Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
waterfieldParticipantI am hopeful, btw, that this is about the best possible scenario right now. It appears to me that this past week rattled the Republicans quite a lot. It also appears that the Republicans are not going to do a “McConnell” – i.e. a complete denial of reality and total stonewalling. They have evidently started throwing the brakes on Trump.
We have a special counsel who is respected by everybody. I haven’t read or seen a negative response to this guy, Mueller, by anybody. And although Trump theoretically CAN fire this guy, I can’t image that he will. If he does, congress will renew the Office of Independent Counsel,” and hostility to Trump will spread.
In the meantime, the tax cuts and other projects have taken a hit, and are going to be slowed down if not killed as a consequence of this. This investigation has finally found some “real” traction, and the Republican agenda is going to proceed more slowly as this investigation dominates business.
Furthermore, this is going to take months. If it does, in fact, gum up legislation and stays as the topic of conversation (and I’m sure Trump will keep adding fuel to the fire because that’s who he is), it improves the chances of turning the House in 2018. About the best we can hope for at the moment.
I/m hoping that is all true. I saw an interview today with the author of a book on Trump. He said the man is like a little boy who cannot accept any criticism and has no filters in terms of how he speaks. He’s very afraid of what people think of him and will say anything that he thinks makes him well thought of in the public. The author said that when you hear the man call others names those are simply a means by which he puts those very fears of himself onto others.
This is not a man that should be in charge of the future of your children.
waterfieldParticipantWhile I admire and agree with the appointment of a special counsel(i.e. prosecutor)and especially appointing Robert Mueller the problem is he is charged with determining if any crimes were committed be it by the President or others. It will be a secret process that could end up in two words: “No crimes”. And “no indictment.” Nothing will have been learned as to what really happened that would reflect on the competency of the President and his ability to lead this country. Simply put no matter how credible and respected Mueller is his job is narrow as a special prosecutor. What is still needed is an “independent investigation” into issues that may not rise to the level of criminality but nevertheless reflect on how dangerous this administration is acting and needs to be held accountable for -either at the polls or by impeachment or by resignation.
waterfieldParticipantLooks like Trump has a 38 percent approval rating this month. Fwiw.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspxw
vYeah I know. But not “approving” of him is different than not “supporting” him. Which is my point. I know several who can’t stand the guy and don’t “approve” of his conduct other than his efforts to make their financial interests more secure. Sad. But these are family run businesses and their concern is focused on just that.To a man and woman they are totally convinced that had Clinton won their business would have been adversely affected.
waterfieldParticipantThis is not a “country first” nation. It is a “party first” nation….
This is about a two royal classes protecting their own self interests. The peasants in the middle do not particularly matter.
===================
The poignancy of the situation of course, is that the peasants themselves
keep voting for one or the other, of the two ‘royal classes’.The peasants dont have to do that.
Except they ‘do’ have to do that, cause their brains
have been colonized by the two royal classes.w
v“Peasants” and “colonized brains”.
That is precisely why progressive will never move forward. Most people see this language as elitism. And that pisses them off. You know the common person-the one you need to be on your side in order to make the very changes you want. There are some very bright and well educated people who voted for Trump. And there are some “peasants” and yes “colonized brains” who voted for Nader. We simply have to stop blaming our life’s misfortunes on “corporations”. To not do so is to forever waddle around in a hopeless sea of mud.
waterfieldParticipantWell I didn’t hear the interview but I would be interested in whether a follow up was what did she mean by “security”. That could be helpful since her definition might not simply mean harm brought to U.S. soil.
waterfieldParticipantWe agree on all that, W.
.
Not sure how to take that. My first reaction is that it means: “We (whoever “we” is) know all that so why bother posting it”. My second reaction is what I choose: ” Thx for posting that. I agree with you as I think most here do”.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by
waterfield.
waterfieldParticipantSo Comey gets fired right after federal prosecutors issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. If the general public does not care about this then something drastically has changed since Watergate to now.
Maybe half the people in this country may not care because Trump comes off as a tough talking son of a bitch-the kind of guy you don’t want to mess around with in a bar. The kind of “leader” you follow into battle. And Nixon did not come off like that. If that is so then we are indeed lost.
waterfieldParticipantDoesn’t pass the smell test. This is Nixon all over again. It surely had little if anything to do with the handling of Clinton’s emails. Comey was heading the FBI’s investigation into the Russian/Trump campaign and to fire him now-right after the testimony yesterday? Come on. And Sessions gets involved to recommend Comey’s firing after he excused himself form the DOJ’s investigation of the Russian conflict of interest issues? Again, can’t pass the smell test. Seems rather evident to anyone who cares that-at least there is the appearance of not wanting any further investigation into the Russian involvement (i.e. you help us defeat Clinton and we will take away the sanctions, etc). At worst we now for sure need a special independent prosecutor to investigate this entire matter. At least Nixon ended up doing that-forced or not. Do you think Trump will? Do you think people care? Not my employer friends who are glad regulations are being freed and their corporate taxes are being limited.
waterfieldParticipantPA: I’m sorry to hear about you wife’s lymphoma. My wife was diagnosed with multiple myeloma a few years back. Hopefully your wife is in good care. We make the trip to Stanford-from So Cal-at least 4 times a year. Life always seems to give us enough to struggle with independent of politics. Wishing the best for you guys.
Tony
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by waterfield.
waterfieldParticipant“Although I voted for Clinton in an effort to stave off the Trump invasion, I prefer Sanders and voted for him in the primaries.
And it is nowhere near because I want simple answers to complicated issues.
Nor did anyone I know who voted for Sanders in the primaries, and also wished he were the nominee–all like me—do so because they want simple answers. This is colleagues, friends, family.”
I’m not saying that’s what you or your people wanted. (That is not a personal attack.)I’m saying that is what he unequivocally did and he did remarkably well. To me there is a connection and almost a symbiotic relation with Trump in that regard.
waterfieldParticipantAnd I have another theory. But before I write about that I just want to say I don’t want to get into the whole Sanders v Clinton debate. We’ve been through all that.
Here’s my other thought: I think that as we depend more and more on “social media” for our “socialization” we become more and more isolated and unable to comprehend fully the views of those we disagree with. With true face to face interaction I believe we view people in a different frame of reference. Nothing beats looking into the eyes of someone who is offering a differing viewpoint than yours. To me there is a remarkable difference between reading what one says and listening to what they say. I’m sure that if I met some of the progressives on this board it would be far easier to re-examine some of my views. However, for some reason, message boards, face book, etc. become either debate forums which mandates argument or it becomes a clique where you can choose who you want “to be around”. It is so easy to simply “unfriend” someone, etc. So-IMO- as we become less and less interactive with people on a personal level we tend to become more isolated in our own belief system and thus less and less willing to examine the beliefs of others. As a result we see a “polarization” of belief systems and the correspondingly unwillingness to re-examine our own beliefs.
So my question is (rhetorical) when did we become so unwilling to listen to people who view an issue different than we do. My answer is above which may be why our political spectrum is as polarized as it is today. More so than it ever has been.
waterfieldParticipantThe country is very divided.
The Republicans are not only divided between themselves. The Democrats are also divided.
The problem with the Democratic establishment is that they believe the leftist wing is crazy and radical for wanting to pull the party back to the left–where it belongs(in my opinion)because it has drifted right, in terms of corporate love for years.
The Clinton’s have established a cult within the party. The Clinton cult is not necessarily by nature corporate(at least the regular folks)but the cult is so strong it is like gravity, pulling those people toward corporate friendly positions by following the logic of incrementalism and fear of the extreme Republican agenda.
There is a reality to that.
And yes–because Trump was such a disaster waiting to happen I voted for Clinton. If Romney had been running I may or may not have voted for her. I think that margin of difference would have been much smaller. The problem is that the Clinton wing and “cult” projects the “cult” thing on the Bernie people and fails to recognize it in themselves.
But that wing also fails to realize how deep this split actually is–how fed-up people are with this corporate drift.
They still don’t get it and the powers that be are still keeping their thumbs on the scale. They will never give this up easy. Frankly, compromise will be a challenge. But Perez and Pelosi(who STILL won’t begin to support single payer)are in charge.
Still, I get most of Maher’s point. It’s WHY I ultimately voted for her. I think if the election was held again that probably more people would hold their nose and vote for her allowing her to eek out a victory. And they’d feel miserable watching her do the exact things they know she’d do–but at least the planet would not be destroyed by climate change sooner than alter, and health care would not be blown apart.
But this division within the party is real. If the Dems fail to find a way to address it they will keep losing elections. Right now they seem clueless about it beyond attacking something called “Bernie Bros”.
Good luck with that.
Well I do agree with you on one point. And that is the anoitment of Clinton by the Democratic machine long before the campaign was in step. ( I still feel she was the most qualified person to ever run for President)By so doing they failed to take the pulse of the American people in that half of them are pissed at stuff they don’t understand and wanted simple answers to complicated issues-which is why both Sanders and Trump did far better than anyone ever expected. They both-IMO-suffer from the same malady -simple answers to complicated problems. But alas-that appears to be where a huge part of where the voting public’s needs are. Issues that require true analysis simply run counter to what we are accustomed to seeing on tv. It seems like people actually do not want to think “critically” -let alone take the time to do actual research much like you see on this board? (here I am being the cynic I’m always complaining about) Rather than blaming corporations-that’s easy too-I think for many it’s a matter of simply being “thought lazy”. I don’t think we were always that way. I recall growing up listening to my uneducated mom discuss the New Deal, FDR, Truman, Ike, etc. Today it’s about sports and television programs. And when did people become so afraid and distrustful of intellectuals (now their called elites). We certainly put no credence to debate (Trump proved that as he -from all accounts-lost every debate with Clinton). Sorry to be so cynical (LOL).
waterfieldParticipant“voters—even those who are well informed and politically engaged—mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. ”
Well Duh. It’s always been that way. We tend to want to associate with those we like (friends, neighbors, relatives, etc) even if we differ in our political views. Hence “Orange County” (where I live) is a conservative hotbed and San Francisco is not. We tend to adopt the view of those we like because we want to be associated with them. Has nothing to do with Capitalism, Corporate blah blah, or any other institutional cynicism. The “system” does not shape us. It’s simply risky behavior to go against those we identify with. Of course there are exceptions (I’m one) but we do pay a price. A lot of this stuff is simply human nature. It’s not something manufactured by the “machine”.
My wife and I attend a lot of social outings where our friends for the most part are independent business owners-most small manufacturing stuff. They all voted for you know who-primarily because of their belief that they would be free from what they consider to be over taxation and too many regulations. I get that. But they are not a product of the machine anymore than I am. They simply come to that place in time from a product of circumstances over their lifetime. To blame the “system” for what’s wrong is to borrow the line that put Trump into office: “there are really simple answers to complicated problems”.
April 18, 2017 at 1:08 am in reply to: Facebook argument and more thoughts on our political situation #67587waterfieldParticipantn fact, there is so much psychological and sociological evidence that when confronted with facts that directly challenge someone’s key ideological assumptions, the effect is not to give them pause (let alone convince them) but to make them double down on their original beliefs. Evidence is actually counter-productive, they say. People just dig in deeper.
I’m well aware of some of those studies and believe them. It’s really the basis of why I said you can’t win an “argument” in that type of environment. It just goes from bad to worse for all the reasons in your quote.
I also agree that it is important to “stand up” for what you believe in. If only to let others know that not everyone believes in the same things as they do. But I try and do that in person-because I think by doing it face to face it is more personal and if that person knows and respects you it just might have some influence. But not on the internet (FB). And even if that person doesn’t “know” you-just the face to face eye contact can be far more meaningful than on FB.
I’m headed to Wyoming (the heart of Trump support) this week to spread some ashes of an elderly friend and I will be testing my theory-if I survive.
April 18, 2017 at 12:41 am in reply to: Facebook argument and more thoughts on our political situation #67586waterfieldParticipantWell…I have abandoned all hope.
For all the reasons we have all talked about since 1998.
I believe the tipping point has passed.
I think the system (whatever you want to call it)
has become too good
at making too many people
ignorant and dangerous.I think we get to live out our lives watching the collapse.
Might as well bash on relentlessly, though. I mean, why not.
w
vConan O’Brien to a group of young people:
““Please do not be cynical. I hate cynicism – it’s my least favorite quality, and it doesn’t lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.”
But if you believe in those famous lyrics from Leonard Cohen: “Everybody knows that the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost”. Well-go ahead. Not me.
April 18, 2017 at 12:31 am in reply to: Facebook argument and more thoughts on our political situation #67584waterfieldParticipantZooey: By “winning” I don’t mean in the debate sense. To me I’m thinking you say blah blah blah (in an argumentative sense) and she responds-“Well I hadn’t looked at it like that-I suppose your right”. I mean isn’t that really why we argue? We hope at some point the person we are trying to convince is in fact convinced. Otherwise by arguing just to argue we are just being as ass. My point is that will NEVER happen on FB or even here-because we really don’t “know” who the other person really is. How did they come to be who they are, etc.? We “think” we know but we really don’t. However, when we “argue” with “friends” it’s a lot easier to say ‘”you might be right”, etc. Our ego is less involved. With strangers its like an electronic fist fight.
April 17, 2017 at 8:00 pm in reply to: Facebook argument and more thoughts on our political situation #67574waterfieldParticipantThe problem: You are arguing with her and she is arguing with you. No one ever “wins” an argument on FB or any electronic message board. I’ve never won an argument here. IMO any hope of gaining an understanding of another’s view is hopelessly lost once an “argument” begins. Topical discussions on issues are usually worthwhile because they often are enlightening. The fact she blocked you doesn’t mean you “won”. It could be she simply doesn’t like you-at least as she perceives you based on your posts.
The electronic social world is just weird. I was out to dinner with my neighbor’s family Friday and their 30 year old daughter was here from N.Y. She was going on and on about on line dating. Swipe left and swipe right-and all that stuff. What bothered me was how she was unwilling to meet someone over the smallest text remark. (“he sounds… he looks…his job isn’t…”) It all reminded me of an old story: boy meets girl-boy falls in love and she too-after months of dating he brings out a ring for her-she backs off-years go by and they each have their own family-they meet by accident one day-he asks her why she never accepted his proposal-she says the way he held the ring made her think he was too “soft” for her-he says I remember that night, it was the day I broke my finger playing softball.
waterfieldParticipantMore “studies”.
“More shallow dismissive quotation marks in lieu of an actual argument.”
Don’t mind me. Just bein a rat.
But you DON’T have an argument. Just some overgeneralized shallow dismissal of studies you don’t like (and so don’t read) because they counter your assumptions, a handful of conversations, and then this blissfully sheltered conviction that what YOU see is more than just what YOU see.
Well-thank you for that.
I’m not “arguing” anything. Just stating my belief that there are many different reasons people voted for Trump besides “racism” or a fear of “diversity” which is all part of the equation. If I wanted to win an argument I would go and get a bunch of “studies” that supported my “argument”.
But thanks for the personal attack even if you don’t recognize it as such-which says a lot/
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by waterfield.
waterfieldParticipanthttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-unconscious-sexism-could-help-explain-trumps-win/
More “studies”.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by waterfield.
waterfieldParticipantI have to admit I remain skeptical of “studies” and “analysis” unless I’ve researched the norms used in such a studies. Even so I know thee are many many different opinions along with “studies” on the engines that drive a Trump supporter. So I tend to look at what’s in front of me-meaning I form opinions normally based on what I see. Do I read studies-of course I do-part of that has been my profession-but I know for every study on a subject there is an equally valid one out there. Its like competing expert witnesses in a trial. For the most part they all sound credible-unless of course you are an expert in that field yourself.
So in my little world-most of my friends are what one would call “business people”. They are not necessarily wealthy country club people although some are. But they have been friends of mine since middle school and a few even earlier. When we gather the talk is about business and sports. Their political vent is normally about how they can benefit from any Republican including Trump more so than any democrat. For the length of time I’ve known them I cannot recall ever witnessing anything that would even be suspect of racism. At parties they talk of taxes, fair trade issue, the costs to them of healthcare, and of course sports. Now I have a neighbor who I’ve heard him use the N work more than once. I don’t need to know anything more. I consider him a racist and I do not see him as a “friend”. Just a neighbor. OTOH I know-because he has shown me-that he would do everything and anything to help you if you had a problem. But maybe not if I was black. Who knows.
We also live in a very eclectic area that has an enormous population of people from Mexico, including my neighbor across the street. We are close because we share a love for the Dodgers and have been to his home several times for various celebrations. What’s interesting is that at least half of his relatives-not including him-were Trump supporters-simply because he “talked tough”. These were Mexicans who obviously did not vote because of a fear of diversity. I don’t know -maybe the macho culture of Mexico and Latin American has something to do with that because to a person they respected Trump’s “machismo”.
I respect both Sanders (didn’t vote for him) and Warren( I would have voted for her) and I agree with their take on this. I also don’t think either one of them holds anything back as Zooey suggests.
In my opinion there is a multitude of reasons why people voted for the guy. Of course there were people who decided enough is enough when it comes to the darkening of the American face (i.e. a fear of diversity). But again I suspect there were as many who thought their own personal financial security would be better served with Trump. Then there were those who simply wanted someone more “tough” to lead the country. Then there were those who simply wanted anyone but Hillary.
I know there are those who so detest this guy-and I’m one of them-that they will attribute to his supporters the most evil characteristic they can-and that happens to be racism ! And if one group has an agenda they can do a study and come to a conclusion that supports their belief system. Which is why I tend to formulate my opinions on what I experience. Yes-I read studies and carefully look to see if they are truly evidence based but at bottom I go back to what my experience tells me. Sometimes studies support what I see and sometimes they don’t. I will always trust what I see because if I see a “study” that says I’m wrong or right I know right around the corner is another study.
I also recognize that I may very well be wrong on this particular issue and Trump supporters may well have supported him because of racism and diversity. That’s just not been I have experienced. Others have a different experience and even take-and that’s fine with me.
April 6, 2017 at 5:47 pm in reply to: Despite Trump ending the 'war on coal', utilities aren't going back to it #67034waterfieldParticipantCoal should to be put to bed-now and forever.
waterfieldParticipantBelieve me the people I referred to are not “country club types” Billy. For the most part they own family run shops. My point is their main reason for supporting -or should I say voting-for Trump was a “whats in it for me” attitude. To them that trumps the environment, healthcare, and most all the issues I try and champion. They can agree with you during a discussion but when it comes down to it their own self interest is what counts. Diversity never enters the picture. But again these are not what you might consider uneducated white trash males. To them I suspect that the changing face of America (i.e.darker and darker) is a real problem. Also older white uneducated males are digging their feet into the ground on diversity as well. I’m not sure what “real research” is but from what i’ve studied I’m not convinced at all that the reason behind the majority of Trump voters was a fear of diversity. I also believe that a hatred of Hillary and the Clintons in general forced many into voting for Trump when an alternative nominee would have captured those same votes. I also think that the diversity narrative fits well with the belief system of a certain group of people. Truth be told there really isn’t a fool proof way of determining what the main reason was for those who voted for this guy let alone the predominant one.
waterfieldParticipantTrump voters fear diversity? Well-not all do. At least not in my neck of the woods. Most people I know who own their own business voted for the guy for one simple reason: they think he will lower their corporate tax rate and allow them to either buy more toys or expand their business. None of them appear to have any negative attitudes toward other ethnic groups. Their votes were simply -in their mind-a matter of economics. If they could use a diverse population in their own businesses they would-and from what I see-they have. But then again they are fairly well educated and would be considered “upper class”-whatever that means.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by waterfield.
waterfieldParticipantUnfortunately the GOP Healthcare plan takes away the very source of money that would keep healthcare costs down-namely the young healthy adults. Studies have shown that when given a “choice” the young and healthy people will spend their money on just about everything except health care. Without them the bulk of the insureds will be the elderly and sick and caring for them is what drives up the cost of healthcare. Simply stated we need healthy young people to pay for the older sick people. The GOP plan removes that source of revenue. Healthcare costs will continue to rise with the natural result that fewer and fewer people will be able to afford it.
March 6, 2017 at 9:49 pm in reply to: sociological reasons why many Americans are ignoring facts #65957waterfieldParticipantOne of the finest trial lawyers I ever had the pleasure of knowing once told me when I began my trial career: “Tony, you never win cases based on facts. You win cases based on impressions”.
Applying this to the election most people that I know who voted for Trump really never had a deep or even a basic understanding of the issues-but they believed he represented a “strong leader” and believed the democratic nominee was not “strong” and neither was Obama. If one looks at the “facts” the opposite is true.
February 20, 2017 at 12:46 pm in reply to: Bill Gates wants a robot tax to offset job loss due to automation #65453waterfieldParticipantI saw this, and it got me thinking about the other proposal (being tested in Finland or Denmark) if the universal basic income. Automation is going to create a big issue. A big unavoidable issue.
And I got to wondering if we really have advanced to the point where there is enough wealth and production in our society that with a different taxation/wealth distribution mechanism, where work will be increasingly “optional” rather than a ball and chain. The next 100 years are going to be the biggest revolution yet, I suppose.
My wife has been saying the same thing for a long time. It seems inevitable that with the increase in population and automation, etc. there simply will not be enough work for everyone in the future. And so it will by necessity become optional.
waterfieldParticipantWell-I still think Chomsky would be highly interested in the film -if he hasn’t already seen it. Which was my only point re him.
It was hard for me to understand the non linear thinking and the ability to see the future until the math behind the circles shed light on it. Personally, I thought the acquisition of the ability to conceptualize the future by the earthly linguist was more a gift to her from the aliens due to the crisis in the alien’s future.
All in all I thought it was a great movie-the kind that creates conversations -like this-afterwards.
waterfieldParticipantThe problem is your “premise” (ie. peconception) is refuted by science.
You guys are making my so called “premise” far more complicated than it actually is.
“Hard wired” or not children need to be taught (parents, peers, education, etc) what they may or may not be “hard wired” to do. They are born not knowing how to access innate traits that separate them from other species. In a word they are not born selfless even though they may have the “capacity” to become so. It is my belief that a child that is taught compassion and empathy for others does not lose that character simply because of a corrupt society and a child that is not taught such character does not acquire it simply because of a more civilized society.
waterfieldParticipantWell I’m not going to spend my life on this subject but I don’t see anything that you wrote that runs counter to my basic premise that children are born narcissistic -by necessity-and “learn” to be less so-or they don’t. I also understand this may be inconsistent to those who believe that children are born inherently good and become less so through the influence of a corrupt society. (which is what I believe Billy is saying)
waterfieldParticipantAnd, to me, the kind of economic and governmental system in place is critical. That system can crush or empower our innate desires to be generous, kind, giving, caring, etc. etc.
I don’t think the desire to be generous, kind, giving, ect. is “innate” at all. I’m not sure you have children Billy ( I’m betting you don’t) but if you have I suspect you would agree with me on this. That’s stuff we learn from either our parent(s) or from others. Otherwise it’s open to the notion that whatever “innate goodness” we have is or can be “crushed” as you say by the government. Knowing your philosophical bent and your intelligence I’m sure you are familiar with Frankl”s “Man Search for Meaning.” The essential point of the book was that if one has values that have been embedded within him from years of leaning–in his case his parents-they cannot be “crushed” by the government-in his case the Nazis.
So we likely disagree. Or maybe we don’t. But it’s been an interesting discussion at least. And I would like to retire knowing that the Ninth Circuit has at least temporarily stopped this immigration nonsense-at least for now.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
