Tipping Point?

bisley

A good example that suggests we are near the tipping point, i.e the left-right struggle for the majority electorate, is the debate over giving felons back their right to vote. It demonstrates very well how the radicals sway the moderates, on a principle that used to be more or less accepted and approved of by most Americans...at least the ones that expressed any opinion at all.

Conservatives who see a problem with giving felons the right to vote believe that the recent movements to do that are just adding more incremental changes to the rules that are designed specifically to benefit the political party that has a long history of using the least contributing segments of society to achieve a majority in targeted elections. Were there not some evidence of that, they likely would support the concept, in some form or another, if a case by case analysis indicated that there were injustices.

Most folks will say that there aren't enough felons who will vote to make a difference in an election. They said the same about illegal aliens, a long time ago, and changes to the voter registration procedures that open up all kinds of possibilities for election fraud. Incremental changes, over several decades, have impacted recent elections.

If a free society reaches a point where the voting majority is made up of a coalition of single interest voters (illiterates, illegals, convicted criminals, etc.) they are unerringly used by the ideologues to place the most corrupt of the corrupt into public service positions, rather than the citizens who have actually contributed something to that free society. Whether or not that is the way it should be can be debated, but whether or not it is good for the health of any productive society is not in question...at least to anyone grounded in reality.

Personally, I do agree that serving one's time for a criminal offense should begin the process of restoring the rights of a convicted criminal to normal society. But, there must be some guidelines that deter habitual criminals from lying and cheating their way into a public office that gives them legal power over unsuspecting citizens who play by the established rules. It can be argued that people get exposed and driven out of elections on a regular basis, but that just helps make the point, because the parties used to screen such people out before supporting them as a candidate, rather than just helping them to conceal the 'warts' in their backgrounds.

Felons come in every flavor, from the person who committed one act of violence because of a failure to control his emotions, to the habitual criminal who has committed ten times as many crimes as he has actually been prosecuted for. A simple 'black and white' (yes/no) rule that vindicates the habitual criminal is just as unjust as the rule that incarcerates the good guy who made one mistake in his entire life. Conservatives used to hate 'gray areas' that often prevented the enacting of an actual solution, to an actual problem. But, in this era of media blitzes, insignificant facts or assertions can be pounded into the brains of those who vote, but don't actually pay enough attention to politics to be able to separate fact from fiction. Gray areas suck, to a realist, but when the people who need to be convinced are too lazy to discern the facts, that sucks, too.

At present, free society is under siege by the darker, more radical ideological elements of that society, that are successfully targeting the minor flaws in it, as if those flaws were the norm. They do it by pretending that they are not ideologically driven, at all, but merely want what is just. They demand perfection from a system that has never, and will never be perfect. If and when they finally do win, they will have installed an authoritarian power that can control every aspect of society. Political correctness, and redefining the rules (and the language, itself) are the weapons they wield. We are in the midst of it, right now, and it is still impossible to gauge how far down that road we have already traveled, or whether it can be reversed.

Our best traditions, learned through three centuries of trial and error, are at the tipping point, with the fight for those traditions being carried out by a handful of patriots who believe that the forces against those traditions are also at their tipping point. The winner won't be known for a while, yet. In fact, it will never be known by those who don't follow politics. They will just wake up some day and say, "What happened?"

Big Al1

It reminds me of “Demolition Man”!!

zorba

It reminds ME of 1984...

earlyagain

When I used to listen to talk radio the leftist type shows always harped on that the right benifits most from voter suppression. I have no way of knowing if that's correct or just talk. I do know that both sides seek to redraw district boundaries to manipulate election results.

I honestly believe that there is a significant difference between the media hyperbole being foisted on the masses and what people actually think and act on. Also I think there's a disparity between desired policy from our elected officials and televised sensationalism. What I don't know is how much of a difference that is.

The influence of television was a revelation of giant size after the Kennedy, Nixon debate. Do we comprehend the true scope of that infuence today???? I guarantee those in pursuit of power do. Thing is, are what we're seeing substantive or distraction????

zorba

Yet more and more people are starting to ignore "the media" - and/or being a LOT more selective about it. If you want to know what's really going on, watch the BBC. Not perfect of course, but in general FAR better than anything else.

bisley

earlyagain said:

When I used to listen to talk radio the leftist type shows always harped on that the right benifits most from voter suppression. I have no way of knowing if that's correct or just talk. I do know that both sides seek to redraw district boundaries to manipulate election results.

I honestly believe that there is a significant difference between the media hyperbole being foisted on the masses and what people actually think and act on. Also I think there's a disparity between desired policy from our elected officials and televised sensationalism. What I don't know is how much of a difference that is.

The influence of television was a revelation of giant size after the Kennedy, Nixon debate. Do we comprehend the true scope of that infuence today???? I guarantee those in pursuit of power do. Thing is, are what we're seeing substantive or distraction????

Great post, Early.

1st paragraph:

Back during the years when Ann Richards was the Governor of Texas, before Texas went dark red, gerrymandering districts around the large cities of Texas was at a fever pitch. The district lines were ridiculous, with some extending for miles down a certain road, then crossing the road and extending for miles back in the direction they came from, before taking off on another wild tangent. They are still pretty ridiculous, but at least Democrats don't have the slam-dunk that they once had. It changes drastically, every time legislative power changes hands. Both sides do it, because if one side does it, the other side has to do it if they ever want to win again. I suspect it will continue forever, unless the poltical climate moderates.

2nd paragraph:

I agree with this. But I also think that a very high percentage of voters are so confused that they throw up there hands and either don't vote at all, or vote on emotional impulse.

Last paragraph:

I believe that only a few issues are as substantive as they are depicted, based on their political value for the next election. The media not only colors the debates to fit their agendas, but they select which issues will come to the front, or be totally ignored. We seldom get in-depth geopolitical news from the major networks, which during my childhood was the only reason that adults watched national broadcasts, at all. Political campaigns did not begin immediately after a Congressman was elected, or at least nobody was aware of it, until the 3-4 months that immediately preceded the election.

bisley

cpj said:

“But, there must be some guidelines that deter habitual criminals from lying and cheating their way into a public office that gives them legal power over unsuspecting citizens who play by the established rules.”





Then  who would we vote for? 

I'm glad you asked.

You pick the least ridiculous party, and start paying minute attention to its primary. You vote for whomever you think might possibly be the best counter to the things that you hate the most. You give up on the idea that anybody is going to be representing you perfectly, or run, yourself. You debate the issues with anybody who is interested, even if they mop the floor with you. You will be wrong as often as you are right, but you don't quit paying attention and understanding, or you have failed. You do this until you die, and teach your children to do the same.

bisley

alphasigmookie said:

"If a free society reaches a point where the voting majority is made up of a coalition of single interest voters they are unerringly used by the ideologues to place the most corrupt of the corrupt into public service positions"

Funny you would unironically post this to a forum made up largely of single issue voters. Nope the "good guys" would never use us? Nope 2A proponents never blindly follow corrupt ideologues? 

If you have nothing of substance to offer this thread, post one of your own. This is not an "everybody does it thread." I went out of my way to make the opening post as neutral as I am capable of, so please spare me the trolls. Comment on the felons voting all you want, or anything else that honest people may differ on, but give me a break on the talking points.

Fisheadgib

Some states have restrictions on convicted felons holding a public office but the federal government does not. I googled convicted felons that have held public office and the list is way too big for me to type. Marion Barry is probably one of the most well known as he was mayor of our nations capitol and was convicted of a felony, did six months in a federal prison, and then got reelected mayor after he got out of prison!

bisley

Convicted felons running for office wasn't my main point, although I see which sentence cpj homed in on. Sure, it's a possibility, even a likelihood, as things go on. But my point is that they will vote for other crooks, or anyone else who is sympathetic to whatever injustices they think have been imposed on them. A party that thinks conservatives are more evil than Islamic terrorists or MS-13 gang members can find lots of votes in the prisons and across the border.

Restoring voting rights to criminals who have served their time is a reasonable ambition, if they give up their criminal ways. But why would anybody go out of their way to restore that right to someone who hasn't demonstrated a willingness to be rehabilitated? We can debate constitutionality and I might be swayed with a good argument, but until that debate is settled, why change an existing law to benefit a criminal?

bisley

It was my mistake. I should have reread it and changed it to better reflect my point.

It's all part of the exercise - trying to write a post without miss-stating something in a way that can derail the gist of the thread. I am usually able to say what I think, but sometimes I get the emphasis wrong. It happens a lot, when the post is too long.

Bigslug

It all makes you ponder the benefits of the various systems that you could try - up to and including no system at all.  The problem with any system is that there will always be those who try to bend and exploit its loopholes, which is likely where Shakespeare's "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" comes from.

In true anarchy, it's likely that the stereotypical anarchists - the carousing, leather-jacket-wearing, Molotov cocktail throwers - would not last long;  being the first one's strung up by those who simply want to exist in peace and quiet.  This tipping point you speak of may be reflected in that the current system often seems to protect the radicals from the ordinarily stationary stones that want nothing more than to gather moss.

Not saying it's perfect or clean or even good, but it does circumvent certain aspects of bureaucratic quagmires.  We as a species do seem drawn to localized tribalism.

bisley

Bigslug said:

It all makes you ponder the benefits of the various systems that you could try - up to and including no system at all.  The problem with any system is that there will always be those who try to bend and exploit its loopholes, which is likely where Shakespeare's "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" comes from.

In true anarchy, it's likely that the stereotypical anarchists - the carousing, leather-jacket-wearing, Molotov cocktail throwers - would not last long;  being the first one's strung up by those who simply want to exist in peace and quiet.  This tipping point you speak of may be reflected in that the current system often seems to protect the radicals from the ordinarily stationary stones that want nothing more than to gather moss.

Not saying it's perfect or clean or even good, but it does circumvent certain aspects of bureaucratic quagmires.  We as a species do seem drawn to localized tribalism.

The current system glorifies revolutionaries, exploiting their youthful zeal for radical change. Revolution is necessary, once a country's government has proved beyond any doubt that it is so corrupt and incompetent that elections can't fix it. But it's always a question of degree, and of whose ox is being gored, as to whether a revolution will solve anything. In this country, the disenfranchised members of society are still eating regularly, so the problem can still be solved by honest politicians...if both sides still have some.

Revolution is the ultimate breakdown of civil law and brings with it a complete lack of empathy for those on the 'other side,' whether they have been the ring leaders, or were just swept up by circumstances beyond their understanding. Those who "want nothing more than to gather moss" only participate in them as a last resort, when even that small 'ambition' is denied to them.

Worst of all, the ones who carry out the revolution usually either perish, or prove to also be inadequate at maintaining civil order and correcting the problems they cited as a reason for revolution. After a revolution subsides, it often takes another less violent one to get rid of the revolutionaries and re-institute civil authority...and the aspiring 'moss growers' die of old age before they get a chance to grow any more moss, leaving their misguided children to fish or cut bait.

CaliFFL

bisley said:

Revolution is necessary, once a country's government has proved beyond any doubt that it is so corrupt and incompetent that elections can't fix it. 

BTW, awesome thread, bisley. 

I picked this line because I firmly believe we are here and have been for some time. Voting on the federal level is doing nothing. We have stagnated to a point where both sides simply try to overturn the previous party's policies or they campaign on promises to remove policies and then renege after elected. Real corrective actions are never attempted by either party. Both parties pathetically attempt to correct symptoms to pander to the base rather than institute potential cures. 

Using the felon example....Instead of discussing restoring the rights of felons, we should be discussing the redefinition of "felon". Carrying a gun in California w/o a permit is a felony, but not in Idaho or many other states. Over an ounce of weed is a felony in Idaho, but not California. 

Going a bit further...Building a wall instead of de-incentivizing illegal immigration. Obamacare instead of revamping insurance companies. Installing TSA instead of examining *any* other alternatives. The list of government mandated failures are endless, but were fairly popular when instituted, or at least by the party in power at the time. 

Unless there is a major cultural shift within the American people we will be status quo into bankruptcy.

Now the last thing I want to see is revolution, but if it is inevitable (and I believe it is) let's get it started. State secession would be a good start and possibly without violence. 

bisley

CaliFFL said:

bisley said:

Revolution is necessary, once a country's government has proved beyond any doubt that it is so corrupt and incompetent that elections can't fix it. 

BTW, awesome thread, bisley. 

I picked this line because I firmly believe we are here and have been for some time. Voting on the federal level is doing nothing. We have stagnated to a point where both sides simply try to overturn the previous party's policies or they campaign on promises to remove policies and then renege after elected. Real corrective actions are never attempted by either party. Both parties pathetically attempt to correct symptoms to pander to the base rather than institute potential cures. 

Using the felon example....Instead of discussing restoring the rights of felons, we should be discussing the redefinition of "felon". Carrying a gun in California w/o a permit is a felony, but not in Idaho or many other states. Over an ounce of weed is a felony in Idaho, but not California. 

Going a bit further...Building a wall instead of de-incentivizing illegal immigration. Obamacare instead of revamping insurance companies. Installing TSA instead of examining *any* other alternatives. The list of government mandated failures are endless, but were fairly popular when instituted, or at least by the party in power at the time. 

Unless there is a major cultural shift within the American people we will be status quo into bankruptcy.

Now the last thing I want to see is revolution, but if it is inevitable (and I believe it is) let's get it started. State secession would be a good start and possibly without violence. 

I agree with everything you said...except your belief that we have already arrived at the point where elections can't start rolling things back. There is still a little time left, in my opinion.

Let's see how things play out in Europe, where people who probably have no great problem with their personal concept of socialism, are smashing and burning everything (on the weekends, when they aren't working) because their governments have come partially 'out of the closet' in the attempt to finance the government concept of socialism. We can argue whether this is socialism or elitism, but in the final analysis, the result is the same for the middle class and the working poor. They are being taxed into bankruptcy, which is exactly how the left in America intends to win.

You could see it happening in California, years ago, but the great expanse of red states in the middle of the country are much more empowered than the scattered enclaves of conservatives and libertarians in CA. And they are very slowly waking up. The question is whether they will see through all of the media distractions in time to avert anarchy.

When Americans who are serving in the ranks of 'useful idiots,' that our own left-wing is using to get out their message, begin to see what the logical conclusion is to free stuff for everybody, they could all just melt away, overnight, or reverse course. Sounds unlikely, but things that move quickly because of trending on the Internet can have a 'sea change,' almost overnight.

Trends that unite the groups that take to the streets have a striking resemblance to a good old fashioned lynch mob, in that respect - they flare up quickly, burn brightly for awhile, and then just end, due to a very sudden lack of enthusiasm, or switch sides and go all out in the opposite direction. It sounds like a long shot, but it's a possibility. Anarchy loses its charm in a hurry, when people take time to compare a crappy status quo to suddenly having nothing at all.

bisley

Billy_Budd said:

IMHO, one overlooked consequence of a full scale revolution/civil war would be opening the door wide open to foreign invaders who would no doubt take full advantage of limited military resources. On the other hand, it is very possible that such an event would form national 'allies' with 'opposing' sides. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but sometimes, given the world we now live in today, I believe that's the intent with the ruling elite.

The thing that I think might prevent a "full scale revolution/civil war" is the introduction of reality into the lives of those who joined up based on the political narrative that bombarded their cell phone. The one thing that stands out most to me about returning combat veterans is that they have become very good at determining what is real and what is BS. A few sessions of no-holds-barred violence in the streets might negatively influence anyone who was not already a street thug.

Everything beyond civil strife would depend almost entirely on what the US military would do, if ordered to take up arms against the citizens it is sworn to protect. Once it got to that point, the politicians would probably have one last chance to act with honor and courage. Who knows how that would turn out?

tennmike

alphasigmookie said:

Here's one good idea:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

That is blatant fascist doctrine. I'll pass on that plan. Liz Warren is a Socialist with some Fascism thrown in for seasoning. I wouldn't trust her to guard the contents under an outhouse.

Anyway, the government took over the Mustang Ranch in Nevada (a legal house of prostitution) and shortly after 'government intervention' in the business model, the Mustang Ranch went very bankrupt. How the devil can you run a house of prostitution into bankruptcy? It was a real popular place before 'Uncle Sugar' took it over for unpaid taxes. Give the U.S. government control of the Sahara Desert and there would soon be a shortage of sand.

Jermanator

tennmike said:

Give the U.S. government control of the Sahara Desert and there would soon be a shortage of sand.

That is part of why we are here now. We do not have a free market-- government has their hand in every bit of the market to the point where their interventions have wildly distorted it and gives us the inequities that Alpha has been pointing out. What happens is that instead of Ma & Pa's Widget Co competing on their own merits against a multi-national widget conglomerate, you got International Widgetco lobbying our government to regulate the market in a way that gives them a huge competitive advantage over Ma & Pa.

centermass556

Has anyone read Marx? Like actually read Marx, and too a lesser extent Kant, not what people tell you his stuff is about, but read his theories and philosophies. After you do, you will not look at America in the same light. America, over the past two centuries has started to validate the Marx's theories on Social Evolution and the eventualities that will come to pass. As Bisley first asked, are we at that tipping point where we are looking at our next revolution? I dunno, but the climate displayed by the pervasive and expanding culture in America says we are not far from it. 

Jermanator

centermass556 said:

Has anyone read Marx? Like actually read Marx, and too a lesser extent Kant, not what people tell you his stuff is about, but read his theories and philosophies. After you do, you will not look at America in the same light.

Got the book at home. The beginning-- you would think that it was written yesterday.

centermass556

Billy_Budd said:

centermass556 said:

Has anyone read Marx? Like actually read Marx, and too a lesser extent Kant, not what people tell you his stuff is about, but read his theories and philosophies. After you do, you will not look at America in the same light. America, over the past two centuries has started to validate the Marx's theories on Social Evolution and the eventualities that will come to pass. As Bisley first asked, are we at that tipping point where we are looking at our next revolution? I dunno, but the climate displayed by the pervasive and expanding culture in America says we are not far from it. 

I prefer the writings of Thomas Jefferson. 

Why? That statement seems narrow minded, not to offend.

I prefer Christianity and the American way of life, but you can be sure that I thoroughly understand Islam and the Arab way of life. I'm also pretty well versed in Western and Eastern European History. Why? Because I have to understand the world I live and operate in as it is, and not how I want it to be. Seeing multiple points of view, the ability to assimilate that thinking, and the thoroughly analyze its pieces for applicability and understanding in what places people on the higher tier of Bloom's Taxonomy. Now, I'm not saying I am at that the analytical tier. But, I'm not going to limit myself to a single point of view that may not be applicable. 

earlyagain

I've not read Marx, and likely won't unless I come across it at the second hand store. Any chance you guys that have could briefly summarise the similarities????

I'll understand if you can't. Im guessing its a bit more than a pamphlet.

CaliFFL

alphasigmookie said:

I want to disagree that taxes are why people are struggling. Taxes are lower for almost everyone as a percentage of income since like the 50's. It's not taxes that are killing people, it's lack of opportunity and depressed wages. Wages for the middle class have been stagnant to declining for decades. 

You are talking solely federal income taxes. Pile those dollars on with the cost of state, county, and local taxes. Let's not forget the annual licenses, fees, permits, sales taxes, and the myriad of other crap. Ever look at your cell phone bill or airline tickets? Hotel or rental car? These are only a few examples I pulled from memory...

Jermanator

earlyagain said:

I've not read Marx, and likely won't unless I come across it at the second hand store. Any chance you guys that have could briefly summarise the similarities????

I'll understand if you can't. Im guessing its a bit more than a pamphlet.

It is in the public domain now. Start with this...

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

earlyagain

Jermanator said:

earlyagain said:

I've not read Marx, and likely won't unless I come across it at the second hand store. Any chance you guys that have could briefly summarise the similarities????

I'll understand if you can't. Im guessing its a bit more than a pamphlet.

It is in the public domain now. Start with this...

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

Got it.
Thanks.

Jermanator

The thing with Marx, isn't that he dreamed up this stuff-- he called it like he saw it to the best of his ability and assumed that the future he predicted was inevitable. Nothing is inevitable, but it is good to understand how these things could potentially happen. What are we doing right? What are we doing wrong? Same with Jefferson being mentioned? Jefferson would poop himself if he saw what is happening today. How far off are we from Jefferson, and why?

earlyagain

Viewed through the context of the excerpted material in the link. It could just as easily be interpreted as we're in fluctuation as a tiping point.

Alpha's observations on the consolidation of power are in my opinion spot on.

At least some of what's been done wrong is the propagation of that consolidation.

If as Bisley and Califf have indicated, we're at a tiping point, revolution needs a voice for a conduit of ideas.

Some of what's been done right is the the supplying of that very conduit. This conduit. 

As things stand right now the tools of instant information have done as much or more to dilute the power of ideas as to amplify them. Instant rebuttal was not available prior to the internet, television, and radio. The prism of spin was more difficult to focus.

It would be nice to see the value of intellectual pursuit commensurate with the value of consumption in our society. 

bisley

The problem I have with Marx is that the economic theory in it is just that - economic theory.

Any scientific, philosophical, political, or economic theory will always yield its 'real world value' according to what data was entered into the original hypotheses. Like all unproven theory, it begins with a question being asked that is immediately followed by an assumption being made as to the possible answer. One must then follow the facts, and see where they lead. That involves a study of known history, and man being man, that usually results in selective memory corrupting that part of the study.

Einstein's theory of relativity took much of his adult life to prove out a small part of the total theory. Well over a hundred years later, we still have only a belief that the other parts of the theory are correct, based on the fact that part of it has been proved. We make huge scientific gains, sometimes, by gambling on its correctness, but there also very expensive failures that get swept under the carpet, due to funding issues, due to political motivation.

To use any theory as a thesis for making conclusions that can actually be successfully employed in any sort of real world way will always be skewed to support a political agenda. This is why all of the various forms of capitalism are superior to all of the various forms of socialism.

Capitalism, in its purest form, is nothing more than the same survival instinct we see in every species on the planet. The compromises made by humans to soften that pure instinct have built the economies of nations since the beginning of recorded history. Human beings, having developed the concept of empathy, have flourished for centuries using some variation of capitalism.

If you take the politics out of the Marx hypothesis, you simply have another economic thesis waiting to be proven. A hundred and fifty years is not nearly enough time to prove out an economic hypotheses that has yet to have a single government succeed, using it as a template. The United States is still trying to perfect the changes it has made to humanize pure capitalism. It has yielded huge successes and suffered huge failures. Yet, it still exists after 242 years, and has still not lost as many to starvation as one year in the lives of those people under Marxist regimes.

Political corruption has mostly ruined every chance to validate Marx's economic hypotheses. The human propensity for empathy, and the desire to prosper will always be a disincentive to conduct further experiments into Marxist economics.

Too bad we don't have lab rats that could prove it, without having to try it on human beings.

Big Chief

Communism Sucks!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/?utm_term=.13f6dfc078f5

zorba

As long as the gov't throws away money, supports illegal immigration, etc, etc, etc - taxes are still too high. Stop all that crap, and then we'll talk. Until then, its pork barrel spending as usual.

Make_My_Day

earlyagain said:

I've not read Marx, and likely won't unless I come across it at the second hand store. Any chance you guys that have could briefly summarise the similarities????

I'll understand if you can't. Im guessing its a bit more than a pamphlet.

Just Google "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. It is the embodiment of Left-wing philosophy today. You will discover that almost all of the Communist goals have been achieved. It took the left a hundred years, but we are almost there.