Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Pops wrote:

Newfie wrote:

You don't get to tell me that my opinion doesn't count or I'm the problem just because I don't fall in line with your politics, not yet.

Sorry Pops, I was just pointing out that by your own criteria, and as you self reported your behavior, and by being so partisan, you are part of the problem.

I never said you opinion doesn’t count. But when you engage is such stringent partisan dialog then you dilute the power of your opinion. It’s just another Fox News soundbite.

I would be interested in your view of my politics.

First, it isn't an apology when you just rephrase the ad hom, so drop the "sorry."

Partisan is defined as : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

I have causes I care about, sometime they align with Ds, sometimes not. In this thread I mentioned some reasons I believe we are in this shape, likely one was the failure of the Ds to address my concerns. I always try to make a reasoned argument, cite sources, authorities and data rather than just blind opinion.

Newf, you appear to me a typical old white conservative. But rather than argue the position, your argument is I'm partisan, as if that invalidates my argument, it doesn't.
You pretend to media-free enlightenment, complain about how ugly and partisan it all is, then in the next post degrade the whining, mooching, "50 shades" culture

and follow up telling me I sound like a Fox soundbite...

LOL, pretty funny really
.

I wasn’t apologizing. And that’s not a personal attack. I was reflecting your own contradictory statements. It was a mirror.

And yes, you are highly partisan. And I clearly got under your skin for challenging your pontification. As with your assertion the EC is unconstitutional, even though it is in the constitution.

And no I’m not a conservative. You could know that from reading other threads. But it’s interesting that you can’t seem to fathom any other classification than Liberal or Conservative.

I do believe that you believe you are correct and I am just baiting you. I do believe that you are committed to your opinion and are disgusted by many in the USA who you see as obstructionist dolts. And I believe you would have the constitution over thrown so that you, believing you are in the majority, can have your own way.

That is the message I hear when listening to your above posts. I’m sure you have equally flattering things to say in rebuttal.

What I haven’t heard from you is positive and constructive suggestions on how to move forward. How to heal the “partisan divide”.

Pops,

What I am sorry for is that we have gotten locked into this contentious exchange. It should return to civil debate with mutual respect.

Newfie wrote:Pops,

What I am sorry for is that we have gotten locked into this contentious exchange. It should return to civil debate with mutual respect.

Good idea, knock off the ad homs.

Ibon wrote:

Pops wrote:
What happened in the 80's you ask? Ronald Reagan and Trickle down economics. The story was that by taxing the already wealthy less, the working classes would get richer. Obviously that didn't work— or rather it worked all too well, just not as advertised.

Notice that this year, finally, the Democrats have realized that while Obama is still liked personally, his extension of the clinton "Third Way" policies that support that upward flow of cash and bail out of the banks lost them an election. In another example of his effort to reach the compromise newfie so craves, obama proposed the Heritage foundation health care plan rather than some type of universal care and not only failed to get one R vote, saw 10 years of attempts to throw people off insurance

It is simple, we are a rich country but we are an even greedier one.

It is challenging me to understand how anyone can read this and believe that this is partisan.

You're joking , Right????

careinke wrote:
You're joking , Right????

Not at all

@pstarr,
Pops of course should answer this but here is my take on the issue:
1. Banksters are eradicating small and medium size farms by causing mass bankruptcies.
2. Banksters and other urban elites are securing this land.
3. Short term strategies are deployed, just to preserve social order for a while more (meantime banksters are stucturizing their assets to make them more revolution immune).
4. Land is destroyed due to overexploitation and food supply chain is broken.
5. There is a panic frenzy in cities and martial law is declared
6. Banksters and elites go to Paraguay and urban mobs go to FEMA camps.
7. Reeducation and reprocessing facilities are set up in FEMA camps. Stronger members of urban mob are reeducated to be manual farm workers and weaker ones reprocessed into fertilizer.
8. With a plenty of fertilizer supply (ex FEMA camps) ecological balance on farm land is restored.
9. Banksters/elites are coming back from Parguay (together with deed titles) and assuming ownership of land as a new aristocracy. Farm workers are subjected to servitude.
10. Feudal system is established. Rothschild becomes to be the first king of America.

Pops wrote:

Newfie wrote:

You don't get to tell me that my opinion doesn't count or I'm the problem just because I don't fall in line with your politics, not yet.

Sorry Pops, I was just pointing out that by your own criteria, and as you self reported your behavior, and by being so partisan, you are part of the problem.

I never said you opinion doesn’t count. But when you engage is such stringent partisan dialog then you dilute the power of your opinion. It’s just another Fox News soundbite.

I would be interested in your view of my politics.

First, it isn't an apology when you just rephrase the ad hom, so drop the "sorry."

Partisan is defined as : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

I have causes I care about, sometime they align with Ds, sometimes not. In this thread I mentioned some reasons I believe we are in this shape, likely one was the failure of the Ds to address my concerns. I always try to make a reasoned argument, cite sources, authorities and data rather than just blind opinion.

Newf, you appear to me a typical old white conservative. But rather than argue the position, your argument is I'm partisan, as if that invalidates my argument, it doesn't.
You pretend to media-free enlightenment, complain about how ugly and partisan it all is, then in the next post degrade the whining, mooching, "50 shades" culture

and follow up telling me I sound like a Fox soundbite...

LOL, pretty funny really
.

Just interjecting myself into this conversation:

Partisan, what is that? Why are we 'partisan' nowadays whereas, in an age before, we weren't?

One reason is that when one side becomes partisan, it forces the other side to become partisan, sort of like a Venn diagram, either you're in or your out, no two ways about it.

If you read 'conservative' literature, it is all about being a 'conservative'. Are 'liberals' liberal? Well, of course. But, you would never hear about how to be a 'liberal' or even how to be a 'good liberal' because that is nonsense. There is no such thing and it doesn't happen. However, conservatives have such a thing. It is enforced mind control. Reading from a script is part and parcel of being a 'good conservative'. Liberals would ralph at the idea of how to be a 'good liberal', but not so for 'conservatives'. Communism has these totalitarian aspects as well, which is very close to how 'conservatives' wish to run government.

Partisanship is just a method of DIVISION and no more, as in DIVIDE and CONQUER.

So, totalitarian control of the masses is knocking on the door of the U.S.A.

[I figured this out upon reading 'conservative' indoctrination material distributed throughout the U.S.A. by organizations supported by the Republican Party and, probably, Mr. Koch and the whole Republican conservative financial network.]

jedrider wrote:

Pops wrote:

Newfie wrote:

You don't get to tell me that my opinion doesn't count or I'm the problem just because I don't fall in line with your politics, not yet.

Sorry Pops, I was just pointing out that by your own criteria, and as you self reported your behavior, and by being so partisan, you are part of the problem.

I never said you opinion doesn’t count. But when you engage is such stringent partisan dialog then you dilute the power of your opinion. It’s just another Fox News soundbite.

I would be interested in your view of my politics.

First, it isn't an apology when you just rephrase the ad hom, so drop the "sorry."

Partisan is defined as : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

I have causes I care about, sometime they align with Ds, sometimes not. In this thread I mentioned some reasons I believe we are in this shape, likely one was the failure of the Ds to address my concerns. I always try to make a reasoned argument, cite sources, authorities and data rather than just blind opinion.

Newf, you appear to me a typical old white conservative. But rather than argue the position, your argument is I'm partisan, as if that invalidates my argument, it doesn't.
You pretend to media-free enlightenment, complain about how ugly and partisan it all is, then in the next post degrade the whining, mooching, "50 shades" culture

and follow up telling me I sound like a Fox soundbite...

LOL, pretty funny really
.

Just interjecting myself into this conversation:

Partisan, what is that? Why are we 'partisan' nowadays whereas, in an age before, we weren't?

One reason is that when one side becomes partisan, it forces the other side to become partisan, sort of like a Venn diagram, either you're in or your out, no two ways about it.

If you read 'conservative' literature, it is all about being a 'conservative'. Are 'liberals' liberal? Well, of course. But, you would never hear about how to be a 'liberal' or even how to be a 'good liberal' because that is nonsense. There is no such thing and it doesn't happen. However, conservatives have such a thing. It is enforced mind control. Reading from a script is part and parcel of being a 'good conservative'. Liberals would ralph at the idea of how to be a 'good liberal', but not so for 'conservatives'. Communism has these totalitarian aspects as well, which is very close to how 'conservatives' wish to run government.

Partisanship is just a method of DIVISION and no more, as in DIVIDE and CONQUER.

So, totalitarian control of the masses is knocking on the door of the U.S.A.

[I figured this out upon reading 'conservative' indoctrination material distributed throughout the U.S.A. by organizations supported by the Republican Party and, probably, Mr. Koch and the whole Republican conservative financial network.]

So when was it that conservatives became so dogmatic? Not only when but what changed that caused this?

pstarr wrote:Pops, given your familiarity with agriculture and other resource extraction, you must agree that land stewardship is best accomplished by folks who live on the land. Short term gain destroys ecosystems. Family farms work.

Maximization of production (and eventual resulting nationalization) and denigration of the soil on America's farms all for the good of city dwellers would result from the dissolution of local control. Don't believe for one instant that the hoi poloi in the nation's cities would choose organic. Organic is a bougie pretention. Given a choice the pols would see to the strip mining of the ag lands

I don't know or care for the history of the electoral college. It makes sense today. American suburbanites are clueless consuming sheeple who need to be kept penned in, not given too much clout

I'm trying to make your connection Pete but I'm failing.

First, ag is a business like any other and follows the money. What the sheep decide to buy is what drives the market regardless of your disdain. And because the product is a commodity, all that matters is price. Conservation is expensive, essentially the opposite of a commodity. Prices are down 5 of the last 6 years. Tariffs have additionally knocked prices in the toilet, if there is a market at all. FSA loan delinquencies are at nearly 20% the highest since the recession. If the choice is fallowing some marginal land or paying the operating loan you can guess which will happen.

It is true that many farms are family owned but they are a far cry from the "family farms" of yore. 12% of farms produce 90% of food & fiber. They are large corporate businesses with millions in assets and cash flow but they work on tiny margins. I've no doubt most want to do the best they can to preserve the family heritage but consider, in Iowa 50% of producing land is rented from absentee owners. You've heard the expression "drive it like you stole it"?

Maybe it's not like walmart is "family-owned" but it is heading that way. Family farms you are thinking of is the other 90%, small family hobbies selling very little or small holdings that due to topology don't easily fit the ditch-to ditch system.

Or are saying that Rs are more invested in conservation and supporting sustainable ag than Ds? Because Rs are what minority rule gets us nowadays

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Family farmers, rural communities, and food insecure families face $2 billion cut to services. President’s Budget Puts Agriculture Back on the Chopping Block
Eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), America’s only comprehensive working lands conservation program, and makes cuts to mandatory farm bill funding for other conservation programs.

You could look at the clean water act and Obama's attempt at clarification to the ambiguous definition of what is a "body of water." The term "waters of the US" O said included intermittent streams, ponds, etc in addition to year-round water. A hard core tree hugger would think that's a good thing conservation-wise. The Rs want to gut it and will start by rescinding O's order. Every ag org is against more regulations because, as mentioned, planting bar-ditch to bar-ditch is the most efficient system economically so not planting straight across that swampy spot means $10 in lost revenue.

Finally, my big point is winner-take-all EC laws and gerrymandering on both sides make primaries the de facto elections in most jurisdictions. Only 11 states have open primaries. In gerrymandered districts the minority party effectively has no say in who is chosen because the choosing happens in the primary of the dominant party. And since usually only the dominant party votes in the primary, there is no incentive for candidates to seek broad support.


http://fortune.com/2019/02/28/agricultu ... ency-usda/
https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/usda- ... -subsidies
http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/ ... ny-budget/

Ibon wrote:So when was it that conservatives became so dogmatic? Not only when but what changed that caused this?

My best educated guess is that when Bobby Kennedy became so popular, the moneyed and conservative interests got really focused on what to do. They didn't want another FDR.

jedrider wrote:Just interjecting myself into this conversation:
Partisan, what is that? Why are we 'partisan' nowadays whereas, in an age before, we weren't?

Please do!
I think the rise of partisanship is largely due to geographic sorting and the rural to urban migration. We used to be much more homogenous geographically,spread out. Now highly concentrated in cities/burbs with lots of open between. There is a real difference in how people see themselves and government.

In the sticks the man is a long way off, you need to take care of yourself in all sorts of ways.
In town every kind of "taking care of yourself" is likely to impact your neighbors.
Upshot is rural folks are more independent of and resentful of the man.
In town people are all too happy to have rules to keep their neighbors in line.

But I actually think the parties are still in flux, 1st the "southern strategy," then Third Way, now trump vs AOC.

Back when, Ds were the rural independent party, the anti-federalist, agrarian, slaveholder, labor. Now they're urban, big gov, big bro, social liberalism, conservation, meritocratic.

Rs were the party of Lincoln, values, traditions, institutions, economic liberalism.
Now... economic liberalism? except when POTUS wants to decide?
I don't have a guess if Rs become more or less trump; or whether Ds become more center or more left.

I'm sure that the longer we let the structural rules drive partisanship the farther it goes.

The minority rule situation gets this:

In a significant shift, the Trump administration says the entirety of the Affordable Care Act should be struck down in the courts.

Even though polling is around 60% to 75% against repealing ACA without replacement.

(not to mention stepping on his own toadstool when he should be dancing on Mullers report and Ds failing to overturn the veto on the wall)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245057/app ... below.aspx
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... n-in-place
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/04/poll-70 ... epeal.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1AE0RY

Google “How to be a Good Liberal”.

There is a Wiki for that - with pictures! Settle in a soft chair, it’s a 3 part series.

https://m.wikihow.com/Teach-Children-Liberal-Values

A liberal person believes that the government should take action to help improve the lives of its citizens.[1] Although you may have your own specific opinions about certain politicized topics, if you want your children to learn values that are typically liberal take time to understand the stance of liberal people on political issues. Learn about how you can help children understand and decide what makes sense for them.

Jdride wrote:

One reason is that when one side becomes partisan, it forces the other side to become partisan, sort of like a Venn diagram, either you're in or your out, no two ways about it.

Completly agree with this. And I really, really dislike the way we have become deeply partisan. So I try to show that there are generally two sides to a story, even if you don’t agree with the other side you should strive to see its motivations so you can argue against it.

I made the above post simply for that point, to show that there is little FUNCTIONAL difference between the two sides. And I’ve personaly deeply felt the censorship from my liberal friends when I challenge them to think deeper into their beliefs. It ain’t pretty.

That most elections are decided in the primaries is largely true.

And Hillary knew that, so she bargained and bought herself a bunch of “Super Delegates” to assure he the Democratic nomination, which she thought bought her the Presidency. The Republican primary system has far fewer “Super Delegates” which is one reason why Trump was able to win the nomination, the actual (Republican) voters had more say.

—————

What follows below are my observations about what happened in a small bit of America that I was closely aligned with. Don’t know how much you can generalize this to the larger public. Sorry for the long post, it needs some detail to flesh out the idea.

——————-

Until I stopped voting some years ago I never once voted Republican. Ive been deeply involved in Ethical Culture, (it’s kinda a church for Humanist), served on the Philadelphia board for 14 years, 4 years as President. That’s about as main stream Lefty as you can get.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_movement

Since Obama the group became more and more partisan, less thoughtful, more politically aligned. The idea that it was more important to elect a black or woman than a qualified person came to the fore. This is typified by a 2008 comment when a female friend announced to the group “I always knew they would rather have a Black President than a woman.”

I watched those folks swallow Obama’s hopium “hook, line and sinker”, only to be greatly distressed at the consequences. I’ve seen grown folks deeply commit themselves to his election who then were stunned by his actions. I had a woman literally break down into tears in my arms when I said I would not it’s for Obama, only to matter see this same woman become deeply distressed and depressed by what she considered his failures. No person could have satisfied their ambitions, they had grossly over inflate Hope.

This same group doubled down on Hillary. They could not see beyond her sex to evaluated the person. It was the whole Madeline Albright thing “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t vote for Hillary.” That extended to everyone. I think they truly believed, in their hearts, that the wold would be a better and more fair place should Hillary win. Indeed it EEAUIRED her to win to save America if not humanity. Such were/are the anxieties.

I called Hillary a “bitch” and was pilloried as a “racist mysoginist”, it was ugly.

Within this small group of friends, good deeply liberal friends, something happened. When Trump won they became deeply hateful. They can see nothing but blind rage and revenge. Every conversation i have is tense because all they want to do is bash Trump, and I can’t stand the visceral hatred. Of course I’m not talking each and every one, but the fringe sets the limits for conversation. This really impacted me, made a deep, deep impression. All reason is lost.

What I THINK happened is that these folks were scared by Bush, then felt cheated by Obama in the first term, but voted for him again because they though he would do more when he didn’t have to worry about relection, but again felt cheated. They then piled all their hopes onto Hillary. And when she lost, well that was just too much to bear and they had a open target to vent against, a whipping boy who goaded and prodded them. And that has turned on Republicans in general.

——————-

None of this is to excuse Republican and Trump excesses and actions. At this point I’m simply reporting on that small segment of America I could observe.

Just picked up he Federalist Papers. Gonna be a long read

Found this quote very early in that seemed to fit here.

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.

How much ave we really changed?

I think the most deep seated thing going on in the United States is that wages haven't kept up with the rest of the economy over a prolonged time. There are lots of calls to tax the rich in order to pay for things. People look at inequality and figure that they can tax those who are on top. The truth is that if working people made the sort of wages they ought to in relation to the other changes that have taken place within the US economy, there would be no shortage of tax money to pay for things. The inequality only represents a portion of what doesn't exist.

I say that, but you can't go back in time. There have been changes which have taken place within the American environment, centralizing economic power, in both the physical, and mental environment. In a way artificial intelligence has become the threat to work that it has because it was brought there by investment in it so that it could continue the trend. People don't see anything wrong with that. They've gotten something for their disenfranchisement. There is some meaning for them in the information world, out of which most economic models now rely upon to extract value from the people by exploiting their personal information. People pay a price beyond what they are aware, yet they enjoy a world that is more developed and expansive than the one they would have lived in had the information age evolved under a different paradigm, one in which they had more economic power due to higher wages across time. As it is, the American worker's contribution has been replaced by foreign investment in the United States. The situation isn't locked, but you'd play hell to reverse it.

Severe problems develop with this new structure, however, when it can be characterized as self-indulgent. There aren't the same checks upon personal behavior as before. Take what is happening with school shootings as an example. The examples resonate with like minded people too easily. The same can be said for workplace shootings. People, in essence, don't seem capable of making decisions without consulting the thing which they have been given to keep them happy in their estrangement, mostly social media, but also darker and more strident means of communication. There is a lot of thought bouncing around out there that isn't tied to any particular consciousness, the way that it would be in an individual mind. People making judgments are seeing elements of that and are essentially symbolizing them, without understanding their derivations. I see you, anti-vaxxers. Many groups are massaging the way that this perception takes place, through conspiracy theory and marketing. It's just as easy to imagine this new arrangement tipping over into mass psychosis as it is to see people helping one another and meeting each other's needs. It's very difficult to imagine any change to the status quo that is actually beneficial, such as real school change that focuses the education of children upon the future world rather than the factory working model of the past, or those underpaid working people agreeing to pay a larger portion of what little they make in taxes, so that infrastructure can change more quickly in response to population or technological changes.