I’m gravely concerned about the state of the Union

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think that's an interesting question. Why are some societies more stable than others? 

Does our society have those traits that make it possible to stable and unequal? I would answer no. Such a society would either need fear or a kind of shared value system to enforce stability. 

Typically in history seems like more authoritarian or at least strong leadership are more stable.  I’m not sure if that links to more happiness though.  What are we defining as stable?  Long lasting?  Lacking in violence?  Following consistently policy over the long term?

 

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

The problem with the question is that had he said anything resembling 'yes I agree to a peaceful transfer of power' that would have been *instantaneously* latched onto with statements like 'Trump admits he's afraid he's going to lose the election.'  I mean, he probably wouldn't have even left the podium before that was on some website somewhere.  There wasn't really an answer to that question that would have been a good one.  

He could have stated that whichever party wins the election there should be a peaceful transfer of power.  That would have avoided sounding like he was likely to lose while still upholding the principle.

[Spy Car]

19 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

I agree with this.
 I think the idea of a “leaderless” movement was a good one to try, but I think the protests and Occupy from a decade ago show that it’s not workable. A movement needs strong leadership to prevent the fringe from ruining things.  
Also-there’s an example of me calling out my side.  

I only differ in the consideration that people like ANTIFA are on "our side." I've known this group since my college days, and am well aware that--like the original German ANTIFA in the 1930s--that they consider "liberalism" and liberal democracy as the major stumbling block that keep them out of power.

We are their prime enemies, not the right. I promise you that that's the case.

Same in 1930's Germany. Their "solution then was "Nach Hitler kommen Wir," which translates as "After Hitler, Our Turn" or more commonly, "First Hitler, Then Us."

These people are not on the side of liberal democracy. We are an impediment.

Bill

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Spy Car

[Katy]

43 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

It strikes me that the problem with politics and in this country at large is the same that I see in dysfunctional relationships - focusing on PEOPLE as the enemy instead of the problem itself. 

So instead of focusing on say, how to fix healthcare, it devolves into people shouting about how the other guy is the reason things are bad. That doesn't work in a relationship nor when running a country. 

Historically the USA goes through cycles where politics is vicious, and where it is more calm.

Calling political issues moral when in other times in the cycles of history we've referred to people on the other side of the aisle as us as having a difference of opinion, rather than being evil... that was a decision made by think tanks in the 1990's to manipulate people. I've heard differing opinions as to which side started it this time.  I think historically this behavior gets worse and worse until a new generation that comes along where everyone hates politicians.  Then there's a crisis and we unite against a common enemy, then either by natural cycle or by think tanks viciousness is manipulated until it is at its maximum capacity.

In other words, if we don't break out in war I suspect our children will think we are all idiots for believing any of them.

[Terabith]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well certainly he could have.  But the fact that he could have answered that way doesn't automatically mean that he wasn't trying to answer in what he thought might be the vaguest way possible (I mean, that's what he does anyway. He's super big on the "plausable deniability" thing.  🙄 )

I would give this more credence if he hadn't repeatedly said, ever since 2016, that he would not necessarily accept outcomes of elections, fought a big battle about whether or not there was voter fraud that meant he lost the popular vote when he won the election, constantly jokes about being president for life and tells crowds to chant "twelve more years," is hosting a huge campaign about how mail in votes are inherently fraudulent, and said that "there won't be a transfer."  

At some point, the fact that he's telling us that he's not going to have a peaceful transition regardless of the outcome of the election....we should believe him.  

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

...

I think it's absurd to suggest that we are where we are because of demagogues. Demagogues didn't shift trillions of dollars from the top to the bottom in this country. They didn't trash campaign finance laws. In fact, you know who did that? The politicians that so many believe to be "reasonable" passed legislation that enabled that to occur. 

Income equality goes back decades. Which demagogue is responsible for that? You can find actions on both sides of the aisle that contributed to it. 

"The mess we are in now" is not "now." It's simply more obvious now because the effects are more pronounced. 

So rage and political irrationality are not the answer but what we've been doing for the last half century hasn't been working out so well for most of us. Why would anyone assume that "reasonable people" are capable of doing a better job? 

 

Campaign finance reform was attempted by politicians but shot down by the Supreme Court.  To make a change there will require a constitutional change, and there's only two ways to do that.  Through congress or through the states, neither of which is particularly likely any time soon.

Income inequality is natural in every economy.  No one did this.  We may have huge differences between tech billionaires and those on food stamps, but we still have the richest poor people in the world, so crying income inequality confuses conservatives.  What would be better?  This may be veering too far off topic and into the political though.

[Frances]

9 hours ago, SKL said:

A lot of ugly things are happening.  But this kind of thought is heard every 4 years about this time.  Regardless of who runs and who wins.

I've learned not to allow myself to worry about things I can't control.  The fact is that I'm gonna die someday, one way or another.  No point wasting my remaining life worrying about it.

At least in my lifetime, I don’t recall a significant movement, backed by substantial donations, within one party to get its members to vote for the candidate of the other party (not third party or write-in, but the actual candidate of the other party), even when that candidate wasn’t the sitting president. To me, this is an indication that some in both parties see this election as going far beyond the normal one side wins and the other loses. But maybe I’m not remembering correctly.

[Katy]

50 minutes ago, frogger said:

I'm more conservative in the traditional sense of the word with libertarian thrown in.  Most of us adamantly dislike Trump. I don't understand the surprise.  There is a populist mob that has taken over my party and I don't like it. There is a populist rising on the Demoratic side too. 

There is populist rumblings across Europe. Social media echo chambers  combined with bored isolated people who are frustrated by life in a pandemic is bound to escalate anger and populist thinking. 

 

 

I totally understand this, my DH is a libertarian leaning Never-Trumper, but this particular relative LOVED Trump.  I think the final straws were trashing the "losers" in the military and this quote about not accepting losing the election.

[Frances]

9 hours ago, SKL said:

I agree with happysmilelylady.  I would also note that roughly 4 years is the amount of time it takes most people to forget most things.  There is absolutely nothing new about what is happening today.  It has certainly been worse, in our lifetimes.

I strongly disagree, and personally I think this view is an insult to the majority of presidents and candidates of both parties in modern history.

[ktgrok]

 

31 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The problem with the question is that had he said anything resembling 'yes I agree to a peaceful transfer of power' that would have been *instantaneously* latched onto with statements like 'Trump admits he's afraid he's going to lose the election.'  I mean, he probably wouldn't have even left the podium before that was on some website somewhere.  There wasn't really an answer to that question that would have been a good one.  

Admitting that he could lose would be better for the country than refusing to say he'd transfer power peacefully if he loses. 

And he could easily have said, "we have always had peaceful transitions, not that I think there will be one, because we are going to win, but obviously that is the tradition and one that has to be upheld" or something like that. 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Frances said:

I strongly disagree, and personally I think this view is an insult to the majority of presidents and candidates of both parties in modern history.

Yup. I've had plenty of elections where "my" candidate lost. Only once in my life have i ended up sobbing, going into an actual depression, and researching how to leave the country if need be. 

 

[Spy Car]

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

At least in my lifetime, I don’t recall a significant movement, backed by substantial donations, within one party to get its members to vote for the candidate of the other party (not third party or write-in, but the actual candidate of the other party), even when that candidate wasn’t the sitting president. To me, this is an indication that some in both parties see this election as going far beyond the normal one side wins and the other loses. But maybe I’m not remembering correctly.

One could argue "Our Revolution" in 2016 served a similar end. I would.

Bill

[desertflower]

Hello,

We have been getting reports that this is getting too political.  Please start a private social group.  Thanks.

[Happy2BaMom]

17 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Campaign finance reform was attempted by politicians but shot down by the Supreme Court.  To make a change there will require a constitutional change, and there's only two ways to do that.  Through congress or through the states, neither of which is particularly likely any time soon.

Income inequality is natural in every economy.  No one did this.  We may have huge differences between tech billionaires and those on food stamps, but we still have the richest poor people in the world, so crying income inequality confuses conservatives.  What would be better?  This may be veering too far off topic and into the political though.

It isn’t true that we have the richest poor people in the world. Maybe if you compare the US to India, or Pakistan, or the like, we look better. But if you compare our poor to other highly developed industrial economies, our poor tend to have fewer services, a lack of access to medical care (if any), and face a crap ton of laws that protect corporations and the powerful vs the weak. Don’t forget to Add in the for-profit incarceration system. 

There is FAR less inequality in other Western democracies. 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Rosie_0801]

I'm locking the thread. 
As Desertflower said, take it to the social groups.

[Rosie_0801]

The conversation can be continued here if you are a member of the politics group. If you're not, you'll have to apply to join and wait for Amira to confirm you because she's the group admin.