bnw wrote:

<

Then why do democrats still vote democrat? Or I suppose what is a democrat bent or philosophy?

—————
Probly the whole ‘lesser of two evils’ thing for a lot of dem-voters. They want a more ‘left’ leaning party than the Dems but they think voting for the Green party is a ‘wasted vote’.

Its the same reason so many righties keep voting for the Reps. They want something different but think a third-party vote is a wasted vote.

Both parties have a nice racket going.

w
v

Mackeyser wrote:

You’re so right Zooey. And don’t get me started on those pantsuits. Holy Jesus.

It was so damned transparent that every appearance was micro-targeted…as if she was dressed by an analytics algorithm. It was stunningly disingenuous.

Bernie was Bernie. Same suit. So much so that Larry David made the joke that he only had one pair of underwear…and Bernie ran with it and said he bought a second pair.

Trump was Trump. He oozed wealth. Now one can focus on oozed or wealth, but even as he donned that red cap, totally out of character, it was like that moment in My Cousin Vinny…”I wore this ridiculous thing…for you”

Hillary? Every appearance was a combination Rorschach test and puzzle, “who is Hillary pandering to/trying to manipulate/trying to relate to only with clothes?”

The critiques came across as misogynistic, but they weren’t.

You’d never see Elizabeth Warren do that. You’d never see Tulsi Gabbard to that. You’d never see Nina Turner do that.

There were PLENTY of strong Democratic Party women who wouldn’t have done anything remotely like this.

————

Yeah, i agree.

But will the Dem-Machine EVER allow a true progressive to be at the head of the Ticket?

Whens the last time that happened? 1972? McGovern?

w
v

There are different versions of Buddhism and my understanding is some versions deny the existence of a Soul and some versions include an ‘atman’ or soul.

“…Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of a Soul, Self or Atman. According to the teachings of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world…”
—What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula
————
wiki

…Ātman (Sanskrit: आत्मन्) or Atta (Pāli) is self. Occasionally the terms “soul” or “ego” are used. The words ātman and atta derive from the Indo-European root *ēt-men (breath) and are cognate with the Old English æthm and German Atem.[1]

In Buddhism, the belief in the existence of an unchanging ātman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of saṃsāra. The early scriptures do, however, see an enlightened being as one whose changing, empirical self is highly developed.

Some Mahāyāna Buddhist sutras and tantras present other Buddhist teachings with positive language by strongly insisting upon the ultimate reality of the atman when it is equated with each being’s “essential nature of mind” (Dalai Lama —- see relevant section below) or inborn potential to become, and future status as, a Buddha (Tathāgatagarbha doctrine).
In contradistinction to early Buddhist teachings, the Theravāda Dhammakaya Movement of Thailand teaches the reality of a true self, which it equates with nirvana.

I think Goff will Scorch the league
like a sausage in a refinery fire.

…wait…my analogy might need some work.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

and that’s not to say there isn’t an element of racism among trump supporters. there is. it certainly plays a significant part. misogyny and homophobia. there’s that too.

but i also don’t like how clinton minimized other issues and reduced it down to vote for us or side with racism and misogyny and homophobia.

bernie would not have done that. i truly believe that.

There was a great article during the primaries that was posted here that argued that Dems should nominate Sanders precisely because of this. Because against Hillary, Trump would go low, and she couldn’t leave the “Crooked Hillary” stuff alone, and would have to go low back at him, and that she would inevitably lose a mud-slinging contest. Whereas Sanders would have just kept banging away on wealth, health care, and college education. He would have no need to go to the gutter, and Trump would just look bad in contrast. That was the argument.

————-
True, zooey.

But i still am skeptical about the breezy view that Sanders “would have won”. Maybe.
But i dunno. America does not seem like a nation that would elect a socialist to me.

Granted, Bernie ran as an FDR progressive.

I dunno. I think it woulda been REAL close.

w
v

— X — wrote:

< “… it’s difficult to keep our animosities in check when discussing politics, but I had/have high hopes for this board in particular to do just that. So, going forward, I’ll try not to read ‘tone’ into the discussion, and I’ll do my best to elucidate in the same manner…”

——————–
Well just to reiterate — itz REALLY-REALLY-REALLY-REALLY hard for people with
vastly-disparate political views to ‘converse’ for Long. Oh, it usually starts out ok, but sooner or later…boom.

For lots of obvious reasons.

I mean think of…oh….say…abortion. Think of a message board with say ten pro-choicys and five pro-lifeys. And all fifteen have different levels of ‘communication skills’ and different kinds of ’emotional discipline’ and different temperaments, etc.

How likely is it there will be ‘good conversation’ for an ‘extended period’ among ‘all’ of them? How long before the word ‘murder’ gets tossed around, and how soon before someone gets ugly which elicits more ugliness….and so on.

Its a very very very tricky thing we are all trying to do here. It requires a lot of diplomatic-skills and listening skills and all kinds of disciplines. Imho.

…i am glad you said you felt some folks were being ‘condescending’ — whether they were or not isnt the issue, the thing is, its important that people ‘hear that’. Etc.

w
v
“When a problem is posed in a way that polarizes,
the solution is often obscured before the search is under way”
Deborah Tannen

Do not remove a fly from your friend’s head with a hatchet.
Chinese proverb

We do not talk – we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned
from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. ”
— Henry Miller

Zooey wrote:

Black on black crime is ridiculously disproportionate to white on black crime.

And white on white crime is ridiculously disproportionate to black on white crime.

Cuz, by and large, they don’t live in the same neighborhoods.

————–

And, what REALLY complicates things is some of the MOST hideous behavior imaginable — ie,Corporate Pollution, Toxic Waste, etc — is all perfectly LEGAL.

So how do we define ‘crime’ exactly….etc.

w
v

Noam on Trump:https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/trump-in-the-white-house/

Noam Chomsky: Before turning to this question, I think it is important to spend a few moments pondering just what happened on November 8, a date that might turn out to be one of the most important in human history, depending on how we react.

No exaggeration.

The most important news of November 8 was barely noted, a fact of some significance in itself.

On November 8, the World Meteorological Organization delivered a report at the international conference on climate change in Morocco, COP22, which was called in order to carry forward the Paris agreements of COP21. The WMO reported that the past five years were the hottest on record. It reported rising sea levels, soon to increase as a result of the unexpectedly rapid melting of polar ice, most ominously the huge Antarctic glaciers. Already Arctic sea ice over the past five years is 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years, not only raising sea levels but also reducing the cooling effect of polar ice reflection of solar rays, thereby accelerating the grim effects of global warming. The WMO reported further that temperatures are approaching dangerously close to the goal established by COP21, along with other dire reports and forecasts.

Another event took place on November 8, which also may turn out to be of unusual historical significance for reasons that, once again, were barely noted.

On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government – the executive, Congress, the Supreme Court – in the hands of the Republican Party, the most dangerous organization in world history.

Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.

Is this an exaggeration? Consider what we have just been witnessing…see link
…

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Whats more impressive and gratifying is all those majority “loozer” voters bunched up in a few blue states. Should Trump turn the economy around and turn MI, OH, WI and PA into reliable red states then that “majority” mass movement is something you will have to get used to.

The demographics of the US are changing, and those demographics favor more liberal politics. And although you don’t want to believe it, Trump won only because he ran against the worst possible candidate the Democrats could have nominated. Either Biden or Sanders would have beat him going away.

————-
I’m not so sure of that. I dunno if Biden or Bernie would have beaten him.

Maybe.

I sure would have loved to have seen a Trump vs Bernie election. That woulda been somethin ta see. An actual, real, choice.

w
v

I do NOT want them in Kronky-World. They belong in San Diego.

The world has gone mad.

w
v

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

“Obama did a good job. We will all miss him…”

Said another rich person who’s disconnected from the middle class.

———–
Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary = Neoliberalism.

All three are the same guy.

I believe Trump will combine the worst of Neoliberalism and NeoCon-ism.

(I know you disagree and want to give him a chance, etc. I dont need to ‘give him a chance’ because I have seen his appointees and i know what they want and I have read Trumps policy
statements. So, i know what he wants to do. Its not a m
ystery. He’s going to destroy the environment and cut taxes for the Rich, and turn the mega-corporations loose 🙂 )

w
v

“Obama did a good job. We will all miss him…”

Um. No.

w
v

link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-trump-george-monbiot?CMP=share_btn_fb
Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trump’s triumph
George Monbiot

Monday 14 November 2016 01.30 EST

The events that led to Donald Trump’s election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and slammed it on the table. “This is what we believe,” she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.

The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek. Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism. It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.

This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap.

He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
Advertisement

Democracy, by contrast, “is not an ultimate or absolute value”. In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising choice over the direction that politics and society might take.

He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable, so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.

The ultra rich are “scouts”, “experimenting with new styles of living”, who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow. The progress of society depends on the liberty of these “independents” to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish. All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality. There should be no connection between merit and reward, no distinction made between earned and unearned income, and no limit to the rents they can charge.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more

Inherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: “the idle rich”, who don’t have to work for their money, can devote themselves to influencing “fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs.” Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing but “aimless display”, they are in fact acting as society’s vanguard.

Hayek softened his opposition to monopolies and hardened his opposition to trade unions. He lambasted progressive taxation and attempts by the state to raise the general welfare of citizens. He insisted that there is “an overwhelming case against a free health service for all” and dismissed the conservation of natural resources.It should come as no surprise to those who follow such matters that he was awarded the Nobel prize for economics.

By the time Mrs Thatcher slammed his book on the table, a lively network of thinktanks, lobbyists and academics promoting Hayek’s doctrines had been established on both sides of the Atlantic, abundantly financed by some of the world’s richest people and businesses, including DuPont, General Electric, the Coors brewing company, Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lawrence Fertig, the William Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation. Using psychology and linguistics to brilliant effect, the thinkers these people sponsored found the words and arguments required to turn Hayek’s anthem to the elite into a plausible political programme.
The ideologies Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan espoused were just two facets of neoliberalism.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
The ideologies Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan espoused were just two facets of neoliberalism. Photograph: Bettmann/Bettmann Archive

Thatcherism and Reaganism were not ideologies in their own right: they were just two faces of neoliberalism. Their massive tax cuts for the rich, crushing of trade unions, reduction in public housing, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services were all proposed by Hayek and his disciples. But the real triumph of this network was not its capture of the right, but its colonisation of parties that once stood for everything Hayek detested.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did not possess a narrative of their own. Rather than develop a new political story, they thought it was sufficient to triangulate. In other words, they extracted a few elements of what their parties had once believed, mixed them with elements of what their opponents believed, and developed from this unlikely combination a “third way”.

It was inevitable that the blazing, insurrectionary confidence of neoliberalism would exert a stronger gravitational pull than the dying star of social democracy. Hayek’s triumph could be witnessed everywhere from Blair’s expansion of the private finance initiative to Clinton’s repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, which had regulated the financial sector. For all his grace and touch, Barack Obama, who didn’t possess a narrative either (except “hope”), was slowly reeled in by those who owned the means of persuasion.
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 2:32
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Mute
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
What will be the first actions Trump takes as president?

As I warned in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people’s lives; debate is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It was her husband.

The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism’s crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation of Hayek’s “independent”; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies, beginning with the agreement to limit global warming.
Advertisement

Those who tell the stories run the world. Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives. The key task now is to tell a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.

A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It’s too early to say much yet, but at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish. The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human nature.

Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.