P.S. Guess what male portrayal in the history of television is by far the most popular-still today.

The Marlboro Man. In a stupid commercial and not for the smoking of a cigarette but for what the actor represented. I can’t blame government for the Marlboro Man-although I do see a corporate influence at work. But were it not for the American public’s “need” for the character I doubt it would have worked. We’ve always wanted and needed toughness. Especially bad ass toughness where the tough guy ain’t all that moral or sympathetic for the plight of others. (i.e. Clint Eastwood, etc-we adore these guys-and football too-that’s America)

End of story.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by waterfield.

I think the answer to the “why” is that people are generally unhappy. And they think that the mantra happiness comes from themselves and not outside is pure BS. They’ve been taught that the more you can accumulate the happier you will be. So when we accumulate but are still unhappy we look to the biggest target we can find for the cause of our unhappiness-and naturally that’s the government. I know many, many people who believe Trump is an immoral and unbalanced ass hole but voted for him and will vote for him again because “someone needed to shake up the system”-namely the government. And there can be no question the guy is doing just that. The more nonsense he tweets the more people can identify with him because that is precisely what they would do. Simply put, people just want someone that will make them happy like they “think” they were years ago. And of course the evil clown promises to do just that. And people don’t care about the “evil” part if he can make them happy.

Unfortunately, I think were in bed with this guy until he terms out. Unless we figure out a way to make the average Joe feel good about himself. Its not Trump that’s wrong here its us.

Here’s a quote from the article in the N.Y. Times that somehow I couldn’t attach.

“The activist wing of the Democratic Party mobilized for several of the night’s biggest races, trying to replicate the insurgent victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York earlier this summer — and for the most part falling short.

In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, a youthful candidate for governor backed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, lost a primary by about 20 percentage points to Gretchen Whitmer, a former Democratic leader in the state legislature. And in Missouri, Representative William Lacy Clay turned back a challenge from Cori Bush, who campaigned alongside Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and framed her candidacy in similar terms.

The left still displayed real political force: Mr. El-Sayed and Ms. Bush both won more than 30 percent of the primary vote as underdog candidates. But the night was, on the whole, a display of strength by more conventional Democrats and a reminder that Democratic primary voters across the country are not necessarily motivated chiefly by liberal ideology.”

IMHO what this could mean is that just as Trump’s election victory spoke to a general dislike for Obama the upcoming elections could speak to a dislike of Trump. Simply stated it may not be about “policies” at all. After all we do live in a Facebook world of “likes”. Analysis of “content” is simply gone.

I was thinking about something “practical” rather than a vehicle for the larger discussion of police brutality.

wv wrote:

Yes. See to me, that is part of the ‘big story’ on US ‘elections’.

Russian interference? Sure. A story? Sure. But the BIG-HUGE-GIGANTIC story is not russian interference. The big story is simply what ‘elections’ are in a Corporotacracy.

And weve talked about ‘that’ story on this board since 1998. All the various factors and levels of factors that go into dumming-down the public, distracting the public, making sure big-money determines outcomes, creating a media that protects the system at all costs, etc, etc, etc.

The gerrymandering thing is part of the BIG-story, I’d say. A small part of the BIG-STORY.

w
v

To me gerrymandering IS the big story. If it did not exist the Freedom Caucus and the republicans would not control congress and that IS big !
s

Billy: As far as patients losing their doctors I’m not arguing their fears are well founded. I’m just saying they have such fears.

“Science tells us we’re born with an innate sense of fairness and a desire to share, as studies of small children show again and again.”

I think that misses my point Billy. Lets even assume that those studies are valid the problem comes when the so called “innate sense of fairness” becomes “unlearned”. Simply put its up to the parent to protect that “innate” sense of fairness and not destroy it. You and I probably know well meaning parents who object to soccer “participating trophies” for young children. The message repeated over and over becomes “its all about you not others”. Its the “show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser” mentality. Take and take because it belongs to you not others. I think in today’s society children as they grow lose sight of the “others”. I guess my point was not so much how one is born but how one learns or “unlearns” as they grow up-which has nothing to do with the form of government or the left or the right. The small puppy you take home is cuddly, sweet, nice and totally loves you and is dependent on you. But you put that sweet puppy in a cage and beat the shit out of the animal day after day after day. On day you reach in to the cage to feed it and he will bite you. Maybe that’s closer to my point.

nittany ram wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Here is an answer to your question WV.

‘Why don’t we just copy the Canadians?’ is because we can’t. We’re not Canadian and we don’t share the same history or the same social ethos.’”

I don’t buy that. It’s not because we are so culturely different; it’s because the US has been so propagandized that anything socialist is bad, and single payer is largely portrayed as socialist by the powers that be. It’s not culture – it’s a relatively small group of people who got rich off the current healthcare system, and therefore have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. IMO that’s what’s keeping us from having single payer. If you describe the benefits of single payer to most Americans and they are all for it. It’s not until you call it single payer that they turn up their noses.

I don’t know. I thought the article -like many from Wharton that I read-was fairly even handed. I think the point was that we are so ingrained in our health care system and we are so big and divergent in our views that it would almost be impossible to change to a universal system at this point. Maybe an infusion of universal care to some degree but to radically change to an entirely different model just won’t work. There may be a point in that. It may also be that there may not be any bad guys in this. Only that this nation has evolved in this system unlike any other. Its not the bad guys overpowering the good guys. Its never quite that simple.

zn wrote:

waterfield wrote:

I don’t think that’s what we need at all ! This country is essentially by history fairly conservative. By moving too far to the left we all but insure a more powerful and stronger right. And with a stronger right comes authoritarianism and demagoguery. And of course from that comes what we not have in the WH. IMO any move to the extreme-right or left-is simply another form of populism that appeals to the popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. I don’t ever want to see a left version of Trump. This one is bad enough for me.

The greatest gains for people in this country’s history occurred with the New Deal, which the republicans are trying to wipe out and which the democrats are tepid about defending.

Actually in spite of the myth of the country being conservative, if you go an issue at a time, the majority always prefers left solutions. For example, single payer health insurance.

Which would save people enormous amounts of money and hassles. In fact there’s no good reason to oppose it.

The New Deal was spawned from the great depression. It wasn’t a social invention. It was specifically designed by FDR to rescue the greatest economic collapse in our history. Those conditions do not exist today. Yes people support a lot of stuff including universal health care. But that doesn’t mean they’re correct. Vermont tried universal health and had to abandon it because of the costs. Out health system now is so bloated that it would be impossible to reinvent it. It’s simply too late.

Not only that but I bet people will be “shocked-shocked I tell you” when the backlash hits for cancelling the most popular sit com on television where the fans views are mirrored in her statements. Depressing. How did we get there? Maybe we’ve always been there.

Billy_T wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Just so you know Billy I wrote the Admin and asked why the entire post was not pulled.

Good to hear that, W.

How did they respond?

After a day of chemo, and listening to the (sometimes horrific) stories of other patients — which is unusual for me. I generally keep to myself when I’m there — I’ve had time to “sleep on it” a bit. About the only thing that bothers me now is the faceless, nameless aspect of it all. As in, I don’t know who deleted the posts, and I don’t know who locked me out just as I was getting ready to write a final post to the board.

To me, that’s cowardice, and it’s — struggling for the right expression here — bad form.

James, for instance, would have told me personally before any of this happened. He would have sent an email or a PM. The new mods — whomever they are — don’t have to stones to back up their own actions by divulging their handles at least, which, of course, still keeps them basically anonymous.

Not cool. Not. Cool.

They have not responded.

PA Ram wrote:

It’s quite another to defeat a gullible and ignorant public and a congress that protects him.

Yeah-in many ways I’ve thought for some time its not Trump that bothers me. Its the voter ! And how does one address that ?

zn wrote:

And again, that’s not a majority.

So it’s not “the public” in total.

You’re talking about groups and factions. Not a majority.

But its close and that’s what is so depressing to me-the number of people that make up these groups and or factions. I just never thought there were that many people willing to vote for someone like Trump. I was wrong.