Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Trump and Armegeddon

Eric has posted a live one here.  MP Emotional Hyper-Democracy


Here are first comments:
 "Armegeddon: I remember almost 8 years ago a bunch of Conservatives saying that Obama becoming President would lead to disaster... I remember quite a few years ago when many thought Jesse would ruin MN... Don't these doomsayers ever get tired of being wrong?
 
I also remember Obama saying that he had to learn a whole lot from the time he was Candidate Obama to the time he sat behind the big desk. I have no doubt that Trump will have to do this also. And as always, I am thankful for gridlock... Those founding Fathers were brilliant. What are the odds that the GOP, the Democrats and Trump can agree on much of anything?
 
So though Obama, Hilary, Romney, Bush, Trump, etc are different, they are still just one person in a huge system, I don't see Armageddon occurring anytime soon." G2A
 
"Root Causes: I think the article is pretty excellent regarding root causes.
 
I am sure these were important:
  • illegal immigrants taking jobs and driving down wages
  • SCOTUS bypassing State control and mandating LGBT marriage
  • the obsession of many people for high foreign content products
  • the desire to buy cheaper, cheaper, cheaper
  • the public school system failing to good deliver results
  • the folks complaining about Christian values
  • the ever growing national debt
  • the fear that SS and Medicare will fail
I personally am starting to like the idea of Trump winning. It seems we need a change agent badly. Maybe he could fill that role quite nicely. (well as long as he can avoid starting WW III) :-)" G2A
Then there are folks like Constance who still don't get it. And insist on pointing fingers elsewhere...
"Read the Sullivan article, folks. But read for ideology, for slant in thought. In just what Eric cites here, you can see a very worrisome and ideological slippage when Sullivan talks of Trump supporters as a white class, rather than a predominantly white MALE class (women who don't pay attention sometimes support Trump, for reasons that Sullivan's discussion of emotional unreality addresses). It's hard for women to be misogynist; less hard for them to be bigots, for instance. Generally, women see right through Donald Trump's ugly relegation of women to the sidelines.

Then, there's Sullivan's conflation of both major political parties into the government that doesn't function. That's a standard Republican and right-wing talk radio line, but we know that in actuality it's the GOP Congressional leadership that, for more than seven years, has refused to compromise on anything with Obama or the Democrats. Look at who stops the government in its tracks. It's not all of us, it's Republicans. Republicans who vote to spend money for programs they like, but then complain about having to raise money to pay for them. Please.

Sullivan's lament here is very upper-class, and quite disdainful of working-class Americans in its own right. there's some truth to his analysis, but he misses a lot that he'd just as soon avoid. He abhors mobs and basically democracy itself, like Jose Ortega y Gasset (in the Rebellion of the Masses). His article is an interesting GOP establishment attempt to understand how the mob got away from them.

But most of America sees Trump for what he is. Let's not do an Andrew Sullivan and pretend that the minority of America that identifies as Republican represents the country. The media obsession with Trump is sinfully misleading in that regard." Constance

28 comments:

Laurie said...

I can't believe you are supporting Trump. I thought you were better/smarter than that.

John said...

Laurie,
My mind is not set, however given a choice between Hillary and Trump I will likely be plugging my nose as I vote....

Anonymous said...

As will I. Bernie is the much better choice, IMNSHO.

Joel

John said...

I really would have loved to have seen Bernie and Trump on a debate stage. It would have been the most interesting spectacle.

Anonymous said...

John, we've found something we agree on.

Joel

Laurie said...

I believe that this case of why
Why Hillary Clinton is a lesser evil than Donald Trump
is made by a libertarian writer. Perhaps you will find it persuasive.

Anonymous said...

SCOTUS bypassing State control and mandating LGBT marriage

Did states control marriage? Let's think first about Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that state control of marriage didn't extend to banning marriages between different races. Was that case wrongly decided? Or should the principle of state control of marriage laws, advocated by so many, allow states to ban interracial marriages? And what about the days before Loving? What was the status of lawful interracial marriages entered into elsewhere, in Virginia? If states are the sole determiner of the validity of marriage, does that mean that people can be lawfully married in some states and not in others? In Virginia, at the time, sexual acts between unmarried people were a crime. Are advocates of state control of marriage comfortable with the possibility that two people who are lawfully and uncontroverisally every where else in the world, to go to prison for committing the marital act in Virginia. What exactly are the upsides of that argument?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Ours is an excellent though messy government due to the split between Federal and State control.

The simple reality is that neither the State nor the Federal politicians resolved the gay marriage issue. The decision was made by 1 SCOTUS Justice, who could have gone either way. That is a lot of power and responsibility.

And as I always say. Half our population thinks LGBT is a behavioral / belief choice and half thinks LGBT is a physiological condition like Race. Until science proves it is physiological this will remain a controversial issue.

The only behavioral / belief system we typically protect is Religion. And that is because it is a core belief from the founding of our country.

So yes the half of the country who was told that their beliefs did not matter by one Justice, and are called bigots / homophobes by the "kind, sensitive and open minded Left" are not happy right now.

jerrye92002 said...

Back to Trump, I think "change agent" is a most hopeful description. We certainly need change (Back to the Future). If Trump gets the nomination and manages to out-outrage Hillary and wins, the hope is that he will push us in the right direction for a change and get effective people around him who are better suited to make it happen. It doesn't seem likely at this point, but it is hope for us eternal optimists.

Sean said...

OK, well buck up. You guys ain't the first to be on the wrong end of a 5-4 decision.

Heard of Bush v. Gore? Citizens United? Shelby County v. Holder? AT&T v. Concepcion?

John said...

And Lord knows we hear the Left gnashing their teeth about Citizens United daily. My point exactly...

My biggest frustration with SCOTUS on the Gay Marriage vote was that the science just isn't there to say LGBT is equivalent to Race, Sex, Age, IQ, Physical Disability or any of the typical protection / equality criteria.

It just came down to one Justice using his judgment... I guess that is why he makes the big bucks...

Sean said...

Back to that old canard. Well, at least you're consistent.

John said...

To be consistent... I am always interested in new studies, science, etc regarding the topic. This one is about elusive as proving when "life" begins... Another topic where the court had to make judgment call.

Laurie said...

It was 5 justices who legalized same sex marriage and I believe marriage is a sacrament or religious belief. My church has supported same sex marriage for many, many years. Making it illegal interferes with our first amendment freedom of religion.

Anonymous said...

The simple reality is that neither the State nor the Federal politicians resolved the gay marriage issue.

does that mean gay people can't get married? Does some sort of inability to resolve marriage issues on the federal level mean that interracial marriages are currently of doubtful validity in Virginia? If that's reality, it's hardly a simple one.

"The decision was made by 1 SCOTUS Justice, who could have gone either way.'

The Supreme Court has 9 justices, and five of them constitutes a majority. Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, but not in the internal operations of the Supreme Court. As someone whose views have on many occasions been supported by a losing minority of justices, this is something I can say with absolute certainty.

"Half our population thinks LGBT is a behavioral / belief choice and half thinks LGBT is a physiological condition like Race."

I have never understood which side of that issue supports which position on gay marriage. It's certainly true that for many people, race is a choice, for whatever that's worth.

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
I am hard pressed to call your church a true religion.

You are still with these folks?

John said...

Also, your church was always free to marry anyone they wanted in a religious ceremony. In the past though the government and society as a whole did not need to recognize it as a legally binding status / contract. (ie no 1st amendment issue there)

John said...

As for the 1 vs 5 vs 9 justices... We knew which way at least 7 of them were going to vote before arguments were even made. So I guess it was either 1 or 2 justices that decided what our social norm was going to be...

Sean said...

"And Lord knows we hear the Left gnashing their teeth about Citizens United daily. My point exactly..."

OK, then, if liberals are supposed to show "sensitivity" to conservatives in the wake of the gay marriage decision, where's the "sensitivity" from conservatives on the campaign finance issue? What are they doing to assure our troubled minds that our system isn't being controlled by big money? What sort of "sensitivity" are Republicans showing on the voting rights changes in Shelby County? How are they ensuring that people aren't getting disenfranchised?

Answer: They aren't showing any such sensitivity. So get over it.

Laurie said...

Who are you to pass judgement on what is a true religion. The Unitarians have a history that goes back more than 500 years (about the same as Lutherans.) This religion also involves many people who were persecuted for their faith in the early years, such as burned at the stake.

John said...

Sean, I must have missed the derogatory names the the Right have been throwing at you "small money" supporters. Do they come anywhere near being as full of vitriol as homophobe, bigot, etc? (more on this later... MP has been blocking my responses to your MP comments...)

Laurie,
I am free to pass judgment regarding a religion at any time. And you are free to ignore my view. From what I have read about UU, my being a significant United Way supporter allows me to claim that the United Way is my second religion. I mean we are all working together to make the world a better place and no deity is involved...

Laurie said...

Clearly you know very little about UU or religion or you wouldn't be so dismissive of it. However, you do have good advice to ignore your views and I may take you up on that suggestion. I have been finding your viewpoint mostly predicatable and boring lately.

John said...

So are these links correct or incorrect?

UU Church or Cult
UU Church or Cult

I am unsure how something that is so open ended can be considered a religion.

jerrye92002 said...

Very interesting take on the Citizens United question. How about this: No corporate contributions and ZERO union contributions to political campaigns? You can't rail against one and not the other and still talk about fairness.

jerrye92002 said...

"...that the science just isn't there to say LGBT is equivalent to Race, Sex, Age, IQ, Physical Disability or any of the typical protection / equality criteria."

And there never will be. Humans are a binary species; you are born with one set of reproductive organs or the other. To the degree we have any inborn instincts at all, it is to perpetuate the species by mating with the opposite sex. (this developed over millions of years, as an evolutionary advantage, by the way) Everything about sexual BEHAVIOR, as regards choice of partner and such, is a CHOICE.

Anonymous said...

And there never will be. Humans are a binary species

If humans were a binary species, there wouldn't be gay people.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

it's pretty funny to compare UU religion to a cult as to me we are the polar opposite of a cult. There is no point in explaining why/how UU is a religion as I think it would be very hard for you to understand. I think many people are more comfortable/ understanding of fundamentalist religion rather than the ambiguity / open minded nature of UU.

John said...

Jerry and Hiram,
I am going to post on the binary topic later. I had an interesting question pop into my head the other day.

Laurie,
Actually I did not compare UU to a cult. The 2 sources that I linked to discussed the different aspects of UU.