This Panic to Terminate a Presidency...

2456

Replies

  • mitdr774mitdr774 Member Posts: 852 Senior Member
    If all the idiots would do what the people pay them to do, we wouldn't have all these stupid games like shutdowns.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,801 Senior Member
    mitdr774 said:
    If all the idiots would do what the people pay them to do, we wouldn't have all these stupid games like shutdowns.
    LOL. She's THIRD in line. Pence would take over if Trump got impeached(not gonna happen with the current Senate makeup). And then there would be that whole 'red state uprising' that could explode in the faces of the Dem/Lib/Fascist/Communist/Socialist cabal.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    Friday night NPR was giving this whole Buzzfeed Cohen thing a tone of credibility.

    Today its sounding like more unsubstantiated hyperbole.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    edited January 20 #35
    Moved to the correct thread.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,058 Senior Member
    Friday night NPR was giving this whole Buzzfeed Cohen thing a tone of credibility.

    Today its sounding like more unsubstantiated hyperbole.
    Which is about all you get from the MSLSD / Commie News networks
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,569 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    mitdr774 said:
    If all the idiots would do what the people pay them to do, we wouldn't have all these stupid games like shutdowns.
    LOL. She's THIRD in line. Pence would take over if Trump got impeached(not gonna happen with the current Senate makeup). And then there would be that whole 'red state uprising' that could explode in the faces of the Dem/Lib/Fascist/Communist/Socialist cabal.
    Dem/Lib/Fascist/Socialist cabal. Definition of insanity: "Repeating the same failures expecting them to work this time"!
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    "Have you no decency sir?"

    Sir?👂

    Sir?👀
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,801 Senior Member
    Pelosi really does have bigger fish to fry right now. The government shutdown has her backed into a corner after her statements on not negotiating. And Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and the, I think, THREE muslim congreswomen are making huge waves in Congress as they consolidate the 'impeach Trump' members and throw huge hate bombs at Israel with the older Congresscritters going along when they should know better. They see a chance to drive the Democrat party further hard left. Pelosi may not last long as 'Mouthpiece of the House'.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,109 Senior Member
    Hopefully, "further hard left" will drive more people away from the Democrats - much like "further hard right" has with the GOP in recent years.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    In my opinion, Pelosi has won this round of 'virtue signalling.'

    Despite her penchant for looking like a moron, she is no piker, when it comes to wielding power to sell a bankrupt idea. Trump tried to compete in her arena, and she handed him his head. He keeps trying to trust establishment Republicans to back his play, and they are just too cowardly to come through for him. His fatal mistake was challenging Pelosi and Schumer to hold him accountable for the shut-down, and they have succeeded in pounding him into the ground with it. He played their game and spotted them 50 yards, before the starting gun even went off.

    The 'art of the deal' requires that you outlast your opponent, while applying strategic rhetoric all along the way. In politics, that means that you have to keep your coalition together until your opponent's own coalition undermines his/her bargaining position. Pelosi is a past master at 'herding cats.' Only a handful of mob bosses and a few tinpot dictators have been able to break legs or dish out shiny trinkets with so much useful effect. The Democrat Party may yet implode, with all of the imbeciles that are gumming up their well-oiled political machine. But, with no real goal but destroying Trump, they may be able to get that one chore done, before they crack up.

    The President's Rose Garden speech, yesterday, was a thinly disguised capitulation on the shutdown stand-off, and his retreat back into the repetitive talking points has set the stage for failure, again, in 21 days. He will probably end up having to sign an immigration bill that is worse than the one he has already vetoed. Either that, or he will declare an emergency, which will set a very bad precedent, one that future presidents will also abuse. It will be very difficult to defend to anybody but his most ardent supporters.

    If he could show immediate success at securing the border, afterwards, calling it an emergency  might 'fly,' politically. But, eminent domain problems and Rio Grande flooding issues will delay any sort of permanent construction, in some of the worst trouble spots. To be effective at stopping and catching the trespassers, he will have to employ all of the personnel and technology he can get to those areas. Even if he catches every one of them, there is still no practical way to get them back across the border, without violating current laws that protect their 'rights,' as if they were US citizens. For the most part, if they get inside the border, they are here to stay, for the immediate future.

    It's hard to convince ordinary folks that emergency powers are justified, when it takes billions of dollars and five or ten years to remedy the emergency. I agree that our current illegal immigration problems are an existential threat to the republic, and therefore calling it an emergency seems logical to me. But that is just me, trying to be realistic, and reality and politics don't mix very well, these days.

    If you don't get elected, you can't fix what is wrong with government. But, if you do fix what's wrong with government, you can't get re-elected. A reformer that somehow manages to get elected has to complete the job in one term, to fix something that it took decades to ruin. Any longer, and all of his opportunistic enemies will eventually unite against him in an effective way.





  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    In my opinion, Pelosi has won this round of 'virtue signalling.'

    Despite her penchant for looking like a moron, she is no piker, when it comes to wielding power to sell a bankrupt idea. Trump tried to compete in her arena, and she handed him his head. He keeps trying to trust establishment Republicans to back his play, and they are just too cowardly to come through for him. His fatal mistake was challenging Pelosi and Schumer to hold him accountable for the shut-down, and they have succeeded in pounding him into the ground with it. He played their game and spotted them 50 yards, before the starting gun even went off.

    The 'art of the deal' requires that you outlast your opponent, while applying strategic rhetoric all along the way. In politics, that means that you have to keep your coalition together until your opponent's own coalition undermines his/her bargaining position. Pelosi is a past master at 'herding cats.' Only a handful of mob bosses and a few tinpot dictators have been able to break legs or dish out shiny trinkets with so much useful effect. The Democrat Party may yet implode, with all of the imbeciles that are gumming up their well-oiled political machine. But, with no real goal but destroying Trump, they may be able to get that one chore done, before they crack up.

    The President's Rose Garden speech, yesterday, was a thinly disguised capitulation on the shutdown stand-off, and his retreat back into the repetitive talking points has set the stage for failure, again, in 21 days. He will probably end up having to sign an immigration bill that is worse than the one he has already vetoed. Either that, or he will declare an emergency, which will set a very bad precedent, one that future presidents will also abuse. It will be very difficult to defend to anybody but his most ardent supporters.

    If he could show immediate success at securing the border, afterwards, calling it an emergency  might 'fly,' politically. But, eminent domain problems and Rio Grande flooding issues will delay any sort of permanent construction, in some of the worst trouble spots. To be effective at stopping and catching the trespassers, he will have to employ all of the personnel and technology he can get to those areas. Even if he catches every one of them, there is still no practical way to get them back across the border, without violating current laws that protect their 'rights,' as if they were US citizens. For the most part, if they get inside the border, they are here to stay, for the immediate future.

    It's hard to convince ordinary folks that emergency powers are justified, when it takes billions of dollars and five or ten years to remedy the emergency. I agree that our current illegal immigration problems are an existential threat to the republic, and therefore calling it an emergency seems logical to me. But that is just me, trying to be realistic, and reality and politics don't mix very well, these days.

    If you don't get elected, you can't fix what is wrong with government. But, if you do fix what's wrong with government, you can't get re-elected. A reformer that somehow manages to get elected has to complete the job in one term, to fix something that it took decades to ruin. Any longer, and all of his opportunistic enemies will eventually unite against him in an effective way.





    Fairly reasonable summation of the situation. I could pick at some points, but agree with 90% of it so let's focus on the positive. Well said.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Focus on the positives?

    Okay, let's pretend that you and I are competent citizens, capable of understanding the political gymnastics that both parties engage in, and that we are a fair representation of what could be considered polar opposites on most political scales.

    Let's also pretend that we both want this situation, and every other situation that affects the health of this country's ability to govern itself, to be resolved through reasonable negotiations, as opposed to slipping into irreparable political chaos.

    Assuming the above to be true, what measure of a political party's 'validity' is appropriate, in determining which party to actually support, from this point forward? Should it be based on how well each party employs their political methods to win support from the majority of voters, or should it be based on which party has a logical platform from which to base its actions?

    I have conceded that the leaders of the party that I supported in the last general election have bungled the execution of the political intricacies that were necessary to achieve progress in correcting major flaws in the country's immigration policy. From my point of view, this failure in political strategy seems likely to adversely affect any possibility of the government acting in a way that will secure our national borders.

    I contend that this particular failure to resolve this particular situation, or even improve it in some minute way, was the result of an error in political strategy, but not an error in grasping the necessity of addressing the problem.Therefore, my question to you is this:

    What is the obligation to the majority of American citizens, of the party that prevailed in this political battle? They have won a victory, politically, on the issue of protecting a comparatively small number of government employees from being used as pawns, to force their party to negotiate issues that they do not want to address. They have, without doubt, served a small minority of American citizens, very well. Having rescued about 80,000 citizens from having to temporarily adjust their lifestyles, what do they owe to the 300 million other Americans that have a stake in border security issues?

    What should their next priority be, with the one house of Congress that they control? Do they have an obligation to address an issue that at least 50.1% of Americans are very concerned about?
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    I was kind of thinking that maybe Roger Stone knew the code and Michael Cohen didn't.

    Always keep your mouth shut and never rat on your friends. :D 

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,801 Senior Member
    I was kind of thinking that maybe Roger Stone knew the code and Michael Cohen didn't.

    Always keep your mouth shut and never rat on your friends. :D 

    "I invoke my right under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to remain silent."
    You aren't a digital tape recorder. You do not have photographic memory. Since anything you say can and will be used against you in court if it goes to court, then remain silent and speak only to ask for a lawyer; LE is NOT your friend. Any detail you leave out or misstate will be construed as lying or obstruction of justice.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,801 Senior Member
    Watched some of the loony tunes on video today of the new crop of Congress talking about that impeachment business. They seem to be long on emotional crap and short on impeachable charges. 'Mad Max' Waters is losing steam compared with the new crop of crazies shouting impeachment.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    My impressions are that yes the Dems are milking unsubstantiated enuendo. Also that Stone is very sharp. The smartest of everyone indicted so far.

    The media focus is on e-mails. The accused claims out of context. No way for us to tell one way or the other.

    Trumps indicted peers appear on tv like a mofia racketeering bust.

    Of course there's political influence being exerted.

    Still no evidence of collision. 
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,801 Senior Member
    My impressions are that yes the Dems are milking unsubstantiated enuendo. Also that Stone is very sharp. The smartest of everyone indicted so far.

    The media focus is on e-mails. The accused claims out of context. No way for us to tell one way or the other.

    Trumps indicted peers appear on tv like a mofia racketeering bust.

    Of course there's political influence being exerted.

    Still no evidence of collusion. 
    Fixed that for ya. And Collusion is not a crime. Only an illegal act carried out from that collusion would be prosecutable, according to most of the legal experts I've heard or read that said anything on the subject. Collusion seems to be the new MSM buzzword for 'NO EVIDENCE' that sounds all legal, but is designed to make the ignorant MSM news readers get a tingle up their thighs thinking it's a crime and breathlessly reporting on it.

    Ever planned a surprise party? Then you're guilty of collusion; turn your guilty shiny hiney in to the authorities! :D

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    edited January 28 #49
    I assumed that collusion was a universally understood shortened idiom for cullusion to influence the election with Russia.

    Im glad there was no collision.🚙
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,801 Senior Member
    There has been a collision between the truth and speculation. The insurance adjusters and the cops are still out there trying to find who was at fault. It would appear the 'cops' doing the investigating have a vested interest in the outcome, though. Hard to buck a stacked deck.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Focus on the positives?

    Okay, let's pretend that you and I are competent citizens, capable of understanding the political gymnastics that both parties engage in, and that we are a fair representation of what could be considered polar opposites on most political scales.

    Let's also pretend that we both want this situation, and every other situation that affects the health of this country's ability to govern itself, to be resolved through reasonable negotiations, as opposed to slipping into irreparable political chaos.

    Assuming the above to be true, what measure of a political party's 'validity' is appropriate, in determining which party to actually support, from this point forward? Should it be based on how well each party employs their political methods to win support from the majority of voters, or should it be based on which party has a logical platform from which to base its actions?

    I have conceded that the leaders of the party that I supported in the last general election have bungled the execution of the political intricacies that were necessary to achieve progress in correcting major flaws in the country's immigration policy. From my point of view, this failure in political strategy seems likely to adversely affect any possibility of the government acting in a way that will secure our national borders.

    I contend that this particular failure to resolve this particular situation, or even improve it in some minute way, was the result of an error in political strategy, but not an error in grasping the necessity of addressing the problem.Therefore, my question to you is this:

    What is the obligation to the majority of American citizens, of the party that prevailed in this political battle? They have won a victory, politically, on the issue of protecting a comparatively small number of government employees from being used as pawns, to force their party to negotiate issues that they do not want to address. They have, without doubt, served a small minority of American citizens, very well. Having rescued about 80,000 citizens from having to temporarily adjust their lifestyles, what do they owe to the 300 million other Americans that have a stake in border security issues?

    What should their next priority be, with the one house of Congress that they control? Do they have an obligation to address an issue that at least 50.1% of Americans are very concerned about?
    No comment?

    Was I not focused on the positives?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    edited January 29 #52
    I guess if you want feedback, it was 800,000 citizens, not 80,000... plus they have families to support. Some are my friends and it was a crappy thing to do to them. And I would like to think we put country before party. I am too worn out to discuss anything beyond that.

    Anyway, I offered to buy you a drink. Answer your IM.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    I don't turn down free drinks, and you are correct about my unintentional dropping of the zero. 800,000 seems to be the generally accepted number - not 80,000.

    I won't wear you out with the percentages of the numbers involved, or the importance of our government serving the majority. You can work that out for yourself, if it interests you, whenever you get rested up.




  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    Immigration or at least the policy paraded out for mass consumption is all hocus pocus to distract the public. Performed by both parties who's allegiance is to a constituency of oligarchs that profit from a porous border.

    Their collective responsibility to the common American citizen in terms of infrastructure, public education, higher education, infectious disease control, food and drug safety, health care, and many other types of promotion of the common welfare remain neglected and ignored.

    Meanwhile back on the ranch. A whole cornucopia of over paid, over educated shrills spout ridiculous platitudes of how all government of any kind is all bad. Shamelessly stolen from a party turncoat politician that most likely was senile and guilty of treason, yet became the darling of the new radical right. A radical right thats gone so far over the cliff that it elected a megalomaniac NYC mob gangster to be POTUS. We're told all poor people, especially brown people are milking the tax base dry for a free ride when the social programs being referenced are almost nothing compared to corporate subsidies, and a massive standing military dispatched globally to protect a corporate empire.

    Then on top of all the above, we're warned that the radical lieing left promising free stuff to the masses will socialise our government. Even though they don't even have a voice unless its bought and paid for by wall street and the corporate oligarchy.

    As far as I'm concerned the last good Republican was Dwight Eisenhower. An expert bean counter that forwarned us of the future. He'd be drummed out of the party today. The last good Democrat was Harry Truman. He'd be arrested for assault if he saw todays DNC.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    bisley said:
    Focus on the positives?

    Okay, let's pretend that you and I are competent citizens, capable of understanding the political gymnastics that both parties engage in, and that we are a fair representation of what could be considered polar opposites on most political scales.

    Let's also pretend that we both want this situation, and every other situation that affects the health of this country's ability to govern itself, to be resolved through reasonable negotiations, as opposed to slipping into irreparable political chaos.

    Assuming the above to be true, what measure of a political party's 'validity' is appropriate, in determining which party to actually support, from this point forward? Should it be based on how well each party employs their political methods to win support from the majority of voters, or should it be based on which party has a logical platform from which to base its actions?

    I have conceded that the leaders of the party that I supported in the last general election have bungled the execution of the political intricacies that were necessary to achieve progress in correcting major flaws in the country's immigration policy. From my point of view, this failure in political strategy seems likely to adversely affect any possibility of the government acting in a way that will secure our national borders.

    I contend that this particular failure to resolve this particular situation, or even improve it in some minute way, was the result of an error in political strategy, but not an error in grasping the necessity of addressing the problem.Therefore, my question to you is this:

    What is the obligation to the majority of American citizens, of the party that prevailed in this political battle? They have won a victory, politically, on the issue of protecting a comparatively small number of government employees from being used as pawns, to force their party to negotiate issues that they do not want to address. They have, without doubt, served a small minority of American citizens, very well. Having rescued about 80,000 citizens from having to temporarily adjust their lifestyles, what do they owe to the 300 million other Americans that have a stake in border security issues?

    What should their next priority be, with the one house of Congress that they control? Do they have an obligation to address an issue that at least 50.1% of Americans are very concerned about?
    No comment?

    Was I not focused on the positives?
    In the other thread we all pretty much agreed what the compromise should be. Permanent DACA for more money for border security, generally in the form of more agents and technology and possibly some strategic placement or replacement of fencing. 

    The problem is neither side's base will accept this. The far right hates anything that allows illegals to stay even if they were kids and have lived here all their life. The far left sees any additional fencing or wall as "a monument to racism". Neither side will accept a compromise.

    I laid out the reason in another thread a few months ago why our system gives these people in the fringes so much power. Basically if you piss off the base they will throw you out in the next primary and the primaries are designed to give the most power to vocal minorities. It only takes less that 20% of the country to strongly be in favor of something to make that issue a 100% must for one of the two parties. The "what's good for the majority" just flat doesn't matter politically when it comes to an issue like this. No compromise is possible. 

    On immigration it used to be only one side was dug in so Dems would often be willing to give some, but Trump has changed that. The shutdown was cemented "wall=monument to racism" in the minds of liberals and anyone who wants to get re-elected in a liberal district now can't vote for anything that looks like a wall and keep their job.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Alf,

    I believe that what you are saying is exactly what all of the other Democrats are saying. It's really nothing but the same excuses for not compromising, but couched in terms that place all of the blame on Republicans.

    Instead of debating within historical context, Democrats create an alternate reality, in which they stake out their position as being more moral. Then they blame Republicans for not meeting in the 'middle,' when meeting in what they define as the middle would actually consist of throwing out principles that have had some proven success, and embracing plans that have no history of success.

    You never review Democrat Party successes, except in terms of winning elections. Are there no sweeping Democrat legislative successes that they can take credit for? Can you even name anything they have done, in your lifetime, that benefited the majority of the country?

    Don't get me wrong - the only Republican successes that I can think of in recent years are the ones where they have prevented things that were working from being scrapped, in favor of some untested plan. In that sense, I'm a big fan of 'status quo,' because I believe we should be very careful about changing things that have been serving the majority for a long time. I believe in innovation and new ideas, but I am also realistic enough to believe that most new ideas are fraught with unexpected consequences that have to be ferreted out before 'betting the ranch.'

    In my opinion, the baseline of any new legislation has to be whether it benefits the majority, without crushing the minority. The more prosperous the majority is, the more likely it is that the minority can flourish, too. If Democrats won't even agree to that, everybody has to just dig in and ride the sinking ship to the bottom, and then start over, with the strongest swimmers.


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,109 Senior Member
    edited January 30 #57
    I love how the Democrats have changed the discourse from "Illegal immigration" to just "immigration", creating "undocumented migrants" and effin' "Sanctuary Cities" along the way.

    I'm sick of it.

    Of course, the Republicans have created "Religious Freedom" which is anything but, are ruining the Internet at behest of their Telco masters (net neutrality), created Corporate Personhood, etc, etc, and I'm sick of that too. But since we have no sane choices left to us in this country, I'm figuring the Left is the greater evil (by a nose) and will hold my nose and vote for the Right. Basically, its down to a choice between Hitler and Stalin.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    I took a few minutes to wade through the ciber research swamp regarding three things that could conceivably be percieved as Democratic Party legislative successes.

    Clinton welfare reform.
    Clinton budget surplus.
    Obama SEC oil market regulation reform.

    I picked those things randomly from memory and checked google for news reference.

    They can be spun in any direction as successes or failures or outright dishonest fraud, all depending on the source referenced.

    Exactly the same as border security.

    Or the Muller investigation.

    Or, the majority versus minority contention of beneficiary.

    IMO
    Politically motivated indictment does not equate to innocence. Border security is a hoax. Capitalism versus socialism is an argument based on false supposition.

    Our government has metastasized into exclusive service of the minority elite regardless of party. The only solution is mass recognition of the problem, and mass demand of our intermittent bone, historically tossed to the hungry masses desirous of the pursuit of happiness. Just toss us a bone. Thats all it takes. We built a nation with just a bone.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Politically motivated indictment does not equate to innocence. Border security is a hoax. Capitalism versus socialism is an argument based on false supposition.
    By the time the socialism/capitalism debate makes the rounds through the two party system, false suppositions seem to be all that is left over. That is because both systems have dozens of major variations, each of which have been proven to have some very high negative repercussions. The elected carnival hawkers in each party mix and match the positives and negatives continuously, to exploit the negatives with maximum effect, to control the people. There are always those who wish to be in control of any who do not want the burden of responsibility.

    Out here in the real world, socialism versus capitalism is a simple binary choice. The problem comes from our inability to accurately predict the future. It is an impossible assignment, because we are all fallible human beings that inject too many variables into the equation. We want to make choices based on what we want, right now, and we will happily wear blinders that will keep us from seeing the negative factors that we either do not understand...or maybe we do understand, and simply don't know thow to deal with it.

    The only way to divine the future is to look at the evidence and try to understand trends that have developed as a result of economic and political events. That evidence has been tampered with by those who have something to sell that will not sell on its own merits. Evidence, plainly and simply, is nothing more than the history of known facts, and the truths that have already been verified, a long time ago. It cannot be changed, but it can be concealed, or camouflaged.

    Very few of us care any more about history than we do about politics, so we do not guard it very well against contamination. Reality sucks, and is something to be avoided when we are young, because we can depend upon the adults to make everything nice for us. But, when we reach adulthood, reality rears its ugly head, and we have to either deal with it, or hire somebody to deal with it for us...government, run by politicians, and just like parents, there are almost as many bad ones as good ones, and just like parents, they are getting things wrong almost as often as they are getting it right, and they make the same lame excuses for failure.

    History has taught us that it is the people who meet reality, head on, that procure survival for themselves, and anyone who is capable of following and learning from them. What many of us missed in those history lessons was that once human beings have learned how to exist in an unsympathetic world, they fail to teach it well enough to succeeding generations, and lose the hard-earned progress that they achieved, to the carnival hawkers who promise them an escape from the harshness of reality, but cannot actually deliver it.

    The binary choice to be made is Utopia for a short time, or adapting to reality for a longer time. We have been floating somewhere between the two, for longer than the wisest among us would have ever thought possible. There was a time when most adults worked very hard, hopefully with a partner, to make a nice world for future generations. They used religion or philosophy to help them endure the hardships, and just pressed on to the best of their ability. Many still do that, but many more than ever before want it all for themselves, right now.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,267 Senior Member
    edited January 31 #60
    Its most likely not accurate to gauge what people want based on what carnival hawkers are hawking or what someone types out on a social media web site.

    If I'm going to presume inferior content of character, I'm not going to presume it of my contemporaries. Contemporaries comprised of all of the people I see and interact with daily, including everyone on the boards here. No, I'll presume it of the carnival hawkers, and the minority wealthy elite that pull their strings.

    They way I see it if capitalism gives us a living Im for more of it. If socialism can give corporations a helping hand, it can afford a few crumbs our way too. Seems like we've had a mixture of both for a long time. I see no reason not to continue.

    Edit.
    When I say give us a living, I mean opportunity to work.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Its most likely not accurate to gauge what people want based on what carnival hawkers are hawking or what someone types out on a social media web site.

    If I'm going to presume inferior content of character, I'm not going to presume it of my contemporaries. Contemporaries comprised of all of the people I see and interact with daily, including everyone on the boards here. No, I'll presume it of the carnival hawkers, and the minority wealthy elite that pull their strings.

    They way I see it if capitalism gives us a living Im for more of it. If socialism can give corporations a helping hand, it can afford a few crumbs our way too. Seems like we've had a mixture of both for a long time. I see no reason not to continue.

    Edit.
    When I say give us a living, I mean opportunity to work.
    Socialist governments last until there are no wealthy people or corporations left to tax. Then they look to the middle class to support them. When they run out of money, everyone has achieved equality. That is when you get a few crumbs. Look it up.



Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.