Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[John]

** 21-Nov-2024 World View: Humiliating Defeat

So Bob, it seems that you and the Democrats suffered
a massive humiliating defeat in the recent election,
and people in the party are going back and
changing their loony left positions.
What about you? Are you chaning your positions?

[Bob Butler]

So Bob, it seems that you and the Democrats suffered a massive humiliating defeat in the recent election, and people in the party are going back and changing their loony left positions. What about you? Are you chaning your positions?

Well, my anticipation of an immediate high transition is obviously wrong. A common prediction was that the crisis would end in the early 2030s. I jumped the gun. There was another feeling that the polls could not be trusted. That was confirmed.

In recent weeks I ordered a few custom bumper stickers. "Don't blame me, Still from Massachusetts". This is a course a slight variation of a sticker from the Nixon Watergate years which some would remember, "Don't blame me. I'm from Massachusetts". This reflected the Nixon victory where he won all states except Massachusetts. Big electoral wipe out, followed by Nixon's resignation. It seems that the US population is not ready to leave the crisis, to move on to the high. From my perspective the vote was for continued crisis. I have my suspicions that the second Trump administration will be a disaster, and the vote will be different in 2028. That suspicion will prove true or false in time.

I have a feeling that trickle down economics doesn't work. The Bush administrations and the first Trump years ended in economic disasters. It wasn't entirely trickle down. Bush 43 tried to fight a war without new taxes and there was a housing problem. Trump 45 had Covid hit. None the less, tax breaks to the elites accompanied by an increase to the deficit seems problematic. The planed widespread use of tariffs by Trump 47 will increase the prices of all goods produced abroad and tariffed. Many economists anticipate catastrophe. While the economy is not my area of high expertise, I tend to concur. Trickle down economic disasters are generally followed by Democratic administration fixes. The economic effects are delayed. The results of one administration's policies linger on well into the next administration. We will see if the predicted collapse occurs. I will take years to find out.

This leaves aside the social issues. Will there be renewed efforts to limit feminine health care? Will religious doctrine be enforced by the state? Will various religious, racial and sexual minorities be victims of renewed oppression? Will there be continued attempts to arm insane murderers with weapons of war? Don't know yet. Will decreased federal meddling result in local blue state increased meddling? With at least some issues the Republicans have seen how unpopular their positions are and have backed down some. I think we need to see what the Trump 47 administration does, how hot these issues will be.

There are also rumors of a divide between Congress going traditional old school Republican while the White House goes MAGA. I don't know to what degree this will actually manifest. Another question that will take time to learn the answer.

Then there are the foreign conflicts. What happens with Ukraine, Israel and China? Will Trump side with dictators and try to end containment policies? This too will take time to answer.

So, my position is wait and see. I'm not at all pleased by the thought of what Trump might do. Still, we need to see what he actually does. If my instincts are correct and problems manifest, my hope is for a Democratic victory in 2028 and an eventual shift to a high. Still, it is way early to predict this with anything like certainty.

But I don't anticipate anywhere near as much posting here. I have had problems with censorship. People don't defend their positions but delete posts they disagree with and block posting. We'll see. As the questions raised above begin to be answered, comment might be worthwhile.

[Bob Butler]

So Bob, it seems that you and the Democrats suffered a massive humiliating defeat in the recent election, and people in the party are going back and changing their loony left positions. What about you? Are you chaning your positions?

There was one quote in there about "loony left positions". What? In the above post, I covered most of the key issues. I'm not sure I would rate any of the usual Democratic positions as loony.

Let's look at the Republican positions. Allowing the insane to carry weapons of war? Tax breaks for the elites while increasing the deficit and prices on imported goods? Reducing containment. If you are insane, elite or an expansionist dictator these are absolutely fine positions. Questionable, but fine.

I guess by this standard I am curious as to what positions you consider "loony". If the target audience is a working class citizen, the policy difference is different than if you are an insane elite dictator. It isn't loony, but it is sure different. Could you be explicit on a few issues you consider the furthest off?

[spottybrowncow]

John, I (we) love you, but why did you even ask him?

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

[Bob Butler]

John, I (we) love you, but why did you even ask him?

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

John at least is into argument by fact, reason and debate. He asked reasonable questions by that standard. He is not into censorship, though he is not always good at answering questions.

My summary of the theories of cyclical history is based on the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address. Every four score and seven years there is a new birth of freedom based on the American traditions of independence and equality. Government should not be used to force one culture on others. I can respect that others honestly hold other religious or moral positions, but cannot endorse government trying to enforce religious or moral ideas. I cannot respect bigotry, attempts to oppress racial, religious or sexual groups. I also can't respect those who censor ideas they disagree with without attempting to answer them.

What's a troll? Argument by name calling? Calling an idea loony or a fellow poster a troll rather than arguing using fact, reason and debate? Refusing to either answer or concede? Censorship?

I'd rather see this as America, which is why I will likely post here less. I'd also suggest attacking me is not a good way to make me go away.

[spottybrowncow]

I, John, Higgenbotham, and others have presented many carefully reasoned, cogent arguments to you over the years. You have either ignored them or changed the subject essentially every time. Since you don't want to debate (in the classic sense), no one wants you here any more.

[Bob Butler]

I, John, Higgenbotham, and others have presented many carefully reasoned, cogent arguments to you over the years. You have either ignored them or changed the subject essentially every time. Since you don't want to debate (in the classic sense), no one wants you here any more.

I reviewed a number of liberal positions a few posts back. I offer any poster to reprise a logical fact based argument against one. Otherwise, I think you a liar.

One argument is on the abortion question. I can agree that in most cases one should not kill a sentient being. (Governments have been known to kill criminals and in war, but no one has tried to use these exceptions.) I would like to hear a definition of sentient which applies to a fetus but not to a raise to be killed meat animal. The closest proposed definition of sentient is my own ’uses language’. One can create a religious alternate definition. For example, as soon as the egg meets sperm you get a soul which is somehow associated with sentience. But one cannot scientifically detect this soul and the government is not permitted to create an official religion or enforce a particular religion’s doctrine. Also, this results in a single cell being sentient which is a completely wrong assertion. The difference is that I do not consider killing a sentient being proper, while others seem to believe one should not kill something which has the potential to possibly become sentient. The latter is a plausibly consistent moral argument, but one cannot demand that others must share a particular moral position. Many just won’t.

The only effective answer to this argument is censorship. For this reason the abortion thread effectively died.

What is the coherent response presented? If one does not like what one hears one arranges not to hear it?

Anyway, I’d welcome any poster to address any issues and present a logical fact based presentation. Prove Spotty wrong? If on every issue a coherent argument has been presented as Spotty asserts, can anyone repeat one? Personally, I doubt it.

[Bob Butler]

Yes, consumerism is still part of the sad replacement of real virtue and godliness in America, which are the smaller components of why thinking the US is some great country is funny, and mostly mythology given what we see in DC, all of the sick complexes of mammon worship and industrial warfare, government ops against US citizens and those abroad. Big superpower? No doubt.

The original virtues of America were independence and equality as pushed in the Revolution. Do those with consumer and economic values today too common and have too much influence in government? Are minorities being oppressed? Are religious ideals being forced on those who do not hold them? Will we support resistance to autocratic regimes attempting to force their culture on others?

I am sympathetic with the notion that the old ideals have faded, but they were never really strong and complete. Each crisis has made these values stronger: ending slavery, endorsing containment… This one could too. Could.

[Cool Breeze]

Bob, you've become irrelevant. It's not worth engaging with people who promoted racism (DEI) via law, lawfare, and all the other things you just got smacked down for. We're moving on, while you still complain - and even dig deeper on all of your revolutionary concepts, which are failed and from the evil one.

Too bad. You're not worth our time.