Is political partisanship irrational? Is the primary neb-lib model (Star Trek) in fact fascist? Here is a short film that ties it all together ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgRlzFIgm1E
Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2016, 03:15:43 PM
Is political partisanship irrational?
Yes. Have you seen the way other countries do democracy?
Partisanship is not, per se, irrational. One can decide a political party is better overall than another.
When there are two parties, one of which is made up almost entirely of lunatics, then siding with the sane party is rational.
Siding with sanity is always rational, but the Democratic party has some flaws too. Their drive toward globalism (rational) is not always rationally pursued.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2016, 10:16:02 AM
Siding with sanity is always rational, but the Democratic party has some flaws too. Their drive toward globalism (rational) is not always rationally pursued.
One Ring to rule them all ... and in the darkness bind them!
Yeah, but this election doesn't have an Aragorn. And I would settle for an Eowyn...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
Yeah, but this election doesn't have an Aragorn. And I would settle for an Eowyn...
Hillary is Galadriel with the Ring ... a kind of Hecate ;-(
Quote from: Atheon on October 11, 2016, 09:32:13 AMWhen there are two parties, one of which is made up almost entirely of lunatics, then siding with the sane party is rational.
I could actually see myself siding with the Republicans on occasion if they reversed their Southern Strategy and adopted far more centrist views. But at the moment, the naked theocratic views, in addition to a whole host of other issues, make them far too repulsive to support. It would take a lot to fix that wagon, and they'd be practically unrecognizable afterwards, but it's possible.
We must unite behind Saurman or Sauron will win the one ring.
The two party system in a nutshell.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 14, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
We must unite behind Saurman or Sauron will win the one ring.
The two party system in a nutshell.
Denethor and Saruman both looked into something powerful, that looked back into them. Ambition is the original sin. Denethor was the Democrat, Saruman was the Republican.
But I see your version too ... basically if the US and Nato isn't evil, Putin will beat is to it.
The current candidates are neither Denethor or Sauron. They are both diminished. But Clinton is better than Trump, a minor leader of orcs. Trump aligns with orcs. Clinton, aligns with elves, though not one.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 11, 2016, 09:30:06 PM
I could actually see myself siding with the Republicans on occasion if they reversed their Southern Strategy and adopted far more centrist views. But at the moment, the naked theocratic views, in addition to a whole host of other issues, make them far too repulsive to support. It would take a lot to fix that wagon, and they'd be practically unrecognizable afterwards, but it's possible.
Yesterday, NPR interviewed a professor of polisci/history at Boston College, Heather Cox, who spoke to this issue:
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Men-Free-History-Republican/dp/0465024319/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
QuoteWhen Abraham Lincoln helped create the Republican Party on the eve of the Civil War, his goal was to promote economic opportunity for all Americans, not just the slaveholding Southern planters who steered national politics. Yet while visionary Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower shared Lincoln’s egalitarian dream, their attempts to use government to guard against the concentration of wealth have repeatedly been undone by the country’s moneyed interests and members of their own party. Ronald Reagan’s embrace of big businessâ€"and the ensuing financial crisisâ€"is the latest example of this calamitous cycle, but it is by no means the first.
In To Make Men Free, celebrated historian Heather Cox Richardson traces the shifting ideology of the Grand Old Party from the antebellum era to the Great Recession, showing how Republicans’ ideological vacillations have had terrible repercussions for minorities, the middle class, and America at large. Expansive and authoritative, To Make Men Free explains how a relatively young party became America’s greatest political hopeâ€"and, time and time again, its greatest disappointment.
She believes Trump is the end of a current cycle, or at least part of the end. I'm personally not so sure, although she makes a fair case based on past cycles. However, it's not necessarily true that past cycles always repeat. They can spin off into something entirely different. Wherever the Party is headed, the current leadership doesn't seem to want to let go of it's current form, but then that's probably always true.
The Republican Party has to completely shift in order to survive. It can become standard Centrist or maybe shift toward Libertarianism. But it can't survive as "old angry white males". I thought the change would happen after 1996 when Bill Clinton was re-elected, but I was ahead of my time. The Bush/Gore Supreme Curt partisan decision gave them 8 years. Of war and recession...
The typical routine since 1980 has been that the Republicans try to apply bizarre economic theories that fail and the Democrats have to clean up the screw-ups. That can't continue. We can't afford the Republican dreams...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 15, 2016, 06:34:18 AM
The current candidates are neither Denethor or Sauron. They are both diminished. But Clinton is better than Trump, a minor leader of orcs. Trump aligns with orcs. Clinton, aligns with elves, though not one.
Sauron not equal to Saruman ;-) I think you meant Saruman (if you were quoting me). Yes, Clinton supporters are like elves, but like the hideous picture of a Santa elf posted earlier. Santa was a communist.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 15, 2016, 06:34:18 AM
The current candidates are neither Denethor or Sauron. They are both diminished. But Clinton is better than Trump, a minor leader of orcs. Trump aligns with orcs. Clinton, aligns with elves, though not one.
I could name some metrics by which the Turd Sandwich is better, and some by which the Giant Douche is better. They are both awful.
One aligns with Orcs, the other aligns with Uruk-Hai.
Quote from: SGOS on October 15, 2016, 06:58:05 AM
Yesterday, NPR interviewed a professor of polisci/history at Boston College, Heather Cox, who spoke to this issue:
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Men-Free-History-Republican/dp/0465024319/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
She believes Trump is the end of a current cycle, or at least part of the end. I'm personally not so sure, although she makes a fair case based on past cycles. However, it's not necessarily true that past cycles always repeat. They can spin off into something entirely different. Wherever the Party is headed, the current leadership doesn't seem to want to let go of it's current form, but then that's probably always true.
I could see them changing direction or fracturing. Lose enough elections and you're bound to change things, though it seems they're having no problems holding onto Congressional seats, unlike the White House. So why change when you don't have to?
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2016, 12:46:44 PM
I could see them changing direction or fracturing. Lose enough elections and you're bound to change things, though it seems they're having no problems holding onto Congressional seats, unlike the White House. So why change when you don't have to?
That's a good point. I don't think she addressed that.
While the current situation seems like a bit of a crisis, I don't know how it compares to the situations during the past turning points. I've heard for several years comments about the end of the Republican Party, but they keep doing well in congress, and during the part of my life where I got interested in politics (starting with Johnson), Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 years, Democrats for 24.
Things look pretty fubar right now, but it may not mean anything. Actually, I thought that after Nixon, the GOP would be done for 50 years. But they only lost the White House for a piddly 4 years under Carter, and then came back like gangbusters.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 16, 2016, 12:46:44 PM
I could see them changing direction or fracturing. Lose enough elections and you're bound to change things, though it seems they're having no problems holding onto Congressional seats, unlike the White House. So why change when you don't have to?
All politics is local ... the Rs have plenty of governor's mansions and state-houses. People focus too much on the White House.
Quote from: Baruch on October 16, 2016, 03:39:37 PM
All politics is local ... the Rs have plenty of governor's mansions and state-houses. People focus too much on the White House.
For once we can actually agree on something . The real power has always been with the power of the purse which doesn't come from the executive office, it comes from congress downward into statehouses and governorships. One would think that 8 years of ineffective leadership from the wh would teach most democrats this lesson, but I fear we're in for at least another 4 years of having the same lesson beat into us as Democrats. The R's will probably lose the senate, but not the house and definitely not statehouses around the nation. Now if the R's continue to keep trying to put complete idiots in the wh that might change, but it's going to take far longer than anyone expects. When as few as 35% of the population actually votes on election days it's just telling someone else to decide for them.
It's like saying, "Here, you're the dumbest motherfucker in the room. You decide for everyone."
Quote from: Atheon on October 11, 2016, 09:32:13 AM
When there are two parties, one of which is made up almost entirely of lunatics, then siding with the sane party is rational.
So what do you do when both parties are made up almost entirely of lunatics?
I suspect after this debacle, the pubs do split into factions. both calling themselves pubs but the one side of ultra conservative religious nut jobs will find out pretty quick that they don't have the support they think they do and will fall apart in a couple years if that long. The moderates will recognize that there is such a thing as moderate and gain support in the next year but the Trump and nuts like him won't be involved.... I hope.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 11, 2016, 09:30:06 PM
I could actually see myself siding with the Republicans on occasion if they reversed their Southern Strategy and adopted far more centrist views. But at the moment, the naked theocratic views, in addition to a whole host of other issues, make them far too repulsive to support. It would take a lot to fix that wagon, and they'd be practically unrecognizable afterwards, but it's possible.
I could see supporting the GOP as the party of Weicker and Anderson, and of Jerry Ford, Howard Baker, and a long line of moderate, sensible Republicans that used to be the backbone of the party, with whom you could civilly disagree and then come to a compromise.
Not as the absolutist Talebangelical party of Bush Jr and Cruz and Donnieboy and the teabaggers. Never. I would love to be alive a century from now to see what historians write about the party, beyond, "Seriously, what the fuck?"
I used to only need Republicans, to reign in the wackier ideas of the Democrats. But the price is too high, and they have just as many wacky ideas. For other folks here, they want the Democrats to reign in the wackier ideas of the Republicans ... but I think they are in the same boat as I am.
Quote from: Baruch on October 15, 2016, 12:09:24 PM
Sauron not equal to Saruman ;-) I think you meant Saruman (if you were quoting me). Yes, Clinton supporters are like elves, but like the hideous picture of a Santa elf posted earlier. Santa was a communist.
Saruman is fine. Both Sauron and Saruman were evil. And if you want to get into the weeds, they were both rather similar in origin, being Maya or similar and Children of Iluvatar. I've read arguments on either side about just who the Wizards were.
Yes Santa is a Communist. He gives freely to all children according to their needs (in theory).
Was there some point you were struggling to make with that?
But that is not germane.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 19, 2016, 05:05:45 AM
Saruman is fine. Both Sauron and Saruman were evil. And if you want to get into the weeds, they were both rather similar in origin, being Maya or similar and Children of Iluvatar. I've read arguments on either side about just who the Wizards were.
Yes Santa is a Communist. He gives freely to all children according to their needs (in theory).
Was there some point you were struggling to make with that?
But that is not germane.
Posters divert frequently, annoying readers who are more narrow minded. In my case, but not just mine, I slip into metaphor. But to my eyes, letting the "dead guys" off the hook, before Saruman was destroyed, left Gondor still at risk, and thus Strider had no reason to conclude their deal. Being any kind of critic, is inflating, because we assume the role of god-like narrator.
I could go deeper into the LOTR and The Silmarillion. But quite frankly with you as you have exposed yourself in other threads and fora, I don't care to.
Good bye.
Amusing video. The Gary Johnson future isn't in the least bit realistic, though. Neither Johnson nor Stein are really "president material". Though having an idiot in office would still be better than having Trump in office, I don't think it would be better than having Clinton in office.
When Johnson doesn't have an answer, he admits it. Trump makes stuff up, Hillary lies. I think saying "I don't have an answer to that" is both honest and intelligent.
He was asked to name which foreign leader he most admired. A libertarian admiring a head of state? Might as well ask a vegetarian how he wants his steak cooked.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 19, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
When Johnson doesn't have an answer, he admits it. Trump makes stuff up, Hillary lies. I think saying "I don't have an answer to that" is both honest and intelligent.
He was asked to name which foreign leader he most admired. A libertarian admiring a head of state? Might as well ask a vegetarian how he wants his steak cooked.
Admitting you have no idea about what you are talking about when you are running for one of the most powerful positions in the world is not in anyway admirable, it is horrifying. And he only admits it once he is prodded, and pussyfoots around.
He is as dishonest as Hillary, he is just too much of a blubbering idiot to hide it.
Why do people want the head of the Political Science department at the University of Chicago or maybe Columbia, run their country? Why do none of those oh so smart academics, ever run for office? Maybe you don't want to know ... just leave it as inexplicable. I doubt that even Lincoln was the smartest guy in the room in 1861. And if you think Hillary is brilliant, or that Obama is a constitutional scholar ... you need to go back to reading your See Jane Kick Dick In The Balls Book.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 19, 2016, 07:04:52 PM
Admitting you have no idea about what you are talking about when you are running for one of the most powerful positions in the world is not in anyway admirable, it is horrifying.
It's better to bullshit and lie to sound like you know what you're talking about when you don't, then to honestly admit that you aren't all-knowing.
No wonder this is an election between Trump and Clinton.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 20, 2016, 11:58:20 AM
It's better to bullshit and lie to sound like you know what you're talking about when you don't, then to honestly admit that you aren't all-knowing.
Yes, this is correct. Politics isn't about being honest, just appearing honest. It isn't about being smart, just appearing smart. Politics is about persuading people. The Libertarian Party needs to pick a more skilled politician than Johnson, one who can soften the sharp corners of libertarianism, not come of as an ideologue and sell smaller government to the average American as "the common sense" alternative.
I used to take pride in being independent--picking and choosing who and what I'd want to back. But any more, that leaves me squarely and almost 100% democrat. That does not make me happy. It would be good if we had two viable parties giving rational reasons for each of their stands.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 20, 2016, 11:58:20 AM
It's better to bullshit and lie to sound like you know what you're talking about when you don't, then to honestly admit that you aren't all-knowing.
No wonder this is an election between Trump and Clinton.
Hey, welcome to reality. Glad you made it.
Politics is not about ideology, it's about results. And frankly, Clinton does know far more about the political system than the average Joe, and I'm going to say even far more than that than you.
Hitler was persuasive, and a veteran too!
Quote from: Baruch on October 20, 2016, 06:52:13 PM
Hitler was persuasive, and a veteran too!
That's my point, oddly enough; Hitler knew how to operate within the system to get what he wanted instead of standing a corner throwing a hissy fit that the system hates him and he never gets his way and that it's so unfair. Instead Hitler worked within the system to change the system to one he liked, even if that system was one of the most horrific in modern history.
This is simply how it works, and it was another German who really explained it best in Bismark's idea of "realpolitik". Once you have accured enough power through policy based not on ideology but on practicality, then you can start practically applying policy based on ideology.
If you want to change the system, it has to be from within; fighting it from the outside is both ineffective and frankly a pathetically self-absorbed moral masturbation session about how much more principled you are for voting your heart and not your head. If you believe principle is voting in a way that makes the results even less favourable to you because of your pride, you're not principled you're just vain.
Realpolitik ... we are all Nazis now.
Find out what people want to hear, and say that to them. Works every time. Ideology gets in the way of the practicality of finding that out, persuading people (who are already with you but don't know it yet). Persuasion to a noxious ideology won't work ... that is what makes Germans guilty, not just Nazis. The myth of the innocent German, or the innocent Vichy ... is the ugly foundation of modern Europe.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 20, 2016, 07:34:44 PM
That's my point, oddly enough; Hitler knew how to operate within the system to get what he wanted instead of standing a corner throwing a hissy fit that the system hates him and he never gets his way and that it's so unfair. Instead Hitler worked within the system to change the system to one he liked, even if that system was one of the most horrific in modern history.
This is simply how it works, and it was another German who really explained it best in Bismark's idea of "realpolitik". Once you have accured enough power through policy based not on ideology but on practicality, then you can start practically applying policy based on ideology.
If you want to change the system, it has to be from within; fighting it from the outside is both ineffective and frankly a pathetically self-absorbed moral masturbation session about how much more principled you are for voting your heart and not your head. If you believe principle is voting in a way that makes the results even less favourable to you because of your pride, you're not principled you're just vain.
Hmm, I was going to say that Hitler operated outside the system, but you are right. He got the right job, and THEN took over.
I agree about "changing the system". As a college demonstrator, I was approached by some conservative yahoo who dared me to "get into the system and change it, since I was so annoyed". I did, and had a fine 30 year career in Washington DC. I may not have changed MUCH, but I changed some hings in MY little corner. And given that I was just one person, "some change" was pretty good. More details if asked...
I have also spent 30 years sucking DC dick ... ummm!