The shocking thing isn't Kurt... it's the millions of others who can't see the consequences of burning it all down and giving everything to the few thousand people rich enough to buy whatever they want.
You're right and they're all wrong is what you are saying ? How arrogant and presumptuous.
That's a two way street, bub.
Might not all those people you just judged be looking back at you the same way you are looking at them ?
when in doubt i always pet my six-toed cat and ask WWHD?
"In the still morning, with the light creeping through the slats of the old wooden shutters, a man sat alone at his table, the ballot before him like a map of his own conscience. Here, in the quiet sanctum of decision, his choices were his own, as solitary and stark as a bull in the ring under the high sun. Each mark he made was a step on a path only he could walk, through a landscape of promises and shadows, where the wind carried whispers of freedom and the weight of consequence. His politics, like his life, were not a thing to be given or taken, but to be wrestled with in the deep waters of his soul, and in this, there was a stark, clean truth."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Oct 24, 2024 - 8:26am
kurtster wrote:
If it still unapparent to you at this point, I can give you no suitable answer.
My only thought that might be of help would be to listen to those who have come over to join up and listen to their explanations. You can find them everywhere, except in your echo - chambered news feeds.
The latest is Tulsi Gabbard. You know, another former legitimate democrat candidate for POTUS. The one that Hillary called a Russian asset, for openers.
I'd say it is first and foremost about finding a form of discourse that we can more or less agree on to communicate with each other. (Form)
Once you have that, you can start talking about your respective wishes/desires and also the things you don't want (Substance)
The funny thing about authorityis that it only comes when people give it.
This is either by free will or coercion, or some mix of the two. Ideally, once we achieve some kind of consensus on the form of government, then those whose substantive arguments are most compelling will win the vote (or people's tacit acceptance) and will then have some degree of authority to govern.
Your and Lazyâs current stance seems to take the Form of government as a given, which provides you with the freedom to remain true to the Substance of the political party of your choice. In normal times I don't think anyone would have any problem with that. I certainly don't.
But I, and it seems most others here, do not think these are normal times for the very form of political discourse is under threat. This is no longer a left/right thing but a choice between democracy and an autocratic government. You may think I'm a drama queen for seeing it like that. Be my guest. Or you might think this is some kind of âend of democracy guilt tripâ. But I'd argue there is enough historical precedent out there to encourage caution. A stable democracy like the States is actually the exception, not the rule.
Pretending that the form of government is not at stake in this election is IMO myopic and a dangerous bet given all that has gone down recently.
Secondly, thinking that the US system can weather all storms is also an American conceit nurtured by a couple of hundred years of relative stability - give or take a civil war or two.
Almost the entire rest of world history teaches that you should not take these things as a given.
I didn't draw the fault lines, nor is my insight cobbled together with faulty eyesight. I know what I know.
Your trepidation is palpable. Courage my friend.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Oct 24, 2024 - 6:10am
islander wrote:
The 'burn it all down' crowd are just angry because they don't have much to lose. They see starting over as a great solution because they never got very far.
That's really the question... and Kurt is the proxy that opens the window to MAGA.
Is it possible that he truly believes the shit he posts? You can want your guy to win... but "it wasn't an insurrection...it was a protest...just like BLM...only started by and ignored for 3 hours by the sitting President". Nothing to see here...
He still says the election was rigged... no evidence. Kurt doesn't care.
The shocking thing isn't Kurt... it's the millions of others who can't see the consequences of burning it all down and giving everything to the few thousand people rich enough to buy whatever they want.
The 'burn it all down' crowd are just angry because they don't have much to lose. They see starting over as a great solution because they never got very far.
Sometimes I think you believe your own bullshit. Sad.
That's really the question... and Kurt is the proxy that opens the window to MAGA.
Is it possible that he truly believes the shit he posts? You can want your guy to win... but "it wasn't an insurrection...it was a protest...just like BLM...only started by and ignored for 3 hours by the sitting President". Nothing to see here...
He still says the election was rigged... no evidence. Kurt doesn't care.
The shocking thing isn't Kurt... it's the millions of others who can't see the consequences of burning it all down and giving everything to the few thousand people rich enough to buy whatever they want.
There was a peaceful transfer of power. Trump left office on time as he was supposed to without the need of force or any violence. Would not that be the definition of a peaceful transfer of power ?
Your conflation of an incident ( a riot, not an insurrection) during the events of the certification of the vote to the actual transfer of power as noted above, is more than misleading. It is dishonest.
Your dude has yet to accept the results of the election and continues to spew lies and misinformation regarding it.
Also this:
Sometimes I think you believe your own bullshit. Sad.
There was a peaceful transfer of power. Trump left office on time as he was supposed to without the need of force or any violence. Would not that be the definition of a peaceful transfer of power ?
Your conflation of an incident ( a riot, not an insurrection) during the events of the certification of the vote to the actual transfer of power as noted above, is more than misleading. It is dishonest.
You are the one being dishonest. There was absolutely no peaceful transfer of power on Trump's part based on all of last gasp efforts to illegally hold onto office (fake slate of electors, attempting to strong arm Pence, lying about the election results... etc.) and "Yes" the failed insurrection tops that list!
None of this is normal and none of this is peaceful. Apparently, you are only considering the moment in time where he & Melania walk out of the White House to get into the helicopter that took them away. So you are giving him props because he didn't throw a fit like a five year old when told they have to go home because the zoo is closing?
Way too simplistic but typical given the blinders you are wearing.
Conspicuously absent from your list is Capitalism. The one where the empowered self, the individual is still relevant. All the others mentioned turn the self, the individual, the I, into you, as in you, one of many who will do as you are told and work with what we allow you.
or did I get something wrong in the translation ?
Yes, you did.
Capitalism is not a utopian model of society by most counts (edit: and certainly not one where power evaporates in favour of the common good). It also needs to be tandemed with a governance model to even function.
Edit: Your closest bet for what you are talking about would be liberalism at a guess.
Also, you mischaracterise communism. Utopian pre-Stalinist communism was meant to be about empowerment of the individual, not their enslavement to a dictatorship as it morphed into being later.
You might also want to check out Rousseau's social contract theory to find what you are looking for. But ultimately, that too relies on some kind of common consensus regarding governance.
Kind of funny that you support Trump if you are such a fan of capitalism. He's more the robber-baron type who doesn't pay his bills than a capitalist. Grift and bribery. That's his thing. Capitalism OTOH relies on rules of contract, which Trump seems to break almost by force of compulsion. He's also a big fan of autocratic government à la Putin's Russia and North Korea, which are about the least capitalist countries out there.
There are myriad utopian models for society out there where power magically disappears as an element in society, either through class consciousness (Marxism), awareness of individual rights (liberalism), inclusive democracy (tedious unending committee work) favoured by trade unions, welfare institutions and labor parties, etc. The fact is that in all of these models you will get people who gravitate towards power and like black holes in our universe accumulate more of it. Maybe it is just how we are built.
Conspicuously absent from your list is Capitalism. The one where the empowered self, the individual is still relevant. All the others mentioned turn the self, the individual, the I, into you, as in you, one of many who will do as you are told and work with what we allow you.
I know I will regret asking, but here goes: What is this “real common cause that binds” Trump supporters?
If it still unapparent to you at this point, I can give you no suitable answer.
My only thought that might be of help would be to listen to those who have come over to join up and listen to their explanations. You can find them everywhere, except in your echo - chambered news feeds.
The latest is Tulsi Gabbard. You know, another former legitimate democrat candidate for POTUS. The one that Hillary called a Russian asset, for openers.
We've been warning you all about the risks of granting more and more power to an unaccountable government for as long as we've been around. You still don't see it. You fixate on the hands the hold the power when the problem is the power itself. There was always the risk that that concentration of power would be seized by someone you didn't like.
Well, it happened. Power was abused, but it only seems to be a problem when the Other Tribe abuses it. Your tribe seized that power back...and abused it. Then the Other Tribe seized it again...and abused it.
By misdiagnosing the problem you will never, ever solve it. You doom the rest of us to this endless cycle of abuse and reprisal.
I've been around long enough to remember the 1960s and '70s, when we had bombs going off and actual revolutionariesânot twitter warriors out for a selfie on the Speaker of the House's desk and then a flight home, but committed insurgents with a plan for violent overthrow of government and society. Funded and motivated by a hostile foreign power but deeply entrenched in some quarters of our culture. The counterrevolutionaries in power, ruthlessly suppressing anything that looked like a threat. I remember how toxic the political atmosphere was, how close we came then.
Which wasn't all that close as it turned out, but it felt like it. Just like it feels now.
So spare me the drama. And I'd suggest allying with us for a change to disarm the monster you fear, to dismantle the power it abuses, but you covet that power for yourself*. Toss the ring into the volcano for once.
*Yes, I know you're a furriner and you personally wouldn't get to be Minister of Online Culture and Propriety or anything, I'm speaking broadly and hyperbolically to the audience nodding along to your post. You know who you are. Oh yes you do. Stop making that face!
We need to take this to a new thread and it deserves a much longer response, but because I have 10 minutes before getting the family ready for the day, here goes:
Yes, of course the problem is "the power itself" - or more correctly, the concentration of power.
There are myriad utopian models for society out there where power magically disappears as an element in society, either through class consciousness (Marxism), awareness of individual rights (liberalism), inclusive democracy (tedious unending committee work) favoured by trade unions, welfare institutions and labor parties, etc.
The fact is that in all of these models you will get people who gravitate towards power and like black holes in our universe accumulate more of it. Maybe it is just how we are built.
I admire your work on promoting rights and being a force for good in the world. Unfortunately, people like you are the upper decile, with the next 80% not really caring too much and the lower 10% being power hungry.
... which is why the founding fathers came up with the checks and balances thing. Might not fit your model of enlightened citizens who need no policing but it is a damn good work-around.
Somehow I have the suspicion that your disappointment about your voice not being heard makes you blind to the very real threats to the form of government coming from the mouth of Trump and his acolytes.
I've seen NZ society - which is normally about as boring as watching a frozen leg of lamb thawing on the kitchen bench - come explosively close to civil war during the Springbok tour. Something I think that took us all by surprise. It is not an exaggeration to say that civilised society hangs by a silken thread, even if you get tired of the same hyperbole being rolled out every election cycle. This time around we have a candidate who demonstrably did attempt an insurrection and has openly and repeatedly stated he will use the military to silence the opposition, even naming Pelosi and Schiff in the process.
If I were in your shoes I'd be out there protecting the impoverished form of democracy you have for all its worth for the very reason that that is the only way I would be able to air my grievances. The very fact that we can have this discussion is a luxury that we take far too much for granted.
Add to that the flagrant violation of a woman's right to choose leave me wondering why libertarians have a problem taking sides here. Perhaps you'd care to elucidate.
We've been warning you all about the risks of granting more and more power to an unaccountable government for as long as we've been around. You still don't see it. You fixate on the hands the hold the power when the problem is the power itself. There was always the risk that that concentration of power would be seized by someone you didn't like.
Well, it happened. Power was abused, but it only seems to be a problem when the Other Tribe abuses it. Your tribe seized that power back...and abused it. Then the Other Tribe seized it again...and abused it.
By misdiagnosing the problem you will never, ever solve it. You doom the rest of us to this endless cycle of abuse and reprisal.
I've been around long enough to remember the 1960s and '70s, when we had bombs going off and actual revolutionaries—not twitter warriors out for a selfie on the Speaker of the House's desk and then a flight home, but committed insurgents with a plan for violent overthrow of government and society. Funded and motivated by a hostile foreign power but deeply entrenched in some quarters of our culture. The counterrevolutionaries in power, ruthlessly suppressing anything that looked like a threat. I remember how toxic the political atmosphere was, how close we came then.
Which wasn't all that close as it turned out, but it felt like it. Just like it feels now.
So spare me the drama. And I'd suggest allying with us for a change to disarm the monster you fear, to dismantle the power it abuses, but you covet that power for yourself*. Toss the ring into the volcano for once.
*Yes, I know you're a furriner and you personally wouldn't get to be Minister of Online Culture and Propriety or anything, I'm speaking broadly and hyperbolically to the audience nodding along to your post. You know who you are. Oh yes you do. Stop making that face!
To be fair, there has been exactly one time that we have failed to have a peaceful transfer of power following an election, and that candidate is on the ballot this time, and that candidate has stated that he does not intend to support the result if it's not to his liking.
There was a peaceful transfer of power. Trump left office on time as he was supposed to without the need of force or any violence. Would not that be the definition of a peaceful transfer of power ?
Your conflation of an incident ( a riot, not an insurrection) during the events of the certification of the vote to the actual transfer of power as noted above, is more than misleading. It is dishonest.
What exactly are we supposed to thank you for? Voting for your convictions? I would imagine that is what all of us are doing. You can start by thanking me now.
Gay marriage, legal weed, airline deregulation, and interstate trucking deregulation for starters, all of which we championed since 1972. When nobody—absolutely nobody—would touch these issues.
They eventually succeeded, with everybody who denounced these ideas at the time now taking credit for them.
Eventually you'll get to thank us for entitlement reforms, repeal of massive heaps of pointless regulations, abolition of civil forfeiture and warrantless surveillance, professional licensing reform, school choice, zoning reform, and repeal of laws against victimless crimes. But you're still getting used to those ideas, they'll occur to you eventually.
Could say the same to you...and did, below. How's that lesser-of-two-evils thing working out for you?
You're thinking short term, fighting endless defensive battles, slowly conceding ground, supporting slightly-less-evil people hoping that if you can hang on long enough the slightly- more-evil people will get tired and wander off.
The evil people aren't getting tired, and they're your standard-bearers now. If you do manage to fight the slightly-more-evil people to a standstill, for a while...you still have to contend with the slightly-less-evil people you endorsed.
Sometimes it's the only way. You ally with Stalin to beat Hitler because the fate of the world really does depend on it. What you're missing is that by constantly inflating the stakes in the conflictâthe most important election of our lifetimes! Again!âyou've amplified the dynamic. Regardless of who wins the next election important problems will go unsolved or get made worse because solving the problems wasn't the point, beating the other tribe was.
Most of those reading this are reflexively defending their choices, defending undefendable things about your candidates to avoid conceding anything to The Other Side. Your candidate isn't evil, all the things you used to oppose are now purely good! But the argument always circles around to but the other side is worse.
You do you. Choose a path you can live with. I'm supporting what I actually want to happen, even if it doesn't happen this electionâknowing that the things I want to happen are are worth the effort. Even if I don't get credit for them because one of the evil people adopted the idea to appeal to my vote. Y'all can thank me later.
What exactly are we supposed to thank you for? Voting for your convictions? I would imagine that is what all of us are doing. You can start by thanking me now.