforcement — (applause). You can’t say you support law enforcement and say the people who attacked — the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th are patriots. A number of cops ended up dying.
That’s why those who love this country — Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans — we got to be stronger, more determined, more committed to saving American democracy than the extreme MAGA Republicans are to destroying American democracy. We have to organize, we have to mobilize, and we have to vote. Get out and vote. (Applause.)
64lriley
>63 Molly3028: He’s not wrong. All the pouting about being called out from people who sympathize with those who attempted a violent coup and to this day spout election denying shit without a shred of real evidence to back what they claim and who ever since the day Biden was duly sworn in have been chanting and screaming FJB and threatening more violence and even civil war. And a few words from Biden after a couple years of listening to all their shit throws them into a tailspin. Who would figure these would be destroyers of democracy who think that murdering those who don’t buy their garbage would be so sensitive?
Almost no one on the left and no one in the center left, center and center right is interested in or talks about a civil war…..all that talk comes from the right and it’s extremes who are being spoonfed by white supremacist, militia, neo nazi, Christian nationalist ideologues etc. and sucking it down.
Almost no one on the left and no one in the center left, center and center right is interested in or talks about a civil war…..all that talk comes from the right and it’s extremes who are being spoonfed by white supremacist, militia, neo nazi, Christian nationalist ideologues etc. and sucking it down.
65Molly3028
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/09/desantis-flying-migrants-to-marthas...
DeSantis Flying Migrants to Martha’s Vineyard Is Part of a 60-Year-Old Segregationist Playbook
***
The GOP is revisiting stands taken during one of its favorite eras ~ George Wallace must be cheering on the deplorable 2022 actions of two govs.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/09/desantis-flying-migrants-to-marthas...
DeSantis Flying Migrants to Martha’s Vineyard Is Part of a 60-Year-Old Segregationist Playbook
***
The GOP is revisiting stands taken during one of its favorite eras ~ George Wallace must be cheering on the deplorable 2022 actions of two govs.
66Molly3028
https://www.mediaite.com/news/cbs-news-major-garrett-warns-u-s-is-85-percent-clo...
CBS News’ Major Garrett Warns: U.S. is ‘85 Percent’ Close to Civil War
quote from interview ~
It feels more dangerous, Margaret, than any I’ve encountered in covering politics at the national level since 1990. Stating what clearly happened in 2020, it wasn’t a fraudulent election. No crime was committed. That doesn’t mean you have to be happy with the result, but one of the burdens of democracy is when you’re unhappy with the result, your obligation is to win the next election, not slander baselessly the election loss.
And we have a component of American politics now that wants to slander an election that was fairly lost because they’re unhappy. And that unhappiness does not entitle you to drag down American democracy because if, Margaret, we enter a phase in American life where either political party refuses to accept fair and verified elections simply because it lost, then we will dismantle democracy bit by bit before our very eyes.
***
GOP = Grievances on Parade cult
CBS News’ Major Garrett Warns: U.S. is ‘85 Percent’ Close to Civil War
quote from interview ~
It feels more dangerous, Margaret, than any I’ve encountered in covering politics at the national level since 1990. Stating what clearly happened in 2020, it wasn’t a fraudulent election. No crime was committed. That doesn’t mean you have to be happy with the result, but one of the burdens of democracy is when you’re unhappy with the result, your obligation is to win the next election, not slander baselessly the election loss.
And we have a component of American politics now that wants to slander an election that was fairly lost because they’re unhappy. And that unhappiness does not entitle you to drag down American democracy because if, Margaret, we enter a phase in American life where either political party refuses to accept fair and verified elections simply because it lost, then we will dismantle democracy bit by bit before our very eyes.
***
GOP = Grievances on Parade cult
67davidgn
>66 Molly3028: Depending on how it is decided, Moore v Harper is what will ultimately begin the war (though perhaps not immediately -- not until the consequences become clear). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/06/the-most-terrifying-case-o...
This is the game entire. Frankly, any American of goodwill should be focused on nothing else. But we live in strange times.
ETA: https://theconversation.com/the-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-could-rev...
This is the game entire. Frankly, any American of goodwill should be focused on nothing else. But we live in strange times.
ETA: https://theconversation.com/the-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-could-rev...
