As to the danger posed by any given candidate, I've heard sky falling references for just about every candidate since I can remember. The Holy Craps devoted to W. were especially apoplectic (and admittedly I was one of the Holy Crappers).
So - suppose your vote were determinative between Gore and Bush back in 2000. You, and some group of like-minded individuals, chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, on the grounds that they both represented "money." Suppose that your choice not to vote for Gore (or to vote for Nader) had the direct effect of allowing Bush to be elected. Would you maintain that any "sky is falling" argument that had been made as to his potential presidency would have been shown to be unnecessarily hysterical by his actual presidency, and your choice not to participate vindicated as without real consequence?
It is strange for me that you would say this, while elsewhere you've straight up conceded that Trump may well be a proto-fascist. You described this "Fourth Turning" as inevitable and possibly imminent, yet at the same time you noted the historical good fortune that the man who happened to be in the right place at the right time in the 20th century - FDR - chose not to make the most of the authoritarian winds that were pushing him along. The only way I see to reconcile these two positions - this push for fascism is inevitable, and there is no meaningful difference between our current frontrunners - is to surmise that you must think Hillary is just as likely to be moving in the direction of proto-fascism as Trump is. But this seems wholly incorrect - nothing about her rhetoric or style seems to suggest this.
So - suppose your vote were determinative between Gore and Bush back in 2000.
Me? I live in Washington State. There were quite a few voting irregularities, but not in King County, where I vote, and not enough to chad hang the state into the mess that followed.
Ah, but since Florida did go to Gore* (according to a recount undertaken by some newspapers), and since that recount was stopped in its tracks by some robed dudes (not the dudettes here), I'd say not only did my vote not count, but probably not yours as well.
Yes, W. was not my first choice. Pres. Obama, though, was. Heck, I still like him. And what has his presidency given us?
Increased deportations and drone strikes, both massively scaled up.
Gitmo, still open.
Warrantless surveillance: continued, despite campaign commitments to the contrary.
Health care, not public. Improved? Maybe. We'll see.
Economic disparity: status quo from W. maintained.
In summation, Mr. Obama really represents the third and fourth terms of Mr. Bush.
Let's stay on the money subject. We have through spending priorities created a vast Deep State that seems somewhat impervious to mere democratic tradition. This Deep State seems most beholden to the monied classes that perpetuate the shuck and jive of election shenanigans.
As to who will be the candidates upcoming, it's too soon to tell. Heck, General Eisenhower announced his candidacy in June of '52; nominated in July! We need not worry over much about the silliness going on today.
*For those that insist nits be picked, there are two possible vote recounts that weigh most heavily here. Gore's team insisted on recounting only the four Florida counties that were reporting the most irregularities. Count only those, and Bush wins. Count the whole state, though-which, again, is not what Gore requested-and Gore would have won.
First, you're fighting the hypothetical, which is not helpful. Second, you have avoided the point i've put to you, which is that you believe that "Money" is the force that determines our politics, but also that you seem to have real, defensible opinions as to who, in most cases, ought to lead. Gore over Dubya, Obama over McCain, etc. But this time around you're saying that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton. This is despite noting the importance of who's actually in charge at this key historical moment, and despite even the "money" factor being crucially different between those two. This doesn't make sense.
I'm quite surprised at the disdain you've put into my stating of opinion. The TP crowd must be wearing off on you.
None of the above, what you wrote, is "first." What is? We are individuals, free to choose what guidelines we will, free to determine which items on the list are of importance. Sadly for you, what we personally decide, no matter what muster it might influence in others, is all that is important.
To content: ...you're fighting the hypothetical...
How is the fact that the major candidates are beholden to monied interests in any way "hypothetical?"
Next, I re-read to find the point I supposedly "avoided." It's way up there: You, and some group of like-minded individuals, chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, on the grounds that they both represented "money." That was the "challenge", was it not?
I didn't avoid that at all. The only 5 people whose vote counted in 2000 all wear funny black robes. That is a matter of historical fact and kinda unavoidable.
As to my personal decision on who should be president, my awareness of money and its corrosive element was not yet as fledged as it is now. To put my opinions into my younger head would require a time machine (though the point would be moot, again, given Bush v. Gore).
But this time around you're saying that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton.
I don't remember saying exactly that. I do remember that both candidates represent money, and therefore monied interests, albeit with slightly different flavors, which is not really the same thing at all. My whole point in mentioning them, again, is that only Bernie is working without tapping the Influence Peddlers for a handout.
Well, Bernie and Trump, who is also noting that there is too much control from money in politics. At least he is saying that. Maybe I should widen my possible future votes?
Don't worry, I won't. Yes, The Donald would be a disaster. What I think many out there are missing is that Hillary would be a more conservative version of Bill-again, whom I liked, way back when-making her Disaster Lite.
Let's ignore Hillary's icon and actually get moving against her right-pointing arrow. The first step is to look very closely at the money fucking things up royally. To me, a vote for Hillary is a vote against the GOP, which goes down bitter no matter how many spoonfuls of sugar are along for the throat ride.
I remember voting for people. I can again, with the Bern. So I will.
If you want more of me ranting about this, a couple of episodes of my podcast are specifically devoted to money in politics (most specifically, Episode 29: Drinking Yourself Sober).
(Reread before hitting post: Wow, long days at work get me punchy.)
I'm quite surprised at the disdain you've put into my stating of opinion. The TP crowd must be wearing off on you.
No - what I'm trying to do is draw your attention to an apparent inconsistency between two positions you've taken in your responses to me. When I warned that Trump was essentially a proto-fascist, you lamented that this turn in politics may well be inevitable, citing some social historian, but at the same noted that at crucial historical points such as the one we may be in, who's in power could matter a great deal. Here, you've complained that Hillary and Trump are essentially indistinguishable insofar as they serve moneyed interests, so you'll vote for neither. So you're either saying that Trump's being elected and imposing a fascistic order doesn't really matter, or that both Trump and Hillary pose similar risks of this. Which is it?
The hypothetical I put to you was to imagine your reasoning in the context of an election between two money-serving candidates where we could easily imagine the history playing out differently based on who was actually elected. Bush and Gore. Both served money. As such, by the rationale you've laid out here, neither could be expected to be appreciably worse than the other. So we elected Bush and got for it a decade and counting of wars, terrorism, diminished prestige for the U.S., and so on and on. I wanted you to imagine your rationale in the context of the 2000 election and to consider whether your reasoning and hypothetical action, in that context, would have been vindicated by what actually happened afterwards. Did it actually matter who won then?
"Fighting the hypothetical" just means refusing to engage in this kind of mental exercise, which is intended to pressure-test your reasoning and see if it bears the weight of an analysis where we can control extraneous considerations and focus just on your reasoning and its consequences. You "fight" it by not acknowledging those controlling conditions and continuing to bring in extraneous considerations - I wasn't actually in a state where my vote could have mattered, the election ultimately was decided by the Supreme Court, etc. - which means that you never have to acknowledge your position's weaknesses.
"Fighting the hypothetical" just means refusing to engage in this kind of mental exercise ... which means that you never have to acknowledge your position's weaknesses.
I'm not "fighting" the hypothetical. Your hypothetical is strawman scaremongering, with the implicit assumptions that:
Trump is dangerous; and
Any vote that isn't for a viable candidate that can beat Trump is yet another match on the Trump fire.
I know it's such because I used to berate former Nader voters with exactly the same argument. So why indulge it?
And here's a question for you: If the candidate of one's choice is not chosen by one's state's electoral college delegates, and if the Supremes decide to Bush the next recount, why are you putting so much mental energy into getting one voter to reconsider the logical inconsistencies of my, er, "his" vote?
Left unconsidered (as usual): the fact that money is robbing us of a democracy.
(I do apologize if that sounds rhetorical and pat, without detail or substance. I have a lot of mental keyboard abuse accumulated that isn't so thumbnailed, which I would be interested in hearing opinions from others, including yourself. Here is not the forum, though.)
I will concede that your points on the Fourth Turning are worth discussing, but that would go on for some time. I did, in fact, record an interview as a guest to a podcast discussing Strauss & Howe's theory recently. (I'd link, but it's behind a pay wall for subscribers only.)
Nutshell summary: I very much doubt any of the candidates running now could be the next leader during the predicted coming events, based on elements of S&H's theory. If anything, the pres elected in Nov. would likely be the precursor, either immediate or penultimate, to the next Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt.
So - suppose your vote were determinative between Gore and Bush back in 2000. You, and some group of like-minded individuals, chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, on the grounds that they both represented "money." Suppose that your choice not to vote for Gore (or to vote for Nader) had the direct effect of allowing Bush to be elected. Would you maintain that any "sky is falling" argument that had been made as to his potential presidency would have been shown to be unnecessarily hysterical by his actual presidency, and your choice not to participate vindicated as without real consequence?
It is strange for me that you would say this, while elsewhere you've straight up conceded that Trump may well be a proto-fascist. You described this "Fourth Turning" as inevitable and possibly imminent, yet at the same time you noted the historical good fortune that the man who happened to be in the right place at the right time in the 20th century - FDR - chose not to make the most of the authoritarian winds that were pushing him along. The only way I see to reconcile these two positions - this push for fascism is inevitable, and there is no meaningful difference between our current frontrunners - is to surmise that you must think Hillary is just as likely to be moving in the direction of proto-fascism as Trump is. But this seems wholly incorrect - nothing about her rhetoric or style seems to suggest this.
Reply
Me? I live in Washington State. There were quite a few voting irregularities, but not in King County, where I vote, and not enough to chad hang the state into the mess that followed.
Ah, but since Florida did go to Gore* (according to a recount undertaken by some newspapers), and since that recount was stopped in its tracks by some robed dudes (not the dudettes here), I'd say not only did my vote not count, but probably not yours as well.
Yes, W. was not my first choice. Pres. Obama, though, was. Heck, I still like him. And what has his presidency given us?
In summation, Mr. Obama really represents the third and fourth terms of Mr. Bush.
Let's stay on the money subject. We have through spending priorities created a vast Deep State that seems somewhat impervious to mere democratic tradition. This Deep State seems most beholden to the monied classes that perpetuate the shuck and jive of election shenanigans.
As to who will be the candidates upcoming, it's too soon to tell. Heck, General Eisenhower announced his candidacy in June of '52; nominated in July! We need not worry over much about the silliness going on today.
*For those that insist nits be picked, there are two possible vote recounts that weigh most heavily here. Gore's team insisted on recounting only the four Florida counties that were reporting the most irregularities. Count only those, and Bush wins. Count the whole state, though-which, again, is not what Gore requested-and Gore would have won.
Reply
Reply
None of the above, what you wrote, is "first." What is? We are individuals, free to choose what guidelines we will, free to determine which items on the list are of importance. Sadly for you, what we personally decide, no matter what muster it might influence in others, is all that is important.
To content: ...you're fighting the hypothetical...
How is the fact that the major candidates are beholden to monied interests in any way "hypothetical?"
Next, I re-read to find the point I supposedly "avoided." It's way up there: You, and some group of like-minded individuals, chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, on the grounds that they both represented "money." That was the "challenge", was it not?
I didn't avoid that at all. The only 5 people whose vote counted in 2000 all wear funny black robes. That is a matter of historical fact and kinda unavoidable.
As to my personal decision on who should be president, my awareness of money and its corrosive element was not yet as fledged as it is now. To put my opinions into my younger head would require a time machine (though the point would be moot, again, given Bush v. Gore).
But this time around you're saying that there's no difference between Trump and Clinton.
I don't remember saying exactly that. I do remember that both candidates represent money, and therefore monied interests, albeit with slightly different flavors, which is not really the same thing at all. My whole point in mentioning them, again, is that only Bernie is working without tapping the Influence Peddlers for a handout.
Well, Bernie and Trump, who is also noting that there is too much control from money in politics. At least he is saying that. Maybe I should widen my possible future votes?
Don't worry, I won't. Yes, The Donald would be a disaster. What I think many out there are missing is that Hillary would be a more conservative version of Bill-again, whom I liked, way back when-making her Disaster Lite.
Let's ignore Hillary's icon and actually get moving against her right-pointing arrow. The first step is to look very closely at the money fucking things up royally. To me, a vote for Hillary is a vote against the GOP, which goes down bitter no matter how many spoonfuls of sugar are along for the throat ride.
I remember voting for people. I can again, with the Bern. So I will.
If you want more of me ranting about this, a couple of episodes of my podcast are specifically devoted to money in politics (most specifically, Episode 29: Drinking Yourself Sober).
(Reread before hitting post: Wow, long days at work get me punchy.)
Reply
No - what I'm trying to do is draw your attention to an apparent inconsistency between two positions you've taken in your responses to me. When I warned that Trump was essentially a proto-fascist, you lamented that this turn in politics may well be inevitable, citing some social historian, but at the same noted that at crucial historical points such as the one we may be in, who's in power could matter a great deal. Here, you've complained that Hillary and Trump are essentially indistinguishable insofar as they serve moneyed interests, so you'll vote for neither. So you're either saying that Trump's being elected and imposing a fascistic order doesn't really matter, or that both Trump and Hillary pose similar risks of this. Which is it?
The hypothetical I put to you was to imagine your reasoning in the context of an election between two money-serving candidates where we could easily imagine the history playing out differently based on who was actually elected. Bush and Gore. Both served money. As such, by the rationale you've laid out here, neither could be expected to be appreciably worse than the other. So we elected Bush and got for it a decade and counting of wars, terrorism, diminished prestige for the U.S., and so on and on. I wanted you to imagine your rationale in the context of the 2000 election and to consider whether your reasoning and hypothetical action, in that context, would have been vindicated by what actually happened afterwards. Did it actually matter who won then?
"Fighting the hypothetical" just means refusing to engage in this kind of mental exercise, which is intended to pressure-test your reasoning and see if it bears the weight of an analysis where we can control extraneous considerations and focus just on your reasoning and its consequences. You "fight" it by not acknowledging those controlling conditions and continuing to bring in extraneous considerations - I wasn't actually in a state where my vote could have mattered, the election ultimately was decided by the Supreme Court, etc. - which means that you never have to acknowledge your position's weaknesses.
Reply
I'm not "fighting" the hypothetical. Your hypothetical is strawman scaremongering, with the implicit assumptions that:
I know it's such because I used to berate former Nader voters with exactly the same argument. So why indulge it?
And here's a question for you: If the candidate of one's choice is not chosen by one's state's electoral college delegates, and if the Supremes decide to Bush the next recount, why are you putting so much mental energy into getting one voter to reconsider the logical inconsistencies of my, er, "his" vote?
Left unconsidered (as usual): the fact that money is robbing us of a democracy.
(I do apologize if that sounds rhetorical and pat, without detail or substance. I have a lot of mental keyboard abuse accumulated that isn't so thumbnailed, which I would be interested in hearing opinions from others, including yourself. Here is not the forum, though.)
I will concede that your points on the Fourth Turning are worth discussing, but that would go on for some time. I did, in fact, record an interview as a guest to a podcast discussing Strauss & Howe's theory recently. (I'd link, but it's behind a pay wall for subscribers only.)
Nutshell summary: I very much doubt any of the candidates running now could be the next leader during the predicted coming events, based on elements of S&H's theory. If anything, the pres elected in Nov. would likely be the precursor, either immediate or penultimate, to the next Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt.
Reply
Leave a comment