[C8]

This right wing fixation on crime is interesting. It must be the first thing they can think of in the wake of the overturning of Roe? They need something as a hook to compete over the "hearts and minds" crowd.

Actually, it is the left wing dismissal of crime that is interesting. Liberals are more affluent than conservatives and rarely experience the horror of their policies from their burbs- so they can't understand why people are upset with being beaten by strangers as it could never happen to them. Liberals don't live with the fear that grips working class America. Releasing criminals immediately will never have consequences to the university crowd.

[Outcast_Searcher]

This right wing fixation on crime is interesting. It must be the first thing they can think of in the wake of the overturning of Roe? They need something as a hook to compete over the "hearts and minds" crowd.

Actually, it is the left wing dismissal of crime that is interesting. Liberals are more affluent than conservatives and rarely experience the horror of their policies from their burbs- so they can't understand why people are upset with being beaten by strangers as it could never happen to them. Liberals don't live with the fear that grips working class America. Releasing criminals immediately will never have consequences to the university crowd.

Poverty isn't a left or right wing thing. There are LOTS of under-educated poor people in, for example, mostly liberal urban centers, as well as mostly conservative outlying rural areas, small towns, etc. And both sorts of areas see plenty of crime. Just as both liberals and conservatives both commit plenty of white collar crime.

Trump voters, mostly right wing, tended to have above average incomes, for an obvious example.

So this idea that liberals don't care about crime because they're mostly rich lacks any foundation at all, unless you'd care to present clear evidence it is so vs. empty political speculation.

For example:

If you define "affluent" in a very general way as having an income of $100K or more a year, the parties are fairly balanced overall.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/re ... 0-or-more/

The only "obvious" bias by state here is the expected red-state vs. blue-state population of conservatives vs. liberals in such states.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... ging-fast/

For the past decade, it looks like democrats are gaining re typical income vs. republicans re Brookings data reporting.

But is it realistic to expect that even if D's have, say, $10K more income than R's on average, that their lives are so wildly different that one set doesn't need to worry about crime impacting them personally? I'm not buying that without seeing plenty of credible evidence.

[vtsnowedin]

Rich vs. poor. Liberal Vs. Conservative? I think all sides are and should be against crime. A rich guy gets rolled for his watch and he might be out $10,000 and a poor guy gets his watch stolen and he is out maybe $10.00 but the poor man if injured in the attack might not be able to work and lose everything he has.
Let's look at where we are.
States for whatever reason have changed bail laws and released thousands of convicts from prison early.
The result has been a rapid increase in crime often committed by released convicts that are repeatedly re released into the population that make their living by committing daily crimes.
What to do about it?
Start by returning to the bail laws and practices in place before this failed experiment started.
Second strengthen and improve sentencing requirements and bail laws to keep repeat offenders off the streets as long as possible.
IE.
No bail at any price for a prior convicted felon that is rearrested with judges having zero discretion to over rule that.
An automatic ten year no parole sentence for a felon that commits a crime while possessing a gun.
Make it a crime (felony) for a DA to not prosecute a felony committed by an ex convict with a gun.
Severely limit DAs discretion to plea down any violent crime.
Build and maintain enough state and Federal prisons to hold this scum off the streets until they die.

[evilgenius]

Look, I've been the victim of violent crime and I still don't overthink being in danger from criminals all the time. I don't exaggerate the danger of it to myself, so that I can legitimize an opinion I have. Neither do I think that all cops are bad guys. I liked very much seeing the cops come after my incident. I wish they hadn't been so late.

I guess the idea is do we actually need a cudgel held over society? There's a new dog in the house. He's a relative's dog. For me, it's like being a dog grandpa. I get to spoil him. I have also said to myself that I will try not to hit this dog. I don't mean really whack it, but hit it as a means to train it. Well, yesterday, he was messing around a little too close to my plate. I have to confess, I bopped him on top of the head. I thought about it last night. I supposed I didn't do wrong, but I had best not approach every situation that way with him going forward. There is always a better way than using violence. The trouble is those ways require us to do something. Reward works, but it takes time, and precision. We usually don't get that involved, unless we care.

[Newfie]

We speaking of the USA we are in danger if over generalizing because there are large differences in population’s and voting choices.

In some, perhaps most, large cities the Democrat control is so extensive that there exists no Republican influence. Everyone is a registered Democrat simply because that is the culture, as ALL Italians were Catholic. No one chose to be Catholic, they just were because that is how they were raised. So it is in major US cities. There are likely some R controlled suburban or rural areas, but the population is just not there.

Just because these folks register as D does not make them “liberal”. The neighborhoods are normal people and the contain the fill spectrum of thought and emotion. They just reflexively vote D. There are political battles, but they occur at the Primary level. Even there the D party “system” has great influence. To be elected you need the official party support which means working your way up through the party organization, doing your time fund raising and organizing, until some elected slot is given to you. What does it mean to run for Sheriff? Who really knows you and who can make an honest evaluation? Folks just vote because the Party or the newspaper publishes a list of “recommended” candidates.

The “liberal” vs “conservative” only raises itself on general elections of state or federal level. Governor, Senator, President; not much else. But even here the “brand loyalty” to the party controls many votes.

And this is the true threat to what remains of democracy in the USA. One party rule.

OTOH, consider what would happen if the D’s did eliminate the R’s. Bill Moyers once said the only reason CNN exists is because of Trump, CNN needs Trump. And so it hoes with the D party, which is a loose group of vastly different activist with conflicting passions held together inly by their mutual hatred of Donald. Obama saw this very clearly and directed the party to ignore all other issues in 2020 and just concentrate in hating Trump.

Should the D’s loose their unifying enemy there is a good chance they will fly apart like a jet turbine loosing blades.

Sorry for the wandering missive.

[AdamB]

Should the D’s loose their unifying enemy there is a good chance they will fly apart like a jet turbine loosing blades.

Sorry for the wandering missive.

No apology necessary, it was good. Don't you think that without the Chief Seditionist the same thing will happen to the various sub-groups within the Republicrats? I mean really, I am still stunned by fraction of the Republicrat party revealed by said Chief that turns out NOT to be the Mitt Romney/John McCain/Reagan gang I thought they were, and instead is this....thing....that makes you want to turn up your nose at the smell and begin sidling away in case it is infectious.

[vtsnowedin]

Do you or anyone you know o,f have an estimate of ,the percentage of the 76 odd million voters that voted for Trump over Biden that would actually take up arms and try to bring down a liberal government by force of arms?
Not sure myself but talk is cheap and actually going forth with you best gun is a whole nuther animal and I estimate it is less then 7600. That is one idiot out of ten thousand voters choosing between the lessor of two weasels.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I guess the idea is do we actually need a cudgel held over society? There's a new dog in the house. He's a relative's dog. For me, it's like being a dog grandpa. I get to spoil him. I have also said to myself that I will try not to hit this dog. I don't mean really whack it, but hit it as a means to train it. Well, yesterday, he was messing around a little too close to my plate. I have to confess, I bopped him on top of the head. I thought about it last night. I supposed I didn't do wrong, but I had best not approach every situation that way with him going forward. There is always a better way than using violence. The trouble is those ways require us to do something. Reward works, but it takes time, and precision. We usually don't get that involved, unless we care.

One idea there is for many generally well behaved pets, you don't have to hurt them at all. Just a little finger flick along with a stern voice to make it clear that's bad behavior will often do the trick, if you're consistent about it. Same deal with many well behaved children.

OTOH, there is the clueless / resistant minority re behavior, but discipline can always be escalated if that is actually needed.

It's easier to use reward with humans who can understand what's up by you telling them, than animals who don't correlate things well at all if they don't happen right away.

[evilgenius]

I think what the US needs is to get away from all of that division, and follow something with vision! Rapidly, existential changes threaten humanity. The US will be the poster child for how man deals with it. Like it or not. I think the country can get behind the right vision.

Look, all we really have to do is persevere long enough investing and believing in ourselves. Once we can do fusion, no matter how far off that is, everything will change. Shorty after, we will discover how to make any element, most likely. No more shortages. If it's dangerous, we could even make things in space, and deliver them to earth on a space elevator.

The real problem is aligning America with some sort of vision that is common to both sides. The Brits did it with their national healthcare system. When you hear politicians of either side talk about it, they are clamoring to express how much better of a job maintaining the system they did, or will do, than the other guys. They are not secretly planning to do away with it, on some multi-decade quest for a way to do that in front of everybody and still get away with it.

You could say that is down to how most European governments are parliamentary systems. The US is not subject to immediate whim like that. The best the party in opposition can do is try to get the country's focus on the next election. In this case, the next mid-term. But although the Democrats seem like they have been more introspective, I don't know if they have been that willing to examine their motives as they have backed away from some of their more traditional roles that they filled alongside labor.

They've definitely gone more big business, and I don't think they have asked themselves what that means for their base. So, they've lost some rust belt people who were always too poor to associate with the actual practices of the rich. But, you know, they could identify with the clown antics of one of them. They may not own many shares of stock, but they likely have 401k's. They bring demand, so they have power.

What you really seem to have is change on the same level that befell man as he stood on the cusp of the automobile age. Only, this time it is happening to man as a political animal. So many things are becoming automated about the political process. It is akin to how many things were taken out of the driver's immediate hands. You have to do that if you expect people to eventually go down the road at sixty miles per hour! They need to be able to look, more or less, straight ahead.

People are being asked not to pay attention to the actual details. You are just supposed to be able to claim affiliation. If there is confusion, especially within you, you can dither. The process is not meant to be specific, or it couldn't be all things to all people. You gotta wonder when that means that other, or more, parties will develop? I suppose it depends upon how much of the reaction can be channeled into the dithering?

No, I don't suppose it helps that information is spread so easily these days that the usual ways of saying, 'no,' to some groups of people don't work anymore, in the sense that the people who once controlled the narrative find that they have to allow interpretation on the part of a more empowered audience. But that's how one learns to write better, isn't it?

If you want to maintain control, you have to earn it along the way. Because as you add more people, in order for the wisdom of the crowd to hold sway, for your democratic argument to work, you will have to give them standing, or the ability to speak against what you believe is, obviously, the answer. It doesn't mean squelching that, but thinking about it ahead of time and coming up with some sort of appropriate answer.

Hopefully, your system allows you to do that and lose. Meaning that any person's ideas can compete. I know, it does rather pull one back to the dangers Aristotle talked about, in that democracy could devolve into mob rule. It's why Odysseus had to stand at the mast while his crew went on unaware. The intelligentsia must also hear everything, while those that carry them seemingly go on as if nothing were happening.

[evilgenius]

I guess the idea is do we actually need a cudgel held over society? There's a new dog in the house. He's a relative's dog. For me, it's like being a dog grandpa. I get to spoil him. I have also said to myself that I will try not to hit this dog. I don't mean really whack it, but hit it as a means to train it. Well, yesterday, he was messing around a little too close to my plate. I have to confess, I bopped him on top of the head. I thought about it last night. I supposed I didn't do wrong, but I had best not approach every situation that way with him going forward. There is always a better way than using violence. The trouble is those ways require us to do something. Reward works, but it takes time, and precision. We usually don't get that involved, unless we care.

One idea there is for many generally well behaved pets, you don't have to hurt them at all. Just a little finger flick along with a stern voice to make it clear that's bad behavior will often do the trick, if you're consistent about it. Same deal with many well behaved children.

OTOH, there is the clueless / resistant minority re behavior, but discipline can always be escalated if that is actually needed.

It's easier to use reward with humans who can understand what's up by you telling them, than animals who don't correlate things well at all if they don't happen right away.

Or, we could get at the root causes. I mean this about telling poor people to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'

The idea is that no matter what you do you will be subject to criticism, should you be in charge. You might as well be criticized by those who stood against what was right.

In finance, that might involve using math to make important investment decisions. In this sort of place in society, it's more about using your heart. Because you do have to use your heart, in order to share resources that you feel might run out if you do.

To engage that way with other people is to possibly lose. You might even lose all of the time. Certain minorities in the US have had to endure a history like that.

You know, black people, for instance, have, and they continue to be one of the groups that most ardently supports the principles of the Constitution. They understand what can't happen when you are trying to talk about equality in a way that armchair social engineers, like me, simply don't.

People like me, so willing to try different things. What a thing to experiment so openly with a nation's soul. Isn't science useless without experimentation? Yeah, and they watch it happen to them. And they endure it. Talk about a group that believes! Next up, schools.

Because you have to ask yourself if we aren't asking ourselves certain questions, doing certain experiments, because we are afraid to ask those questions. Like it was evil to ask those questions. What we may be forgetting is that other binary actors will result in the same set of outcomes. Just because there are elements to a story doesn't mean, in other words, that it supports a narrative. Something else may be driving what is going on. That's why, sometimes, it takes a more cultured, or nuanced, society to arrive at a certain set of rules of thumb. That's the only way to show the proper amount of respect, while, this time, not doing what that interest wanted.

[AdamB]

Do you or anyone you know o,f have an estimate of ,the percentage of the 76 odd million voters that voted for Trump over Biden that would actually take up arms and try to bring down a liberal government by force of arms?

Well, we start with the data that says 70% of Republicrats think the election was stolen, and we can then calculate that folks that stupid /ill informed/ignorant/out of touch might also be willing to take up arms? You never know with folks that can't be bothered with facts, right? So, 7 chances in 10 you are one of them VT, you seem to want to avoid staking out a position here based on...facts....for some reason.

Not sure myself but talk is cheap and actually going forth with you best gun is a whole nuther animal and I estimate it is less then 7600. That is one idiot out of ten thousand voters choosing between the lessor of two weasels.

Talk IS cheap. Which makes your silence on the stolen election so telling. So...you one of those 7 in 10 eh, VT?

You are quite right, that gullible, uninformed and idealogically confused folks don't have what it takes to pull a trigger, mostly. And when the idiot popuation inside a given group is higher than the general population, what exactly do you think the group will be known for when those idiots are put in charge of that group? It sure ain't their genius!

[C8]

I think what the US needs is to get away from all of that division, and follow something with vision! Rapidly, existential changes threaten humanity. The US will be the poster child for how man deals with it. Like it or not. I think the country can get behind the right vision.

Look, all we really have to do is persevere long enough investing and believing in ourselves. Once we can do fusion, no matter how far off that is, everything will change. Shorty after, we will discover how to make any element, most likely. No more shortages. If it's dangerous, we could even make things in space, and deliver them to earth on a space elevator.

The real problem is aligning America with some sort of vision that is common to both sides. The Brits did it with their national healthcare system. When you hear politicians of either side talk about it, they are clamoring to express how much better of a job maintaining the system they did, or will do, than the other guys. They are not secretly planning to do away with it, on some multi-decade quest for a way to do that in front of everybody and still get away with it.

You could say that is down to how most European governments are parliamentary systems. The US is not subject to immediate whim like that. The best the party in opposition can do is try to get the country's focus on the next election. In this case, the next mid-term. But although the Democrats seem like they have been more introspective, I don't know if they have been that willing to examine their motives as they have backed away from some of their more traditional roles that they filled alongside labor.

They've definitely gone more big business, and I don't think they have asked themselves what that means for their base. So, they've lost some rust belt people who were always too poor to associate with the actual practices of the rich. But, you know, they could identify with the clown antics of one of them. They may not own many shares of stock, but they likely have 401k's. They bring demand, so they have power.

What you really seem to have is change on the same level that befell man as he stood on the cusp of the automobile age. Only, this time it is happening to man as a political animal. So many things are becoming automated about the political process. It is akin to how many things were taken out of the driver's immediate hands. You have to do that if you expect people to eventually go down the road at sixty miles per hour! They need to be able to look, more or less, straight ahead.

People are being asked not to pay attention to the actual details. You are just supposed to be able to claim affiliation. If there is confusion, especially within you, you can dither. The process is not meant to be specific, or it couldn't be all things to all people. You gotta wonder when that means that other, or more, parties will develop? I suppose it depends upon how much of the reaction can be channeled into the dithering?

No, I don't suppose it helps that information is spread so easily these days that the usual ways of saying, 'no,' to some groups of people don't work anymore, in the sense that the people who once controlled the narrative find that they have to allow interpretation on the part of a more empowered audience. But that's how one learns to write better, isn't it?

If you want to maintain control, you have to earn it along the way. Because as you add more people, in order for the wisdom of the crowd to hold sway, for your democratic argument to work, you will have to give them standing, or the ability to speak against what you believe is, obviously, the answer. It doesn't mean squelching that, but thinking about it ahead of time and coming up with some sort of appropriate answer.

Hopefully, your system allows you to do that and lose. Meaning that any person's ideas can compete. I know, it does rather pull one back to the dangers Aristotle talked about, in that democracy could devolve into mob rule. It's why Odysseus had to stand at the mast while his crew went on unaware. The intelligentsia must also hear everything, while those that carry them seemingly go on as if nothing were happening.

Your views are of interest to me, but you weave so many ideas together- w/o fully explaining any one- that I never really get a sense of what you are saying. Its like an intellectual version of "impressionism".

[vtsnowedin]

Do you or anyone you know o,f have an estimate of ,the percentage of the 76 odd million voters that voted for Trump over Biden that would actually take up arms and try to bring down a liberal government by force of arms?

Well, we start with the data that says 70% of Republicrats think the election was stolen, and we can then calculate that folks that stupid /ill informed/ignorant/out of touch might also be willing to take up arms? You never know with folks that can't be bothered with facts, right? So, 7 chances in 10 you are one of them VT, you seem to want to avoid staking out a position here based on...facts....for some reason.

Not sure myself but talk is cheap and actually going forth with you best gun is a whole nuther animal and I estimate it is less then 7600. That is one idiot out of ten thousand voters choosing between the lessor of two weasels.

Talk IS cheap. Which makes your silence on the stolen election so telling. So...you one of those 7 in 10 eh, VT?

You are quite right, that gullible, uninformed and idealogically confused folks don't have what it takes to pull a trigger, mostly. And when the idiot popuation inside a given group is higher than the general population, what exactly do you think the group will be known for when those idiots are put in charge of that group? It sure ain't their genius!

I do think the election was stolen but not the way Trump says it was. The ballot count was correct enough but it was stolen before that with disinformation spread buy the leftist media and the suppression of the hunter Biden laptop story. It was a very close election after all and if the voters all had the truth at their disposal it might have gone differently.
That is not to say I wanted Trump to win or that I voted for him. He was terrible but Biden has proven to be much worse.

You are quite right, that gullible, uninformed and idealogically confused folks don't have what it takes to pull a trigger, mostly.

You forget the intelligent, patriotic, well informed if a bit cynical might also choose to pull a trigger if there was no better option. 1776 and all that.

[Doly]

The ballot count was correct enough but it was stolen before that with disinformation spread buy the leftist media and the suppression of the hunter Biden laptop story.

Considering how much disinformation has been circulating in all directions for decades in the US, how do you know which particular bit of disinformation is responsible for the election result? And how do you know how would the result have changed without each of the many bits of disinformation floating?

He was terrible but Biden has proven to be much worse.

In what way?

You forget the intelligent, patriotic, well informed if a bit cynical might also choose to pull a trigger if there was no better option. 1776 and all that.

What sort of trigger are you talking about?

[vtsnowedin]

The ballot count was correct enough but it was stolen before that with disinformation spread buy the leftist media and the suppression of the hunter Biden laptop story.

Considering how much disinformation has been circulating in all directions for decades in the US, how do you know which particular bit of disinformation is responsible for the election result? And how do you know how would the result have changed without each of the many bits of disinformation floating?

He was terrible but Biden has proven to be much worse.

In what way?

Compare the statistics, Gas price, inflation, unemployment, Minority unemployment, productivity, increase in average income etc. Nor one of them is better now,

You forget the intelligent, patriotic, well informed if a bit cynical might also choose to pull a trigger if there was no better option. 1776 and all that.

What sort of trigger are you talking about?

Well not a button on a video game. Perhaps the trigger on a 50BMG if needed.
Certainly use up all opportunities at the voting booth first.

[Newfie]

Does it really matter which egomanic old fart is President?

What matters is that neither party can front a respectable and capable candidate. The parties are as functional as congress.

Someone here recently said Biden was run against Trump because he was the only person capable if winning. Now thing about that a minute. All D’s hated Trump and many R’s found him distasteful at best. ANY reasonably competent candidate should have been able to trounce Trump in the general election. Hillary lost the election because she showed her true personality and scare a bunch if erstwhile supporters. Wanna know why Bill cheated?

Both parties bitch the selection process because they are controlled by zealots.

This shit wont change until we change the idiotic selection process and if we don’t we are well and truly …….

[AdamB]

I do think the election was stolen but not the way Trump says it was. The ballot count was correct enough but it was stolen before that with disinformation spread buy the leftist media and the suppression of the hunter Biden laptop story.

I might have missed it, but was Hunter on a ballot somewhere? Or was this more of a nepotism problem, like, say, Trumps' boy getting a $2,000,000,000 contribution to a slush fund of his choice?

What are you going to do about those kids? You've got PhD's making minor ducketts, maybe you should have gone into politics to get a little cheddar thrown their way?

It was a very close election after all and if the voters all had the truth at their disposal it might have gone differently.

Might have. All kinds of "might have" when it comes to Trump as well. Do we even know today how much Federal money he was able to funnel directly into sales to his companies?

That is not to say I wanted Trump to win or that I voted for him. He was terrible but Biden has proven to be much worse.

Trump wasn't terrible for his supporters. Just ask any Nazi sympathizer, misogynist, draft dodging militia member, rich white male, proto-fascist, or semi-literate hill billy.

You are quite right, that gullible, uninformed and idealogically confused folks don't have what it takes to pull a trigger, mostly.

You forget the intelligent, patriotic, well informed if a bit cynical might also choose to pull a trigger if there was no better option. 1776 and all that.

Good thing that 1776 was just the rich white male Christian property owners being irritated by the Brits not giving them more of a cut of the pie instead. And borrowing their homes to house troops on occasion.

If they really were intelligient and patriotic, you'd think they wouldn't have been misogynistic and racist in the application of the Constitution for the next century or century and a half would you?

[AdamB]

Considering how much disinformation has been circulating in all directions for decades in the US, how do you know which particular bit of disinformation is responsible for the election result? And how do you know how would the result have changed without each of the many bits of disinformation floating?

Are you really going to softball vt like that? Put yourself in his shoes, all things political are good when Repiblicrat, bad when Democan. Therefore, all misinformation was leftist media (hint hint Democan) and was the cause for the result (coup attempt leader not reelected).

He was terrible but Biden has proven to be much worse.

In what way?

<exasperation> Because Biden is a Democan. That is all you need to know about VT's politics. D=bad, R=good. World viewed through that lens, and nothing more complex required.

You forget the intelligent, patriotic, well informed if a bit cynical might also choose to pull a trigger if there was no better option. 1776 and all that.

What sort of trigger are you talking about?

The kind that makes a fire stick go BANG.

Spent the morning doing just this with 2 revolvers and my CCW piece. Sights off on both revolvers, didn't have a screw driver to adjust them, left the range irritated, but at least I know how far off point of aim is at 20 yards. Pulling a trigger is easy. Doing it while pointing the fire stick at a person is something else altogether.

[AdamB]

Does it really matter which egomanic old fart is President?

Mostly, no. Isn't that a riot? As long as folks are getting worked up about which tribe has a mostly ceremonial posting, they aren't paying attention to how badly they are getting worked over by the system.

What matters is that neither party can front a respectable and capable candidate. The parties are as functional as congress.

Just the way the oligarchs like it.

[jedrider]

Does it really matter which egomanic old fart is President?

What matters is that neither party can front a respectable and capable candidate. The parties are as functional as congress.

Someone here recently said Biden was run against Trump because he was the only person capable if winning. Now thing about that a minute. All D’s hated Trump and many R’s found him distasteful at best. ANY reasonably competent candidate should have been able to trounce Trump in the general election. Hillary lost the election because she showed her true personality and scare a bunch if erstwhile supporters. Wanna know why Bill cheated?

Both parties bitch the selection process because they are controlled by zealots.

This shit wont change until we change the idiotic selection process and if we don’t we are well and truly …….

An alternative view is that maybe the Democrats do field "respectable" candidates and the Republicans represent a different demographic (in mindset). Blaming Biden is kind of ridiculous from that point of view. Trump, however, is outside of all norms except for a demigod and a poor one at that.