Nearly half of Americans would vote for a socialist for President

[the captain]

Best way to get your news is from more than one source.  ... Each brings something different so you can filter and inform your own choices.

This is good advice. I'd add to it my own little unsolicited rule of thumb: when you hear something that reinforces or refutes your own position, let your first thought be along the lines of "what about this [point of disagreement] is true?" And really think about it. The easy way to live is to just take the parts you like and shout, "yeah, I'm right! f*** you morons!" But easy isn't the same as honest. If you know everything and aren't constantly questioning, reassessing, and maybe evolving your positions, you're an idiot.

A little intellectual humility (and an unwillingness to play the mob mentality schtick) would go a long way in "making America great again" (if it has somehow lost whatever greatness it purportedly had once, in the glory days of whenever).

[filledeplage]

Best way to get your news is from more than one source.  ... Each brings something different so you can filter and inform your own choices.

This is good advice. I'd add to it my own little unsolicited rule of thumb: when you hear something that reinforces or refutes your own position, let your first thought be along the lines of "what about this [point of disagreement] is true?" And really think about it. The easy way to live is to just take the parts you like and shout, "yeah, I'm right! f*** you morons!" But easy isn't the same as honest. If you know everything and aren't constantly questioning, reassessing, and maybe evolving your positions, you're an idiot.

A little intellectual humility (and an unwillingness to play the mob mentality schtick) would go a long way in "making America great again" (if it has somehow lost whatever greatness it purportedly had once, in the glory days of whenever).

Thanks, Captain! 

The whole concept of "Making America Great" really resonates with people who don't like the third world image we now have. They want industries brought back into the States. People are sick and tired of this mamby-pamby, wussy, approach for political candidates.  The day of the press corps running the show, and minimizing damage-control is over. 

Humility is not Trump's strong suit but his boldness is what has catapulted him to the top.  It is a unique political model to fund your own campaign.  No one does it. S/He who has the gold, rules.   

And yes, it is easier to call someone an idiot if you're not in agreement, rather than to do some homework and make a reasonable argument.
   

[the captain]

The third-world image is false, perpetuated by a hungry GOP. We're the most powerful nation in the history of the world. I don't think Canada or Mexico smell blood and plan to invade anytime soon. Some blunders of one administration don't change that any more than the blunders of the last, or the previous, or its previous administration did. The only real question is by what measure are we the most powerful nation in the history of the world. First-world problems...

To piggyback on one of your points, the industries leaving is a problem. Realistically I don't think the GOP solution of cutting corporate taxes will do much: the issue is labor costs. As long as Apple can pay about $2/hr for Chinese workers (for one example), all the tax breaks in the world won't matter: they're not going to return. Further, the reality of the world indicates that problem--losing manufacturing--will only get worse as more tasks can be automated. We need fewer people to produce goods and perform services than ever before. This is a boon for ownership; it's a disaster for labor. Cutting taxes doesn't fix that problem: corporations aren't trying to create jobs, they are trying to increase profits, and whenever that can be done--often by cutting labor at every chance--they will do so. That's their mission. They're not charitable organizations.

Neither does burying one's head in the sand and ignoring the reality of technological progress help bring jobs back. You can't force companies to hire unnecessary labor, or to overpay for unnecessary work. You can't isolate the nation and refuse to do business globally, raising tariffs or imposing penalties to compensate. (Well, you can, but it doesn't strike me as a great idea.)

Neither party has a realistic solution to this problem. And it's not a problem caused by either party's policy. This just happens to be one of those moments--moments comprising decades, of course, time being a lengthy thing--in history when the model changes. It has happened before. In the late 1800s and early 1900s people speculated that industrialization and mechanization would mean people no longer had to work, that we'd have leisure time to follow higher pursuits. Instead what we considered "work" changed and work forces relocated, learned new skills and professions.

I don't know how to deal with the situation. The easy answer is something like "innovation; everyone for himself to find the new model." Easy to say, hard to do. And I don't believe letting massive segments of the population suffer while the times change is a good idea, so some organized, government-led support seems like a good idea at some point. (Ooooh, socialism! Dirty! But it beats people living in abject poverty just because someone developed an app that made them tangential to the path of history.)

[Jim V.]

Best way to get your news is from more than one source.  ... Each brings something different so you can filter and inform your own choices.

This is good advice. I'd add to it my own little unsolicited rule of thumb: when you hear something that reinforces or refutes your own position, let your first thought be along the lines of "what about this [point of disagreement] is true?" And really think about it. The easy way to live is to just take the parts you like and shout, "yeah, I'm right! f*** you morons!" But easy isn't the same as honest. If you know everything and aren't constantly questioning, reassessing, and maybe evolving your positions, you're an idiot.

A little intellectual humility (and an unwillingness to play the mob mentality schtick) would go a long way in "making America great again" (if it has somehow lost whatever greatness it purportedly had once, in the glory days of whenever).

Thanks, Captain! 

The whole concept of "Making America Great" really resonates with people who don't like the third world image we now have. They want industries brought back into the States. People are sick and tired of this mamby-pamby, wussy, approach for political candidates.  The day of the press corps running the show, and minimizing damage-control is over. 

Humility is not Trump's strong suit but his boldness is what has catapulted him to the top.  It is a unique political model to fund your own campaign.  No one does it. S/He who has the gold, rules.   

And yes, it is easier to call someone an idiot if you're not in agreement, rather than to do some homework and make a reasonable argument.
   

What is your opinion of the fact that he panders towards Christians (even though it is obvious he had very little interest in it until this campaign, as he referred to communion as a "cracker")?

And do you applaud his "boldness" when he insists that President Obama was not born in the United States? And is it namby pamby, wussy for him to avoid answering whether he thinks President Obama is a Christian or not?

Seems to me he's really not all that bold at all. More like pandering to a bunch of fools who eat it up hook line and sinker.

[Bean Bag]

The third-world image is false, perpetuated by a hungry GOP.

Obama would be deeply offended if you credited a phantom GOP for his proudest (in his mind) accomplishment.  Seriously.  Third World Status for America, Lead From the Behind.  And all the rest.  If there's one thing you/I should agree on regarding this turd of a president -- it's this.

He hasn't achieved it.  But he HOPES this will be his legacy Captain.  Turning a self-reliant, God-fearing, gun-toting America into a third-world land of government-dependence, gov't-run healthcare, weak military, weak dollar -- sans Constitution, sans liberty, sans protections of any kind for the people -- this is Barrack Hussein's fantasy, wet dream, legacy -- whatever you want to call it.

It's not only perpetuated by him -- it's highlighted, trumpeted, exalted by him.  I'm not being political at all here.  He might word it differently to avoid the headline, sure -- but my God, I think you would deeply, deeply insult him if you credited a bunch of useless boobs like Mitchy McConnell and John Boner with this.   

[the captain]

Nonsense. Efforts to act as part of the world community rather than being a bully-state bumbling where we don't belong--whether successful or not*--are not remotely the same as efforts to be a third world country.


*I don't think he has been good on foreign policy. Neither was his predecessor.

[filledeplage]

Best way to get your news is from more than one source.  ... Each brings something different so you can filter and inform your own choices.

This is good advice. I'd add to it my own little unsolicited rule of thumb: when you hear something that reinforces or refutes your own position, let your first thought be along the lines of "what about this [point of disagreement] is true?" And really think about it. The easy way to live is to just take the parts you like and shout, "yeah, I'm right! f*** you morons!" But easy isn't the same as honest. If you know everything and aren't constantly questioning, reassessing, and maybe evolving your positions, you're an idiot.

A little intellectual humility (and an unwillingness to play the mob mentality schtick) would go a long way in "making America great again" (if it has somehow lost whatever greatness it purportedly had once, in the glory days of whenever).

Thanks, Captain! 
The whole concept of "Making America Great" really resonates with people who don't like the third world image we now have. They want industries brought back into the States. People are sick and tired of this mamby-pamby, wussy, approach for political candidates.  The day of the press corps running the show, and minimizing damage-control is over. 

Humility is not Trump's strong suit but his boldness is what has catapulted him to the top.  It is a unique political model to fund your own campaign.  No one does it. S/He who has the gold, rules.   

And yes, it is easier to call someone an idiot if you're not in agreement, rather than to do some homework and make a reasonable argument.   

What is your opinion of the fact that he panders towards Christians (even though it is obvious he had very little interest in it until this campaign, as he referred to communion as a "cracker")?

And do you applaud his "boldness" when he insists that President Obama was not born in the United States? And is it namby pamby, wussy for him to avoid answering whether he thinks President Obama is a Christian or not?

Seems to me he's really not all that bold at all. More like pandering to a bunch of fools who eat it up hook line and sinker.

Well, one thing that I find interesting about Trump is that the whole campaign finance thing is absent in his instance.  He doesn't have to pander to citizens, or industries who feed at the govt. trough, and that has changed the landscape.  He has not been "rehearsed" as far as speeches and debates are concerned and that is a large part of campaign management. 

Referring to communion as a "cracker" is interesting, and does not sound as though he has a Cathoic background, which would not endear him to them. But, we are supposed to have a certain separation of "church and state." Everyone who has taken American History in school knows that.

Trump did make an issue of "birther" credentials, a few years back, and that is a criteria for election to be president.  Whether whatever religion Obama declares he is part of, I can't speak to.  I lot of people who are brought up in certain religions are often "cultural or social" observants and are not practicing in a bona fire way.  And, whether he responds or not, was interesting.  So he shows up for church for the cameras? Big deal. Does it get him votes? Maybe. 

Did he hear the question? (He seems to be old enough that he could be getting hard of hearing.) Was the guy a plant in the audience? Was it an opportunity for Hillary to use it as an issue? I don't know. 

After the fact, Trump questioned whether he had a "duty to defend where the Presdident was born?"  Maybe not. Or, whether he was wrong, or classless, to let the question "float out there" and let it spin out? He isn't the Presdent's lawyer.  Or his press secretary.  He is on the other side of the battle, running as a Republican.  Maybe he could have said that "he thought that the matter had been resolved." It might have been smoother. But, these events have people baiting candidates just for the opposition and they need to be ready with some tactful response.

Trump is changing the game because politics and campaigning for office, is built on money from supporters as the driving engine. You can't buy TV ads without big bucks.   And because he says he doesn't need money, he gets to voice his opinions more openly, than a candidate who is beholden to special interest groups.  It seems that Trump is talking to people who are spilling their guts about what they think is wrong with govt.  in the U.S.  He is no career politician or one, coming in like a Dynasty entitlement.  People are fired up about so many issues.  And he is using that to his advantage.

But, I don't this guy could "pander" if he wanted to.  It doesn't seem consistent with his personal style.   

[Bean Bag]

Nonsense. Efforts to act as part of the world community rather than being a bully-state bumbling where we don't belong--whether successful or not*--are not remotely the same as efforts to be a third world country.


*I don't think he has been good on foreign policy. Neither was his predecessor.

It's not really nonsense though.  Only because Obama doesn't see lowering America's status in the world as a negative.  We won't agree, but Americans -- no longer just Conservatives -- do believe we're on the wrong track.  I won't bore you with examples.

But "acting a part of the world community" is now seen as PC marketing --- all to make this sinking dissent feel savvy.  It feeds on the seed that Bush was a "bully."  But that seed ain't sprouting.  Our international relations were much better then -- and the world was much safer.  This is important -- it's part of Trump's appeal.  People are wise to the PC spin.

Yes, "third-world" creates a lot images in the mind -- but it doesn't have to go quite that far.  Leftist have never liked America's super power status.  Liberalism has never really raised people up.  But it does succeed by lowering people and things that are successful.  Get even-ism.  There's a precedent there.

[the captain]

I keep waiting for you to break character and admit you've just been doing a bit.

I'm sticking with my "nonsense" position.

[the captain]

Back from the dead (hey, it's Good Friday, after all...), this op-ed in the Washington Post reminded me of this thread.

While a lot of it just fits into the quote commonly (but I understand mistakenly) attributed to Churchill about "if you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." (Specific "quote" varies, as does its originator.) But the more interesting and amusing part to me was the difference in millennials' answers when the question was worded differently. I have to say, it reminds me of my college years (20 years ago), when I visited an old friend at a different college. He told me he considered himself a socialist. When I asked him what he meant by it, literally the only thing he could say was "like Scandinavia."

If I may pervert the aforementioned quote, my takeaway is "anyone who doesn't know everything when he's 18 is an idiot; anyone who does know everything when he's 38 is also an idiot."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[Emily]

If you're in a system in which you have to compete for needed resources, you start to compete for resources. And people in a system start to believe the system they are in is "the way life is" and the way they and others behave in that system is "the way people are."