Exactly. They could have been praying to Moloch.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:37 pmAgree, that is not okay and completely illegal. But please tell me where in the video it says the employer is a Republican...you are jumping to that conclusion without any proof.doodle wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:11 pmGuy getting fired for not participating in company prayer...intolerance on both sides.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakou ... _company/
The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
- I Shrugged
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2062
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
I've had a moment of clarity that is going to affect my life going forward. It's only really happened once before in my life. I made plans then that worked out, and now I'm going to start thinking about the next set. To wit,
This discussion exemplifies why the US is going to split apart. The media is feeding it, inflammatory on both sides. I happen to think that there is more of it on the left, because the entertainment, education, and last but not least, Big Tech are included. If there is a story they don't want you to know about, you won't. If there is a narrative they want you to hear, you will. If you disagree, you'd better not be in a position the least bit dependent on them.
On the right it's probably just the right wing media, of which there is a lot less, and I don't know, maybe churches or whatever. They do their share of fake news too, albeit in a different style. And certainly they encourage the grievances.
All of these entities have more to gain by fueling the discontent than by taking some fair, journalistic middle path. Eyeballs = money. The Trump years have been glorious for CNN, and the right wing outlets too.
At all events, aggrieved and angry parties are everywhere. Things are starting to happen. Look beyond all your bitching and moaning (trees) and start paying attention to the trends (forest).
I'm going to stop trying to explain/debate political things, here and anywhere. It always was a fool's errand, but now it's even worse. This country is splitting. I need to figure out what I'm going to do about it. The answers seem obvious. Maybe they are.
This discussion exemplifies why the US is going to split apart. The media is feeding it, inflammatory on both sides. I happen to think that there is more of it on the left, because the entertainment, education, and last but not least, Big Tech are included. If there is a story they don't want you to know about, you won't. If there is a narrative they want you to hear, you will. If you disagree, you'd better not be in a position the least bit dependent on them.
On the right it's probably just the right wing media, of which there is a lot less, and I don't know, maybe churches or whatever. They do their share of fake news too, albeit in a different style. And certainly they encourage the grievances.
All of these entities have more to gain by fueling the discontent than by taking some fair, journalistic middle path. Eyeballs = money. The Trump years have been glorious for CNN, and the right wing outlets too.
At all events, aggrieved and angry parties are everywhere. Things are starting to happen. Look beyond all your bitching and moaning (trees) and start paying attention to the trends (forest).
I'm going to stop trying to explain/debate political things, here and anywhere. It always was a fool's errand, but now it's even worse. This country is splitting. I need to figure out what I'm going to do about it. The answers seem obvious. Maybe they are.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Ummm.....republics are racist, homophobic, mysoginistic, transphobic, islamaphobic, need i go on?Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:11 pmIf Trump wins in the Electoral College or in the House, the Democrat party will disintegrate and be replaced by a pro-American party that can be a loyal opposition.
Then the Republic can survive.
We are a democracy Tech. All the smart people on TV say so.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Sounds oh-so-reasonable, doesn't it?I Shrugged wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:29 pmAll of these entities have more to gain by fueling the discontent than by taking some fair, journalistic middle path.
Until you recognize that one of the most tried-and-true tools of the Revolutionary Left is to move both "extremes" to the left, with the expectation that things will settle out somewhere in the middle, only to be moved even further left in the next round. The American Communist Party referred to this technique as the "dialectic" process.
When you stand for for truth, rule of law, fundamental principles of justice, and individual liberties, there is no "middle path."
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
I support this message. And I totally agree that political parties represent certain sub-sects of society. The R = rural and D = urban is a pretty good break down. There are other sub-sects at play as well for instance: R = Boomers D = Millenials/Z; R = white D = color; R = Christian D = diverse religions; R = born American citizens D = immigrants; R = male D = female. Both sides tailor their policy to the flavor most appealing to these sub-sects. A politicians job in our country really is not to do what is best for the country as a whole, it's to do whatever gets them and their peers elected and re-elected. This is one of the biggest points of fragility in our democracy, imo. The greatest leaders in history are the ones who unite the whole. Sadly, we haven't had one of these leaders in awhile. Division and discord is the name of the game in politics these days.Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:07 pmOk, I like this thread. May I offer a slight critique which may help elevate the discussion and make it a wee tad less jumbled. Political, Economic and Social are three really large topics and going in and out of all three make the conversation hard to follow and the soundness of argument gets diluted when tangential stuff gets brought in.
So let's try some basic definitions...
Politics refers to things associated with governance
Economics refers to things associated with the production, consumption AND the transfer of wealth associated with these activities (this last clause is key because all economic transactions involve a transfer)
Sociology refers to the development, structure, and functioning of human society
These things are NOT science, they are at their core a matter of human preference...so how about we get that one out of the way right up front and realize that most of what is being argued is YOUR personal preference. There is nothing necessarily superior about YOUR personal preference to SOMEONE ELSE's personal preference.
Sophie opened this and the topic is the New Republican Populism which she asserted was associated with populism, free-market and personal freedom. My quick take as an observer I would say with regard to NRP and these three; populism - yes, free market - seriously no, personal freedom - selective. Along these lines the conversation tangented off to what is conservatism and collectivism vs. individualism. For the record, folks should go back and read pmward's post. This seems to be a major "thing" these days and the concept is an important one to understand...it explains a lot and captures the relative merits/disadvantages of each component.
Personally, I do not believe either major party is really driven by "core principles" come what may. I also don't blame them for that. At the end of the day politicians who receive compensation or serious perks from their elected office are driven to win in a competitive political world (except where it's not competitive which, frankly, is the vast majority of the United States). Political parties, in theory, represent the beliefs of a large section of the populace. To understand the two major American parties all you really need to do is spend some time figuring out who it is they are representing. Once you understand this, then you understand their platforms. History shows that from time to time there are major shifts of constituents from one party to another. There was a time an African-American would never vote Democratic as one simple example. There was a time the Republican party was a non-entity in the American south as another example. Nationalism has floated back and forth between the two parties. Whether we are undergoing a significant shifting of constituents right now is hard to say, but I don't think so. (See next para)
If someone had to ask me what the two parties most closely represent in 2020...I'd make a strong argument that the Rs represent rural America and the D's represent urban America. Pull up a bunch of presidential election maps state by state and that becomes crystal clear, to the point I personally think it's indisputable. I think the next truly FDR, Reagan stature level political figure is the person who breaks this dynamic and at that point, and only at that point, do I see a seismic shift in the electorate. I think a lot of the positions the two parties take are completely understandable when one simply looks at who lives in cities vs. rural and what their interests/world views tend to be. (What I find incredible is how much of what drove our structure of state representation at the Federal level was extremely driven by this exact same dynamic.)
So there's my argument...the R party is representing rural America (and some "legacy" big business industries and small business owners). Meanwhile, the D party is representing urban America (and some information age industries and labor unions). I would love some push back on this that is factual and well reasoned...for now it's my personal political theory and I'm sticking to it...but I'm always open to change when presented with new/better evidence. To me this is all you need to know to understand American politics and why the parties do what they do.
So now let me hit Sophie's three things one by one.
Populism - yes, but more of the rural and lower class. However, I would argue that BLM, antifa etc. are just the flip side of the populism coin.
Economic - no. I think what the unmentionable tapped into in 2016 as did the "Burn" was a strong rejection of internationalism in political policy, but most significantly economic policy...and to be specific...having what were formally excellent blue collar jobs dying by the millions along with the rise of offshoring to an industrializing China. A free marketeer would never be for what has occurred in terms of trade policy.
Personal freedom - selective. Again, I think this is the flip side of the same coin. Clearly the cancel culture (rightly so in my view) was taken on full steam. However, I think the other side could/would argue the whole LGBT/transgender/BLM etc. thing was about personal freedom for oppressed non-mainstream people.
Also, thanks for the acknowledgment of my unbiased description of the pros and cons of collectivism vs individualism. I think you're the only person that actually read what I wrote there. It seems everyone else was too occupied with arguing their own point to take the time to read anything anyone else had to say on the matter.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4959
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
I'll add one more sub-set, perhaps a bit controversial: Conservatives = Producers, Liberals = Takers. Examples: Producers tend to be more in the food, machinery, and construction businesses, i.e. the more hands on vocations. Takers tend to be more in service businesses - finance, technology, education, and politics.pmward wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:13 amI support this message. And I totally agree that political parties represent certain sub-sects of society. The R = rural and D = urban is a pretty good break down. There are other sub-sects at play as well for instance: R = Boomers D = Millenials/Z; R = white D = color; R = Christian D = diverse religions; R = born American citizens D = immigrants; R = male D = female. Both sides tailor their policy to the flavor most appealing to these sub-sects. A politicians job in our country really is not to do what is best for the country as a whole, it's to do whatever gets them and their peers elected and re-elected. This is one of the biggest points of fragility in our democracy, imo. The greatest leaders in history are the ones who unite the whole. Sadly, we haven't had one of these leaders in awhile. Division and discord is the name of the game in politics these days.Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:07 pmOk, I like this thread. May I offer a slight critique which may help elevate the discussion and make it a wee tad less jumbled. Political, Economic and Social are three really large topics and going in and out of all three make the conversation hard to follow and the soundness of argument gets diluted when tangential stuff gets brought in.
So let's try some basic definitions...
Politics refers to things associated with governance
Economics refers to things associated with the production, consumption AND the transfer of wealth associated with these activities (this last clause is key because all economic transactions involve a transfer)
Sociology refers to the development, structure, and functioning of human society
These things are NOT science, they are at their core a matter of human preference...so how about we get that one out of the way right up front and realize that most of what is being argued is YOUR personal preference. There is nothing necessarily superior about YOUR personal preference to SOMEONE ELSE's personal preference.
Sophie opened this and the topic is the New Republican Populism which she asserted was associated with populism, free-market and personal freedom. My quick take as an observer I would say with regard to NRP and these three; populism - yes, free market - seriously no, personal freedom - selective. Along these lines the conversation tangented off to what is conservatism and collectivism vs. individualism. For the record, folks should go back and read pmward's post. This seems to be a major "thing" these days and the concept is an important one to understand...it explains a lot and captures the relative merits/disadvantages of each component.
Personally, I do not believe either major party is really driven by "core principles" come what may. I also don't blame them for that. At the end of the day politicians who receive compensation or serious perks from their elected office are driven to win in a competitive political world (except where it's not competitive which, frankly, is the vast majority of the United States). Political parties, in theory, represent the beliefs of a large section of the populace. To understand the two major American parties all you really need to do is spend some time figuring out who it is they are representing. Once you understand this, then you understand their platforms. History shows that from time to time there are major shifts of constituents from one party to another. There was a time an African-American would never vote Democratic as one simple example. There was a time the Republican party was a non-entity in the American south as another example. Nationalism has floated back and forth between the two parties. Whether we are undergoing a significant shifting of constituents right now is hard to say, but I don't think so. (See next para)
If someone had to ask me what the two parties most closely represent in 2020...I'd make a strong argument that the Rs represent rural America and the D's represent urban America. Pull up a bunch of presidential election maps state by state and that becomes crystal clear, to the point I personally think it's indisputable. I think the next truly FDR, Reagan stature level political figure is the person who breaks this dynamic and at that point, and only at that point, do I see a seismic shift in the electorate. I think a lot of the positions the two parties take are completely understandable when one simply looks at who lives in cities vs. rural and what their interests/world views tend to be. (What I find incredible is how much of what drove our structure of state representation at the Federal level was extremely driven by this exact same dynamic.)
So there's my argument...the R party is representing rural America (and some "legacy" big business industries and small business owners). Meanwhile, the D party is representing urban America (and some information age industries and labor unions). I would love some push back on this that is factual and well reasoned...for now it's my personal political theory and I'm sticking to it...but I'm always open to change when presented with new/better evidence. To me this is all you need to know to understand American politics and why the parties do what they do.
So now let me hit Sophie's three things one by one.
Populism - yes, but more of the rural and lower class. However, I would argue that BLM, antifa etc. are just the flip side of the populism coin.
Economic - no. I think what the unmentionable tapped into in 2016 as did the "Burn" was a strong rejection of internationalism in political policy, but most significantly economic policy...and to be specific...having what were formally excellent blue collar jobs dying by the millions along with the rise of offshoring to an industrializing China. A free marketeer would never be for what has occurred in terms of trade policy.
Personal freedom - selective. Again, I think this is the flip side of the same coin. Clearly the cancel culture (rightly so in my view) was taken on full steam. However, I think the other side could/would argue the whole LGBT/transgender/BLM etc. thing was about personal freedom for oppressed non-mainstream people.
Also, thanks for the acknowledgment of my unbiased description of the pros and cons of collectivism vs individualism. I think you're the only person that actually read what I wrote there. It seems everyone else was too occupied with arguing their own point to take the time to read anything anyone else had to say on the matter.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
I don't think the word "Takers" is an accurate description at all. That is a derogatory term meant to discredit those vocations. Finance, technology, education, etc are not exactly "taking", they are the bulk of our economy these days. I think R = "blue collar" D= "white collar", or R = "not college educated" D = "college educated" might be a bit more apt, and if you phrased it that way I would 100% agree with you. None of these themes listed are 100% binary (and sometimes can be contradictory like D going after both poor and college educated groups), but they are the general target audiences each party tries to tailor its message to in some way.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:57 amI'll add one more sub-set, perhaps a bit controversial: Conservatives = Producers, Liberals = Takers. Examples: Producers tend to be more in the food, machinery, and construction businesses, i.e. the more hands on vocations. Takers tend to be more in service businesses - finance, technology, education, and political.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
The first part of your post, and the other one about Producers and Takers reminded me of a little known statistic, which is the state by state balance of payments figure. This basically refers to the amount of money each state pays in to the Federal government versus what each state receives back in services, benefits, etc. I only looked into it recently when Gov. Cuomo was talking about it during one of his Covid aid spats with Trump and McConnell where McConnell accused NYS of mooching off the Federal government.Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:50 amJust plain factually not true either. Apologies to any Californians on the board but you couldn’t pay me enough to live there. Objectively though, it’s the most productive state in the US which flies in the face of liberalism doesn’t do capitalism narrative. History shows there is a breaking point to socialist policies so I’ve always thought it is a matter of degree in reality and I think a degree of socialist policy makes capitalism acceptable to the less successful in a capitalist economy. A good chunk of the world rejected capitalism in the early 1910s-1930 and what followed wasn’t pretty.
Personally, I believe if the government can pay its bills and people are required to work/contribute vs. extract continuously then where the capitalist vs. socialist policies dial is set is is a matter of voter preference with nothing moral about it at all.
Anyway, what I have learned is that for the most part, the liberal (blue) states like CA, MA, IL, NJ pay in more than they take, a negative balance. And in some cases quite substantial. The conservative (red) states tend to take more than they give.
Of course there are exceptions going both ways, but see the link below and you will surely see the trend for yourself.
You can reach your own conclusion about this, but one of mine is that some red states that criticize liberal policies and "socialism" are in many cases benefiting as welfare recipients themselves at the expense of the very states they are criticizing. This was Cuomo's point to McConnell (KY) whom he called a "taker".
Have a look and please share your thoughts. Someone in this thread talked about the country splitting up. If that ever happened, I wonder how this disproportionate balance of payments issue would be resolved?
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal ... ate-2019-1
Last edited by glennds on Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Exactly. Social spending does go directly into the economy. These are not dollars that are tossed on the fire. Obviously supply and demand still comes into play. So at a certain point you do reach diminishing returns, but those diminishing returns are by category not on the whole. So like if we instituted a small UBI then small payments of cash would go into the hands of people that have need for it, and they would spend it all. This has a direct and potent stimulative effect on GDP and the economy. At a certain point if you increase UBI you reach diminishing returns and at the most extreme saturation where injecting further stimulus does less and less until it does nothing. We are near this saturation point with monetary stimulus for instance, and this is why central banks keep begging governments to spend. But generally speaking, helping the "poor" (by definition people that have a need for money) is always going to be directly stimulating to the economy, because it's money that will be spent directly in the economy, regardless of whether that spending is responsible or not. This is not money that will go into a savings account or brokerage account somewhere.Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:50 amJust plain factually not true either. Apologies to any Californians on the board but you couldn’t pay me enough to live there. Objectively though, it’s the most productive state in the US which flies in the face of liberalism doesn’t do capitalism narrative. History shows there is a breaking point to socialist policies so I’ve always thought it is a matter of degree in reality and I think a degree of socialist policy makes capitalism acceptable to the less successful in a capitalist economy. A good chunk of the world rejected capitalism in the early 1910s-1930 and what followed wasn’t pretty.
Personally, I believe if the government can pay its bills and people are required to work/contribute vs. extract continuously then where the capitalist vs. socialist policies dial is set is is a matter of voter preference with nothing moral about it at all.
Also, I know it's an unpopular thing around these parts, but green energy is one of those areas where stimulus would be super effective, not just today but for years and decades to come. This is a new and upcoming sector that is the future. By our government investing money now into R&D it creates jobs, helps the sector get on its feet, helps build the important front loaded infrastructure, and most importantly ensures that the U.S. stays at the forefront of global innovation in the coming decades. The Chinese will spend whatever they have to in order to be a green energy leader. If we don't invest in this it will turn into us becoming #2 behind China at some point in the future. The U.S. has been the dominant force in tech innovation because the government invested in things like the internet and computers in the early days when the cost of R&D was too high for many companies in the private sector to stomach. If the government looks from purely a ROI standpoint, investing in green energy is going to have more ROI over the long haul than investing in bringing old guard manufacturing and agricultural jobs back to the U.S., or trying to expand the destined for death shale industry. Instead, these workers would be better off changing career fields entirely into the more lucrative green energy sector. There are tons of higher paying blue and white collar jobs that would be created with this investment.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Only morons think there should be different countries. The larger galaxy is a much tougher neighborhood than most earthlings comprehend.
People in idaho and Wyoming have virtually nothing in common with Massachusetts and New Jersey. Just look at their cultures and beliefs and the local government they choose for themselves. Don't you think the people would be happier if they didnt have the same larger government over them? One group could have endless immigration from the third world, higher taxes, no firearms, massive welfare, government housing, discrimination laws, legal abortion, and the other group could have economic and personal freedom sans abortion.
Furthermore, after the country is partitioned, people in NJ and Mass that prefer freedom could move to the other country and vice versa. Certainly they would be happier.
The people on the coasts would never be subjected to a Trump presidency again and people in the interior would never be subjected to President Harris.
Or are those just moronic thoughts?
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
How did lots of small independent countries work out for Europe? There were specific reasons they united into the EU. Now you do need separation and local government yes, but it's hard to argue that many small countries turns into a happier more peaceful life than having all those small states have skin in the game together. Mutual dependence is the biggest guarantor of peace. Let us now also forget that our status as the biggest economic muscle in the world gets chopped to pieces. We go from one strong country into multiple weak countries in the grand scheme.SomeDude wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:28 pmOnly morons think there should be different countries. The larger galaxy is a much tougher neighborhood than most earthlings comprehend.
People in idaho and Wyoming have virtually nothing in common with Massachusetts and New Jersey. Just look at their cultures and beliefs and the local government they choose for themselves. Don't you think the people would be happier if they didnt have the same larger government over them? One group could have endless immigration from the third world, higher taxes, no firearms, massive welfare, government housing, discrimination laws, legal abortion, and the other group could have economic and personal freedom sans abortion.
Furthermore, after the country is partitioned, people in NJ and Mass that prefer freedom could move to the other country and vice versa. Certainly they would be happier.
The people on the coasts would never be subjected to a Trump presidency again and people in the interior would never be subjected to President Harris.
Or are those just moronic thoughts?
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4959
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
I could have said Liberal = Elites and Victims but I thought that might be a tad harsh. So, I went with Takers. YMMV. 🥲pmward wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:02 amI don't think the word "Takers" is an accurate description at all. That is a derogatory term meant to discredit those vocations. Finance, technology, education, etc are not exactly "taking", they are the bulk of our economy these days. I think R = "blue collar" D= "white collar", or R = "not college educated" D = "college educated" might be a bit more apt, and if you phrased it that way I would 100% agree with you. None of these themes listed are 100% binary (and sometimes can be contradictory like D going after both poor and college educated groups), but they are the general target audiences each party tries to tailor its message to in some way.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:57 amI'll add one more sub-set, perhaps a bit controversial: Conservatives = Producers, Liberals = Takers. Examples: Producers tend to be more in the food, machinery, and construction businesses, i.e. the more hands on vocations. Takers tend to be more in service businesses - finance, technology, education, and political.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
I have one: Maybe aliens come from outer space to destroy us and we need will Smith and Jeff Goldblum to blow up the mothership but they are in different countries so the entire planet gets wiped out.Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:16 pm
Maybe CA gets an army and an Air Force and decides everything up to the Rocky Mountains sounds like a nice security buffer with lots of open space for endless solar and wind farms.
Maybe China or Russia decides that CA looks pretty enticing and since that state doesn't have any nuclear weapons, why not, who is to stop them?
As Colin Powell wisely said about Iraq, you break it, then what?
Here's a history lesson i remember, it was the United States in all it's current power that "broke" Iraq. Also, Colon Powell was a chief architect of it, lied in front the world about Iraq, and is a complete disgrace with the blood of millions on his hands. His advice is probably best avoided.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
That would work if enough of the people/states wanted it. Currently 50% of the population and about 20-22 of the states would rather have an all powerful government so they could impose their values on the other states.Simonjester wrote: this all seems like a good argument for federalism, ..say... a federal government that operated like a light weight exoskeleton that allowed the states to operate as a unit but were all self governing within it...
not that limited government is a good idea
Hence.....let it be broken up. The free states can band together for support. They can have friendly relations and whatnot with the communist countries on their border too (ok this might be a stretch).
The point is, everyone could be happier if they have the government they want. Neither group fully has that now. The communists have a very close representation but they still riot and try to impose more on their countrymen who disagree with them.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
That sums it up.
I went with aliens because the endless imaginary scenarios you would no doubt come up with have to lead somewhere, might as well skip to the end. It's only slightly less plausible than Russia sailing across the Pacific to invade Cali, although that's up for debate.
See you think things are good as is. Other people see that every 2 years 1/3 of the people call another 1/3 nazis, cities on fire, a military used as a global police force, religious and personal freedoms of half the county at risk from the other half that despises them, politicians calling for lists made of people that disagree with then so their lives can be ruined etc. AND it's getting worse not better.
Maybe you don't see that stuff. That's ok.
Discussing the partition of the country, how it might happen and the consequences could be interesting (on another thread). Since you said anyone who disagrees with you is a moron though......Discussing it with you would prove you right kbg. It's not a good way to have an honest discussion of a topic, surely you can see that?
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Tech once again proving he is the hypocrite in chief.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:39 amThey don't want an honest discussion because they have no valid arguments.SomeDude wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:42 amThat sums it up.
I went with aliens because the endless imaginary scenarios you would no doubt come up with have to lead somewhere, might as well skip to the end. It's only slightly less plausible than Russia sailing across the Pacific to invade Cali, although that's up for debate.
See you think things are good as is. Other people see that every 2 years 1/3 of the people call another 1/3 nazis, cities on fire, a military used as a global police force, religious and personal freedoms of half the county at risk from the other half that despises them, politicians calling for lists made of people that disagree with then so their lives can be ruined etc. AND it's getting worse not better.
Maybe you don't see that stuff. That's ok.
Discussing the partition of the country, how it might happen and the consequences could be interesting (on another thread). Since you said anyone who disagrees with you is a moron though......Discussing it with you would prove you right kbg. It's not a good way to have an honest discussion of a topic, surely you can see that?
This is just another example of their "win at all cost" mentality, different only in magnitude from the election fraud.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Kbg. Maybe we can start a thread on the possibilty of the country breaking up, for weal or woe, and keep it civil.
I think this issue will come front and center in our lifetime, and maybe soon.
I think this issue will come front and center in our lifetime, and maybe soon.
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9423
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Tangent!
I have an extremely large vocabulary but you just sent me on a search to find out what one word you used meant.
"weal": a red, swollen mark left on flesh by a blow or pressure.
I was going to stop there but then saw that you were using the word in a phrase I don't think I'd ever prior encountered.
Weal and woe. Meaning : Good and bad days. Usage : Weal and woe comes in everybody's life.One should learn to live with them.
Now you have me curious if the "weal and woe" phrase is a regional country phrase. Do you know?
Thanks
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
+1, I was thinking same. Why not devolve more power to the individual states and let them steer their own ships? It's what they're doing already anyway. New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California can keep on passing all the taxes and regulations they want, and no one is stopping them.Simonjester wrote: this all seems like a good argument for federalism, ..say... a federal government that operated like a light weight exoskeleton that allowed the states to operate as a unit but were all self governing within it...
not that limited government is a good idea
Of course, the main problem with this scheme is that taxpaying (as opposed to welfare-recipient) residents are fleeing in large numbers. Which says that the high tax and welfare plan isn't really sustainable. So what you want is to isolate those places so they can't hide from this reality. New York City is a microcosm that shows this process quite well, because it functions as a state within a state. There's a cycle of Democratic regimes that screw up the city followed by Republican regimes that fix it and make it liveable again, after which people get complacent and Democrats get back in power. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Breaking up states is one way to handle this that is far less drastic than breaking up a country.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
So you're ok insulting me, but can't take it when I dish it right back? Once again, hypocritical.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:57 amThat was possibly the shortest unblocking on record.pmward wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:43 amTech once again proving he is the hypocrite in chief.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:39 amThey don't want an honest discussion because they have no valid arguments.SomeDude wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:42 amThat sums it up.
I went with aliens because the endless imaginary scenarios you would no doubt come up with have to lead somewhere, might as well skip to the end. It's only slightly less plausible than Russia sailing across the Pacific to invade Cali, although that's up for debate.
See you think things are good as is. Other people see that every 2 years 1/3 of the people call another 1/3 nazis, cities on fire, a military used as a global police force, religious and personal freedoms of half the county at risk from the other half that despises them, politicians calling for lists made of people that disagree with then so their lives can be ruined etc. AND it's getting worse not better.
Maybe you don't see that stuff. That's ok.
Discussing the partition of the country, how it might happen and the consequences could be interesting (on another thread). Since you said anyone who disagrees with you is a moron though......Discussing it with you would prove you right kbg. It's not a good way to have an honest discussion of a topic, surely you can see that?
This is just another example of their "win at all cost" mentality, different only in magnitude from the election fraud.
Thanks for clearing up how nasty you are.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4959
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
I’ve heard it - had to point out that WV schools are not so hillbilly backwater as the stereotype might indicate.vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:24 am
Tangent!
I have an extremely large vocabulary but you just sent me on a search to find out what one word you used meant.
Weal and woe. Meaning : Good and bad days. Usage : Weal and woe comes in everybody's life.One should learn to live with them.
Now you have me curious if the "weal and woe" phrase is a regional country phrase. Do you know?
Thanks
Vinny
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Hmmmm....well I'm born and raised in Michigan but its probably just something picked up from reading. Could be from the King James. I'm certain its an old phrase from England.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4959
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9423
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
Thanks, Mountaineer, for the continuing education....
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4959
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.