GOP

static111 said:

I fear that as far as the totalitarians are concerned, they speak in the language of punishment and stern penalties.  If the non totalitarian party doesn’t speak to them in their language I fear that the extreme wing of the GOP will come sweeping into power.  I don’t condone violence, but I really think playing hardball and winning is the only way to deal with this scourge.  As we’ve seen the other side is not afraid to weaponize police and speak with targeted violence, especially when they are in power.  

I really worry that the moderates and Dems will wait until the first shot is fired before they start taking swift action and then it will potentially be too late.  I just don’t see this extremism being voted away.  Better make sure the family passports are up to date.

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mickeyrat said:

loath to promote his smugness bit sometimes he is just on point..

https://youtu.be/7cR4fXcsu9w

i haven't watched him in a long time. he is pretty on point here. and because we are democrats we will watch this slowly happen right in front of our eyes and not try to do anything about it until it is too late.

every day that goes by that we do nothing about the insurrection and the big lie, the more true it becomes.

I hate to say it... I mean I really hate to say it, but I can see this all unfolding in the coming years.  Not too many years ago, I wouldn't have believed it.  But after that last nearly 5 years of watching an ever increasing number of Americans turn in support of the most vapid, disgusting to hold a high level in office, it's gone beyond disbelief to near despair.  Even if we somehow manage to avoid this potential disaster, those people will still be out there, and if they lose they will be more rabid than ever.  I hate to sound so negative, but I don't see how this can turn out well, let alone anything but catastrophic.  How in the holy hell, when we were once relatively great, did we get to this place? 

But we have to think beyond despair and act.  All of us who cherishes the idea of a democratic society needs to show up in the coming years and at the very least vote these fuckers out.  And we need to encourage moderates to fight back as well.  I'm hoping moderate Republicans such as the Lincoln Project folks will work to stem the toxic tide of the far Trump right.  And those of us who are Dems need to get our fellow Democrats to show up at every election.

I know you're older than dirt, but America has never been even relatively great for me. We've been stuck at this place for at least my entire lifetime. It's not entering a phase of white nationalism because it's always been a white nationalist country. The Trump presidency compounded with the pandemic just brought it to light and reinforced that many are willing to forgo democracy for totalitarianism if it means that we can remain a white nationalist country.

I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. 

A lot of heads have come out of the sand and realized that they live in a broken, inequitable, and frankly stupid nation, regardless of their own privilege, wealth, and education. I know that wokeness is frowned upon by just about everyone these days, but I think that those who were not woke prior to Trump's campaign/presidency compounded by the pandemic certainly are now. Anecdotally, I've seen it happen in my own household.

So what's the path forward? More divisiveness? Or a road to repair? 

No clue.

We've got our passports up to date, though, and my office has locations in many more well-run, equitable, and intelligent nations than the one we currently live in. The better half is still working toward that road to repair. That's her actual job. She is a federally funded policy wonk. Me, I usually just tell her that Americans aren't worth her time and effort and that we should GTFO.

We've both done the math here; we just have different solutions.

Again, no clue which is the correct one. 

Yes, we certainly have had a number of shameful events in the U.S. like the McCarthy blacklisting era, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Trump, etc.  I guess for me it's about being disappointed that the hope many of us boomers had for a better country and a better world did not come to fruition. 

That's one of the reasons I don't fully buy the notion of a "woke" generation.  I am very concerned that the same thing will happen with them that happened with boomers.  Boomers went from young and idealistic to self-involvement with careers and mortgages.  And I'm not trying to puff myself up and impress anyone with how supposedly great I am, but I have always found myself more focused on the issues that plague us than the average person and have always wished more people would get involved.  When, for example, my generation moved past things like anti-war protests and marching for the women's movement and became more interested in the pursuit of Club Med vacations and hot tubs, some of us were more interested in learning about ecodefense, resistance, and living more simply.  So I have to wonder, which road will the woke generation take?

If I weren't "older than dirt" (lol) I would seriously be looking at moving to another country.  There are too many days lately where just getting out of bed is enough of a challenge.  I'm seeing the expiration date on my label approaching at a convergence with a catastrophic decline in civility in this nation and I will be to damn old to move away and avoid the implosion.  The old and the weak will be rapidly culled.  I would highly suggest the young focus and making plans to carry on.

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Is economic equity the appropriate or right goal? I've never been convinced that it is.  I know it's a conservative mantra,  but this liberal believes that equity of opportunities,  not equity of outcomes is the appropriate goal.  

The standard of living has only improved in this country,  unabated,  since its inception.  That is a good thing.  

None of this means I don't believe in the progressive tax system,  that we should expand social programs,  or that the disadvantaged youth should have better education support.  They absolutely should.  This means we tweak our system,  nott blow it up.  

I've worked my ass off my whole life and came from a poor immigrant family where my dad never finished the 8th grade.  I certainly do not think someone who has had the same opportunities should have the same outcomes as me just because they live where I do.

your ladt paragraph is incomplete.

.....unless they put the same work in.

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Is economic equity the appropriate or right goal? I've never been convinced that it is.  I know it's a conservative mantra,  but this liberal believes that equity of opportunities,  not equity of outcomes is the appropriate goal.  

The standard of living has only improved in this country,  unabated,  since its inception.  That is a good thing.  

None of this means I don't believe in the progressive tax system,  that we should expand social programs,  or that the disadvantaged youth should have better education support.  They absolutely should.  This means we tweak our system,  nott blow it up.  

I've worked my ass off my whole life and came from a poor immigrant family where my dad never finished the 8th grade.  I certainly do not think someone who has had the same opportunities should have the same outcomes as me just because they live where I do.

your ladt paragraph is incomplete.

.....unless they put the same work in.

How do you evaluate such a thing? You can't pretend some work isn't more valuable than other work based on the required education,  competition and value creation. 

thats the point. given the same opportunites and applying themselves in a similar way to your path, shouldnt garner similar outcome?

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Is economic equity the appropriate or right goal? I've never been convinced that it is.  I know it's a conservative mantra,  but this liberal believes that equity of opportunities,  not equity of outcomes is the appropriate goal.  

The standard of living has only improved in this country,  unabated,  since its inception.  That is a good thing.  

None of this means I don't believe in the progressive tax system,  that we should expand social programs,  or that the disadvantaged youth should have better education support.  They absolutely should.  This means we tweak our system,  nott blow it up.  

I've worked my ass off my whole life and came from a poor immigrant family where my dad never finished the 8th grade.  I certainly do not think someone who has had the same opportunities should have the same outcomes as me just because they live where I do.

your ladt paragraph is incomplete.

.....unless they put the same work in.

How do you evaluate such a thing? You can't pretend some work isn't more valuable than other work based on the required education,  competition and value creation. 

thats the point. given the same opportunites and applying themselves in a similar way to your path, shouldnt garner similar outcome?

Yes if in the same field.... to an extent.  Do you think Ben Rothleisberger and Mason Rudolph should be paid the same over the course of the last several years?

no. because ben put his work in with the talent he has. which at the time was as starting nfl qb. rudolph with his talent is doing what HE is qualified to do. so while both are qbs in the nfl there is a fundamental difference between starter and back up.

side note, at this point ben should be back-up or retire. ....

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Is economic equity the appropriate or right goal? I've never been convinced that it is.  I know it's a conservative mantra,  but this liberal believes that equity of opportunities,  not equity of outcomes is the appropriate goal.  

The standard of living has only improved in this country,  unabated,  since its inception.  That is a good thing.  

None of this means I don't believe in the progressive tax system,  that we should expand social programs,  or that the disadvantaged youth should have better education support.  They absolutely should.  This means we tweak our system,  nott blow it up.  

I've worked my ass off my whole life and came from a poor immigrant family where my dad never finished the 8th grade.  I certainly do not think someone who has had the same opportunities should have the same outcomes as me just because they live where I do.

your ladt paragraph is incomplete.

.....unless they put the same work in.

How do you evaluate such a thing? You can't pretend some work isn't more valuable than other work based on the required education,  competition and value creation. 

thats the point. given the same opportunites and applying themselves in a similar way to your path, shouldnt garner similar outcome?

Yes if in the same field.... to an extent.  Do you think Ben Rothleisberger and Mason Rudolph should be paid the same over the course of the last several years?

no. because ben put his work in with the talent he has. which at the time was as starting nfl qb. rudolph with his talent is doing what HE is qualified to do. so while both are qbs in the nfl there is a fundamental difference between starter and back up.

side note, at this point ben should be back-up or retire. ....

I think even within a field there are "starters" and backups... A's, B's and C's...  

But that's all quibbling.  I think you understand my point. I could go further and say that not all starters and backups should not be paid the same.  I think you would agree?

perhaps a bad analogy though given nfl market structure, cap   etc .. 

so the thought struck about equitable opportunities. should we overcompensate for a time to focus on the disadvantaged while then working toward more balanced opportunities? state school funding as an example....

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Is economic equity the appropriate or right goal? I've never been convinced that it is.  I know it's a conservative mantra,  but this liberal believes that equity of opportunities,  not equity of outcomes is the appropriate goal.  

The standard of living has only improved in this country,  unabated,  since its inception.  That is a good thing.  

None of this means I don't believe in the progressive tax system,  that we should expand social programs,  or that the disadvantaged youth should have better education support.  They absolutely should.  This means we tweak our system,  nott blow it up.  

I've worked my ass off my whole life and came from a poor immigrant family where my dad never finished the 8th grade.  I certainly do not think someone who has had the same opportunities should have the same outcomes as me just because they live where I do.

your ladt paragraph is incomplete.

.....unless they put the same work in.

How do you evaluate such a thing? You can't pretend some work isn't more valuable than other work based on the required education,  competition and value creation. 

thats the point. given the same opportunites and applying themselves in a similar way to your path, shouldnt garner similar outcome?

Yes if in the same field.... to an extent.  Do you think Ben Rothleisberger and Mason Rudolph should be paid the same over the course of the last several years?

no. because ben put his work in with the talent he has. which at the time was as starting nfl qb. rudolph with his talent is doing what HE is qualified to do. so while both are qbs in the nfl there is a fundamental difference between starter and back up.

side note, at this point ben should be back-up or retire. ....

I think even within a field there are "starters" and backups... A's, B's and C's...  

But that's all quibbling.  I think you understand my point. I could go further and say that not all starters and backups should not be paid the same.  I think you would agree?

perhaps a bad analogy though given nfl market structure, cap   etc .. 

so the thought struck about equitable opportunities. should we overcompensate for a time to focus on the disadvantaged while then working toward more balanced opportunities? state school funding as an example....

The fact that there's a cap makes it even more interesting.  Even with a cap,  you pay for performance.  

What do you mean by overcompensate? Does that mean taking pay from nuclear engineers to pay drywallers?

begins at childhood. changes have start there for those starting out , for at least a generation. what we do with/for those already coming up or well into adulthood is a challenge for sure. removing or mitagating those factors that affect the poor in general is a good start. interst rates on loans for one. isnt it an additional burden financially to tack on 20plus% to a loan for poorer folks? those with means take loans they dont necessarily need for super cheap interest. so they get access to cheap money where as my first used car loan with no history was 23%......