Trump protestors

[Delta1212]

Except it seems that socialism is actually easiest to get support for in the city where people are surrounded on all sides by "the other" and hardest to get support for in the countryside.

 

That seems to imply that the problem is less that the population is not homogenous and more that large sections of the population has had little or no exposure to the peoples and cultures that make up a large part of the rest of the population.

 

Homogeneity is far less important than recognition of similarities and acceptance of differences.

 

 

Here, RIGHT HERE, is where you fail as an American.

 

Remember it. It's important.

 

In treating economic solutions like socialism, capitalism, and communism as entire systems, you push ignorance into a situation that needs information and critical thinking. By conflating socialism with communism (Oh, I defined socialism wrong? OK then communism), you're sticking your head in the sand about ownership and economic responsibility. You've admitted you like owning the roads and parks and museums, which we've chosen to treat socialistically, yet you continually refer to socialism like communism and always assume it's replacing capitalism somehow.

 

I guess I can understand why you don't recognize good socialism when you see it, mostly because people like you who label themselves conservative always insist on padding social programs with lots of capitalist concerns, to make them seem less communistic in your minds. I don't know why you think having the People own certain processes like transportation infrastructure is the same as state ownership, where you would have no say.

 

In all the years I've discussed politics with you, you've always allowed your fear of paying for lazy people to override your basic care and concern for those in legitimate need of social programs. If I sift through the waffle long enough, I find that you support a helping hand for all the widowed mothers, but you listen to the other fear-mongers and disallow funding because that same helping hand program might benefit a few you've judged as undeserving. So People suffer because you can't figure out how we can cover basic needs for human dignity and still make a profit, or because you purposely misunderstand how social responsibility increases overall benefit while still allowing you to be in a privileged class.

I still think the primary liberal vs conservative disagreement on social programs is not whether or not they should exist. It's a question of priorities. The liberal perspective is that everyone who needs help should receive it, even if it means some people who don't need help are able to take advantage of the system. The conservative perspective is that no one who doesn't need help should be able to take advantage of the system, even if it means some people who need help don't get it.

 

In reality, of course, no program is going to be able to help every single person who needs assistance and no program is ever going to be completely proof against gaming the system. Most people fall on a continuum of balancing these priorities holding one up higher than the other but not completely discounting the lesser (in their eyes) concern.

[tar]

Phi,

 

A failed American??

 

That is not American of you to cast me out of the club based on my not adhering to your socialist beliefs.

 

Regards, TAR

[imatfaal]

Phi,

 

A failed American??

 

That is not American of you to cast me out of the club based on my not adhering to your socialist beliefs.

 

Regards, TAR

 

No Tar - it is not because you don't agree with Phi that he is criticizing you. It is that you either deliberately or otherwise misrepresent/misunderstand every political discussion and debating point made; you then push your own brand of uncritical fact-free guesswork as a counter-position. And many of us feel that it is that form of failure to grasp the political situation and to put the effort into understanding basic economics, civics and politics that has lead our nations (plural) into dreadful decisions.

 

I can cope with WaitforUfo's brand of right-wing politics (I hate it - but at least he thinks, understands, and makes a decision) - your decision-making process is so willfully ignorant that it becomes dangerous

[tar]

Phi,

 

My allowing the switch from socialist to communist was because my drift was that socialism requires the idea that everybody takes care of everybody else. This is easier to do, when you think of the other person as on the same team.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

but here we have the protests in the street that say that all we fear from Trump, all the demonization of Trump, the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic misogynist claims of Hilary and Warren and Reid are true, and we must take to the streets to keep it from happening in our county

 

One must ask which party, in this debate is being the most divisive. Preventing Trump from getting into office was what one side attempted. Preventing Hilary from getting into office is what the other side did in this election. With demonization on both sides. Innuendo and slippery slopes and evil intent on the other person's part. The fate of the country in terms of supreme court and laws and international status hanging in the balance.

 

Thing is, Trump won. The debate is over. The other side is not now, or ever was as evil as the other side says. We would not have lost the country had Hilary been elected, and we will not lose the country now that Trump will be president.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

"demonization on both sides" is a false equivalence. The breadth and depth of demonization was not at all equal. Don't pretend it was.

 

"Trump won. The debate is over" Umm, why did that not apply to Obama taking office? Or, in a more general attitude, the civil war?

 

In the city, where people have different clothes and different churches and different moral values, where one feels that the other is the other, some third person, socialism is not as easy. It is a we they thing. Like the reason we moved out of East Orange was the crime and drugs that were evident as more blacks moved in and more whites moved out. Racist? I guess. But socialism would say that Syrian refugees are welcome to share the wealth that mostly non-Syrians have created. And the xenophobic reaction is to suggest that Syrians make their own county better, not come over here and enjoy the situation we have created for ourselves.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Racist? Yeah, probably.

 

Did it occur to you that immigrants create wealth for others? The ideological framework of this country costs nothing, the physical framework is already there and immigrants tend to work very hard — they don't take for granted a lot of things that non-immigrants do, and they do labor that the entitled among us don't tend to want to do — and they pay their taxes.

[tar]

imatfaal,

 

The shoe goes on the other foot as well. I got into it with Phi over dropping California, to view the will of the rest of the country. 49 states popular vote, together, went for Trump. That is with New York and the Great Lakes and the NE included. I am not actually leaving California out, I am just dropping them to see what the country thinks, without them.

 

How this is misrepresenting the other's debating point is not clear to me. I never actually dropped the concerns of California, Phi just says I don't care what they think. It has nothing to do with my reason for dropping California. Any misrepresentation was done by Phi as to my reasons for looking at the popular vote sans California.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

Except it seems that socialism is actually easiest to get support for in the city where people are surrounded on all sides by "the other" and hardest to get support for in the countryside.

 

Yet rural subsidies exist as well, they just aren't considered socialism. And I'm sorry but some of the lack of support is just plain pigheadedness. I've heard of rural conservatives who think housing subsidies that could help them with attracting workers should be abolished because they conflict with private business concerns that can provide the same services (marked up for profit, I assume). There is definitely some personal nose-cutting for face-spiting going on there.

 

I still think the primary liberal vs conservative disagreement on social programs is not whether or not they should exist. It's a question of priorities. The liberal perspective is that everyone who needs help should receive it, even if it means some people who don't need help are able to take advantage of the system. The conservative perspective is that no one who doesn't need help should be able to take advantage of the system, even if it means some people who need help don't get it.

 

It's true that nobody wants to shun the widowed mother of four. It's also true that nobody wants to pay for people who are capable of working themselves. Whatever the perspective, the reality is that the "conservatives" shut down the 93% good because the 7% is unacceptable to them. They usually aren't even willing to work to reduce the 7%, they just want it all scrapped, which tells me how powerful their fear really is.

 

Phi,

 

A failed American??

 

That is not American of you to cast me out of the club based on my not adhering to your socialist beliefs.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Always tragic how you miss the point. Not adhering to my beliefs has NOTHING to do with it. I thought I was pretty darn clear that it's because you (seemingly purposely) misunderstand what you deride and refuse to learn.

 

You live in America, but I don't think you're trying to be an American. You have no stance based on understanding of reality, imo. It's like you know the right thing to do, but you know it would be too hard, you just don't have the energy, and it's not so bad really.

 

Phi,

 

My allowing the switch from socialist to communist was because my drift was that socialism requires the idea that everybody takes care of everybody else. This is easier to do, when you think of the other person as on the same team.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Another part of your waffleyness. You want us to be on the same team, but you don't think many are deserving of it, and you might agree that it would make sense to have minimum standards of living, but only if you get to judge everybody who might benefit from it, based on your privileged standards.

[tar]

swansonT,

 

We are a country of immigrants. I have nothing against them. And I accepted Obama as my president and he is my face to the world. I was not a birther. I said the debate was over in terms of it is too late to demonize Trump in the hopes of defeating him. Now demonization of Trump is demonization of the soon to be president of the U.S. which is by definition cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

imatfaal,

 

The shoe goes on the other foot as well. I got into it with Phi over dropping California, to view the will of the rest of the country. 49 states popular vote, together, went for Trump. That is with New York and the Great Lakes and the NE included. I am not actually leaving California out, I am just dropping them to see what the country thinks, without them.

 

How this is misrepresenting the other's debating point is not clear to me. I never actually dropped the concerns of California, Phi just says I don't care what they think. It has nothing to do with my reason for dropping California. Any misrepresentation was done by Phi as to my reasons for looking at the popular vote sans California.

 

Regards, TAR

 

OK, since you're obviously having trouble remembering who is who, I retract my criticism of your stance. This could be a medical issue, and if it is, I apologize.

 

If you're having difficulties remembering who you're discussing things with, please see your doctor. Maybe ask him about the conservative fear thing.

[tar]

Phi,

 

 

My privileged standards.

 

I have lived under the same rules and been given no more than everybody else.

 

Well, except for the sacrifices of my parents to send me to a private school where I learned the honor code, and to work for the benefit of the team I am on and not for personal advantage, and not to cheat.

 

Both my parents were teachers and I did get a college education because my father taught at the school. So I have some privilege, but not in the way you are suggesting. I worked all my life, served in the Army and my wife worked all her life. We pay the mortgage for the home we have. We took out the loans to send our daughters to school. My daughter earned a fellowship for a year of her PhD work. I do not figure I have been given some largess that I now need to share with others based on some Phi principle of Americaness.

 

Regards, TAR

phi,

 

I am sorry, I didn't look back. I got all of a sudden this "we" think you are a dangerous thinker thing, and who's point was who got blurred.

 

Although the conservative fear thing I think was established in some thread I was not a part of, and I think we all have a conservative and a progressive part of our thinking and worldview.

 

For instance the people afraid of Trump being a Nazi, are not conservatives.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

imatfaal,

 

The shoe goes on the other foot as well. I got into it with Phi over dropping California, to view the will of the rest of the country. 49 states popular vote, together, went for Trump. That is with New York and the Great Lakes and the NE included. I am not actually leaving California out, I am just dropping them to see what the country thinks, without them.

 

How this is misrepresenting the other's debating point is not clear to me. I never actually dropped the concerns of California, Phi just says I don't care what they think. It has nothing to do with my reason for dropping California. Any misrepresentation was done by Phi as to my reasons for looking at the popular vote sans California.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

You never adequately explained what the reason was. You could just as easily drop the sunshine belt, or a region in the midwest, and say the rest of the country was for Clinton. And it would be just as meaningless.

[tar]

And this is a general consideration of mine. You can't demonize everybody that holds a goofy thought or a special interest thought, or a thought you disagree with, or you wind up with nobody that is not a demon.

[Delta1212]

I think you are missing that being able to go to a private school and afford a college education is exactly the kind of privilege that Phi is talking about.

 

There is a disconnect, because when a lot of people think of "privilege" they think of elitist who have the world handed to them. Then they look at their own struggles and the work they had to do to get where they are and they think "what privilege."

 

But privilege is not defined by whether anyone has it easier, but by whether anyone had it harder. And life is not a binary of work/no work. In most cases, privilege is a multiplier on the effect of effort. So you can work extremely hard to get where you are and still be privileged by the fact that the same amount of effort has not gotten many other people nearly as far, or by the fact that they were never given an opportunity to put that effort in in order to acheive those results in the first place.

 

Most people don't recognize the privilege that they have because they think having had to work automatically means that they aren't privileged and, frequently, that it is just a matter of other people having to do the same work they did in order to get to where they are. That in effect, they deserve what they have because of the work they put in, and you can't be privileged if you are just getting what you deserve.

 

It's a major blind spot in our culture.

[dimreepr]

 

OK, since you're obviously having trouble remembering who is who, I retract my criticism of your stance. This could be a medical issue, and if it is, I apologize.

 

If you're having difficulties remembering who you're discussing things with, please see your doctor. Maybe ask him about the conservative fear thing.

 

 

The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell

 

Just saying...

[swansont]

Phi,

 

 

My privileged standards.

 

I have lived under the same rules and been given no more than everybody else.

 

Well, except for the sacrifices of my parents to send me to a private school where I learned the honor code, and to work for the benefit of the team I am on and not for personal advantage, and not to cheat.

 

Both my parents were teachers and I did get a college education because my father taught at the school. So I have some privilege, but not in the way you are suggesting. I worked all my life, served in the Army and my wife worked all her life. We pay the mortgage for the home we have. We took out the loans to send our daughters to school. My daughter earned a fellowship for a year of her PhD work. I do not figure I have been given some largess that I now need to share with others based on some Phi principle of Americaness.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

So you have some idea of what privilege is, but obviously not all. It's also about what barriers you don't face, which don't fall into the "what I was given" basket. Citing privilege isn't a claim that you didn't have to work hard for what you achieved. It's just that others have to work even harder, even if they started at the same point (and many don't start there)

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I explained exactly the reason. California always comes late in the evening and always reverses the lead the red has. This time their 55 was not enough, which means quite literally that the rest of the country was for red, in both pure votes and electoral votes.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

My privileged standards.

 

I have lived under the same rules and been given no more than everybody else.

 

Well, except for...

 

... private schooling that robbed resources from the public option, resulting in a more skewed view of privilege and learning, and generally being sheltered from contact with those much less fortunate.

 

... never being part of a "random search" by police.

 

... the fact that I'll be a less likely suspect in a white murder despite the fact that 82.4% of white murders are done by other white people, because for some reason whites don't have a violent stereotype associated with them.

 

... you get to simultaneously reap the benefits of what your white forefathers stacked up in your favor, PLUS you now get to be completely colorblind, claiming it doesn't matter to you, that's not how you feel, we don't need to talk anymore about that whole silly race business, right?

 

... my daily life isn't plagued by all the myriad disrespectful stances people take against me just because of how I look. I don't see the state of wealth disparity and racial inequality to the degree others do, so I don't see what the big deal is. The tower is white, and the view is breathtaking.

For instance the people afraid of Trump being a Nazi, are not conservatives.

 

The people I've seen comparing Trump to Hitler (not being a Nazi, please stop being purposefully misleading) aren't doing it out of fear, they're drawing obvious comparisons. If you can't see them, you really have blinders on.

[Delta1212]

SwansonT,

 

I explained exactly the reason. California always comes late in the evening and always reverses the lead the red has. This time their 55 was not enough, which means quite literally that the rest of the country was for red, in both pure votes and electoral votes.

 

Regards, TAR

That seems like rather a fiction based on the timing and easy grouping of the vote counting, though. If California's votes were counted first, would that make a difference?

 

What if Florida and Texas were the last two states to come in with their results? Without them, Clinton would have had a lead in the Electoral College and an even bigger lead in the popular vote.

 

Minus Texas and Florida, quite literally the entire country voted for Clinton, but their votes were enough to reverse the election.

[tar]

swansonT,

 

But this barriers I didn't face thing, is somewhat ambiguous. My last name has often been thought of as Jewish yet I overcame the barriers that may have set. My private school was expensive yet my parents found the money. I quit after my freshman year and went to Public school, because I didn't want my father sacrificing if I was getting Cs mostly and an F in latin. I squandered the privilege.

 

There is also, in addition to working hard, a level of capability I had, be that intelligence or ethics or education or training, or ability to take on responsibility and risk, that allowed me to get paid more that minimum wage. These other factors are not privilege per se in the way Phi always states it.

 

Mike Jordan was priviledged with great talent and ability in basketball. Does this mean he should give all his money to some Meth addicts that need help in the hills of West Virgina?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 14, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

Does winning the genetic lottery in terms of raw ability mean that you inherently deserve more than those who didn't get lucky? That you are, in effect, qualitatively better than them as a human being?

 

But yes, of course the barriers are ambiguous. That's why it's such a difficult subject. It is so much harder to see the obstacles that were simply never in your path. That you never encountered. And that you can easily take for granted as not being a part of your life.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Delta1212

[tar]

Phi,

 

I understand why the people are in the street. They do not want America to turn ugly and treat blacks and Muslims badly. Neither do I, but I am not in the streets, because I am hoping such does not occur, and I am hoping Trump does what he says he can do, and bring productive businesses back to the cities and depressed areas of our country. And I am blaming you guys, for the division in our country. You say I don't see it because I don't suffer it, because I am inflicting it. Well I am not inflicting it. I am a citizen like everybody else and I look after my neighbors. What ever color or race they happen to be.

 

My leaving an area that was increasing black was not because blacks moved in, but because crime and drugs and danger to my wife and daughter moved in. If there was causation between the blacks and the increased danger, I was right in moving out. If there was not, I was racist to move out. But blaming me and my privilege for the plight of blacks is somewhat goofy.

 

If there is a right way to do things, that creates wealth and value, safety and security, then we should do those things. And we don't have to have a certain color of skin to do it right.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

You're not personally oppressing anyone. What you are doing is ignoring serious instructional problems that are faced by other people but not you, and then blaming people who point this out for drawing attention to existing divisions that you aren't inerested in solving as if they are the cause of those divisions instead of just getting in the way of you pretending that they don't exist.

 

You aren't a bad person. I think you are probably a fairly good person. But you are willfully closing your eyes to serious problems and seem to get upset whenever anyone points out that these are problems that won't just go away if everyone shuts up about them.

 

In effect, while I do not think that you are in any way evil, I do think that you are much more comfortable being a good man who does nothing than confronting the idea that evil is being done within our own borders to our own citizens frequently by otherwise normal people.

 

And that it is easier to do that if blame can be laid at th feet of people who complain instead of listening to and thinking about the things that are causing the complaints.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Why do you say I won the genetic lottery by having abilities. What about my abilities are not also available to others of different race? There are very smart and responsible and capable black men and women that I worked with in my company that did what I did, got paid what I got paid and bought a house and a car like I did. My company hired all sorts of people from all over the world. Common thread was they were good at what they did, and were valuable to the company and showed up sober every day and took on the responsibility of making our products and services the best available.

 

The narrative that I hold the keys to society because I am white, and I am keeping blacks down on purpose, is entirely fiction. I have worked side by side with blacks though out my army career and private life.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Race isn't the only advantage that people can be born with. You brought up natural talent and ability. Some of that is being brought up in the right environment, which is also down to luck since children don't have any control over their earliest environment, and some of that is down to genetics.

 

That comment wasn't about race.

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I explained exactly the reason. California always comes late in the evening and always reverses the lead the red has. This time their 55 was not enough, which means quite literally that the rest of the country was for red, in both pure votes and electoral votes.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

So being on the west coast somehow means something here? This is like saying the person on the inside loop of a 400 meter race somehow has the lead, while ignoring the effect of radius of the track.

 

Nothing is "erased". The lead is an illusion, simply because of the order in which the ballots are counted. Why does that order mean anything?

swansonT,

 

But this barriers I didn't face thing, is somewhat ambiguous. My last name has often been thought of as Jewish yet I overcame the barriers that may have set. My private school was expensive yet my parents found the money. I quit after my freshman year and went to Public school, because I didn't want my father sacrificing if I was getting Cs mostly and an F in latin. I squandered the privilege.

 

There is also, in addition to working hard, a level of capability I had, be that intelligence or ethics or education or training, or ability to take on responsibility and risk, that allowed me to get paid more that minimum wage. These other factors are not privilege per se in the way Phi always states it.

 

Mike Jordan was priviledged with great talent and ability in basketball. Does this mean he should give all his money to some Meth addicts that need help in the hills of West Virgina?

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

Nobody has asked Jordan to give all of his money to anyone. Hyperbole much?