sculptor
Valued Senior Member
LOL
Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.
- Thread starter wellwisher
- Start date
Seriously....?
Well, this gets down to the core of the Republican argument, everybody who hasn't drunk the Republican Kool-Aid just is smart enough to understand Republican stupidity and ignorance. The Republican argument as inferred by Wellwisher goes like this; Hispanics, blacks, et al are just not smart enough to know Republicans are great. They have been confused by "dem damn Democrats and the free press". Unfortunately for Republicans, that just isn't the case. The problem with Republican base is everyone else is much smarter than they, and much better informed than they. There are good reasons why Hispanic Republicans have and continue to leave the Republican Party. There are good reasons why 99% of registered black voters aren't Republicans whether Republicans can be honest about it or not.
Except that's not true.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/10/22/violent-crime-statistics-for-every-city-in-america/
Well here is the problem with that, after an extensive investigation FBI Director Comey, a Republican, said he found that there was no evidence she committed crimes....oops. But, hey, you're a Republican you don't need little things like facts or reason.
Republicans in congress conducted extensive investigations of Hillary's actions during Benghazi and found nothing upon which to indict Hillary. They found no evidence of wrong doing. But that didn't stop them from making these wild assertions. There is no evidence of hidden anything. I find it ironic and hypocritical for Republicans to accuse others of doing the things they do. There's a word for that, it's called scapegoating. Unfortunately, Republicans are one of the most immoral groups of people I have ever known. They lie about virtually everything. Their dishonesty is overwhelming. They have repeatedly sacrificed the national interest in order to further their political interests. They have repeatedly risked the health and well-being of the nation in order to advance their political interests.
Republicans control Congress, why haven't they done anything to fix it? They have controlled Congress for years now. Why haven't Republicans done anything to fix it?
I doubt it. If Trump will dismantle the "lawyer scam" why has he said nothing about it? Why isn't it in the Republican platform? Where is Trump's policy to eliminate the "lawyer scam"? It's nowhere because it doesn't exist. Trump is heavily reliant upon his lawyers. He has been a party to more than 4,000 law suits. Trump likes lawyers. He has and continues to employ many lawyers.
Except it hasn't been shown. There is no evidence to support your assertion Obama has used the IRS to "manhandle enemies". Unfortunately for you and your Republican cohorts, facts do matter Wellwisher. When you are so reckless with the truth as you are, it damages your credibility with anyone who hasn't drunk the Republican kool-aid? Do you not understand that?
As others have repeatedly pointed out, there is no legitimate reason for Trump to not disclose his tax returns. It's not like the IRS doesn't know what's on his tax returns. The IRS knows what's on his tax returns. He swore to them and he submitted them and the IRS has them. So if Trump were to release his tax returns he wouldn't be disclosing something he hasn't already disclosed to the IRS. Do you not understand that?
Companies are routinely audited by tax authorities. It's the norm. But it doesn't stop companies from disclosing their financial information to investors and others. It happens all the time. Trump is asking the American people to invest in him. He should be willing to disclose his tax returns. But he isn't. That should send up some major red flags. I would never invest in anything without a financial disclosure. And Trump is refusing to provide that disclosure. He wants Hillary to disclose her emails, which she has. He wants Hillary to disclose her schedules. He wants Hillary to disclose information about the Clinton Foundation which she has. But Trump doesn't want to disclose anything. Trump doesn't want to disclose his relationships with foreign businesses and banks. That's a bit of a double standard. If Trump wants to be POTUS he should be at least as transparent as Hillary has been, and he hasn't been. That's a problem.
Bells
Staff member
It isn't a claim. The man is blatantly and openly racist and bigoted. There is a reason why white supremacist groups like the KKK have seen fit to slither out from under their rocks to openly endorse him. Because he is speaking their language. By which I mean, he is literally speaking their language.
We’ve admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves...
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore.
What’s he mean by 1965? Well, reading most of the news, this morning, you’d never know. But I guarantee you that most KKK members and neo-Nazis know exactly what he is talking about.
In 1965, we passed the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law essentially repealed the crux of a 1920s law called the Emergency Quota Act.
The Emergency Quota Act (and a 1924 bill that slightly amended it) set quotas on immigration that were based on the number of people of a nationality currently in a country. The effect and intent of the law was abundantly clear. America was mostly white and European, and the law was going to keep it that way, by putting low and hard caps on “others,” while opening the doors to more white Europeans.
The 1965 law opened up the doors to more immigrants, by bringing in people on the basis of their ability to contribute, and family they had here. It led to larger numbers of Asians, Latin Americans, and Africans immigrating to America.
So, when Donald Trump points to 1965 and says we need to reform that law, “To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms,” he means, “We need to keep America from becoming any more less white than it currently is.”
That’s not all.
In fact, taken with his pledge to deport all undocumented immigrants, overwhelmingly Hispanic, Trump is proposing to increase the share of the population that’s represented by whites.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Forget the optics. Forget the shouting. Look at the proposal he laid out.
It is the biggest gift to white nationalists in 100 years. A return to white dominance.
How do I know? Because people like David Duke have been pushing for it, and white nationalists are eating it up.
From the neo-Nazi (aka “alt-right”) Daily Stormer:
If Trump is elected, he is going to need someone pushing things further right than he is. When David Duke is saying “we need to completely repeal the 1965 immigration act and issue an executive order stating that all citizenship awarded to non-Whites after 1965 was fraud and needs to be stripped from those awarded it,” all of the sudden Trump banning and expelling Moslems becomes normal.
Just to make sure people really understood what he was saying, as a parting shot, Donald Trump said, “We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore.”
The so called policy speech he gave pandered directly to them.
Trump’s immigration policy(sic) speech of 31 August gives us the clearest perspective of an anachronistic nationalism that presumes that the nation is defined by the prerogatives of a racial majority that is rapidly reacting to its insecurity rather than the promise of democracy.
Naked nativism has become motivated by oppressing ethnic minorities defined ignorantly by pigmentation before culture or even class. Its stubborn resistance comes from a false consciousness of what are the material or even ideological causes of economic and status exploitation and alienation.
How many low-information voters will be deceived by simple demagoguery and appeals to the insecurity of cultural differences. Me first is not America First.
Trump appeals to a sentiment that blames privation on immigration of the Other, invariably one that often needs to resist assimilation for valid cultural reasons, but ones for which in a democracy one should not be sanctioned.
What Trump or at least his RWNJ handlers and benefactors replete with their sexist pathologies and the usual GOP power-mania desire is only partially reflected in racialized nationalism that now has become less coded but historically obvious as ethnic cleansing euphemized as immigration policy.
Trump’s ten-point policy now makes that clear. One hopes that the 2016 election will defeat those efforts. You might disagree with calling it fascism, but it is clearly anti-democratic and serves the powerful at the cost of the rights of the powerless. There are real enemies and they are more likely domestic rather than foreign and even more enduring in their bigotry.
Naked nativism has become motivated by oppressing ethnic minorities defined ignorantly by pigmentation before culture or even class. Its stubborn resistance comes from a false consciousness of what are the material or even ideological causes of economic and status exploitation and alienation.
How many low-information voters will be deceived by simple demagoguery and appeals to the insecurity of cultural differences. Me first is not America First.
Trump appeals to a sentiment that blames privation on immigration of the Other, invariably one that often needs to resist assimilation for valid cultural reasons, but ones for which in a democracy one should not be sanctioned.
What Trump or at least his RWNJ handlers and benefactors replete with their sexist pathologies and the usual GOP power-mania desire is only partially reflected in racialized nationalism that now has become less coded but historically obvious as ethnic cleansing euphemized as immigration policy.
Trump’s ten-point policy now makes that clear. One hopes that the 2016 election will defeat those efforts. You might disagree with calling it fascism, but it is clearly anti-democratic and serves the powerful at the cost of the rights of the powerless. There are real enemies and they are more likely domestic rather than foreign and even more enduring in their bigotry.
Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer'
Ethnic cleansing "is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)"
Ethnic cleansing "is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)"
Dan Rather summed it up well in a scathing post he made on his Facebook page:
“Um. Wow. If anybody thought that Donald Trump would deliver a moderated speech on immigration, that ended pretty much in the first moments he walked onto the stage in Phoenix. He claimed it would be a detailed policy address, and yet from the start his tone was a seething, angry attack on what he described as a world of dangerous murderers and rapists who seem to be roaming “sanctuary cities.” Focusing on a few isolated and already well-documented tragedies, he painted the entire undocumented world with the casual brush of violence. This approach was punctuated by family members of those who have died paraded at the end. The crowd – nearly all white from the looks of the cutaway shots – ate it up with a hostility that seems in keeping with those who have flocked to Trump’s angry march through this campaign season. There was of course no mention of the de facto integration of millions immigrants already entwined in the fabric of our daily lives and economy.
I expected a law and order theme, but not this level of searing rhetoric. Of course, I shouldn’t have been surprised. Trump feeds off his crowds and they were giving it right back. It was ultimate in the “Us vs. Them” mentality. Real Americans vs. others. I frankly saw echoes of the George Wallace speeches from the 1968 campaign.
[...]
But any details are beside the point. With a raspy roar, leaning over the podium, Trump delivered his message with glee - This is our country and we are being overwhelmed by hordes not fit to be in our country. He suggested that “These People” are well known to law enforcement and could be rounded up with ease. It was a line that seemed more in keeping with the culture of the old East Germany than the United States. “We have got to have a county folks” he summed it up. “Under a Trump Administration it’s called America first!”
You could try to fact check this speech, but that is a fool’s errand. Trump and Clinton are not running for the president of the same country. The one who wins will be the one whose vision of America most conforms with reality.
Make no mistake, this was a toxic mix of jingoism, nativism, and chauvinism. Many of you would like to think, not in America, not in our country could this type of rhetoric gain currency. But in other countries, and in other times in history, we have seen the impossible become possible to horrific effect. Trump is betting his political future on this idea – that there is a deep, tribal, and dark sea of the molten lava of hate and aggrievement. This volcano from below appeals to dangerous instincts- can it yield a path to the presidency and power?
How do you think this speech will play?”
I expected a law and order theme, but not this level of searing rhetoric. Of course, I shouldn’t have been surprised. Trump feeds off his crowds and they were giving it right back. It was ultimate in the “Us vs. Them” mentality. Real Americans vs. others. I frankly saw echoes of the George Wallace speeches from the 1968 campaign.
[...]
But any details are beside the point. With a raspy roar, leaning over the podium, Trump delivered his message with glee - This is our country and we are being overwhelmed by hordes not fit to be in our country. He suggested that “These People” are well known to law enforcement and could be rounded up with ease. It was a line that seemed more in keeping with the culture of the old East Germany than the United States. “We have got to have a county folks” he summed it up. “Under a Trump Administration it’s called America first!”
You could try to fact check this speech, but that is a fool’s errand. Trump and Clinton are not running for the president of the same country. The one who wins will be the one whose vision of America most conforms with reality.
Make no mistake, this was a toxic mix of jingoism, nativism, and chauvinism. Many of you would like to think, not in America, not in our country could this type of rhetoric gain currency. But in other countries, and in other times in history, we have seen the impossible become possible to horrific effect. Trump is betting his political future on this idea – that there is a deep, tribal, and dark sea of the molten lava of hate and aggrievement. This volcano from below appeals to dangerous instincts- can it yield a path to the presidency and power?
How do you think this speech will play?”
Bells
Staff member
And yet you support a candidate who openly painted them with the same criminal brush and has spent the entirety of his campaign maligning them as criminals and terrible people, as well as demanding they all be deported with his "deportation force".
You keep arguing that Trump's wall is symbolic. It isn't symbolic. His words:
Number one. Are you ready? Are you ready? We will build a great wall along the southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%. They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for the wall. And they're great people. And great leaders. But they're going to pay for the wall.
On day one we will begin working on an impenetrable physical tall powerful beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology including above and below ground sensors. That's the tunnels. Remember that. Above and below. Above and below-ground sensors. Towers. Aerial surveillance. And manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels.
On day one we will begin working on an impenetrable physical tall powerful beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology including above and below ground sensors. That's the tunnels. Remember that. Above and below. Above and below-ground sensors. Towers. Aerial surveillance. And manpower to supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels.
This is the candidate you support. Own it. Own the hateful rhetoric, the open racism and bigotry. This is what you are voting for and openly supporting in your candidate of choice.
To complain about the wall, when he is basing his whole campaign on said wall is, well, laughable. You say that it is rhetoric.. Is that so you can sleep better at night? Is that so you can justify voting for such a candidate?
You should ask the "illegal" you worked with how he feels about Trump and Trump's policy speech.
Spoken like a true Trumpster.
I mean, you are now at the point of blatantly ignoring Trump's own words and racist agenda, because to listen to them would be to face the fact that you are supporting a candidate that what you allege you hate and stand against. Own your candidate well.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
It only seems a non sequitur if you don't remember posts 128.130,133, and 134.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Has Trump spoken against the over 1 trillion dollars wasted on the "war on drugs"?
I am posting against hawkish sellouts to the mic and wall street bankers and for freedom and against supporting idiotic government laws that enrich criminals and harm our southern neighbor.
I dislike the tyranny of the 2 party system of rampant tweedism.
So, the lesser of 2 evils is a shifting target.
Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism.
Vote no to the hawk.
Last edited:
If Trump has so many negative things to say about his country, if things are that bad and there are all these "horrible, horrible" people, why doesn't he find another country to live in?
Bells
Staff member
Yes he has and it's a rehash back to the 80's, which will cost more and be an even bigger waste of money.
You are posting against all of that, while supporting a candidate who is all that you hate. Did you complain when Trump praised the crash that saw thousands lose their homes, because he was able to buy property cheaply? Did you complain when it was revealed that Trump discriminated against black people by refusing to allow them to rent apartments in the buildings he owned?
But again, it is interesting how you ignore the reality of your candidate of choice and continue to make excuses for it.
Sculptor said:
Whatever you say. Keep complaining if that's what gets your buzz on. Your post at #134↑ is what I was responding to, so, you know, kind of hard to forget that one.
Pay attention, next time.
The simple fact is that #134 is a change of subject:
"I have never argued nor ever will argue in favor of racism, sexism, clanism, nor xenophobia."
It's a clumsy distraction, which is why I called it out.
Just like #130↑:
"Bringing claims of racism into the discussion bespeaks desperation."
As Iceaura and Bells have reminded you, now, there isn't any real question of "claims". Donald Trump's racism is pretty well established.
Thus, as I said↑, it's a little late; we're not returning to vague "claims"―this is pretty straightforward.
So you then turn to make this about yourself in #134 in order to go on, a minute later, in #135↑ with some bizarre notion about, "Why is it that racist seem to need to call others racist?"
What the hell? Why are you sticking that distraction into the discussion?
So, yeah, non sequitur.
And, see, that's the thing; there's nothing original about what you're doing. And that's why I'm calling it out.
It was quite serious - give up oversight over conflicts of interest in such a job, and your only protection is elimination of them.
History and Habit
Click to settle.
Maddow↱ is working one of her theses again; the unmooring of American military power was easy enough to perceive in general, but Drift, for instance, was a striking testament to some of the details―it is unclear at this time whether or not the book will actually last as "important", or whether it will require rediscovery in a half-century, or perhaps it will die an infamously lonely and forgotten failed thesis.
I doubt that latter, but hey, only time will tell.
The present thesis is interesting because she clearly has a point, at least superficially; there is some appearance of coincidence 'twixt instability within our two-party tendency and the emergence of nativism.
And the thing about our history of nativism and nationalism is that it's all reactionary; the harder part is figuring out just what people are reacting to and just how in order to create whatever effect the society witnesses.
To this day I recall early 2009, and a fiftysomething white woman in New Hampshire quite literally bawling on camera, "I want my co-oun-oun-ountry ba-a-a-ack!" Jon Stewart took the setup and knocked her down: What country? Back from whom?
And I think it's interesting because part of what would have destabilized the two-party system is the fact of the first black president combined with a quarter-century Republicans spent pitching harder lines appealing to supremacists.
As Frank Rich↱ noted in 2010:
And things have only been getting worse; Republicans have not, in Maddow's terms, been holding their weight in argument, and this emboldened bigotry is what happens when the two-party system comes apart.
Or so goes the argument. There is considerable merit in the proposition, but neither is the history so conclusive; that is to say, we can easily perceive gray areas about the boundaries of the argument―to wit, how do we measure the failure or a party to hold its proper weight in the discourse?
Tweedism is an inherent tendency, one of those things we must guard against as part of our eternal vigilance. Americans, though, really are rather quite accustomed to their two-party system; it will take us a while to figure out how to work a multiparty plurality as early coalition building fails in the most obvious of ways.
Account for the prisoner's dilemma; most Americans will settle on slightly lesser things instead of risk it all for Utopia.
___________________
Notes:
Maddow, Rachel. "Trump anti-immigrant speech follows dark pattern of US history". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 1 September 2016. msnbc.com. 1 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2bJoMil
Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 27 March 2010. NYTimes.cm. 1 September 2016. http://nyti.ms/1HH6NRf
Click to settle.
Sculptor said:
Maddow↱ is working one of her theses again; the unmooring of American military power was easy enough to perceive in general, but Drift, for instance, was a striking testament to some of the details―it is unclear at this time whether or not the book will actually last as "important", or whether it will require rediscovery in a half-century, or perhaps it will die an infamously lonely and forgotten failed thesis.
I doubt that latter, but hey, only time will tell.
The present thesis is interesting because she clearly has a point, at least superficially; there is some appearance of coincidence 'twixt instability within our two-party tendency and the emergence of nativism.
And the thing about our history of nativism and nationalism is that it's all reactionary; the harder part is figuring out just what people are reacting to and just how in order to create whatever effect the society witnesses.
To this day I recall early 2009, and a fiftysomething white woman in New Hampshire quite literally bawling on camera, "I want my co-oun-oun-ountry ba-a-a-ack!" Jon Stewart took the setup and knocked her down: What country? Back from whom?
And I think it's interesting because part of what would have destabilized the two-party system is the fact of the first black president combined with a quarter-century Republicans spent pitching harder lines appealing to supremacists.
As Frank Rich↱ noted in 2010:
The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House―topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman―would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver―none of them major Democratic players in the health care push―received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.
And things have only been getting worse; Republicans have not, in Maddow's terms, been holding their weight in argument, and this emboldened bigotry is what happens when the two-party system comes apart.
Or so goes the argument. There is considerable merit in the proposition, but neither is the history so conclusive; that is to say, we can easily perceive gray areas about the boundaries of the argument―to wit, how do we measure the failure or a party to hold its proper weight in the discourse?
Tweedism is an inherent tendency, one of those things we must guard against as part of our eternal vigilance. Americans, though, really are rather quite accustomed to their two-party system; it will take us a while to figure out how to work a multiparty plurality as early coalition building fails in the most obvious of ways.
Account for the prisoner's dilemma; most Americans will settle on slightly lesser things instead of risk it all for Utopia.
___________________
Notes:
Maddow, Rachel. "Trump anti-immigrant speech follows dark pattern of US history". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 1 September 2016. msnbc.com. 1 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2bJoMil
Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 27 March 2010. NYTimes.cm. 1 September 2016. http://nyti.ms/1HH6NRf
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ill-change-clinton-or-trump-supporters-minds/
Being rational is a lot harder than most people credit.
Also see: http://hpmor.com
Being rational is a lot harder than most people credit.
Also see: http://hpmor.com
If , Hilton, becomes in, will all the Trump supporters becalm terrorists?
Penduroboros
I think we put too much faith in the pendula theses; my father used to use it as his explanation for Congressional and local elections. The thing is that it seems a wise enough observation, as such, but nobody can explain how it works or why it works the way it does.
The American people frequently display a non sequitur politic, like our insistent "both sides" standard that customarily replaces actual facts when we need to restore some "fairness" and "balance" to the difference between the parties; it is, in the end, part of how we absolve ourselves.
Such as it is, nativism and globalism seems a false dichotomy. To wit, if I give you two badly-planned and traditionally poorly-executed plans as options, at what point are you going to say, "Well, can we shore up these plans before we decide?"
The American collective, however, never does that. We blame the politicians in part because we send them out to fail. There is plenty amiss about the politicians, but that doesn't mean the rest of society is clean.
As a general proposition, I'm kind of tired of the people pretending they are blameless. To the one, politicians vote for plenty of bad ides because that's what the people want. To the other, we blame the politicians for trying to give us what we want. And the whole point of it is to absolve ourselves. And I know damn well why I vote for intsitutional Demcorats; most Democratic voters do, too. Here's a count for you: Two Scalias and no Kennedy. The godawful Democratic voters and politiicans Bernie Sanders and his wrecking crew just spent over a year denouncing as corrupt are the reason we don't have a Christian nationalist theocracy. You saw the Gay Fray. You saw the kind of judges American conservatives want. The strange thing about voter dissatisfaction is that we've had generations to address some of what reportedly troubles people, but voters have instructed their governments otherwise. We always say we're voting on taxes, or patriotism, or the economy, or whatever, but that also means we're accepting everything else that comes with.
I remember Randy Tate; he won his first election to the state legislature by falsely accusing his opponent of molesting children; he reached Congress in the '94 Revolution, the only Republican to hold that district. The man he defeated remains in public service as the Washinton state Insurance Commissioner; the man who defeated Tate in '96, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA09), holds the office to this day.
Tate? He was just part of the revolving door. Elected as a part of a protest against such behavior, he went on to become a lobbyist. And not just any lobbyist; he succeeded Ralph Reed as executive director of the Christian Coalition. In 2008 he turned up in Romney's failed nomination bid; these days, he sits on the board of an astroturf lobbying firm. His story is a reminder of what these populist cycles bring: The only Republicans I know who remember or will acknowledge Mr. Tate will hold him up as an example of a problem that "both sides" have, though none can name a Democratic equivalent. We saw a similar phenomenon with the 2010 Tea Party debacle: They elect exactly what they claim to loathe: corrupt, inefficient hacks.
I suppose I should write the unfortunately requisite disclaimer, here, that it's not that Democrats are without their problems; it's just that not all problems are the same, and there are days the "both sides" argument just doesn't apply.
Still, though, I remain dubious about these outbursts of voter dissatisfaction; passion is as passion does, but it seems to me that when it was liberal passion for justice and equality we were expected to have unassailable plans capable of guaranteeing success. I don't know what to tell you about an effective range of plans looking forward, but the conservative argument has often eschewed such plans of its own, preferring instead to believe that if we just leave things the way they are everything will work out just fine.
The sum effect of it all is that the pendulum effect remains undefined; in some ways it is a reasonable description, but in others it is simply inadequate. The Gay Fray, for instance, was not a specific pendulum outcome. As a pendulum thesis, the idea is that a bunch of people climbed into the chamber, caught hold of the pendulum, and then tried to push it as far in one direction as they could; they couldn't push it very far, but built up so much potential energy that when they lost their grip the pendulum swung from about four o'clock or a little later to spinning 'round past midnight and into a tomorrow where the pendulum just clocked them again on behalf of our transgender neighbors.
Globalism can be good or bad or simply there; if I say nativism is virtually never good or simply there, I'm only holding a sliver of space for wome insanely fantastic circumstance I could never predict, like Christian evangelists arriving at some new world inhabited by a sentient and communicative population that would serve itself best simply eradicating the pathogen. In an evolutionary context, I suppose, one can at least try to justify such responses. But those aren't in effect here and now.
Nativism and globalism is simply the latest iteration of the historical dualism―self and other.
The nativists push hard enough, we might see the pendulum swing over the top again when they finally lose their grip entirely.
And if we absolutely must go through this exercise in stupidity, I'll take that outcome. But it would also mean we probably need a new metaphor instead of pendula. Watching the various conservative movements―purity cult (male supremacist), white supremacist, Christian supremacist, nationalist, &c.―repeatedly bash themselves in the head like Ren Höek, the notion of a ninnyhammer thesis starts to sound like a reasonable candidate. And it sure as hell looks and sounds better than penduroboros.
Sculptor said:
I think we put too much faith in the pendula theses; my father used to use it as his explanation for Congressional and local elections. The thing is that it seems a wise enough observation, as such, but nobody can explain how it works or why it works the way it does.
The American people frequently display a non sequitur politic, like our insistent "both sides" standard that customarily replaces actual facts when we need to restore some "fairness" and "balance" to the difference between the parties; it is, in the end, part of how we absolve ourselves.
Such as it is, nativism and globalism seems a false dichotomy. To wit, if I give you two badly-planned and traditionally poorly-executed plans as options, at what point are you going to say, "Well, can we shore up these plans before we decide?"
The American collective, however, never does that. We blame the politicians in part because we send them out to fail. There is plenty amiss about the politicians, but that doesn't mean the rest of society is clean.
As a general proposition, I'm kind of tired of the people pretending they are blameless. To the one, politicians vote for plenty of bad ides because that's what the people want. To the other, we blame the politicians for trying to give us what we want. And the whole point of it is to absolve ourselves. And I know damn well why I vote for intsitutional Demcorats; most Democratic voters do, too. Here's a count for you: Two Scalias and no Kennedy. The godawful Democratic voters and politiicans Bernie Sanders and his wrecking crew just spent over a year denouncing as corrupt are the reason we don't have a Christian nationalist theocracy. You saw the Gay Fray. You saw the kind of judges American conservatives want. The strange thing about voter dissatisfaction is that we've had generations to address some of what reportedly troubles people, but voters have instructed their governments otherwise. We always say we're voting on taxes, or patriotism, or the economy, or whatever, but that also means we're accepting everything else that comes with.
I remember Randy Tate; he won his first election to the state legislature by falsely accusing his opponent of molesting children; he reached Congress in the '94 Revolution, the only Republican to hold that district. The man he defeated remains in public service as the Washinton state Insurance Commissioner; the man who defeated Tate in '96, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA09), holds the office to this day.
Tate? He was just part of the revolving door. Elected as a part of a protest against such behavior, he went on to become a lobbyist. And not just any lobbyist; he succeeded Ralph Reed as executive director of the Christian Coalition. In 2008 he turned up in Romney's failed nomination bid; these days, he sits on the board of an astroturf lobbying firm. His story is a reminder of what these populist cycles bring: The only Republicans I know who remember or will acknowledge Mr. Tate will hold him up as an example of a problem that "both sides" have, though none can name a Democratic equivalent. We saw a similar phenomenon with the 2010 Tea Party debacle: They elect exactly what they claim to loathe: corrupt, inefficient hacks.
I suppose I should write the unfortunately requisite disclaimer, here, that it's not that Democrats are without their problems; it's just that not all problems are the same, and there are days the "both sides" argument just doesn't apply.
Still, though, I remain dubious about these outbursts of voter dissatisfaction; passion is as passion does, but it seems to me that when it was liberal passion for justice and equality we were expected to have unassailable plans capable of guaranteeing success. I don't know what to tell you about an effective range of plans looking forward, but the conservative argument has often eschewed such plans of its own, preferring instead to believe that if we just leave things the way they are everything will work out just fine.
The sum effect of it all is that the pendulum effect remains undefined; in some ways it is a reasonable description, but in others it is simply inadequate. The Gay Fray, for instance, was not a specific pendulum outcome. As a pendulum thesis, the idea is that a bunch of people climbed into the chamber, caught hold of the pendulum, and then tried to push it as far in one direction as they could; they couldn't push it very far, but built up so much potential energy that when they lost their grip the pendulum swung from about four o'clock or a little later to spinning 'round past midnight and into a tomorrow where the pendulum just clocked them again on behalf of our transgender neighbors.
Globalism can be good or bad or simply there; if I say nativism is virtually never good or simply there, I'm only holding a sliver of space for wome insanely fantastic circumstance I could never predict, like Christian evangelists arriving at some new world inhabited by a sentient and communicative population that would serve itself best simply eradicating the pathogen. In an evolutionary context, I suppose, one can at least try to justify such responses. But those aren't in effect here and now.
Nativism and globalism is simply the latest iteration of the historical dualism―self and other.
The nativists push hard enough, we might see the pendulum swing over the top again when they finally lose their grip entirely.
And if we absolutely must go through this exercise in stupidity, I'll take that outcome. But it would also mean we probably need a new metaphor instead of pendula. Watching the various conservative movements―purity cult (male supremacist), white supremacist, Christian supremacist, nationalist, &c.―repeatedly bash themselves in the head like Ren Höek, the notion of a ninnyhammer thesis starts to sound like a reasonable candidate. And it sure as hell looks and sounds better than penduroboros.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
This would be stupid. The major danger of Clinton - WW III - would become even more probable if they would become terrorists.
There is, of course, the general danger of every totalitarian state - and the US moves in this direction - that all the enemies of the leader will be declared terrorist, enemies of the people or so.