03-20-2024, 10:28 PM
putnam6,
You're very kind.
I'm not really out to be "convincing" in the regular sense. It's just that I enjoy being corrected... it's how I learn. I can only hope my responses aren't seen as an offense of some kind.
When a thread like this exists, I find it suffers an unfortunate hazard... partisanship. Of all the things that can foil any discussion, partisanship is the most aggravating to me. Religion in most civilized places manifests with an inherent respect for those who don't believe... partisanship has no respect for anyone theoretically outside the party (or its attendant characteristics.) It gets ugly fast.
But before I go further, let me address your specific points:
... if the world is 100% that reality your response implies I have 2 questions.
Is that how you want your country/government to operate?
I think it's more important that I specify, what I want of the operation of government can only be expressed from my perspective and thus wouldn't be meaningful to many. The appropriate question to me seems to be "What do WE want?" We have a good starting place, much of the foot work is already in place. The hybridization of republic and democracy seem the best of the lesser-flawed potentials... (There are certain irritants the government should have avoided, such as the elite's penchant for cloistering (and profit hording) was not balanced with proper transparency and accountability. But that's not an easy fix, especially now.)
We needn't abandon the experiment... we just need to stop pretending that the system is "seeing to itself." It is not. Citizens need to engage differently, before the entrenched make that impossible, or worse, a crime.
Which candidate can navigate that reality the best, while ensuring we don't have WWIII, an economic collapse, and perhaps offer some stability and a chance for improved livelihoods for the lower and middle classes?
I need to know the candidate. In all practicality that is impossible. Candidates are 'party-sanctioned' offerings. I don't like them... they seem like autocratic 'frat houses.' (Or maybe like big music labels, or Hollywood studios.) They take credit for every progress and target their opponents for all deficiencies - predictably.
If you ask any candidate to list their supporters, they will lead with the biggest donor... inadvertently telegraphing that money is what matters most. I can't fund a candidate when I have to fund myself. I'll always be at the bottom of the list.
Some of the challenges we face are surprisingly simple... with simple solutions that "just can't be" in the eyes of 'big money' parties.... they'll 'see to it' that they become 'complicated' and require multiple layers of middlemen (money again.)
I can't declare that one candidate or another is necessarily better or worse because I have no way to reasonably expect that I can count on them to actually "do" anything. They make big promises, and grandiose plans... then it won't happen because of "politics." Over and over, administration after administration, year after year. And we never tire of the evident excuse-making machinery that somehow never changes.
If you feel that WWIII is a realistic threat, consider: Could ANYONE really stop that? Really? When a "government" wants to go to war... can anyone really stop that? I thought about it, and I can't remember that ever happening... such a person said "Stop!" and the war was over or averted? I don't think that's how wars work.
Economies operate based upon whatever the hell bankers say it does. Governments can only plead, threaten, or negotiate with them to avoid utter economic collapse. That problem has to do with THE bank being more powerful than government. Government can do nothing other than break the covenant which they embarked upon granting all monetary policy to a private entity. In short... the economy is not a government "thing" ... it could have been (maybe even should have been) but it is not.
As for the 'classes' non-elite. I, for one, get the impression that only when it affects voting does it really matter to politicians. Sad, but true.
And now for the TLDR part... go on - you can skip this I know my response is way too long already.
I hesitated even posting here because I know it's not Deny I's mission statement and this haven was born because of the saturation of this topic elsewhere.
If the DI's PTB determines please remove the thread and I'll refrain from further discussing the topic
I like the moderation style here at DI.
DI doesn't want to "stop" political discussions... DI attempts to minimize posting behaviors that are antithetical to civil discourse.
Especially when directed at another member, name calling, derisive memery, dehumanizing characterizations, personal attacks, libelous or slanderous accusations, are simply unacceptable.
If we want to talk about politics... let's talk about politics.
Politics is not defined as "what the politicians say." In fact, most politicians never even talk about politics. Only beautifully virtuous, or righteously necessary "causes."
"Politics" is a valuable concept to explore, if we want to understand how to get along with each other.
Political issues are about things like due process, limits to authority, the application of social justice, defensible rights, recognizing sovereignty, and under what terms those things can be agreed upon. How we get there is the dialogue... not a "fight."
Except essentially, politicians are all 'activists.' Every. Single. One. Every utterance feels like "fighting words" with that type.
The subject of politics has nothing to do with the personal lives of politicians, how idiotic they might appear, or how poor of character they may be. The decision to support one or another is entirely individual. Everyone should vote how they will, and people should neither call out their choice like it's a 'club' nor attack people who might align with a different 'club' (that's not politics... that's behavior.)
US Political parties (all two of them) foist up candidates based upon who knows what - because it is clearly NOT always merit.
Then the melee begins... over personalities, and all the baggage that can be laid upon them. Sounds an eminently wise way to select a "leader," right? Not to me.
The political duopoly has managed to even fix it so that any non-party candidate has to overcome the "why bother" hurdle - convincing most everyone that any vote outside the two parties is NOT 'wasted.' The duopoly fills the field and have a permanent foothold within in the system, everywhere. Neither party "protected" us from the affliction we now face.
Partisanship is a club. Made and nurtured by people for whom club membership is a necessary "given."
Ironically "Politics" was never a "clown show" until the media began its "activist journalist" phase (Dear Lord, please make it end.)
The reporting media industry suddenly threw out the notion of "The facts matter... let the public "decide."
Before that such manipulation of stories and editorials stood out, when they happened. It was often called out. Now, the absence of editorialization is very rare.
Now partisanship is almost everywhere... all the time... even here among the virtual spaces, it has spewed its particular stylish brand of 'information.'
The monopoly of information was so strong and so pervasive that they almost successfully labeled anything other than their own narrative as "mis" or "dis" information - by virtue of it not being their property. We appear to have slowed them... for now.
By the way, I applaud the courage and character of any off-party candidate... the duopoly will certainly not be "welcoming" and looking to cooperate with them.
There you have it... I talked about politics without resorting to adolescent crap-flinging, hyperbolic flummery, or other nonsense.
See? It can be done.
You're very kind.
I'm not really out to be "convincing" in the regular sense. It's just that I enjoy being corrected... it's how I learn. I can only hope my responses aren't seen as an offense of some kind.
When a thread like this exists, I find it suffers an unfortunate hazard... partisanship. Of all the things that can foil any discussion, partisanship is the most aggravating to me. Religion in most civilized places manifests with an inherent respect for those who don't believe... partisanship has no respect for anyone theoretically outside the party (or its attendant characteristics.) It gets ugly fast.
But before I go further, let me address your specific points:
... if the world is 100% that reality your response implies I have 2 questions.
Is that how you want your country/government to operate?
I think it's more important that I specify, what I want of the operation of government can only be expressed from my perspective and thus wouldn't be meaningful to many. The appropriate question to me seems to be "What do WE want?" We have a good starting place, much of the foot work is already in place. The hybridization of republic and democracy seem the best of the lesser-flawed potentials... (There are certain irritants the government should have avoided, such as the elite's penchant for cloistering (and profit hording) was not balanced with proper transparency and accountability. But that's not an easy fix, especially now.)
We needn't abandon the experiment... we just need to stop pretending that the system is "seeing to itself." It is not. Citizens need to engage differently, before the entrenched make that impossible, or worse, a crime.
Which candidate can navigate that reality the best, while ensuring we don't have WWIII, an economic collapse, and perhaps offer some stability and a chance for improved livelihoods for the lower and middle classes?
I need to know the candidate. In all practicality that is impossible. Candidates are 'party-sanctioned' offerings. I don't like them... they seem like autocratic 'frat houses.' (Or maybe like big music labels, or Hollywood studios.) They take credit for every progress and target their opponents for all deficiencies - predictably.
If you ask any candidate to list their supporters, they will lead with the biggest donor... inadvertently telegraphing that money is what matters most. I can't fund a candidate when I have to fund myself. I'll always be at the bottom of the list.
Some of the challenges we face are surprisingly simple... with simple solutions that "just can't be" in the eyes of 'big money' parties.... they'll 'see to it' that they become 'complicated' and require multiple layers of middlemen (money again.)
I can't declare that one candidate or another is necessarily better or worse because I have no way to reasonably expect that I can count on them to actually "do" anything. They make big promises, and grandiose plans... then it won't happen because of "politics." Over and over, administration after administration, year after year. And we never tire of the evident excuse-making machinery that somehow never changes.
If you feel that WWIII is a realistic threat, consider: Could ANYONE really stop that? Really? When a "government" wants to go to war... can anyone really stop that? I thought about it, and I can't remember that ever happening... such a person said "Stop!" and the war was over or averted? I don't think that's how wars work.
Economies operate based upon whatever the hell bankers say it does. Governments can only plead, threaten, or negotiate with them to avoid utter economic collapse. That problem has to do with THE bank being more powerful than government. Government can do nothing other than break the covenant which they embarked upon granting all monetary policy to a private entity. In short... the economy is not a government "thing" ... it could have been (maybe even should have been) but it is not.
As for the 'classes' non-elite. I, for one, get the impression that only when it affects voting does it really matter to politicians. Sad, but true.
And now for the TLDR part... go on - you can skip this I know my response is way too long already.
I hesitated even posting here because I know it's not Deny I's mission statement and this haven was born because of the saturation of this topic elsewhere.
If the DI's PTB determines please remove the thread and I'll refrain from further discussing the topic
I like the moderation style here at DI.
DI doesn't want to "stop" political discussions... DI attempts to minimize posting behaviors that are antithetical to civil discourse.
Especially when directed at another member, name calling, derisive memery, dehumanizing characterizations, personal attacks, libelous or slanderous accusations, are simply unacceptable.
If we want to talk about politics... let's talk about politics.
Politics is not defined as "what the politicians say." In fact, most politicians never even talk about politics. Only beautifully virtuous, or righteously necessary "causes."
"Politics" is a valuable concept to explore, if we want to understand how to get along with each other.
Political issues are about things like due process, limits to authority, the application of social justice, defensible rights, recognizing sovereignty, and under what terms those things can be agreed upon. How we get there is the dialogue... not a "fight."
Except essentially, politicians are all 'activists.' Every. Single. One. Every utterance feels like "fighting words" with that type.
The subject of politics has nothing to do with the personal lives of politicians, how idiotic they might appear, or how poor of character they may be. The decision to support one or another is entirely individual. Everyone should vote how they will, and people should neither call out their choice like it's a 'club' nor attack people who might align with a different 'club' (that's not politics... that's behavior.)
US Political parties (all two of them) foist up candidates based upon who knows what - because it is clearly NOT always merit.
Then the melee begins... over personalities, and all the baggage that can be laid upon them. Sounds an eminently wise way to select a "leader," right? Not to me.
The political duopoly has managed to even fix it so that any non-party candidate has to overcome the "why bother" hurdle - convincing most everyone that any vote outside the two parties is NOT 'wasted.' The duopoly fills the field and have a permanent foothold within in the system, everywhere. Neither party "protected" us from the affliction we now face.
Partisanship is a club. Made and nurtured by people for whom club membership is a necessary "given."
Ironically "Politics" was never a "clown show" until the media began its "activist journalist" phase (Dear Lord, please make it end.)
The reporting media industry suddenly threw out the notion of "The facts matter... let the public "decide."
Before that such manipulation of stories and editorials stood out, when they happened. It was often called out. Now, the absence of editorialization is very rare.
Now partisanship is almost everywhere... all the time... even here among the virtual spaces, it has spewed its particular stylish brand of 'information.'
The monopoly of information was so strong and so pervasive that they almost successfully labeled anything other than their own narrative as "mis" or "dis" information - by virtue of it not being their property. We appear to have slowed them... for now.
By the way, I applaud the courage and character of any off-party candidate... the duopoly will certainly not be "welcoming" and looking to cooperate with them.
There you have it... I talked about politics without resorting to adolescent crap-flinging, hyperbolic flummery, or other nonsense.
See? It can be done.
