World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Dem vs Rep or maybe a third force: two more years what to do?
message 51:
by
J.
(new)
Jun 02, 2019 03:16PM
A third party which works up to a Presidential election by spending the time to build locally across the country will stand a good chance, but it will take years to do it.
reply
|
flag
What would be the platform of a third party candidate? I can't imagine what it would be.
That is the problem for third parties. They tend to be single-issue parties, which can bring only limited success, as the Greens have shown.
Kris wrote: "Foucault says power and freedom are inversely related, and I tend to agree. The more power you have the less freedom you have: not simply because you "owe" people who helped you get there, but beca..."The point to acquiring power is to be able to act with impunity, to act without accountability.
Someone with real power can murder, rape, enslave, etc without repercussions.
What you are talking about is the operation of 'authority,' which is granted by social position and is dependent on the maintenance of a social order.
There are those who transcend social order to be free of all constraints.
Graeme, there is lesser power. People can be powerful without being criminal. The head of the Federal Reserve is quite powerful. Some people take power because they feel they can achieve something
So, Graeme, you're saying that politicians have authority, not power? That power doesn't depend "on the maintenance of a social order," whereas authority does?
My Apologies, I'll need to clarify my position and terms.[1] Power: The capacity to make something happen and/or get something done. (two ways of saying the same thing).
The nature of power is morally neutral. The impact of power can be either good, evil, or have no specific moral features.
An expression of power could be building and operating an orphanage that actually does a good job of helping at risk children to grow up in a safe and nurturing environment, or doing the same to provide a front for child trafficking and slavery. Both are expressions of power.
[2] Authority: Is the ability to exercise power within the scope of operation of a specific social role. A policeman, for example, has a power to arrest, but may only use it in 'authorised,' ways.
[3] Dominion: The ability to order someone to act against their best interests (whether they know it or not) and have them obey.
The operation of dominion relies on three key methods, bribery, deception, and violence.
Dominion is often implemented as a wedge, where the subject of dominion has to choose between two evils. Whichever choice is made, the operator of the wedge can not lose, and the subject of the wedge cannot win (while they stay within the frame of choice defined by the power operator).
Scout wrote: "So, Graeme, you're saying that politicians have authority, not power? That power doesn't depend "on the maintenance of a social order," whereas authority does?"Now, I have my definitions in place above, I can answer for you.
For a politician.
[1] Establishing a campaign and running for office is an expression of power.
[1.a] Expressing power does not guarantee victory in any event, one may still fail if confronted by a greater power.
[2] Winning office provides the politician with authority that may be used to exercise socially and legally sanctioned power within the defined scope of the role.
[3] Losing office, takes away the authority and the opportunity to exercise the power associated with the role.
Kris wrote: "Okay. Anarchists? Gangs? Garden variety Trumpsters? Or are we talking "deep state" or "black sites" or just people with a whole lot of bucks?..."Okay.... given that...
[1] We live in a society were wealth and power (defined as above) are concentrated into the hands of a plutocratic oligarchic few, which of necessity, instantiates a deep hierarchy and pervasive social inequality for access to wealth and power.
[2] It follows that the people at the top of the hierarchy are sufficiently wealthy and powerful as to be able to operate with impunity, provided whatever they do is done with sufficient discretion.
[3] Given that people given authority/power over others, with impunity, and lack of accountability for their actions have a strong tendency to abuse others to the limits of their imagination.
[4] My expectation is that the most powerful members of society will indulge whatever desire they have - no matter how vile such desires may be judged by the common people.
This is a basic working assumption of my personal world view. I have no specific proof that I am right.
Graeme wrote: "My Apologies, I'll need to clarify my position and terms.[1] Power: The capacity to make something happen and/or get something done. (two ways of saying the same thing).
The nature of power is m..."
Excellently explained
Hi Graeme,You've got me a little worried with your definition of Dominion, and specifically why you included it. It seems your view of society is somewhat darker than I thought. Any reasons for that darkness?
I was wondering about Dominion, too.So, politicians have authority granted by society, which gives them power to make things happen - for good or evil. And, if ungoverned or with no oversight, they tend to abuse their power?
They would often abuse power, except elections do provide restraint.
Ian wrote: "Hi Graeme,You've got me a little worried with your definition of Dominion, and specifically why you included it. It seems your view of society is somewhat darker than I thought. Any reasons for t..."
Hi Ian, I think that the concept of 'dominion,' needs to be clearly defined as a specific framework of methods (bribery, deception, violence) for instantiating power, to clarify the available 'power/control,' systems in play within human society.
To be more specific.
I'm allergic to being controlled by others. I am by nature an independent thinker and non-conformist. I have no interest in controlling others, and find 'power games,' a painful part of life.
I desire to understand the specific, and actionable operations of power to safeguard myself from being subject to them.
What I found was I needed to redefine words and phrases to establish a 'working vocabulary,' to allow me to comprehend what I was witnessing.
I've come to the conclusion that standard English does not support the comprehension of power operations between human beings and that it has to be revised to enable an understanding to occur. I don't know if the inadequacy of language is a deliberate feature maintained to keep people ignorant or not?
The lack of an easily available comprehensive vocabulary in language for defining the objects and relationships of power, dominion, authority, influence, etc such that someone with that vocabulary would be empowered to operate power with effect means that as society, most of us operate in a 'Closed Book Game.' where we don't know what the rules are, and often don't know that a game is in play until it ends (painfully).
The alternative would be an 'Open Book Game,' where everyone knew what the rules were, how to play the game, and would be able to identify when a game was in play.
Hi Graeme,I like to think independently too, but I do not think language has any deliberate inadequacies. When there are inadequacies, they usually arise through people not properly understanding something, or not having really needed to define things properly because they haven't come up with the need. However, your definitions were clear enough. All I was curious about was why you feel you have to define so many terms to describe what is effectively malevolent tyranny. Do you really think society is going that bad?
Some interesting comment coming from CNN and Van Jones re the recent Democratic Party candidate debates.REF: CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_co...
Are the Democrats forging a winning or losing strategy?
Hi Graeme,I think the answer is, "Too soon to tell," (A recent history professor gave that comment when asked to judge the effects of the Napoleonic wars, so it may be a cop-out.) but I think if they persist with free healthcare for all and open borders, they will lose. The healthcare is an interesting one - they would be better to have some basic healthcare that is free (and much of that is probably there anyway - they still don't let people die in the streets) but then concentrate on reducing healthcare costs.
I thinks Democrats shot themselves in the foot during the debate when they approved of providing free health care for illegal immigrants. Really? How far left can they lean before they fall down?
You may be right, Scout, but there is still a while to go and what is said now may be able to be patched over later. But it was not a good start.
Castro demonstrated just how far to the left these "candidates" are reaching with this plum:https://youtu.be/EIoLBlJF_Pw
Subsidizing birth control and abortions for the poor has some possible value, but Castro had to add abortions for trans-women. Trans-women are males who either have transitioned or are transitioning to females so a trans-wonan does not have a uterus, and therefore can not get pregnant. The Democrats have gone so far to the left that they are torpedoing their own best arguments in order to virtue signal to their party's wackiest extremists.
Candidates always try to outdo each other in how far left or right they go, then they have to change their tune and act middle-of-the-road to appeal to independents when shifting to the general election. Problem for this round of Democrats is they're heading so far left, they won't be able to swerve toward the middle. If they try, they will seem less genuine to independents than Hillary Clinton did last time around.
Looks like Biden just can't get it right enough to please his party. He's been around so long that there are just too many things he's done that are ripe for criticism. He recently tried to make the point that what he did in the past was done in a different social climate. Well, sure, as were many things that Republicans did 20, 30 years ago, but that hasn't stopped the criticism by Democrats. I'm trying not to mention the K debacle again :-) I'd sure hate to be judged today on some of the decisions I made in my twenties and thirties, even my forties. Younger candidates have the advantage there, not having much history on which to be judged.
At 40 seconds into this CNN clip, did Joe Biden just promise that Russian intervention into the 2016 election couldn't have happened?Or did I get that wrong?
REF: Youtube: CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_co...
Graeme, I see what you mean. It does look a bit like that.Scout, yes, your history can catch up, but the young people don't have the experience either, and that should count more as long as your history is not too horrible
He says that Russian interference couldn't have happened under his and Barack's watch :-)I agree that experience should count, but Barack didn't have much experience, and he got elected on a platform of "change." He didn't have a long history in politics that made him open to attack, and it worked for him. I can see that that might work for a younger politician in the next election.
#USSA #TrayvonMartin #BlackLivesMatter #DanielShaver #NewSpeak #Oceania #FaceCrime #Eurasia #OBrien #Room101 #MinistryOfLove #TrumpsMinistryOfTruth #AllLivesMatter #WhiteLivesMatter #Julia #TheParty #OfficerBrailsford #ThoughtPolice #BigBrother #EastAsia #SouthAfriKKKa #GeorgeZimmerman #MalemasMinistryOfTruth #GlobalApartheid #BlueLivesMatter #WinstonSmith #ThoughtCriminal
Hi Rodrigo, your comment could be a little cryptic, but if you'd like to discuss the possibility that civilization is evolving into a '1984,' model feel free to open up a thread on the topic.In this folder will do.
Cheers Graeme
Meanwhile, Biden has apologized for saying that he was able to work with politicians whose beliefs ran counter to his. As if this is a bad thing. His party is whipping him in line, and he's giving in. His best hope for getting elected is that he can garner support from reasonable people who know you have to be able to work with the opposition to get things done. His own party is tanking their best hope for gaining the presidency by constantly undermining him.
Is anyone on Democrat side making headway. My daughter likes Bernie but only because he's promised a major pay rise for teachers (not that she can vote on her visa)
From what I can make out, there are four young women who are hogging the spotlight, and denying the others the dreaded oxygen. Am I right?
The 'Squad,' are interesting.Can you imagine one of them becoming president. I think it would be premature to rule them out.
Not in 2020, but at some point in the future. I think they are being groomed, they just need an event to occur that will allow their core messages to hit the 'middle ground,' voter.
(I think the event would need to be quite extreme.)
Ian wrote: "From what I can make out, there are four young women who are hogging the spotlight, and denying the others the dreaded oxygen. Am I right?"I have to admit to a certain amount of laughter at Trump's use of them. (They are such useful idiots.) Trump poked at them, and the DNC circled the wagons to defend them. So now instead of focusing on the candidates as the faces of the DNC, we are looking at four freshman congresswomen who have a grand total of zero experience under their belts. Instead of talking about the actual candidates and their proposals, we are talking about people who know jack!
You have to give it to Trump. In one tweet, he yanked the wind from his opponents sails, and reinforced a vision of AOC (monument to the Dunning-Kruger effect) as the face of the DNC.
It's not just the one tweet. He's been doing this sort of thing all along. He's been fanning the flames over the Russian collusion thing, and that drives the press to cover that instead of the record number of judicial appointments he's gotten through the Senate in his first two years.He keeps stirring the Democrats over impeachment, and forces them to fight amongst themselves instead of working on the legislation they promised when they took over the House this year.
And you're right about his squabble with "The Squad." even the renewed accusations of his racism shifts the nations focus. he's been making the "crisis at the border" a major issue, and his attacks on these four women of color doesn't just force Nancy Pelosi to defend them, but it also baits the media into covering the immigration mess more than they otherwise would. The press has now covered it as a crisis, and Trump's been able to say he's doing the best he can with the money he's got. He forced Congress to give him more in order to handle the migrants, and he got the Democrats to cave and give him what he wanted without any of their restrictions on how it's spent.
The other news that's getting lost in the noise is his victory over spending. Congress just passed a bill suspending the debt ceiling until the next Presidential term, meaning he won't have to wage this fight until (and if) he's re-elected. The Democrats in the House passed it without getting what they wanted outside of suspending the Sequester from the Obama years.
Democrats attack Biden on race issues. What are they thinking, attacking their best hope for defeating Trump? That's fine with me.
It seems to m this is getting more interesting as the Dems seek more feet to shoot at. Harris has apparently got stuck into Biden, so Tulsi Gabbard got stuck into Harris. Now the killer: the Dems accuse Gabbard of being Putin's stooge. More collusion coming up??? How did this come up? I saw a clip where Gabbard explained that it arose because she had stated that the US should be pulling out of Syria. Yes, Assad was a bad guy, she said, but better than any other prospect there. So, she must be Putin's stooge?? With Russia interfering in the next election already? Trump must be wondering how he got so lucky.
Which raises the question, does this make Gabbard more a contender? Or a running mate for Biden? Where has my popcorn got to?
Interesting way to put it: "This is getting more interesting as the Dems seek more feet to shoot at." :-) I'll be popping some corn, too, and watching the show.
They were even attacking Obama's legacy during the debate...they might as well come out and say Trump's been right for working to erase it...
Bernie Sanders just did an hour with Joe Rogan.https://youtu.be/2O-iLk1G_ng
A few points:
1.) To me, he seems shaky on economics. For instance, if you base the funding for major programs on tax revenue from Wall Street speculation, then how do you pay for those programs when the Stock Market crashes?
2.) He glosses over how the large number of Americans going to college after WWII was paid for by the Montgomery GI Bill. This means that yes, the government paid for college, but they did it for people who were in their mid twenties and older who had years of military discipline. These were not eighteen year olds who wanted to major in the arts, so long as they could schedule all of the classes after lunch.
3.) The term "assault weapon" is word salad. It means nothing, so it can be used to mean anything. The correct nomenclature is assault rifle. This denotes a class of military rifles which are chambered for an intermediate length cartridge; load from detachable box magazines; and are selectable for automatic fire. The name is derived from the STG 44 Sturmgewehr, which was the progenitor of the class.
The one huge thing he (and some of the others) always glosses over when talking about his tax on Wall Street, is the number of working class Americans with 401Ks that would be devastated with such a tax. He likes to paint this narrative that only the rich are making money in stocks, and that simply isn't true.
It would not be restricted to the US. In NZ, pension plans are heavily invested in stocks, which of course, makes sense because you want such investments to be in things that can make money. There may be a problem if the stock market takes a dive - it is often said that stock markets around the world end to be overpricing stocks. Nw, if only we knew when the dive would come . . .
And that's why "experts suggest rebalancing your account if it doesn't auto rebalance. As you get older, the 401k should gradually shift away from stocks and invest more and more in stable bonds. I think what we saw in the Great Recession when Baby boomers cried that their 401Ks lost half their value when they were about to retire, is that they wanted to gamble heavily right up to the end.
What are (and what should be, in your opinion) the core issues for the American voters? Immigration, growing social gap, poverty, richness, healthcare, racial issues, gun control, foreign policy, abortion, same sex marriages?
I am not an American, but I would guess it will be the pocket book, and then a couple of other things like health and education. Most people will have a "fringe" issue as well, but there are so many of them. Other things like gun control are not so much issues because by and large both sides have the same policy
Nik wrote: "What are (and what should be, in your opinion) the core issues for the American voters? Immigration, growing social gap, poverty, richness, healthcare, racial issues, gun control, foreign policy, ..."
Honesty?
Philip - from politicians? Aren't you expecting a little too much???
I suspect that come November, Boris Johnson will make the economy a worldwide issue. The main question is how big of an issue it will be. If the UK and EU show good order and reasonable reciprocity, then it might just be a minor downturn, lasting two or three quarters. If Boris acts like the buffoon that he has been in the past...As far as internal issues, as I see it, the greatest threat to the Republic is our debt spending. If we do not staunch the bleeding... I'd rather not think about that.
Next up would be getting the costs of medical care and education under control, without just dumping more money in, and thus simultaneously increasing the debt and increasing the prices.
Currently, I am mostly concerned by the willingness of many to use the State's "monopoly on violence" to enforce their opinions on everyone. There are too many people who are ready and willing to put a gun against their neighbor's head in order to get what they want.
J. wrote: "....If Boris acts like the buffoon that he has been in the past..."Amusing that many said similar stuff about Don
J. wrote: "....There are too many people who are ready and willing to put a gun against their neighbor's head..."
Unfortunately, literally and not just to threaten
One problem we have is that we want something for nothing. We want tax cuts despite knowing that we need to spend money on infrastructure, education, health care, dealing with immigrants - on and on. It's just not logical. But woe to the presidential candidate who talks about tax increases. Americans are spoiled children who want everything without paying for it. We have a credit card mentality - just charge it and pay the minimum payment while stacking debt. And the sad fact is that we'd probably be willing to pay more taxes if we trusted the government to spend the money wisely. Lack of oversight for government programs such as welfare, disability, food stamps, military spending, government spending in general has resulted in rampant fraud and overspending. It's just a mess.
oh my god.And it's obvious the media is trying to cover for him by their insistence that they're all "gaffs." But that's all we need is to go to war with Europe because he mistakes France for Syria or something like that.
