Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Posts: 15722
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
it’s the right wing machinery and leadership that enables Trump,
I observed it was the left complaining constant in the news that kept the fire alive over the years, and pushed otherwise central folks (many of them) further right in response to the condescending tone, high drama, etc. I would say the majority of folks that voted for trumpety trump trump, considered themselves politically in the center. Hence the shock to the left leaning folks when say latino and African Americans voted OPPOSITE to what they normally would.
quote:
I’m out, I retire from this conversation because it makes me so furious I could chop down a F-ing telephone pole with a violin knife.
I get it and see it all around me. The thing is, right wingers gain NOTHING from this emotional response and drama. It is the ones that WANT the division that love to see all the stress and distress. I have seen right leaning folks distraught as well, fears unwarranted and a huge etc. I am standing alone in the middle often, going to myself "what is going on here folks? calm the F down and consider that your team is NOT the enemy of the other team....you are being manipulated emotionally toward hatred and anger over NOTHING".
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Ricardo)
Dunno about revenge, but I'd see value in applying a legal punishment on the person who started the fire. It serves as a disincentive for others and in the long run should contribute to reducing the number of fires started that way.
Le Pen's trial just ended and she's barred from running for political office for a while, effective immediately. So of course she ran around crying that it was a political trial, an unfair witch hunt, when really she just broke the law and that's that. The magnate Bolloré is a majority shareholder in a number of news organisations, and in recent years he has increasingly been supporting the far right. Essentially he's the French equivalent of a Murdoch. The coverage of Le Pen's trial in the news outlets he owns was questionable to say the least. Except, and this is how you fight, there are laws about this kind of thing. A news channel in France can't just make sh1t up. They have legal obligations, and if they don't fulfill them, they can lose the allotted frequency they use. So complaints were filed and now there's an investigation into whether or not they broke regulations in their news coverage. It'll probably end up with a warning and a fine, as proportional response.
Of course, on its own that's not enough. Bolloré will keep on pushing and the law will keep on pushing back. But it does serve as a dike of sorts. But more importantly, it's part of a much broader legislative set-up designed to keep people like that in check. E.g. electioneering is illegal outside of a specific period of time before elections. During the duration of the campaign, media have an obligation of proportional coverage. A single politician dominating the media cycle is unheard of. It's built into the system that this type of thing just can't happen.
And then of course there's the whole financial side of things, which I won't get into here but of course it's central to solving this type of problem with the consolidation of internet companies, and that too can be legislated to minimize the harm these people can do. It's not perfect of course. Any legislative set-up will end up having the vices of its virtues.
"Just say no" may have value for individual moral deliberations, but as a policy proposal I think it's unrealistic, and in fact its consequences have historically proven to be really quite tragic. As an example from your cultural neck of the woods, that's essentially how English legislators caused (or at least significantly worsened) the Irish famine over a century ago. We shan't help or address any of the structural issues, because in the end the problem is that these poor peasants just keep on having too many kids, and if we help them in any other way than placing the core responsibility on them, then they just won't learn, will they... Oversimplifying of course, but that's essentially it. It's the same thing with Christians pushing "abstention" policies to reduce abortions or teenage pregnancies. Regardless of whether or not their moral stance is valid, the fact of the matter is that it just does not work. It doesn't matter if it worked for you individually. It's the broader numbers that matter. To my mind, saying "just say no" as policy means relinquishing all attachment to empirical observation. It's idealism over empiricism, and over pragmatism.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
Ultimate goal will be to achieve Civil War.
Andrey Sidorov, deputy dean of world politics at the Moscow State University and russian state TV mouthpiece:
Mar 30, 2023 "Trump is coming. Think of him as you will, I always saw him and still see him as a destroyer of America."
September 6, 2024 “I will always root for Trump. Trump is a direct path to civil war in the United States.”
Sep 13, 2023 "I am for Trump, I always was for Trump.
"If he gets elected, everything we said about civil war will be on their agenda, in reality.... Trump can really get it to the point that our geopolitical adversary will fall apart—without any missiles."
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Estevan)
Which makes sense if you believe Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics is what they're basing their strategy on. Which is probably to some extent true, but perhaps less so than is sometimes believed.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
Posts: 15722
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Estevan)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Estevan
quote:
Ultimate goal will be to achieve Civil War.
Andrey Sidorov, deputy dean of world politics at the Moscow State University and russian state TV mouthpiece:
Mar 30, 2023 "Trump is coming. Think of him as you will, I always saw him and still see him as a destroyer of America."
September 6, 2024 “I will always root for Trump. Trump is a direct path to civil war in the United States.”
Sep 13, 2023 "I am for Trump, I always was for Trump.
"If he gets elected, everything we said about civil war will be on their agenda, in reality.... Trump can really get it to the point that our geopolitical adversary will fall apart—without any missiles."
So even those quotes there, will be read by many as "see I knew it! TRUMP and his SUPPORTERS are sowing the seeds of division!!". Self reinforcing concepts.
When in REALITY, what is being said, is that "a guy like trump will inspire the opposition to sow the seeds of division, which will in turn inspire THEIR opposition to further support HIM, when normally they NEVER would have, and this confusing mess will grow exponentially out of control".
Posts: 15722
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Piwin)
quote:
Dunno about revenge, but I'd see value in applying a legal punishment on the person who started the fire. It serves as a disincentive for others and in the long run should contribute to reducing the number of fires started that way.
Ok ok, I should not have used the fire analogy either. Here is the deal. High school girl bathroom gossip. We all know the damage it can do, and we look back as adults at how small and insignificant that thing is, even though at the time we are involved it is a horror. The truth is this thing is the spark that can cause social media bullying, inspire suicide and mass shootings, etc. You can NOT combat this by making bathroom gossip illegal and pretending that enforcing laws against "bullying" and such to stop the issue. Suddenly we have adults trying to deal like "we need to remove access to this ONE type of gun", or "we need to address mental illness", which is POINTLESS, and just sowing more division.
We all know this high school girl gossip is EVIL as evil can be, but the way to combat that is the the people on the receiving end of this garbage info designed to do harm, the PEOPLE need to DISCERN what it is and rise above it...or they are done for. In fact these types of lessons SHOULD have been learned IN HIGH SCHOOL, and today I see a MAJORITY OF ADULTS ON THIS PLANET behaving exactly as if they were these chatty high school girls in the bathroom, spreading garbage they have not even bothered to check themselves is valid...no one playing the devils advocate, or empathize with the opposing idea before either posting or regurgitating info they have no clear idea where it came from. "The Others must be brainwashed and ignorant". It fits the soda straw world view they have constructed and continue to feed the machine of reinforcing feedback looping "amplification" of thought. Until they can no longer even have a conversation with a family member. It is beyond ridiculous at this point....it is scary.
Posts: 4530
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Morante)
Merz, Starmer and Macron are 10 times more stupid than Trump. While US is quitely pulling out of this ****show, they wanne spend almost a trillion dollars on some defence **** against something which will never occur, while the european countries will only have their millitary industrial complex as job provider soon. We are copying US policy of the past.
I hate Trumps policies when it comes to many things such as Israel, tariffs against canada, etc. but he is right about one thing, and that is Russia. But it is useless to discuss thus in germany, people are brainwashed and really believe putin is gonne try to conquer Europe . So I don't know who is really dumb here. Right now i feel like europeans are dumber.
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Ricardo)
Is the predominant narrative in this thread that somehow the left is responsible for the rise of Trump? That's a pretty terminally online narrative. As someone who regularly intersects with people who elicit the ire of the anti-DEI crowd, what's happening is not because of pronouns or making fun of Trump with memes online (is this even a serious argument? Memes?).
I encourage folks who are pushing this narrative in this thread to study the anthropological and socioeconomic factors that have contributed to historical rises of fascism and nationalism. Saying that Trump actually inspired the opposition to sow "seeds of division" and that's why we are in the situation we are in is incredibly lame and honestly really historically uninformed. It also treads dangerously close to blaming those who are oppressed anyhow -- such as the LGBT community -- for us steamrolling toward a fascist dictatorship. Most of the "62 genders" stuff is Russian propaganda and never actually occurred in real life -- transgender people, for example, just want to be recognized as human and having the same rights everyone else does. You can't convince me that a "culture war" is the actual reason why we are in the ****hole we are now.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Bulerias2005)
I'm a person who does believe the far left is in part responsible for Trump's win. 80% of the public believes that folks born male have an unfair advantage when competing in certain women's sports. I believe that is obviously true. What I've heard some folks claim is that this occurs in very small numbers, and since that is the case, it shouldn't matter. But it does to the girls and women who are affected.
This is one example.
Illegal immigration is another. Most all Amercians understand that the US was built by immigrants. They do not understand letting millions of people waltz right in. They do not understand busing them into cities all over the country and spending billions to support them.
They do understand that our immigration system is absurd. The Biden administration utterly failed in this regard. That gave Trump the advantage. Then we had inflation during his term, which IMO he was not really to blame for, but his denial of its existence gave Trump another point of attack.
Using terms like fascist, dictator, nazi, threat to democracy, etc as applied to Trump absolutely contributed to his victory, as most of the country simply doesn't believe it. You may believe it, and millions agree. But when we heard multiple democrat leaders, as well as most of the media, use the exact same phrases to describe Trump, it became clear this was an orchestrated effort to paint Trump as the next Hitler. That was not credible.
Trump's legal issues......I believe he committed many crimes in his life, but the way the Biden administration went after him simply rubbed many people the wrong way. For example, Trump increased his support among black Amercians significantly. I believe they saw their experience with the justice system in Trump's. People love an underdog.
Trump's term could turn out to be a complete disaster. If so, he will be trounced in the mid terms and the next president will be a democrat. Will you then claim that Trump's failures, and his far right supporters had nothing to do with a democrat victory?
As inferred in your post, the idea that people who don't agree with someone’s political views need education is offensive and will not win elections. The fact is, we have vast numbers of uneducated and undereducated folks in the US. Many voted for democrats. I didn’t hear the GOP telling them they needed to be educated or worse.
I realize my post reads as an endorsement of Trump but that is not the case. I find him personally reprehensible and unsuited to the office. But I'm also upset with the democratic party for not putting forth a candidate who could offer a clearly better alternative, which should have been easy, and yes, for embracing far left cultural ideas that are clearly out of step with the majority of Amercians.
Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many.
Is the predominant narrative in this thread that somehow the left is responsible for the rise of Trump? That's a pretty terminally online narrative. As someone who regularly intersects with people who elicit the ire of the anti-DEI crowd, what's happening is not because of pronouns or making fun of Trump with memes online (is this even a serious argument? Memes?).
I encourage folks who are pushing this narrative in this thread to study the anthropological and socioeconomic factors that have contributed to historical rises of fascism and nationalism. Saying that Trump actually inspired the opposition to sow "seeds of division" and that's why we are in the situation we are in is incredibly lame and honestly really historically uninformed. It also treads dangerously close to blaming those who are oppressed anyhow -- such as the LGBT community -- for us steamrolling toward a fascist dictatorship. Most of the "62 genders" stuff is Russian propaganda and never actually occurred in real life -- transgender people, for example, just want to be recognized as human and having the same rights everyone else does. You can't convince me that a "culture war" is the actual reason why we are in the ****hole we are now. [/quote]
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Ricardo)
I mean, the fire analogy was probably better than associating "EVIL as evil can be" with whatever teenage girls are up to lol, but whatever.
The thing you're pointing to has been around forever. I mean, even in literature the "dude gets jealous of the outsider and lies about him to rile up the whole town" is a classic in a variety of cultures and time periods. I don't think that's something you'll solve by just telling people that it's wrong and they shouldn't do it. That's a message for priests and prophets, not one for the political Pnyx (all hail alliteration! ^^). That said, I think there's a world of difference between imperfect and pointless. A lot of things do in fact work, even if the outcomes aren't perfect.
Besides, while there are cases where some category of people do benefit from the division (in which case it makes sense to worry about emotional manipulation and whatnot), there are also plenty of others where it arises mechanically from far more mundane incentives. Sometimes sh1t just happens, without any need for a cryptic mastermind secretly pulling the strings.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
Posts: 15722
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Piwin)
quote:
A lot of things do in fact work, even if the outcomes aren't perfect.
Give an example, other than "that famous person is no longer allowed to do it thanks to the law", and I will show you why it is very different right now than it used to be. "a message for the priests and prophets"???? WTF man they are the problem...they ARE the teenage girls jeeeezus. the Political phynx as you say is not being given a voice. The cameras move OFF of people like that and their clear headed logic is buried under heaps of pointless complaining about trumpety and others.
quote:
Sometimes sh1t just happens, without any need for a cryptic mastermind secretly pulling the strings.
Jeez no man...I mean yes I thought that at first...for decades I thought people were doing it to themselves and were just creating a soda straw view with blinders of their own taylor crafted design...until it started knocking on my door. The teenage girls have almost won by now. People need to wake the hell up.
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
Give an example, other than "that famous person is no longer allowed to do it thanks to the law", and I will show you why it is very different right now than it used to be.
Not sure why the exception, since the role of the law is kinda the point I'm making... The law is how you "just say no" in a modern democracy... I don't think I've been arguing that things are the same now as they were before. I do believe humans are broadly speaking the same as they were at the beginning of history, but systems and contexts change all the time and that shapes our behavior.
In our times, the rise of TV media and then the internet has brought about significant changes to public discourse. There's most certainly a before and an after. I gave the example of how those spaces are more strictly regulated in France, and IMO as a direct result of that, the political heat is much, much lower than it is in the US even with comparable political events. If it's not the result of that, then I guess you'd have to believe that French people are somehow just better at critical thinking or made of stronger moral fibre than Americans are, which seems patently false to me.
Tbh I think if an alien showed up tomorrow and look at what is going on, the first factor it would notice is just age demographics. Political and economic scholars have been predicting this would happen for at least the last three decades: ageing demographics will put a lot of stress on the economy, and the increasingly dismal economic prospects will nudge people towards illiberal alternatives. As far as I can tell that's not the kind of thing where you can find any single group of people to point the finger to and blame them for it. It's too complex an issue to assign blame like that.
As another example of a strong point of division that I don't think was manufactured by anyone, I think the whole Gaza debate is one. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly people trying to manipulate people's opinions in that space. I'm just saying I think people would've been very strongly divided over this either way. I remember Richard describing two brothers in Texas coming to blows over Nazi Germany. Sometimes the news of the day just cuts through the core values people have and it creates division, even among families, and regardless of whether or not there are people trying to manipulate public opinion.
quote:
"a message for the priests and prophets"???? WTF man they are the problem...they ARE the teenage girls jeeeezus. the Political phynx as you say is not being given a voice. The cameras move OFF of people like that and their clear headed logic is buried under heaps of pointless complaining about trumpety and others.
I guess the metaphor didn't land. I'm just saying "just say no" is fine as a matter of personal ethics, but kinda silly as a matter of policy. I just wanted to use a bunch of Ps lol.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
Posts: 3487
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Mark2)
quote:
Mark2: They do understand that our immigration system is absurd. The Biden administration utterly failed in this regard. That gave Trump the advantage. Then we had inflation during his term, which IMO he was not really to blame for, but his denial of its existence gave Trump another point of attack.
I have read this thread with interest, but ultimately with dissatisfaction. I think many posters have touched upon a few causes of the present situation, but none have identified a dominant cause, nor have they proposed a workable solution.
My opinion is that there are a number of contributing causes, many of which exploit elements of human nature which can at times work against the general welfare.
Now to pick a nit: The quote above gives an erroneous impression. In fact a bill was negotiated and written by a bipartisan coalition of Senators, with administration approval. The bill would have taken significant steps to reform the mechanisms and laws of immigration. Reportedly, the bill was about to pass when Trump called and told its Republican backers to vote against it, so he could run on the issue of a broken immigration system.
This is just one example of how division has intentionally been stoked, not just by Trump or his supporters.
I think both politicians and the media are nearly always behaving irresponsibly when they foment dissent. The Republicans look back fondly upon their hero Ronald Reagan, but we don't hear much about Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with whom Reagan crafted many successful compromises.
Nowadays congressional careers can be destroyed by a willingness to compromise. In my view compromise is the primary function of people elected to represent us in a democratic republic. Constituencies are bound to disagree fairly often. It is up to our elected representatives to find a more or less workable solution.
But somehow people often find "principled" defiance and demonization of the "opposition" more satisfying than moving on with a practical compromise, itself open to revision as time may reveal unanticipated flaws.
Allergic reaction to compromise is just one part of the problem. Irresponsibility by politicians, the media and the public are other components, but not a comprehensive list of causes.
For example, how about a level of economic inequality nearly unprecedented during the last century? Lots of well off people voted for both Trump and Harris, but lots of people on both sides of the line are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck. Some of those whom I know are roundly pissed off.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
Of course Trump tanked the bill for political reasons. Shades of Reagan and the Iranian hostage crisis. The bill was too late in coming, even if it had passed. The images of people swarming the border had an impact on the vote. So did the news stories of crimes committed by people in the country illegally.
I'm not sure what can be done about income inequality. You can only tax people so much before it becomes counter productive.
Proposals such as a wealth tax, or establishing a maximum income will go nowhere IMO.
Sorry Richard I don't have a solution.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan
quote:
Mark2: They do understand that our immigration system is absurd. The Biden administration utterly failed in this regard. That gave Trump the advantage. Then we had inflation during his term, which IMO he was not really to blame for, but his denial of its existence gave Trump another point of attack.
I have read this thread with interest, but ultimately with dissatisfaction. I think many posters have touched upon a few causes of the present situation, but none have identified a dominant cause, nor have they proposed a workable solution.
My opinion is that there are a number of contributing causes, many of which exploit elements of human nature which can at times work against the general welfare.
Now to pick a nit: The quote above gives an erroneous impression. In fact a bill was negotiated and written by a bipartisan coalition of Senators, with administration approval. The bill would have taken significant steps to reform the mechanisms and laws of immigration. Reportedly, the bill was about to pass when Trump called and told its Republican backers to vote against it, so he could run on the issue of a broken immigration system.
This is just one example of how division has intentionally been stoked, not just by Trump or his supporters.
I think both politicians and the media are nearly always behaving irresponsibly when they foment dissent. The Republicans look back fondly upon their hero Ronald Reagan, but we don't hear much about Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with whom Reagan crafted many successful compromises.
Nowadays congressional careers can be destroyed by a willingness to compromise. In my view compromise is the primary function of people elected to represent us in a democratic republic. Constituencies are bound to disagree fairly often. It is up to our elected representatives to find a more or less workable solution.
But somehow people often find "principled" defiance and demonization of the "opposition" more satisfying than moving on with a practical compromise, itself open to revision as time may reveal unanticipated flaws.
Allergic reaction to compromise is just one part of the problem. Irresponsibility by politicians, the media and the public are other components, but not a comprehensive list of causes.
For example, how about a level of economic inequality nearly unprecedented during the last century? Lots of well off people voted for both Trump and Harris, but lots of people on both sides of the line are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck. Some of those whom I know are roundly pissed off.
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mark2
I'm a person who does believe the far left is in part responsible for Trump's win. 80% of the public believes that folks born male have an unfair advantage when competing in certain women's sports. I believe that is obviously true. What I've heard some folks claim is that this occurs in very small numbers, and since that is the case, it shouldn't matter. But it does to the girls and women who are affected.
This is one example.
Illegal immigration is another. Most all Amercians understand that the US was built by immigrants. They do not understand letting millions of people waltz right in. They do not understand busing them into cities all over the country and spending billions to support them.
They do understand that our immigration system is absurd. The Biden administration utterly failed in this regard. That gave Trump the advantage. Then we had inflation during his term, which IMO he was not really to blame for, but his denial of its existence gave Trump another point of attack.
Using terms like fascist, dictator, nazi, threat to democracy, etc as applied to Trump absolutely contributed to his victory, as most of the country simply doesn't believe it. You may believe it, and millions agree. But when we heard multiple democrat leaders, as well as most of the media, use the exact same phrases to describe Trump, it became clear this was an orchestrated effort to paint Trump as the next Hitler. That was not credible.
Trump's legal issues......I believe he committed many crimes in his life, but the way the Biden administration went after him simply rubbed many people the wrong way. For example, Trump increased his support among black Amercians significantly. I believe they saw their experience with the justice system in Trump's. People love an underdog.
Trump's term could turn out to be a complete disaster. If so, he will be trounced in the mid terms and the next president will be a democrat. Will you then claim that Trump's failures, and his far right supporters had nothing to do with a democrat victory?
As inferred in your post, the idea that people who don't agree with someone’s political views need education is offensive and will not win elections. The fact is, we have vast numbers of uneducated and undereducated folks in the US. Many voted for democrats. I didn’t hear the GOP telling them they needed to be educated or worse.
I realize my post reads as an endorsement of Trump but that is not the case. I find him personally reprehensible and unsuited to the office. But I'm also upset with the democratic party for not putting forth a candidate who could offer a clearly better alternative, which should have been easy, and yes, for embracing far left cultural ideas that are clearly out of step with the majority of Amercians.
Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many.
I'm gonna go line by line here, but I'll start by addressing your point about lack of education. I did not call for more education in reference to political beliefs. I am talking about a general lack of education that crosses party lines -- there are people on the right and left who are spouting totally baseless rhetoric that is used to create convenient narratives, though I think it is known that reality does have a left-leaning bias -- not talking about far-left political rhetoric or anything, but generally speaking, issues pertaining to social justice are typically going to veer more left if we're interested in equitable solutions, and while certain economic ideas, like the weaponization of tariffs, can be found on both the right and left, I think broadly speaking one would find more sympathy among the general populace that capitalist structures the way they have them in the US are not facilitating the top 1% to pay their fair share, nor are they equitable and just. This doesn't imply that a totally socialist or otherwise left system is the answer, but I'm just saying that an argument against the status quo is probably going to engender broad support, as folks generally aren't enthused about the direction of the country at the moment.
With respect to the question of transgender folks in sports, your belief that folks born male have an unfair advantage, in the specific case of those who are transgender, is not "obviously true". Please read the following:
You are correct in stating that this is an issue affecting very, very few -- but the girls and women you are citing here belong squarely in the J.K. Rowling-adjacent TERF category. There is no scientific evidence pointing in the direction of the opinion you stated. So, this in particular is a bad example. You might want to do further reading which supports the idea that it is in the interest of the current ruling powers to erase identities like those of transgender people. They are, simply put, "undesirables" in their minds and incompatible with the ideals championed by the religious right.
But when it comes to optics, I'll concede that Trump was much more successfully able to tap into the collective zeitgeist regarding immigration, not because people are so specifically concerned with the idea that many are side-stepping the legal mechanisms in place, but perhaps because there is a certain appeal to "othering" and the maintenance of (an) out-group(s) during a time of more emboldened nationalism and isolationism.
The point about using terms like "threat to democracy" as somehow contributing to Trump's victory is absurd. The "political outsider" argument doesn't work anymore. He is a former president with a clear track record of flagrant disregard for democracy and one doesn't need to dig terribly deep to see that. Trump is not an "underdog". And by the way, reducing the reason that Black Americans voted more for him this time to the fact that they could identify with his experience in the justice system, yeah, I don't know about that one. Kind of seems like you are reducing that entire voting bloc to a monolith that is voting based on perceived injustice of someone who is white who committed white collar crimes AND got off scot-free pretty much every time and that's supposed to somehow mirror their experience in the legal system when they get inequitably screwed over with often significant punishments for minor offenses? Doesn't track, sorry.
To circle back again to your point about education, the GOP doesn't talk about education because they rely entirely upon those who are less educated to be the primary voting bloc. I'm not talking about the people who swing between the parties, I'm talking about the consistent blocs like the Evangelicals who subscribe to a fundamentalist religious ideology that doesn't intersect very often with scientific fact or reality generally. There is a lot of benefit to keeping this large swath of people if not uneducated then simply one-issue voters who will avert their gaze from anything as long as it is pro-life. You can't have a serious conversation with a person like this whose entire political persuasion is reduced to identifying a mass of cells as fully human and possessing a soul. It's just a Sisyphean task at that point. You may highlight that I seem to be reducing THIS group to a monolith, but I think you'll much more readily find that this bloc often self-identifies as voting on single issues, like abortion, while I am not aware of similarly sized movements among minorities, African-American or otherwise.
Lastly: "Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many."
To that paragraph, I simply say, let's see what happens.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Bulerias2005)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'll offer my opinion.
First, the 1%-Depending on the state you live in, an income of between 350k and 990k puts you in the 1%
A person earning 650k will pay about 140k in Federal income tax, assuming reasonable deductions, and if they happen to live in CA, another 30k in State taxes. If they own a home they will also likely pay another 10-20k in property taxes. More in some states that have lower state income taxes.
If you think that isn't enough, you are entitled to that opinion. My opinion is that they pay plenty. In fact, the numbers as to exactly how much of the total tax that the top earners pay are readily available, as well as the fact that the bottom 45% of earners pay no federal income tax. I disagree with that. Everyone should pay something. When you start talking about billionaires, they write a check to the government every year that exceeds what most everyone will pay in a lifetime.
Regarding the trans issue, no amount of explanation will negate the fact that some men who have transitioned have shattered records that were held by women. This, IMO, is unfair to women. Trying to paint women who have been affected by this as radical activists is not fair. As a father of women, one of whom played sports, I'd have been livid if my daughter was denied a place on a team, a scholarship, or even playing time in place of a boy. The fact that the democratic party supported their participation put them at odds with about 80% of the populace.
Along with illegal immigration, these issues often provoke an emotional response in voters, and the democrats lost on both of them.
I'll also hold to my opinion that the dems using inflammatory terms only energized the GOP vote. When Trump was shot, his numbers went up. When you start comparing someone to Hitler, you've lost credibility.
The black vote still went to the dems by a large margin, so I'm hardly "reducing them to a monolith" I'm pointing out that Trump made historic gains among blacks. And I do believe they relate to him in a way that other republicans have never been able to. His legal issues, justified or not, made him more sympathetic among some voters, be they minorities or not.
When you consider that Trump is an outsider in the political world, he is an underdog. He was certainly an underdog when facing the government's attempts to prosecute him.
You seemingly assert that certain groups of folks are less educated or intelligent because of religious beliefs that you think fly in the face of science. I think you prove my point. You are discounting the concept of faith, which has been a part of human history for thousands of years. As long as democrats hold to the belief that they are smarter, better educated, and have the "correct" view regarding issues like abortion, they will continue to alienate vast blocks of voters. I happen to believe that the republicans are at a disadvantage regarding their position on abortion, but your view that someone who holds to the idea that life begins at conception automatically disqualifies them from intelligent debate paints you with the same brush you are wielding.
There are brilliant people who hold various religious beliefs. Some of those beliefs might defy logic, but faith can do that. To me, you have to separate that from intellectual prowess.
Finally I'd agree that Trump is a wild card. He may run the train off the rails. I don't think it's going to happen. If I did, I'd sell my T-bills.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bulerias2005
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mark2
I'm a person who does believe the far left is in part responsible for Trump's win. 80% of the public believes that folks born male have an unfair advantage when competing in certain women's sports. I believe that is obviously true. What I've heard some folks claim is that this occurs in very small numbers, and since that is the case, it shouldn't matter. But it does to the girls and women who are affected.
This is one example.
Illegal immigration is another. Most all Amercians understand that the US was built by immigrants. They do not understand letting millions of people waltz right in. They do not understand busing them into cities all over the country and spending billions to support them.
They do understand that our immigration system is absurd. The Biden administration utterly failed in this regard. That gave Trump the advantage. Then we had inflation during his term, which IMO he was not really to blame for, but his denial of its existence gave Trump another point of attack.
Using terms like fascist, dictator, nazi, threat to democracy, etc as applied to Trump absolutely contributed to his victory, as most of the country simply doesn't believe it. You may believe it, and millions agree. But when we heard multiple democrat leaders, as well as most of the media, use the exact same phrases to describe Trump, it became clear this was an orchestrated effort to paint Trump as the next Hitler. That was not credible.
Trump's legal issues......I believe he committed many crimes in his life, but the way the Biden administration went after him simply rubbed many people the wrong way. For example, Trump increased his support among black Amercians significantly. I believe they saw their experience with the justice system in Trump's. People love an underdog.
Trump's term could turn out to be a complete disaster. If so, he will be trounced in the mid terms and the next president will be a democrat. Will you then claim that Trump's failures, and his far right supporters had nothing to do with a democrat victory?
As inferred in your post, the idea that people who don't agree with someone’s political views need education is offensive and will not win elections. The fact is, we have vast numbers of uneducated and undereducated folks in the US. Many voted for democrats. I didn’t hear the GOP telling them they needed to be educated or worse.
I realize my post reads as an endorsement of Trump but that is not the case. I find him personally reprehensible and unsuited to the office. But I'm also upset with the democratic party for not putting forth a candidate who could offer a clearly better alternative, which should have been easy, and yes, for embracing far left cultural ideas that are clearly out of step with the majority of Amercians.
Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many.
I'm gonna go line by line here, but I'll start by addressing your point about lack of education. I did not call for more education in reference to political beliefs. I am talking about a general lack of education that crosses party lines -- there are people on the right and left who are spouting totally baseless rhetoric that is used to create convenient narratives, though I think it is known that reality does have a left-leaning bias -- not talking about far-left political rhetoric or anything, but generally speaking, issues pertaining to social justice are typically going to veer more left if we're interested in equitable solutions, and while certain economic ideas, like the weaponization of tariffs, can be found on both the right and left, I think broadly speaking one would find more sympathy among the general populace that capitalist structures the way they have them in the US are not facilitating the top 1% to pay their fair share, nor are they equitable and just. This doesn't imply that a totally socialist or otherwise left system is the answer, but I'm just saying that an argument against the status quo is probably going to engender broad support, as folks generally aren't enthused about the direction of the country at the moment.
With respect to the question of transgender folks in sports, your belief that folks born male have an unfair advantage, in the specific case of those who are transgender, is not "obviously true". Please read the following:
You are correct in stating that this is an issue affecting very, very few -- but the girls and women you are citing here belong squarely in the J.K. Rowling-adjacent TERF category. There is no scientific evidence pointing in the direction of the opinion you stated. So, this in particular is a bad example. You might want to do further reading which supports the idea that it is in the interest of the current ruling powers to erase identities like those of transgender people. They are, simply put, "undesirables" in their minds and incompatible with the ideals championed by the religious right.
But when it comes to optics, I'll concede that Trump was much more successfully able to tap into the collective zeitgeist regarding immigration, not because people are so specifically concerned with the idea that many are side-stepping the legal mechanisms in place, but perhaps because there is a certain appeal to "othering" and the maintenance of (an) out-group(s) during a time of more emboldened nationalism and isolationism.
The point about using terms like "threat to democracy" as somehow contributing to Trump's victory is absurd. The "political outsider" argument doesn't work anymore. He is a former president with a clear track record of flagrant disregard for democracy and one doesn't need to dig terribly deep to see that. Trump is not an "underdog". And by the way, reducing the reason that Black Americans voted more for him this time to the fact that they could identify with his experience in the justice system, yeah, I don't know about that one. Kind of seems like you are reducing that entire voting bloc to a monolith that is voting based on perceived injustice of someone who is white who committed white collar crimes AND got off scot-free pretty much every time and that's supposed to somehow mirror their experience in the legal system when they get inequitably screwed over with often significant punishments for minor offenses? Doesn't track, sorry.
To circle back again to your point about education, the GOP doesn't talk about education because they rely entirely upon those who are less educated to be the primary voting bloc. I'm not talking about the people who swing between the parties, I'm talking about the consistent blocs like the Evangelicals who subscribe to a fundamentalist religious ideology that doesn't intersect very often with scientific fact or reality generally. There is a lot of benefit to keeping this large swath of people if not uneducated then simply one-issue voters who will avert their gaze from anything as long as it is pro-life. You can't have a serious conversation with a person like this whose entire political persuasion is reduced to identifying a mass of cells as fully human and possessing a soul. It's just a Sisyphean task at that point. You may highlight that I seem to be reducing THIS group to a monolith, but I think you'll much more readily find that this bloc often self-identifies as voting on single issues, like abortion, while I am not aware of similarly sized movements among minorities, African-American or otherwise.
Lastly: "Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many."
To that paragraph, I simply say, let's see what happens.
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Mark2)
Appreciate the great discussion!
By 1%, I am perhaps more specifically talking about the 1% of the 1% -- just because billionaires pay more than others may in a lifetime, is not really a convincing argument because a linear comparison doesn't really work here. There is simply a disproportionate concentration of wealth while those at the bottom echelons are scraping by -- I see how difficult it is to navigate the system at said financial echelons every day, by virtue of the work I do as a psychiatrist working with people who are undeserved, underinsured, etc. To say that there is not a disparity here is not acknowledging what's really going on.
I will concede that an emotional response is far more powerful than a logical one. Which is likely why this issue tanked with the public at large, but again, it does not track with reality.
Regarding inflammatory terms, are we just going to negate the fact that anybody slightly left of center is labeled a "radical leftist" or "communist"? Is that considered inflammatory? How is that different than addressing someone as fascist, in terms of incendiary quality? The US has historically had a significant problem with demonizing the left -- see McCarthyism. We are a historically right of center populace that has been tempered by less radical forces in positions of power, such as, for example, the efforts of the Founding Fathers to dilute some of the religious content that was going to make its way into the Constitution or that would harshly limit engagement of non-desired religious identities in government.
I'm not convinced that it's specifically Trump's legal issues that make him relatable. I would be curious fro some evidence here.
Trump cannot be considered an underdog or outsider anymore. He's a former president. How long does someone get to carry around the banner of underdog or outsider?
Regarding religious beliefs, it's not what I think. Someone who thinks the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and believes that an omnipotent God magically created all entities as they are now IS ignorant and DOES believe in things that fly in the face of reality and science. I'm not discounting the concept of faith, but I do have a particular animosity toward the business of Evangelical Christianity in the United States, which really has extremely little to do with Christianity anyway.
To clarify regarding my point about abortion, I have historically been unable to have a logical conversation with someone who holds the position that life begins at conception because they have ZERO inclination to accept facts or science and hold to their belief. Why is it that Democrats run the risk of alienating voters by arguing for a correct view on abortion and Republicans do not when they in fact ALSO argue that there is a correct view? This double standard just kills me. And how about the fact that it's not only about a correct position, but about allowing women to make decisions about THEIR BODY and not have OLD WHITE MEN in positions of power decide for them? This is not a controversy in many places in the world. We are way behind in the US and a large reason is the commodification and big business of organized Christianity, specifically Evangelical strains.
You over-interpreted my comment regarding religious beliefs. I have nothing against anyone holding specific religious beliefs, that is their business and is very personal. It's different when it becomes a business and a project of control over an entire country, where the goal inarguably is Christian theocracy -- see Project 2025 which is being systematically implemented as we speak.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mark2
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'll offer my opinion.
First, the 1%-Depending on the state you live in, an income of between 350k and 990k puts you in the 1%
A person earning 650k will pay about 140k in Federal income tax, assuming reasonable deductions, and if they happen to live in CA, another 30k in State taxes. If they own a home they will also likely pay another 10-20k in property taxes. More in some states that have lower state income taxes.
If you think that isn't enough, you are entitled to that opinion. My opinion is that they pay plenty. In fact, the numbers as to exactly how much of the total tax that the top earners pay are readily available, as well as the fact that the bottom 45% of earners pay no federal income tax. I disagree with that. Everyone should pay something. When you start talking about billionaires, they write a check to the government every year that exceeds what most everyone will pay in a lifetime.
Regarding the trans issue, no amount of explanation will negate the fact that some men who have transitioned have shattered records that were held by women. This, IMO, is unfair to women. Trying to paint women who have been affected by this as radical activists is not fair. As a father of women, one of whom played sports, I'd have been livid if my daughter was denied a place on a team, a scholarship, or even playing time in place of a boy. The fact that the democratic party supported their participation put them at odds with about 80% of the populace.
Along with illegal immigration, these issues often provoke an emotional response in voters, and the democrats lost on both of them.
I'll also hold to my opinion that the dems using inflammatory terms only energized the GOP vote. When Trump was shot, his numbers went up. When you start comparing someone to Hitler, you've lost credibility.
The black vote still went to the dems by a large margin, so I'm hardly "reducing them to a monolith" I'm pointing out that Trump made historic gains among blacks. And I do believe they relate to him in a way that other republicans have never been able to. His legal issues, justified or not, made him more sympathetic among some voters, be they minorities or not.
When you consider that Trump is an outsider in the political world, he is an underdog. He was certainly an underdog when facing the government's attempts to prosecute him.
You seemingly assert that certain groups of folks are less educated or intelligent because of religious beliefs that you think fly in the face of science. I think you prove my point. You are discounting the concept of faith, which has been a part of human history for thousands of years. As long as democrats hold to the belief that they are smarter, better educated, and have the "correct" view regarding issues like abortion, they will continue to alienate vast blocks of voters. I happen to believe that the republicans are at a disadvantage regarding their position on abortion, but your view that someone who holds to the idea that life begins at conception automatically disqualifies them from intelligent debate paints you with the same brush you are wielding.
There are brilliant people who hold various religious beliefs. Some of those beliefs might defy logic, but faith can do that. To me, you have to separate that from intellectual prowess.
Finally I'd agree that Trump is a wild card. He may run the train off the rails. I don't think it's going to happen. If I did, I'd sell my T-bills.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bulerias2005
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mark2
I'm a person who does believe the far left is in part responsible for Trump's win. 80% of the public believes that folks born male have an unfair advantage when competing in certain women's sports. I believe that is obviously true. What I've heard some folks claim is that this occurs in very small numbers, and since that is the case, it shouldn't matter. But it does to the girls and women who are affected.
This is one example.
Illegal immigration is another. Most all Amercians understand that the US was built by immigrants. They do not understand letting millions of people waltz right in. They do not understand busing them into cities all over the country and spending billions to support them.
They do understand that our immigration system is absurd. The Biden administration utterly failed in this regard. That gave Trump the advantage. Then we had inflation during his term, which IMO he was not really to blame for, but his denial of its existence gave Trump another point of attack.
Using terms like fascist, dictator, nazi, threat to democracy, etc as applied to Trump absolutely contributed to his victory, as most of the country simply doesn't believe it. You may believe it, and millions agree. But when we heard multiple democrat leaders, as well as most of the media, use the exact same phrases to describe Trump, it became clear this was an orchestrated effort to paint Trump as the next Hitler. That was not credible.
Trump's legal issues......I believe he committed many crimes in his life, but the way the Biden administration went after him simply rubbed many people the wrong way. For example, Trump increased his support among black Amercians significantly. I believe they saw their experience with the justice system in Trump's. People love an underdog.
Trump's term could turn out to be a complete disaster. If so, he will be trounced in the mid terms and the next president will be a democrat. Will you then claim that Trump's failures, and his far right supporters had nothing to do with a democrat victory?
As inferred in your post, the idea that people who don't agree with someone’s political views need education is offensive and will not win elections. The fact is, we have vast numbers of uneducated and undereducated folks in the US. Many voted for democrats. I didn’t hear the GOP telling them they needed to be educated or worse.
I realize my post reads as an endorsement of Trump but that is not the case. I find him personally reprehensible and unsuited to the office. But I'm also upset with the democratic party for not putting forth a candidate who could offer a clearly better alternative, which should have been easy, and yes, for embracing far left cultural ideas that are clearly out of step with the majority of Amercians.
Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many.
I'm gonna go line by line here, but I'll start by addressing your point about lack of education. I did not call for more education in reference to political beliefs. I am talking about a general lack of education that crosses party lines -- there are people on the right and left who are spouting totally baseless rhetoric that is used to create convenient narratives, though I think it is known that reality does have a left-leaning bias -- not talking about far-left political rhetoric or anything, but generally speaking, issues pertaining to social justice are typically going to veer more left if we're interested in equitable solutions, and while certain economic ideas, like the weaponization of tariffs, can be found on both the right and left, I think broadly speaking one would find more sympathy among the general populace that capitalist structures the way they have them in the US are not facilitating the top 1% to pay their fair share, nor are they equitable and just. This doesn't imply that a totally socialist or otherwise left system is the answer, but I'm just saying that an argument against the status quo is probably going to engender broad support, as folks generally aren't enthused about the direction of the country at the moment.
With respect to the question of transgender folks in sports, your belief that folks born male have an unfair advantage, in the specific case of those who are transgender, is not "obviously true". Please read the following:
You are correct in stating that this is an issue affecting very, very few -- but the girls and women you are citing here belong squarely in the J.K. Rowling-adjacent TERF category. There is no scientific evidence pointing in the direction of the opinion you stated. So, this in particular is a bad example. You might want to do further reading which supports the idea that it is in the interest of the current ruling powers to erase identities like those of transgender people. They are, simply put, "undesirables" in their minds and incompatible with the ideals championed by the religious right.
But when it comes to optics, I'll concede that Trump was much more successfully able to tap into the collective zeitgeist regarding immigration, not because people are so specifically concerned with the idea that many are side-stepping the legal mechanisms in place, but perhaps because there is a certain appeal to "othering" and the maintenance of (an) out-group(s) during a time of more emboldened nationalism and isolationism.
The point about using terms like "threat to democracy" as somehow contributing to Trump's victory is absurd. The "political outsider" argument doesn't work anymore. He is a former president with a clear track record of flagrant disregard for democracy and one doesn't need to dig terribly deep to see that. Trump is not an "underdog". And by the way, reducing the reason that Black Americans voted more for him this time to the fact that they could identify with his experience in the justice system, yeah, I don't know about that one. Kind of seems like you are reducing that entire voting bloc to a monolith that is voting based on perceived injustice of someone who is white who committed white collar crimes AND got off scot-free pretty much every time and that's supposed to somehow mirror their experience in the legal system when they get inequitably screwed over with often significant punishments for minor offenses? Doesn't track, sorry.
To circle back again to your point about education, the GOP doesn't talk about education because they rely entirely upon those who are less educated to be the primary voting bloc. I'm not talking about the people who swing between the parties, I'm talking about the consistent blocs like the Evangelicals who subscribe to a fundamentalist religious ideology that doesn't intersect very often with scientific fact or reality generally. There is a lot of benefit to keeping this large swath of people if not uneducated then simply one-issue voters who will avert their gaze from anything as long as it is pro-life. You can't have a serious conversation with a person like this whose entire political persuasion is reduced to identifying a mass of cells as fully human and possessing a soul. It's just a Sisyphean task at that point. You may highlight that I seem to be reducing THIS group to a monolith, but I think you'll much more readily find that this bloc often self-identifies as voting on single issues, like abortion, while I am not aware of similarly sized movements among minorities, African-American or otherwise.
Lastly: "Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many."
To that paragraph, I simply say, let's see what happens.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Bulerias2005)
Thanks for clarifying some points.
Re Lia Thomas-from wiki: According to Swimming World, by the conclusion of Thomas's swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, and 554th on the men's team to 5th on the women's team in the 200-yard freestyle
For a person to go from a middle of the road competitor to the top five by switching genders makes the point that they have an unfair advantage IMO. I recall reading Thomas had broken a women's swimming record by several seconds. Perhaps I misread that.
I don't know what can be done about people who earn billions. I do know that if you took away all their money, it wouldn't change things for the population as a whole. And even if it did, it would be wrong.
From politifact: "The 550 U.S. billionaires together are worth $2.5 trillion. If we confiscated 100% of their wealth, we'd raise enough to run the federal government for less than eight months."
On the religious issue: I'm not someone who was raised in a religion, and although I attended a catholic HS, I'm not and never have been catholic, and yet, I can see the argument that life begins at conception. It makes sense to me. I can imagine the horror of abortion so I understand why folks oppose it. I also think women, in almost every case, have the right to decide so I'm conflicted. I would want my daughters to be able to decide, but I would also hope they never have to make that choice.
Comedians often illuminate an issue in interesting ways and I've heard two of them offer these jokes:
"If you take a cake out of the oven and throw it on the floor, are you going to tell me you didn't ruin my cake? That it's not a cake yet? Because it's going to be a cake if you leave it alone!" Bill Burr
"I think a woman should be able to abort a child up until birth. But it is killing a baby. And they should be able to kill them after birth. Maybe up to five years old. At least until the first report card!" Dave Chapell
As far as Trump, it's hard for me to understand his popularity. I've always considered him to be a wannabe Hugh Hefner. Once, well before his political career, I was shopping for a belt and found one that fit. I was about to buy it and then saw the brand-Trump. I put it back. In his defense, I've seen interviews he did when he was much younger and he came across as intelligent and articulate.
You can't really deny his appeal, whatever the reason for it. He never ran for anything-not city council member, mayor, senator, nothing and he wins the highest office, beating a woman everyone thought would hand him his lunch. He has to be the luckiest guy ever born. Perhaps he is no longer an underdog, but he will go down in history, one way or another. I hope for the success of every president, even the ones I don't like. I'm off for the weekend. I enjoyed the discussion and appreciate we can discuss these issues without resorting to insults.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bulerias2005
Appreciate the great discussion!
By 1%, I am perhaps more specifically talking about the 1% of the 1% -- just because billionaires pay more than others may in a lifetime, is not really a convincing argument because a linear comparison doesn't really work here. There is simply a disproportionate concentration of wealth while those at the bottom echelons are scraping by -- I see how difficult it is to navigate the system at said financial echelons every day, by virtue of the work I do as a psychiatrist working with people who are undeserved, underinsured, etc. To say that there is not a disparity here is not acknowledging what's really going on.
I will concede that an emotional response is far more powerful than a logical one. Which is likely why this issue tanked with the public at large, but again, it does not track with reality.
Regarding inflammatory terms, are we just going to negate the fact that anybody slightly left of center is labeled a "radical leftist" or "communist"? Is that considered inflammatory? How is that different than addressing someone as fascist, in terms of incendiary quality? The US has historically had a significant problem with demonizing the left -- see McCarthyism. We are a historically right of center populace that has been tempered by less radical forces in positions of power, such as, for example, the efforts of the Founding Fathers to dilute some of the religious content that was going to make its way into the Constitution or that would harshly limit engagement of non-desired religious identities in government.
I'm not convinced that it's specifically Trump's legal issues that make him relatable. I would be curious fro some evidence here.
Trump cannot be considered an underdog or outsider anymore. He's a former president. How long does someone get to carry around the banner of underdog or outsider?
Regarding religious beliefs, it's not what I think. Someone who thinks the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and believes that an omnipotent God magically created all entities as they are now IS ignorant and DOES believe in things that fly in the face of reality and science. I'm not discounting the concept of faith, but I do have a particular animosity toward the business of Evangelical Christianity in the United States, which really has extremely little to do with Christianity anyway.
To clarify regarding my point about abortion, I have historically been unable to have a logical conversation with someone who holds the position that life begins at conception because they have ZERO inclination to accept facts or science and hold to their belief. Why is it that Democrats run the risk of alienating voters by arguing for a correct view on abortion and Republicans do not when they in fact ALSO argue that there is a correct view? This double standard just kills me. And how about the fact that it's not only about a correct position, but about allowing women to make decisions about THEIR BODY and not have OLD WHITE MEN in positions of power decide for them? This is not a controversy in many places in the world. We are way behind in the US and a large reason is the commodification and big business of organized Christianity, specifically Evangelical strains.
You over-interpreted my comment regarding religious beliefs. I have nothing against anyone holding specific religious beliefs, that is their business and is very personal. It's different when it becomes a business and a project of control over an entire country, where the goal inarguably is Christian theocracy -- see Project 2025 which is being systematically implemented as we speak.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mark2
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'll offer my opinion.
First, the 1%-Depending on the state you live in, an income of between 350k and 990k puts you in the 1%
A person earning 650k will pay about 140k in Federal income tax, assuming reasonable deductions, and if they happen to live in CA, another 30k in State taxes. If they own a home they will also likely pay another 10-20k in property taxes. More in some states that have lower state income taxes.
If you think that isn't enough, you are entitled to that opinion. My opinion is that they pay plenty. In fact, the numbers as to exactly how much of the total tax that the top earners pay are readily available, as well as the fact that the bottom 45% of earners pay no federal income tax. I disagree with that. Everyone should pay something. When you start talking about billionaires, they write a check to the government every year that exceeds what most everyone will pay in a lifetime.
Regarding the trans issue, no amount of explanation will negate the fact that some men who have transitioned have shattered records that were held by women. This, IMO, is unfair to women. Trying to paint women who have been affected by this as radical activists is not fair. As a father of women, one of whom played sports, I'd have been livid if my daughter was denied a place on a team, a scholarship, or even playing time in place of a boy. The fact that the democratic party supported their participation put them at odds with about 80% of the populace.
Along with illegal immigration, these issues often provoke an emotional response in voters, and the democrats lost on both of them.
I'll also hold to my opinion that the dems using inflammatory terms only energized the GOP vote. When Trump was shot, his numbers went up. When you start comparing someone to Hitler, you've lost credibility.
The black vote still went to the dems by a large margin, so I'm hardly "reducing them to a monolith" I'm pointing out that Trump made historic gains among blacks. And I do believe they relate to him in a way that other republicans have never been able to. His legal issues, justified or not, made him more sympathetic among some voters, be they minorities or not.
When you consider that Trump is an outsider in the political world, he is an underdog. He was certainly an underdog when facing the government's attempts to prosecute him.
You seemingly assert that certain groups of folks are less educated or intelligent because of religious beliefs that you think fly in the face of science. I think you prove my point. You are discounting the concept of faith, which has been a part of human history for thousands of years. As long as democrats hold to the belief that they are smarter, better educated, and have the "correct" view regarding issues like abortion, they will continue to alienate vast blocks of voters. I happen to believe that the republicans are at a disadvantage regarding their position on abortion, but your view that someone who holds to the idea that life begins at conception automatically disqualifies them from intelligent debate paints you with the same brush you are wielding.
There are brilliant people who hold various religious beliefs. Some of those beliefs might defy logic, but faith can do that. To me, you have to separate that from intellectual prowess.
Finally I'd agree that Trump is a wild card. He may run the train off the rails. I don't think it's going to happen. If I did, I'd sell my T-bills.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bulerias2005
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mark2
I'm a person who does believe the far left is in part responsible for Trump's win. 80% of the public believes that folks born male have an unfair advantage when competing in certain women's sports. I believe that is obviously true. What I've heard some folks claim is that this occurs in very small numbers, and since that is the case, it shouldn't matter. But it does to the girls and women who are affected.
This is one example.
Illegal immigration is another. Most all Amercians understand that the US was built by immigrants. They do not understand letting millions of people waltz right in. They do not understand busing them into cities all over the country and spending billions to support them.
They do understand that our immigration system is absurd. The Biden administration utterly failed in this regard. That gave Trump the advantage. Then we had inflation during his term, which IMO he was not really to blame for, but his denial of its existence gave Trump another point of attack.
Using terms like fascist, dictator, nazi, threat to democracy, etc as applied to Trump absolutely contributed to his victory, as most of the country simply doesn't believe it. You may believe it, and millions agree. But when we heard multiple democrat leaders, as well as most of the media, use the exact same phrases to describe Trump, it became clear this was an orchestrated effort to paint Trump as the next Hitler. That was not credible.
Trump's legal issues......I believe he committed many crimes in his life, but the way the Biden administration went after him simply rubbed many people the wrong way. For example, Trump increased his support among black Amercians significantly. I believe they saw their experience with the justice system in Trump's. People love an underdog.
Trump's term could turn out to be a complete disaster. If so, he will be trounced in the mid terms and the next president will be a democrat. Will you then claim that Trump's failures, and his far right supporters had nothing to do with a democrat victory?
As inferred in your post, the idea that people who don't agree with someone’s political views need education is offensive and will not win elections. The fact is, we have vast numbers of uneducated and undereducated folks in the US. Many voted for democrats. I didn’t hear the GOP telling them they needed to be educated or worse.
I realize my post reads as an endorsement of Trump but that is not the case. I find him personally reprehensible and unsuited to the office. But I'm also upset with the democratic party for not putting forth a candidate who could offer a clearly better alternative, which should have been easy, and yes, for embracing far left cultural ideas that are clearly out of step with the majority of Amercians.
Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many.
I'm gonna go line by line here, but I'll start by addressing your point about lack of education. I did not call for more education in reference to political beliefs. I am talking about a general lack of education that crosses party lines -- there are people on the right and left who are spouting totally baseless rhetoric that is used to create convenient narratives, though I think it is known that reality does have a left-leaning bias -- not talking about far-left political rhetoric or anything, but generally speaking, issues pertaining to social justice are typically going to veer more left if we're interested in equitable solutions, and while certain economic ideas, like the weaponization of tariffs, can be found on both the right and left, I think broadly speaking one would find more sympathy among the general populace that capitalist structures the way they have them in the US are not facilitating the top 1% to pay their fair share, nor are they equitable and just. This doesn't imply that a totally socialist or otherwise left system is the answer, but I'm just saying that an argument against the status quo is probably going to engender broad support, as folks generally aren't enthused about the direction of the country at the moment.
With respect to the question of transgender folks in sports, your belief that folks born male have an unfair advantage, in the specific case of those who are transgender, is not "obviously true". Please read the following:
You are correct in stating that this is an issue affecting very, very few -- but the girls and women you are citing here belong squarely in the J.K. Rowling-adjacent TERF category. There is no scientific evidence pointing in the direction of the opinion you stated. So, this in particular is a bad example. You might want to do further reading which supports the idea that it is in the interest of the current ruling powers to erase identities like those of transgender people. They are, simply put, "undesirables" in their minds and incompatible with the ideals championed by the religious right.
But when it comes to optics, I'll concede that Trump was much more successfully able to tap into the collective zeitgeist regarding immigration, not because people are so specifically concerned with the idea that many are side-stepping the legal mechanisms in place, but perhaps because there is a certain appeal to "othering" and the maintenance of (an) out-group(s) during a time of more emboldened nationalism and isolationism.
The point about using terms like "threat to democracy" as somehow contributing to Trump's victory is absurd. The "political outsider" argument doesn't work anymore. He is a former president with a clear track record of flagrant disregard for democracy and one doesn't need to dig terribly deep to see that. Trump is not an "underdog". And by the way, reducing the reason that Black Americans voted more for him this time to the fact that they could identify with his experience in the justice system, yeah, I don't know about that one. Kind of seems like you are reducing that entire voting bloc to a monolith that is voting based on perceived injustice of someone who is white who committed white collar crimes AND got off scot-free pretty much every time and that's supposed to somehow mirror their experience in the legal system when they get inequitably screwed over with often significant punishments for minor offenses? Doesn't track, sorry.
To circle back again to your point about education, the GOP doesn't talk about education because they rely entirely upon those who are less educated to be the primary voting bloc. I'm not talking about the people who swing between the parties, I'm talking about the consistent blocs like the Evangelicals who subscribe to a fundamentalist religious ideology that doesn't intersect very often with scientific fact or reality generally. There is a lot of benefit to keeping this large swath of people if not uneducated then simply one-issue voters who will avert their gaze from anything as long as it is pro-life. You can't have a serious conversation with a person like this whose entire political persuasion is reduced to identifying a mass of cells as fully human and possessing a soul. It's just a Sisyphean task at that point. You may highlight that I seem to be reducing THIS group to a monolith, but I think you'll much more readily find that this bloc often self-identifies as voting on single issues, like abortion, while I am not aware of similarly sized movements among minorities, African-American or otherwise.
Lastly: "Finally I do not agree with the idea that the country is going to fly off the rails under Trump. The pendulum will swing back. In the meantime, I'm collecting my SS and have no fear that it will end-which is yet another hysterical baseless claim that will not help the democrats when it never actually happens. If you think Trump was not aware and did not encourage this division, you have underestimated him, which puts you in the company of many."
To that paragraph, I simply say, let's see what happens.
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Mark2)
I hate it when immigrants get blamed while the trump admin raked in millions of dollars inside trading during the tariff scandal. Immigration fails when the extra revenue that immigrants bring in to a country goes into the rich's pockets rather than building more infrastructure to support the growing population. Immigrants, trans, they're all gullible scapegoats, the real culprits are somebody else.
As for Lisa Thomas, I'm with you on that.
The democrats are no sane. I wish people just forgot about politics and remembered the human.
Posts: 15722
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Mark2)
quote:
Comedians often illuminate an issue in interesting ways and I've heard two of them offer these jokes:
"If you take a cake out of the oven and throw it on the floor, are you going to tell me you didn't ruin my cake? That it's not a cake yet? Because it's going to be a cake if you leave it alone!" Bill Burr
"I think a woman should be able to abort a child up until birth. But it is killing a baby. And they should be able to kill them after birth. Maybe up to five years old. At least until the first report card!" Dave Chapell
This guy could carry the votes on the issue if he were to run:
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
Historian Pierre Serna speaks of an "extreme center", whose origins he traces back to the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution. The political landscape at the time was moving so fast and was so dangerous that representatives could often be risking their very lives if they were on the wrong end of things. At first they would just switch sides depending on what was most opportune at the moment. Enough so that they started handing out joke appointments to the "Order of the Weathervane". Then they figured out that the safest place to be was in the middle.
From there the narrative arose of compromise as central to the political process. It's tied to a broader narrative of the politician as someone who has risen about above partisanship. He's a technician, not an ideologue. It comes at the cost of visionary politics, i.e. ideology. Having a vision for what kind of society we should work towards building is now sneered upon. It's something children do. The "adults in the room" have no such vision. They are technicians who know how to compromise.
That's his account anyway. It's a contentious take, but in my view interesting nonetheless. It places discourse around compromise as really just stemming from politicians' understandable desire to survive.
Of the people I know who have been historically left-wing but in the last elections voted for the far-right in France, the red thread seems to be that they're fed up and just don't believe in the political process anymore. I don't blame them for feeling that way, though I don't think their voting choice was even remotely a solution. Some of them have been union activists for decades. The last time they got a socialist president was Hollande. A socialist president who gave us, well, Thatcherism really. Austerity politics. It was sold to us as a pragmatic compromise, except of course, the compromise only ever seems to benefit the few, and so the many start feeling like these compromises might have just been a scam along.
Piketty's seminal work was a study on the transition from the Old Regime to the early French Republics. He showed in great detail how the aristocracy and other power holders of the Old Regime managed to transfer their hold on power into land assets and the like. If they couldn't rely on inherited political power, then they would rely on inherited economic power instead. I tend to see the issue of the ultra-wealthy from that lens. In terms of lifestyle, I doubt there's all that much difference between a billionaire and a trillionaire. But there's a big difference in terms of the power they wield. That for me is the issue. I just happen to believe that democracy is better than feudalism. Of the three concepts that make up our national triptych, two of them, freedom and equality, no longer have any tangible meaning in the practical everyday lives of working people. If there ever was a political vision enshrined in the Republic, it is now dead in the water. I'm not sure what compromise looks like when the dividing line is the many vs the few. But I suspect that if we looked at it from the lens of democracy, with each citizen endowed with equal rights, then to the few it probably wouldn't look like much of a compromise at all.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to BarkellWH)
I will read all this thread as what I've read so far is fascinating. Trump worries a lot of my friends in the UK, nationalist populist political leaders are rather frightening. And it seems clear Trump is playing a dangerous game, and he appears to be motivated only by his own power and wealth, as with his acolytes. The first amendment seems to be a joke. I wonder if Zappa was right in that the US will become a fascist theocracy.
As far as the US guitar industry is concerned I wonder if it's in some danger too.
_____________________________
The early bird catches the worm. But the second mouse gets the cheese.
RE: Trump's threatened 200 percent t... (in reply to Morante)
quote:
In Europe we cannot understand how people with even a marginal level of intelligence could elect a narcissistic loco. The impression here is that all Americans are stupid.
From my Canadian and European friends: "Americans are friendly, noisy and stupid."
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread