Capitol Hill Blue
Probably the main sameness comes from the ubiquitous human trait of narrowmindedness and prejudice (I always think of "prejudice" as "prejudgment").

Prejudgment leads to "broadbrushery", which is a far easier mindset to manage than juggling an infinite array of distinctions and contradictions, thus making life easier.

It's no secret that a life of ease is the Holy Grail of existence.

That might be a big reason that there is no difference.

popcorn2
War budgets
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
War budgets

Are war budgets indicative of one party or the other? I suppose they might be if all three branches were under one party control.

In my own direct experience, Dems are far less enthused about funding wars than Reeps are.
Hereís one - we can always count on a peaceful transition of power through our tried and true election process, with both parties respecting the will of the people.

(Nobody said that we could give positive examples...)
In my experience, war budgets get passed with bipartisan support. We've been at war every year for decades. If there is a difference it's one without a distinction.
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Hereís one - we can always count on a peaceful transition of power through our tried and true election process, with both parties respecting the will of the people.

(Nobody said that we could give positive examples...)


Uhh... no. Dems have been more and more open about rigging primaries. Blue check types are as guilty as MAGA types with their normalizing their parties behavior. Republicans have been just as brazen with stealing the general going back to Florida. Both monopolies have been committed to voter suppression. If there is violence, it would seem to be the next logical progression of both parties commitment to election fraud.
Both parties are committed to austerity while copper stripping public goods and services. PayGo, Bowles-Simpson, etc...
Cognitive dissonance has my head in a fuddle. The Dems I know aren't anything like what you keep saying. Agreed that policies don't tend to match the higher "promote the general Welfare" standards, but I suspect there are compounding factors in the stew that are always getting in the way of the advancement of our nobler desires.

One big problem that I have identified is the nettlesome habit of around half of Americans to elect assholes who fight tooth and nail against promotion of the general Welfare, as you point out. This has the effect of the introduction of compromise, which often appears to satisfy what the lawyers tell me; "A good outcome in any dispute is when neither side is happy". Well, that just stinks, and is a perverse attitude towards an ugly reality, but knowing that doesn't change the reality.

I'm going to poke you in the eye just a little bit and say that the position of saying "they are all the same kind of evil bastards" is a lame cop-out that covers no distance in improving the situation, it just makes people who should be friends snarl and snap at each other.

What is the solution? I personally don't think there is one that can be logically and rationally implemented. We humans seem to be seriously flawed, in varying forms and degrees - big problem. We are probably driving towards a major self-extinction event, blindly guided by selfishness and stupidity.

My only dreamer's hope is that more people personally aspiring to better things, and working (however futilely) to make those dream into a molecule of reality, will one day catalyze widespread sanity. (I keep my belief that such a thing is impossible in a little box and do my best to refuse to look at it.)
On of the most helpful bits of advice was when someone told me to 'decolonize my mind'. An interesting concept, but when you think of how papogandized and mentally dominated the american public has been, arguably longer than most with media saturation, it calls into question the idea of 'free will'.

One mans arsehole is another mans champion but what have the arguments been limited to in the political economy? Most of the last 30-40 years have been centered on ID politics and tribal virtue signaling. Any challenge to existing economic or hedgemonic foreign policy is verboten in either party. Untill Trump and Sanders that is. Both parties have been committed to the same foreign policy and economic arrangements.

Hence the theft of two political primaries on the Dem side and jettison support of Trump on the other. Pearl clutching by Blue MAGA aside.

Going right has been nonstop and incessant in american politics over the last 50 years. I believe I've heard it called the 'ratcheting' effect. Both political factions have battled over cultural issues while economic or geopolitical policy has been broadly agreed too. While we can applaud gay marriage or gender neutral bathrooms, you can still starve in America as the economy has transitioned from a productive to rentier economy. That transition has been the direct result of bipartison policy going back to Carter. Dems have put up token resistance but their fundraising sources and austerity policies would say otherwise to their being the party to working Americans.

I've always brought reciepts. Can you say the same? I don't think bringing evidence to an argument should be characterized as 'copping out'. The 'New Democrat' political realignment did happen. Just as it did in the U.K. analog of 'New Labor' under the Blair government or Schroeder's SPD in Germany.

Interestingly, there seems to be some self reflection on the liberal perimeter. Not the majority, but some have had some mea culpa's recently. Paul Krugman comes to mind with his recent 'Maybe our position on de-industrialization thru trade wasn't a net benefit after all'. A prime example of how you can sound smart but lack any common sense. MMT is trying to eradicate much of that 'language of minimum's' that's been employed by both political factions. A language I've first discovered on reading about British colonial governance that was used to extract resources while offering a rational of minimum return investment in the form of education, medicine, infrastructure, etc.. That language is being used against our citizens today. Our governments factions learned it from mother.

Pointing out the broad alignments in both parties is not causing the division, IMO. Most politics are centered around tribal or vindictiveness. Both factions want to punish the other while both believe they're the better side. Phooey!

One has to ask how one political party held congress for 40 years under the new deal consensus while same party, after it's neoliberal alignment, has traded house majorities between themselves and their culturally distinct but economically aligned alternative.

Finally, both parties are committed to the illegality of any alternative. TINA. This is reflected in foreign policy as well with the destruction of foreign governments and societies, non stop, over the decades. I would be surprised if Biden doesn't hit Venezuela. Liberals and neocons are thirsty to do it.

A good article covering a foriegn policy paper:

"But Americans donít have to look abroad for evidence that they are ill-served by their own system. The pervasive government incompetence on display during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic tells them all they need to know.

These days, American consumers buy plenty of products that carry ďMade in ChinaĒ labels. Yet the most pressing problems afflicting our nationóinequality, racism, disunity, the waning legitimacy of basic institutionsóare homegrown. They bear a label that reads ďMade in the USA.Ē

Americaís Defining Problem in 2021 Isnít China: Itís America

Worth a read. Seems as though another re-alignment is in the wind.
Oh yeah...

And both factions are committed to crushing the left...
Thus far no one has given any reason to believe there is any difference between the parties.

IRRegardless of that, I still hate the Republican party more.

There will be a big difference for the better once a qualified, experienced politician is at the helm. That would hold true for either party. In fact, Biden is the perfect example of a qualified experienced Republican. Which is perhaps the best illustration that there genuinely is no difference.
Yes, but...

It's been qualified governments that have brought so much misery and destruction at home and abroad.

A major reason not to trust Biden. That and who he's choosing to surround himself with. Look Out!
Biden may be similar to a qualified experienced Republican, but the Parties have evolved. There are very few qualified experienced Republicans left in the Trump Party. So you are comparing the Democratic Party to the Republican Party of many years ago.

Compared to the Trump Insane Clown Posse, Biden is a saint.

As for "no difference between the Parties", that is simply a lie. You can search the internet and find all sorts of analyses of the records as to crimes committed by different administrations. Here is a pretty good one:

Crimes By Party

Quote:
Republican administrations have vastly more corruption than Democratic administrations. We provide new research on the numbers to make the case.

We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961-2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time.

(This does not include Trump's administration.)


Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Yes, but...

It's been qualified governments that have brought so much misery and destruction at home and abroad.

A major reason not to trust Biden. That and who he's choosing to surround himself with. Look Out!



Been watching recent news today. Republicans, in bed with President Donald (Coward, Traitor, Misogynist, Demagogue, Criminal, Serial Predator, Adulterer, Draft Dodger, Narcissist, Liar, Thief, Grifter, Incompetent, Bully, Braggart, Loser, failed Con-man, Fraudster, instigator of armed Insurrection, Advocate of violence, etc.) Trump* they're trustworthy? As said above, Biden is a Saint in comparison.


*Impeached
Donít conflate my meaning. Youíve watched Ďcompetentí governments over decades cause death and misery thru out the periphery of our empire.
Trumps got his sh!tshow going. Iím reminded of what Hedges warned. Loosely paraphrased Ďwhat you do on the periphery of empire eventually you do in the homeland.
All I can think of is how many countries weíve undermined and toppled with whatís happening in DC right now.

How many here weíre hoping for our overthrowing of Venezuela? Iraq? Libya? Syria? Etc
Werenít they mostly Bipartison projects?...
The claim that there is no difference is pointless gaslighting. The difference may be largely aspirational, but that is a difference.

My main bitch is that there is nothing but admitting failure with those who say there is no difference. I'm not willing to admit that, even though the ship may be sinking.
The aspiration of both parties is to make america great again. Both parties seem dead set on killing and locking the other party up as the best path forward.


I've never heard of a Democratic President encouraging the take-over of the US Capital. Seems to be a Republican thing. coffee
No, but Iíve heard Democratic presidents encouraging the overthrow of other sovereign governments.

Republican ones too!
Originally Posted By: logtroll
The claim that there is no difference is pointless gaslighting. The difference may be largely aspirational, but that is a difference.

My main bitch is that there is nothing but admitting failure with those who say there is no difference. I'm not willing to admit that, even though the ship may be sinking.




How the US regime change laboratory created Venezuelaís coup leader
I see your point now. You are always right, and I bow to your superior knowledge and insight.

I just wish you had some workable ideas on how to make it better. I would certainly join your cult then, and support your cause more diligently than Lindsey and Josh, and all those other guys have enabled Trump (who I now finally see is no different than Obama).
Canít help but think about the straight line between decades long conditions that have contributed to our current reality. If I were to guess, the Dem party response will be to become more authoritarian as a reaction to yesterdayís MAGA style brooks brothers revolt. Preferring internet censoring, imposing protest restrictions, redefining sedition perhaps.
Still, the lack of self reflection that had been a hallmark of the liberal class shouldnít be ignored. Lightning doesnít fall from a clear blue sky, as they say, and I havenít seen much in the corporate media that has tried to grapple with economic material conditions that gives rise to the current reality. My fear is that neoliberalism wonít allow democrats the capacity to address any of the material conditions that give rise to right wing extremism. Iíve seen no evidence yet beyond posturing and spirited online rhetoric.

A prescient article for todayís currrnt reality:

ď There are tens of millions of American workers living in a virtual depression, in a virtual Weimar. Their anger is real, as is their fear. Ignoring it is dangerous. The right has been addressing it in the form of appearing decisive with ďpreventive war,Ē or by cranking up the xenophobia. When many of them go into the voting booth they will punch the card or pull the lever for a candidate who appears strong...

... The solution lies in doing something both parties have ignored in their free-trade euphoria: helping working-class Americans with jobs and healthcare. That will not erase the fear of another terror attack, but it will dissipate some of the anger resulting from economic hardship. It would tip the margin back to a saner political course.Ē

Rust & Rage in the Heartland

If history is any guide, the liberal class will become more authoritarian further increasing radicalization on the far right. Any left attempt to ameliorate conditions has been effectively crushed, politically speaking. My fear now is things will only get worse down the road.


It's odd that I simply point out where there is consensus in the two parties. I thought that was the implied title thread?

Or is this more exercise in joining a group consensus?

Sorry. Guess I'm not the sharpest pencil in the drawer it seems with what your after.
Originally Posted By: logtroll


I just wish you had some workable ideas on how to make it better. I would certainly join your cult then, and support your cause more diligently than Lindsey and Josh, and all those other guys have enabled Trump (who I now finally see is no different than Obama).


I literally just offered that, your sarcasm aside...
Quote:
I just wish you had some workable ideas on how to make it better.


Living wages, healthcare, and education.

How do you make these things possible? Taxes and incentives.

Is their a difference between the parties? Is there a difference between yin and yang? As they endlessly chase each other...?

Sure, but it's mostly semantics. Good cop bad cop sh*t, y'know?

You're fecked either way.
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: logtroll


I just wish you had some workable ideas on how to make it better. I would certainly join your cult then, and support your cause more diligently than Lindsey and Josh, and all those other guys have enabled Trump (who I now finally see is no different than Obama).


I literally just offered that, your sarcasm aside...

I'm asking for things that we, as individual people, can do. If you don't have any actionable ideas, then quit acting like you know everything and that anybody who disagrees with your broadbrushing is wrong.

No useful ideas coupled with criticism of people with good intentions equals a whining hypocrite.
Originally Posted By: Greger
Living wages, healthcare, and education.

How do you make these things possible? Taxes and incentives.

Seems like there is quite a difference between the parties right there.
So far, Logs, youíve only expressed your opinion that the differences between either faction is seemingly aspirational.

I wouldnít disagree. Put another way, the differences are mostly performative while outcomes continue to do little to stop the deterioration of our countries quality of life.

I guess your factions aspirational differences are just not able to overcome the other factions material achievements. Bummer. Oh well, the only choice we have is to support those aspirations.
Both center right and far right factions punch left.

House majorities decline- Ďitís the lefts fault!í Evidence free while being promoted by politicians and right wing corporate media.

Presidents provoked a riot in the Capitol- Ďitís Antifa, socialist , communists provocateurs!í
Evidence free repeated by politicians and corporate far right media.

The reality..





I like Monty Python.

...

Whatís the plan, Stan?
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
It's odd that I simply point out where there is consensus in the two parties. I thought that was the implied title thread?

Or is this more exercise in joining a group consensus?

Sorry. Guess I'm not the sharpest pencil in the drawer it seems with what your after.

Do we need a revolution, maybe? I'm ready for some action!
My two cents, there are differences on some issues. Other issues a party takes their stances depending on who's president like the raising debt ceiling votes of the past for example. Most Democrats voting against raising the debt ceiling during Bush Jr. while most Republicans voting for raising it. During Obama the reverse was true, Democrats voting for raising it, Republicans against.

But where they are the same is that both parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interest groups, mega money donors etc. That where they get most of their tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to run their organizations and campaigns. I just went through an election where well over a billion dollars was spent by both parties on two senate elections. These two senators in my opinion were bought.

One of my biggest pet peeve is these days neither party takes the other party's proposals seriously. If one party proposes something, the other party is automatically against it regardless of the merits of it or lacking merit.Everything is party line these days solely based on which party proposed something.

So they're the same in lots of ways in much more than I mentioned while differing in other ways. Now I have come to the conclusion that both major parties always look for what is good for the party and not the nation anymore. That both fail to represent the wishes and wants of the folks back home, just their political party. So they're the same there in my book.

But this is how a non-affiliated, less to non-partisan looks at both major parties. Those who identify or affiliate with either party will have a different point of view about them.
Yeah, direct action with political allies is a proven winner. Itís about the only thing thatís improved majorities of peopleís lives, IMO.
Thereís historical precedent for it anyhow. But thatís tactics, not sure if thatís what the thread was about.

Itís the biggest complaint Iíd have of Sanders and a glaring failure of his. A problem when politics is personality driven, like some kind of television programming. He had the shot and he never took it. He could have effed sh!t up in the right sways and direction, unlike that Roger Stone sh!t show personal masterpiece that just went down.

A massive general strike would get attention. Saw something smaller and it got things moving again with the most recent government shutdown over budget. Seems like a million years ago but was only a little over a year ago IIRC.

The problems of living in an eternal time dilation like the present has been. Personally speaking.
Politics, elections, personality plays a major part. Personality can play a major role in popularity which also plays a major role in politics and elections. Biden won because of Trump's obnoxious, uncouth personality more than anything else in my opinion. Especially among independents who probably wouldn't have voted for a very bland and unenthusiastic, non-charismatic candidate.

Obama had a very good and friendly personality, he won twice. Folks may or may not have liked his policies, but they liked him as a person. Something one can't say about Trump. A good majority of folks didn't like him as a person in 2020.

Personality plays a bigger role along with being charismatic, being able to gather public support than most would think. My two cents anyway.
Nelson would be so much better than Trumpka to lead AFL-CIO. She knows how to eff stuff up to get the goods. Stop looking at Republican owners and their Democratic HR department to do anything for people, would be a good place to start thinking.

High minded rhetoric, but so limited by ďifĒ that there is no sense of what people can actually ďdoĒ to create lasting change.

We just saw an example of what some people decided to ďdoĒ, but who have no clue as to what comes next. The Trumpers apparently thought that physically dominating a place would magically lead to the vague change they passionately (delusionally) desire. When they achieved their fleeting dominance, they didnít know what to do besides take gloating selfies and then go home and await arrest (they didnít factor that result into their plan).

By contrast, this countryís new government (Iím talking 250 years ago) was mapped out before the revolution began. Human interactions are like an incomprehensibly large tensegrity structure, made of cables and struts that are impossibly for the average person to understand how it works. Any kind of revolution, whether it takes the form of an insurrection or a pandemic or a strike, is like cutting a cable or breaking a strut, which has the potential for collapsing the entire structure. If there is no plan for managing the collapse, or quickly reconstructing a new structurally sound system, one metaphor for the result would be ďshiit hitting a fanĒ.

Two possibilities I can think of for attempting massive systemic change would be: 1) carefully planning ahead to anticipate the chain of effects from breaking a strut or cutting a cable in the tensegrity structure and implementing small changes in advance to prepare; 2) using the more popular and common technique sometimes called, ďhold my beer and watch thisĒ.

My personal choice is to work on some small preparatory or corrective system changes with the slim hope that they may help avoid the impending collapse, or be useful in the rebuilding efforts following the widespread beer holding events.

In a nod to the topic title, I have found that what the Dems do when in control to be more supportive of what I am trying to do than the Reeps, though most of them donít grok it to any great level of understanding. It doesnít help that the efforts of one, or a few people working together, are viewed as insignificant (which they are), and are therefore worthy of little notice. But hey, Iíll take whatever support I can get.
You really ought to read some history.
You talk like getting large unresponsive, self serving institutions to accommodate its citizens material needs more is some kind of techno managerial problem to solve.

Itís not. Itís the main reason for many of the problems we have today. The Ďprofessionalí classes that have come to dominate our politics with the accompanying self reenforcing logic. That and the hubris of their intellectual superiority to solve problems has a long and unfortunate history in this country and you seem to be advocating for that. Obamacare is a perfect example of the kind of results that come from your class.

Withdraw labor and watch how quickly minds get changed about provisioning people with basic needs. The airline stewardess striking ended the government shutdown. Inconvenient the wealthy and powerful and make demands. Itís not complicated and has historically worked.
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
You really ought to read some history.

What are you waiting for? Just do it!
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Withdraw labor and watch how quickly minds get changed about provisioning people with basic needs. The airline stewardess striking ended the government shutdown. Inconvenient the wealthy and powerful and make demands. Itís not complicated and has historically worked.

What's the Plan, Stan? You want me to go on strike? You think I'm doing the wrong thing? I don't know what you want me to do, dude. It confuses me that all you want to do is argue, like I'm your enemy, or something.

Reminds me of a little farmer story: Out in the barnyard Rusty the Rooster was crowing all day long, "Kok anuff fer too! Kok anuff fer too!", while the hens was a scratchin' around looking for bugs and quietly saying between themselves, "Tok, tok, tok, tok... tok, tok, tok..."

I'd like to see the business plans for your fantasy actions before I commit to investing.
Is that what this thread is about? To give you a business plan? I recall another ranter who seemed to demand a remedy for any critique given by me. Odd, I donít recall that demand being required for anyone else in this thread.
Or is it a way to discount? Without a requisite business plan we canít consider your argument at this time. Pleas log off and try again later, etc..

Why donít you state clearly what your intention of this thread was initially? I took it to mean a simple stress test of the argument that thereís little difference between parties.

Meanwhile: Unions Mobilize for General Strike Against Trump

You can give money to strike campaigns. I donít know if they will provide you with a business plan, but you could ask and report back your findings. Theyíll also take volunteers at the line. Fairly simple.



Airline stewardess union, led by Sara Nelson, stopped the government shutdown over budget IIRC. I guess high flying rhetoric has its utility over a well written business plan occasionally.

Meet the Militant Flight Attendant Leader Who Threatened a StrikeóAnd Helped Stop Trumpís Shutdown
For the millionth time, itís called solidarity.
Itís whatís required now, just as itís been in the past.
It requires coalitions to make a demand to achieve much needed improvements in peopleís lives.
Unfortunately, thereís no solidarity in a meritocracy. Their isnít in science eugenics either, BTW.
Random actions, no long term plan, don't care about the details... got it!
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

It requires coalitions to make a demand to achieve much needed improvements in peopleís lives.

I'm all about coalitions, but for the purpose of doing things collaboratively, not demanding things. Is it a requirement to include confrontational activities?

I can show the the detailed "business plans", too. You're welcome to borrow anything you want from them.
Iím not telling anyone what to do. Just offering my opinion of what needs to happen.
You asked, I answered. Thatís all.


Sorry, what was the intention of this thread you started?
I started it to try and find another way into discussion about "both sides" being the same. It's a complex subject needing innovative thinking in order to get beyond the unscalable wall that such an on/off viewpoint places on how to get any change done.

You mentioned coalitions and that got my attention. What sort of coalitions are you active in? What do they do and how do they make change? Are the people who participate Dems, Reeps, or other political animals?
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I started it to try and find another way into discussion about "both sides" being the same. It's a complex subject needing innovative thinking in order to get beyond the unscalable wall that such an on/off viewpoint places on how to get any change done.


Not sure what your after frankly. Why donít you simply get to your point instead of all this innovation thinking?

What do you think the problems are?
Loggie: Nobody but you and I know what tensegrity structures are! A better example would be when a homeowner wants to remove a load-bearing wall, so his builder puts in some temporary supports and then adds a big beam to hold every thing up. If you just remove the wall without doing that, the whole damned building collapses.

That principle applies to most of our existing institutions: Really defund the police, and criminality goes wild. Reform the police, and you can get improvement. Abolish Social Security and you get mass starvation. Fix it carefully, and you get continued solvency into the future. Trump et al tried massive changes to immigration policy, which has been a disaster in so many ways. Look at all the real goals and interests in immigration policy, and you could improve it immensely.

Look at income inequality from an engineering viewpoint, and the obvious ways to fix it are to change the income and inheritance tax laws. NOT to have a general strike. NOT to start building guillotines. You need to impoverish the criminal rich who steal from the poor, not kill them. If you kill them, they are very soon forgotten and more of them pop up to take their place. Instead, you need them living lives that show their followers what happens to people who do that stuff.

That's why a poor Trump dealing with legal issue for years is so much better than a dead Trump. And I'm talking about everybody in that family, not just Donald.
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Not sure what your after frankly. Why donít you simply get to your point instead of all this innovation thinking?

What do you think the problems are?

There are lots of problems, probably none of which will be solved by conflict and fighting, or politics (same thing?). My thinking is the same as the Buckminster Fuller quote I use as a signature line.

ďYou never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.Ē
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Loggie: Nobody but you and I know what tensegrity structures are!

It's a good metaphor, if you know what it is, right?

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Not sure what your after frankly. Why donít you simply get to your point instead of all this innovation thinking?

My point is that problems are something to be solved, not defeated.
Is this an experts way of getting to your observation: Ď My point is that problems are something to be solved, not defeatedí?

No thanks. This took to long to get to your point let alone itís utility.



Originally Posted By: logtroll
Random actions, no long term plan, don't care about the details... got it!


Still waiting on you to identify a problem and give a business plan to address it.
Waiting.....
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Random actions, no long term plan, don't care about the details... got it!


Still waiting on you to identify a problem and give a business plan to address it.
Waiting.....

Coalition building is the key. Finding a zone of agreement.
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Is this an experts way of getting to your observation: Ď My point is that problems are something to be solved, not defeatedí?

No thanks. This took to long to get to your point let alone itís utility.

Iím getting the impression that you donít want to discuss issues, you just want to vent.

Venting is a popular thing in these frustrating times when we, as individuals, have so little control over what happens.

Maybe thatís why there seems to be so little difference between the Dems and Reeps, and why providing for the general welfare is an uphill climb.

Itís far harder to create upward change than it is to sabotage it.
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Not sure what your after frankly. Why donít you simply get to your point instead of all this innovation thinking?

My point is that problems are something to be solved, not defeated.

I agree, problems need to be solved. But we have had some problems with us in what seems like forever. Why, they are too useful as a campaign tool to fire up a party's base than to be solved. If they're solved, they ceased to be a campaign issue.

Now most problems will take more or less a bipartisan approach toward them. Usually, one party can't solve the problem on its own. When one party tries the lone approach, they's usually kickback that that party gets blamed for what ever went wrong, ala 1994 and 2010. No approach or solution legislative wise will be perfect, what's not perfect gets laid at the feet of the lone party which tried to solve the problem.

History shows this over and over.
I agree.

On the premise that that parties are the same, I'd say the arguments for that are based on the idea that sameness is the problem, but I think it's a really just a symptom. If they were truly the same, then how is there so much angry polarization?

Your thoughts about [unethical] people using that as a campaign tool are revealing. In addition to that, certain media business models are built around monetizing the polarization, and they have been very successful - in terms of making money. They have also been a key part of the very destructive ideology of "noble insurrection".

If there's a binary choice that folks can make about politics, it's between fighting and fixing. Fixing is a long, hard slog that may never really get anywhere (winning is not really a goal). But fighting is excellent entertainment and more fitting with human nature (or so it appears). With fighting you can win! And then lose... just ask don't ask Trump, who has always been a winner - even if he has to lie about it.

:doh:
Happy to discuss. Not happy to be patronized. Try talking directly about a subject and stop flattering yourself and Iíll be happy to engage.

For the record, Iíve seen this type of stuff in community orgs. A self declared Ďexpertí using fancy jargon that takes forever to get to a point.

If Iím venting, itís directed at your idea that you need to use guile to get to your point. Just get to your point.

Its exhausting with the high hat.

The most I can get is out of this meandering thread from you is the problem is thereís problems and their not being addressed in a Ďcorrectí way.
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Happy to discuss. Not happy to be patronized. Try talking directly about a subject and stop flattering yourself and Iíll be happy to engage.

For the record, Iíve seen this type of stuff in community orgs. A self declared Ďexpertí using fancy jargon that takes forever to get to a point.

If Iím venting, itís directed at your idea that you need to use guile to get to your point. Just get to your point.

Its exhausting with the high hat.

The most I can get is out of this meandering thread from you is the problem is thereís problems and their not being addressed in a Ďcorrectí way.

Coalition building is a good topic, in fact you recommended it. But apparently you haven't had good experiences with it.

How do you go about it?
Thereís plenty of orgs out there. There plenty to plug into and volunteer with. Then comes orientation, meeting scheduled, action plans and usually a follow up. Most follow the Roberts rules. From my experience, they often get hidebound by careerists.

Now compare this to a labor strike. A problem is identified. Thereís broad agreement. Negotiation takes place. If the problem doesnít get resolved the stakes get escalated until their is resolution. Iím from a labor family, btw. Characterizing s strike as you did is revelatory as well as insulting, intentioned or not.

Iím in favor of strikes. They are horizontal and Democratic. Nelson was talking about cross organization coordinating which I agree with. Labor issues are connected to gender, environmental and income issues. Thatís where there needs solidarity or coalition building if you prefer. Thatís where the work is.

There has been thousands of labor strikes over the last few years. A serious uptick in labor activity. Letís not kid ourselves here. Iíve said it before and will say it again. Itís what doesnít get discussed that says as much about the the orientation of this community as what is said. This forum has a more rightward tilt that youíd expect from a mostly PMC class here. Thereís no solidarity in a meritocracy only an atomized class consciousness based on economic and credential status, IMO. How you get this class to throw in with labor has been a constant struggle. They donít see their interest allied with labor. The policies that have come from this class proves the point. The danger now is the professional class simply accommodates itsrlf to fascism. Plenty of historical and current examples of this.

Thatís why Iím curious what you think are the problems and hear what your ideas are for solutions.

Iíve given you mine, lets hear yours.
I am generally in support of labor unions, though I've had several bad experiences with them. Based on my experience, I don't accept that whatever they do is good, or necessarily solve problems in the long-term. We have deeper systemic cultural flaws that underlie management/labor conflicts, so temporary balance of power adjustments are not really solutions.

I have also had poor experiences with having employees, unrelated to unions. That is a serious problem that I would like to find a solution for, but unfortunately the problem seems to be rooted in human nature.

In my opinion, you don't appear to have much experience with coalition-building related to "fixing", so I will drop that topic of discussion.
Iíve been in the community spaces, From library meeting rooms to street protest. Iíve had a sit down, fortified with signatures of constituents, with my state senator to door knocking. I donít need your judgement as to what Iíve done or itís effectivenes.


Yeah, not every Union is perfect. What is. I look at Is the entire record and draw my conclusions. Those would be, on the whole, they got a lot done for the better. For a time...

You created that Ďeverything they do is good framingí, BTW. Why?

Yeah culture. Just as important is economic and bad ideas that come from those arrangements.
Right now thereís gunfire all around me and nothings in season for the cal.
Maybe you could try being direct for a change. Reduced the chance of misunderstanding.


What were the problems you identified that led you to engage with organizing Logs?

Iím happy to learn what you know.
Really, anything youíd like to share to learn from.
No, thanks.
So your just fronting off? You have no experience with organizing?

Oh well. Call me surprised.

Do you have a Ďhate has no home hereí or Ďtrust scienceí signs?
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
So your just fronting off? You have no experience with organizing?

Oh well. Call me surprised.

Do you have a Ďhate has no home hereí or Ďtrust scienceí signs?

That's why. You want to fight, I want to fix. We got no communication happening.
So suggest something.

Goodness, if there's something that's a real problem solver you cant share due to rowdy behavior I'll do my Sunday best to not offend.

I'm of the opinion that, beyond organized left wing collective action, there is no solution to wealth inequality, healthcare needs, capitalist logic , environmental exhaustion and collapse, etc. I've Given recent examples of it working. Plenty of historical examples if you need them. Bout the only thing that has worked. No alternative examples have been given yet. Cept metaphores.

You dismissed my suggestions. You had personal misgivings. Fine.


Whats your business plan? You haven't convinced me you have one. I would like to be surprised.
I didn't think we were here to fix things.

The way to fix things is to fight for solutions. To fight for better candidates. To fight for better policy. The continued belief that Democrats will actually fix anything has worn thin. Their rhetoric implies they will, their actions imply they won't.

Republicans believe that it is not the governments job to fix anything.

Democrats believe that it is the government's job to fix everything.

I'm a Democratic sympathizer. I'm not a Democratic sycophant.

I despise the Republican Party with every fiber of my being.

yin and yang, y'all...opposite and the same. Spinning endlessly in place until they are nudged left or right.
Originally Posted By: Greger
I didn't think we were here to fix things.

The way to fix things is to fight for solutions. To fight for better candidates. To fight for better policy. The continued belief that Democrats will actually fix anything has worn thin. Their rhetoric implies they will, their actions imply they won't.

Republicans believe that it is not the governments job to fix anything.

Democrats believe that it is the government's job to fix everything.

I'm not trying to fix politics. I'm with Bucky:

ďYou never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.Ē

Fingers crossed - maybe folks will like the new model enough to get on board. It surely does take a lot of organizing, though...
Meanwhile, while we wait for that, how do you solve a problem like Joe Manchin ...

ď "Sending checks to people that basically already have a check and aren't going to be able spend that or are not going to spend it, usually are putting it in their savings account right now, that's not who we are. We have done an awful lot of that, it's time now to target where the money goes," he added.Ē

Sen. Manchin prefers targeted stimulus checks

So basically Manchin is acting as HR dept. for republicans and Libs. They canít help themselves. Targeting and means testing any sense of common good or common services.

Just as in healthcare, we have a corporate Dem tool stomping on the bare minimum of provisioning people that other countries have been able to figure out. The classic example of not whatís right for people but, rather, whoís in administration.

Sadly, the current POTUS was able to recognize the need, even if it was primarily self serving. Not that it hasnít been for the other team to deny provisioning.





Originally Posted By: Greger
Republicans believe that it is not the governments job to fix anything.

Democrats believe that it is the government's job to fix everything.

So that's why there's no difference?
Originally Posted By: Greger
yin and yang, y'all...opposite and the same.

Laurel and Hardy?

Bogart and Bacall?
Lindsey and Graham?
Originally Posted By: Greger
I didn't think we were here to fix things.

The way to fix things is to fight for solutions. To fight for better candidates. To fight for better policy. The continued belief that Democrats will actually fix anything has worn thin. Their rhetoric implies they will, their actions imply they won't.

Republicans believe that it is not the governments job to fix anything.

Democrats believe that it is the government's job to fix everything.

I'm a Democratic sympathizer. I'm not a Democratic sycophant.

I despise the Republican Party with every fiber of my being.

yin and yang, y'all...opposite and the same. Spinning endlessly in place until they are nudged left or right.


I agree about identifying problems and organizing around them. So far, Dems have ignored the progressives and leftists. For me, itís about getting their attention and m making them respond. Very good examples of this happening in the past, not so much in the last 2-3 decades at least, IMO.

The other problem is the scolding performative nature of some orgs out there. Some much larger Orgs than what we witnessed this week with Trumps Qanon riot. Having little effect, in my view. Pink pussy hats with the Washington march comes to mind. No ask. No identified problem cept Ďthereís an orange Cheeto in the White House!í venting.

Iíve been involved in community orgs as well and experienced this same problem at t the grass roots level. Instead of organizing around objectives they become spleen venting sessions around the latest indignationís from corporate news infotainment.

There was an attempt to bring in a pro. Story I got was she had trained under Alindky himself. She was on her 80ís and sharp as hell. There was an excellent structure, very horizontal and creative. Recognized it immediatly from earlier employment. A technique to define gosls, objectives and tactics.

Trouble was the same Libs wanted to skip the process. Too bad. Thought it was very useful. My personal opinion was that, while well intentioned, the participants were better off and had no real problems. They werenít grinders or mechanics that were willing to go to work. The group disbanded soon after.

Iíve found this to be true of groups organizing around racism. That ĎWhite Fragilityí book... I dunno.

Weíve had some bad national press in Buffallo and Rochester with protest getting brutalized, black communities suffering state violence, a mental crises resulting in another choke out aired on national networks.
Occupying public spaces is radicalizing but seems to have been ignored By power as much as the Womens March or Airport protests or, well, about anything anymore.

I believe with others whoíve made the critique of our having created an illiberal democracy from a formerly liberal one. The state does not respond to the basic material needs of much of the citizenry. Who would argue that point currently?

Iím doubtful that it can be made too in a more left humane way. I donít see the vehicle to deliver the pressure that has been there in the past. I do see the continuation of the rightward momentum though. There doesnít seem to be an alternative.





Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I believe with others whoíve made the critique of our having created an illiberal democracy from a formerly liberal one. The state does not respond to the basic material needs of much of the citizenry. Who would argue that point currently?

Iím doubtful that it can be made too in a more left humane way. I donít see the vehicle to deliver the pressure that has been there in the past. I do see the continuation of the rightward momentum though. There doesnít seem to be an alternative.

Really? Maybe an alternative is as plain as the nose on your face - you just donít want to see it.
You looking for an engraved invitation?

Iím thinking the answer lies in labor organizing with the recent successes theyíve had. Without political representation, working Americans can safely be ignored and are. Whatís more, younger generations of Americans are less reactionary to organized labor. Iím thinking the economic violence committed by finance with politics needs to be met with economic disruption from labor. At the end of the day, itís all power really pays attention to. The massive uptick in labor demonstrations around the world before the lockdown, or the current labor strike going on in India, largest ever seen with 250 million+ participants under a neo fascist government, is the way forward.







Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
You looking for an engraved invitation?

Iím thinking the answer lies in labor organizing with the recent successes theyíve had. Without political representation, working Americans can safely be ignored and are. Whatís more, younger generations of Americans are less reactionary to organized labor. Iím thinking the economic violence committed by finance with politics needs to be met with economic disruption from labor. At the end of the day, itís all power really pays attention to. The massive uptick in labor demonstrations around the world before the lockdown, or the current labor strike going on in India. Largest ever seen with 250 million+ participants under a neo fascist government.

What do you want labor to organize to do (what is the desired future condition - to use a forest management term)?

Lacking specifics (such as organizing around a particular "project"), my assumption would be that they should organize to fight some unfair imbalance of power with their employers. That's a good cause, but very general and unfocused. What's the endgame - what is the optimal balance of power between labor and management?

Or is the deeper problem that there exists an adversarial division between the two?

Is there a better model for "doing business" than the common one that is often called Capitalism?

It is the focus of our (yours and my) attention and interest wherein lies the root cause for our failure to communicate. I don't know if you have noticed, but I haven't ever said you are wrong to be fighting skirmishes in the War of the Status Quo. It's just that I'm advocating for figuring out new models for "disruption" (a popular new term for doing things in a different enough way to cause reflexive systemic change in a domino fashion). I don't want to fight endless skirmishes with no strategy for ending the war.

I've been a fan of something on the order of worker-owned co-ops for thirty years - labor and management are not divided, they are the same. Cool concept, but human nature seems to keep getting in the way of the model's success - turns out there is a spectrum of little flaws in it, ranging from criminal laziness to criminal greed. How do we solve that?

Most likely there is no solution to what ails humanity, save for extirpation. But in the words of Word of the Day:
Quote:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (12 Jan 1729-1797)
Labor needs to remember it has power. It's been B.S.'ed by media and it's own leadership here and a rebalance between labor and capitol has been long over due. Our politics reflect this, IMO.

I mentioned M4A as just one example of an identified problems (commodified healthcare) having a solution. Labor is starting to understand this as an important issue. Leadership not so much but rank and file gets it. You say that with the rank and file voting for sanders and rebuking leaderships candidate endorsements in the Nevada primary.

The old Boomer war between labor and college degrees must end.
Time and 'disruption' of white collar workplaces may be what ultimately resolves this.

No need to reinvent the wheel with Co-ops. There's corridors of co-ops that have existed in Europe since WW2.

The major problem is institutional power no longer having the capacity to responds to the material conditions of its citizens. I've not been coy about this or my opinion about how it's come to this sorry state. Them needles going in the wrong directions and the economic violence evident in our decaying communities from finance capitalism is a consistent message I've maintained for years now.
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
The major problem is institutional power no longer having the capacity to responds to the material conditions of its citizens. I've not been coy about this or my opinion about how it's come to this sorry state. Them needles going in the wrong directions and the economic violence evident in our decaying communities from finance capitalism is a consistent message I've maintained for years now.

And I haven't been shy about inquiring what your solutions might be.

Back to square one?
And back to the topic...

After days of additional thought (though not really focused thought), I believe that there are significant differences between Reep and Dem politics, but because of how the system works, it's hard to see much in the way of change.

Someone once said that democratic systems of government tend to be very stable, and the main reason for that stability is extreme inefficiency.
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I agree.

On the premise that that parties are the same, I'd say the arguments for that are based on the idea that sameness is the problem, but I think it's a really just a symptom. If they were truly the same, then how is there so much angry polarization?

Your thoughts about [unethical] people using that as a campaign tool are revealing. In addition to that, certain media business models are built around monetizing the polarization, and they have been very successful - in terms of making money. They have also been a key part of the very destructive ideology of "noble insurrection".

If there's a binary choice that folks can make about politics, it's between fighting and fixing. Fixing is a long, hard slog that may never really get anywhere (winning is not really a goal). But fighting is excellent entertainment and more fitting with human nature (or so it appears). With fighting you can win! And then lose... just ask don't ask Trump, who has always been a winner - even if he has to lie about it.

:doh:


I think at times that both parties seem the same is both get their millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to run their organizations and campaigns from basically the same people. Corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interest groups, mega money donors etc. Neither can afford to peeved the moneyed interest off. If they do, then they may spend their millions on backing your opponent.

I think there was a time when both parties were close to being the same. I grew up under Eisenhower, back then the Republicans, conservatism, it was said that the GOP agreed with everything the Democrats were doing, only they want a bit less of the doings.

You didn't see party line votes back then, it was usually a mixture of both parties voting for and against any particular legislation. As for today's polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra partisanship, I heard it referred to as avid sports fans rooting for their team against the other team. That folks have become mega fans of their political party. When the Phillies were good giving the Braves a hard time, they were referred to as the filthadelphia Phillies. Now the number enemy of the braves are the Washington Nasties.

It hasn't happened here, but in other cities where just being a fan of the opposing team got you beat up. That happened in Augusta, a teenager wearing a Miami Hurricane sweatshirt was beat up for wearing that sweatshirt. They're Georgia Bulldog fans down there.

Perhaps the avid fan metaphor is correct, maybe not. Regardless, each major party owes their heart and soul to these moneyed folks. Which very well can make each about the same. It certainly limits what each can and can't do. Perhaps we've been indoctrinated to view them differently. It's my party, my team vs. those evil Democrats or Republicans, those evil Phillies or Nationals. It us vs. them. although us and them are basically the same.
Welp, a bunch of corporations are suspending all political donations or are cutting off funding to the worst of the worse.

Probably wonít last as far as ďall political spendingĒ, but maybe moving forward theyíll look beyond the politician/partyís stand on corporate/wealthy taxes and regulations and look at the rest of the agenda being pushed by the recipients of their largess.
I seen that. But don't hold your breath about these corporate, wall street firms, banking etc to look at the rest of the agenda. But they'll still support the lobbyist to get those who they cut off donation to lobby them for their vote on the stuff they want.

Then there's other ways to get your donations to them, although not directly. Donating to the RNC or to the Republican senate campaign fund or to the Republican congressional campaign fun. Then you also could form a super pac. Donating to pacs is a great way of saying you not donating to their campaign, yet making sure they get the money and that they know where the money came from.

Regardless, all these donations regardless as to who, what is just another way of buying congressmen and senators. Legal buying.
Agreed: ďlegal graftĒ might be an even more apt term. Campaign finance in the US is an embarrassment.
I have identified the problems and given proposals for solutions.

Wether you can understand simple concepts of universal basic goods and services is another subject.
Originally Posted By: Irked
Agreed: ďlegal graftĒ might be an even more apt term. Campaign finance in the US is an embarrassment.


The problem with campaign finance reform is when they do it, they just make more loopholes and enlarge the loopholes they have. Pacs and super pacs are relatively new to the political scene, a results of campaign finance reform.

Third party political ads is also relatively new. No limits on them. Prior to several campaign finance reform acts, one had to donate directly to the candidates, although there were no limits way back when. But it was the candidates and the candidate's organizations that ran the ads. You knew who to blame or give credit to. We have a real mess on our hands now.
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I have identified the problems and given proposals for solutions.

Wether you can understand simple concepts of universal basic goods and services is another subject.

I concede. You win. I learned yet another lesson...
Welcome to the club, logtroll. It took me a good long while but Iíve also learned that lesson.
ThumbsUp Bow rolleyes
I really hoped you had something to offer for consideration.

Metaphors, quote references and fronting? Thatís all you had?

Why is most innovative, disruptive thinking usually nothing more than dressed up salesmanship?
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I really hoped you had something to offer for consideration.

Metaphors, quote references and fronting? Thatís all you had?

Why is most innovative, disruptive thinking usually nothing more than dressed up salesmanship?

Do your friends tell you youíre a bully?
No.
Sorry to have bullied you logs.
Iíll bow out of this.
© ReaderRant