Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

I’d agree that there is too much nepotism, but if Trump brings his family with him into the White House we need well thought out laws against it. Until then, we are stuck, and some will take advantage on both sides.

I agree reds are for the most part with the constitution, with the exception of Trump’s recent attempts to disenfranchise voters. These will be profitable for Trump even if it gets his lawyers in trouble. Both parties legislate from the bench too much, but I don’t think I have spoken much about that pet peeve. A good conservative judge pays attention to the text of the law and intent of the authors. A poor conservative judge has an ideological agenda and tries to find a way to twist the law to implement it. We will see which type of judge Trump has put on the bench.

I have been working on a mini article on Polyticks, my own political perspective. One of the first principles is that you have to understand that people can defend their own ways of looking at the world, that they believe in them. You want to understand and respect the many perspectives, even if you don’t agree with some. I have problems with elites and the huge division of wealth. I have problems with racists, of people latching onto worst case behaviors which might be sort of true of some, but which they stereotype entire groups of people. These I can understand but not respect.

For a long time tribal thinking was the norm, and principle WEIRD thinking was the exception. People worked for the advantage of their own group rather than abiding be principles, notably that all were equal under law. Some are still abiding by working toward the advantage of their own group, and being hostile to others.

But some people on the red side don’t understand the desire to heal the sick, to prevent fires, to stop bad cops from getting away with murder. They view such policies as denigrating and sad. They would murder people for treason, not respecting the Constitution which defines treason and that Biden has come no where close to meeting the definition.

As I covered in my last note, I have no reason to move from my nice safe northeastern blue state. No reason to leave America. It is the reds that seem to be looking at moving. It is they that think America is becoming un American. There are two groups forming to replace one T4T forum, and the blue one does not have a thread about possible violence and the precautions one should take against it.

I am trying to figure out where you think I am lying. I assure you that you shouldn’t try to justify the massive death, fire and storms by assuming the opposition has motives different from what they publicly claim and act on as much as they can. If I do you the honor of taking you seriously, the favor could be returned. Instead you make wild misperceptions that only suggest you cannot debate meaningfully on this issues without wildly and deliberately misrepresenting the opposition.

I am calling the racists and elites deplorable, but those that favoring murder for having a certain skin color or advocating the huge division of wealth deserve a bit of name calling. That, and more. I for one see those motives as easy to understand and sympathize with.

The problem is that you keep bringing up things you consider true or presumptive, but they are the antithesis of that. For example, you said

Trump’s recent attempts to disenfranchise voters

which is a trick to say there is something wrong with law and legitimate voting, so blame it on Trump. You meant, "recent attempts to use the law and stop fraud" - a fraud which you obviously tacitly support, which denigrates your fellow citizens who also vote.

But some people on the red side don’t understand the desire to heal the sick, to prevent fires, to stop bad cops from getting away with murder. They view such policies as denigrating and sad. They would murder people for treason, not respecting the Constitution which defines treason and that Biden has come no where close to meeting the definition.

Here you obviously refer to me. The thing is, I don't get butthurt because every assertion I make I can back up and I don't lie, like treasonous quid pro Joe. I am a physician so by definition I am committed to healing the sick. You are wrong there. Second, I have no issue with putting into place policies against bad guys. What's hysterical is that you are presumably the union guy and blue cities have the "bad cops" always in the press that you refer to, and lie about consistently. Third, treason is selling secrets and your country's information, as well as access, for personal gain. Biden did that with Ukraine, then accused Trump of doing what he did - we have Biden on tape admitting it. Biden did that through his son as well, in both Ukraine and China (bank loans for millions, credit cards for the whole family). Feinstein had the Chinese chaffeur for 20 years, Swalwell slep with Fang. These are child like instances of obvious treason going on.

Unlike you (and I could go on with more evidence) I actually state my claims AND support them. I expect again you will just say more things without any evidence. Typical of the liar lefty progressive types - they always accuse the other guy of what they do. Just like quid pro Joe did.

I am calling the racists and elites deplorable, but those that favoring murder for having a certain skin color or advocating the huge division of wealth deserve a bit of name calling. That, and more. I for one see those motives as easy to understand and sympathize with.

You can't even tell me what or who a racist is. I give examples and supports of all I say. I just did. You won't. Please prove me wrong. Name me all the racists you can, all the racist policies and why they are racist, etc. I'm waiting. You are the mischaracterizer/generalizer.

Again, my posts have conclusions based on facts and supports. That's what I do. I haven't read one claim you have made supported by any sort of fact that I could even theoretically verify. How "scientific" of you. You guys are all buzzwords. All sizzle, no steak.

There is nothing wrong with legitimate voting. I’m all in favor of the recent get out the vote campaigns. There is something wrong with attempting to disenfranchise certain people who happen to have voted against you.

I personally believe Trump wasn’t seriously attempting to do that. He was trying to pretend the possibility of changing the election was still there so he could scam his supporters into sending money. A fifty to one loss ratio is fine if all you are trying to do is keep a scam going. I’m almost tempted to research the one victory. It’s a bit odd that there is an exception.

Nope. I try to be careful not to attribute beliefs to anyone who hasn’t actively supported such beliefs. Some of the conservative beliefs are honorable. Again you are making false assumptions that the opponent has motivations he hasn’t.

If you are a professional healer, what are your thoughts of Trumps handling of the COVID situation. Four percent of the population but a quarter of the cases?

Bad cops do exist. They too deserve to face justice for their actions.

The Constitution’s definition of treason… “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adjuring to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” We currently are not a war with Ukraine. As little as I like the CCP, we are not the enemy of China either. No war has been declared, no less formal hostilities are taking place. Ivanka has made similar deals in China to Hunter’s. I am again not thrilled by nepotism, and wouldn’t mind a well written law against it, but pretending nepotism is treason is quite a leap.

Dictionary.com defines “racist noun a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one’s own racial group is superior, or that a particular racial group is inferior to others.” That will do as a standard definition. I’ll propose your typical Neo Nazi or KKK member as examples. If you handle that, I’ll give you a few more.

I will say there are lousy cultures. If you have grown up in the ghetto and believe that to get ahead you have to be a sports star, a drug pusher or a welfare mother, you are stuck in a bad culture. You are not likely to get ‘ahead’. That hardly means that all people with a certain shake of skin are members of that culture. Still, you have to be aware of the culture to understand certain urban problems.

Yes, I know far more about it than you do and I am much younger than you are. Why? I lived it. And I'm honest about the world, something that lefties aren't, as they don't accept reality - rather marxism's agenda of power and oppression, based on lies.

Bob Butler wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:57 pmI personally believe Trump wasn’t seriously attempting to do that. He was trying to pretend the possibility of changing the election was still there so he could scam his supporters into sending money. A fifty to one loss ratio is fine if all you are trying to do is keep a scam going. I’m almost tempted to research the one victory. It’s a bit odd that there is an exception.

Apparently, the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar, improperly allowed people three extra days to provide IDs for mail in votes. Trump did manage to disenfranchise quite properly some people who had not abided by the mail in guidelines. No where near enough voters to make a difference, but the case is Trump's only win. As such, I guess Kathy Boockvar has earned herself an odd place in history.

Cool Breeze wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:24 pm Yes, I know far more about it than you do and I am much younger than you are. Why? I lived it. And I'm honest about the world, something that lefties aren't, as they don't accept reality - rather marxism's agenda of power and oppression, based on lies.

I suppose the oddity of my career was in working on elements of all three elements of the nuclear triad: ICBMs, bombers and submarine launched missiles. It did make me examine the philosophy of the culture I worked on to potentially destroy. If you had described the communists as dealing with power, oppression and lies, I could agree with you fully and then some. I recently had an exchange with a Marxist who distinguished pretty well between the real world of Lenin and Stalin and the theoretical world of Marx. He would claim that there has been no Marxist revolution, distinguishing between Communism and Marxism. I sort of believe it. He is not the only one to make the claim. My counter is that the theoretical world could never manifest in the real world. Marx never understood humans. If you were good enough at violence to win a revolution, you were unlikely to let go of the power gained.

Is that what you mean by living it? You seem to evade any real debate about communism, climate or Trump’s response to COVID. You keep trying to find an area where you can debate me decently. Still looking.

What remains is an inability to defend your beliefs without misrepresenting badly the beliefs of others. You are dishonest about the motives of those you disagree with, lying consistently, even if you believe your own lies. Assume you know little about my beliefs. Debate against what I actually say rather than making up easy to shoot down lies. Your total dishonesty, your seeming unwillingness to talk specifics about climate change, your unwillingness to admit that conservatives don’t want to solve problems, want to keep existing power structures, seems not worth arguing with.

In the Revolution the conservatives were for kings and colonial imperialism. In the US Civil War they were for slavery and against expansion and the industrial revolution. In the mid 20th Century they were isolationists and against government regulation of the economy. In all these cases the conservatives were wrong. The problems ignored became ever larger to become problems that needed to be solved.

It seems to be happening again.

Bob Butler wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:14 am In the Revolution the conservatives were for kings and colonial imperialism. In the US Civil War they were for slavery and against expansion and the industrial revolution. In the mid 20th Century they were isolationists and against government regulation of the economy. In all these cases the conservatives were wrong. The problems ignored became ever larger to become problems that needed to be solved.

It seems to be happening again.

Your definitions are all wrong and thus, so are you conclusions. The Democrat party was for slavery, always has been - it is and always has been the party based on race. Your party.

You use words that aren't accurate to obfuscate (conservative) in order to create your own imaginary narrative. My words stand since anyone who knows the truth will see it in what I write, but most (not all) of your stuff is nonsensical.

Cool Breeze wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:22 pm

Bob Butler wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:14 am In the Revolution the conservatives were for kings and colonial imperialism. In the US Civil War they were for slavery and against expansion and the industrial revolution. In the mid 20th Century they were isolationists and against government regulation of the economy. In all these cases the conservatives were wrong. The problems ignored became ever larger to become problems that needed to be solved.

It seems to be happening again.

Your definitions are all wrong and thus, so are you conclusions. The Democrat party was for slavery, always has been - it is and always has been the party based on race. Your party.

You use words that aren't accurate to obfuscate (conservative) in order to create your own imaginary narrative. My words stand since anyone who knows the truth will see it in what I write, but most (not all) of your stuff is nonsensical.

I prefer the Cousin's War perspective. (Kevin Phillips) The cavaliers were the agricultural autocratic faction in the English Civil War. They were rural and settled in the south. The roundheads were the urban democratic faction that settled in the northeast. The Republicans were once the progressive faction. They were fighting for expansion, a federal government that favored the pending industrial revolution, and of course abolition. Had I lived near the Civil War era, I would have favored them.

But while the Republicans have always been the party of the Robber Barons, of the elite, they have flipped on almost everything else. They are now the southern, rural, racist, obstructionist, strong on defense conservative party.

** 01-Jan-2021 World View: Strauss-Howe abandoning their own theory

John wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:28 am > As I'm typing this, I'm listening to the BBC promise a
> "transformational time in American politics," with Biden taking
> office. Hahaha.

Bob Butler wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:18 am > Well, you might want to drop your claim that you are the only
> poster still loyal to the original S&H turning theory. I have us
> going into the crisis with an effective focused administration
> about to take over. I may be a bit quick in that statement. They
> haven't actually had a chance to do anything yet. You don't seem
> to believe the crisis transformation possible. You may have to
> argue that we are not experiencing a trigger, regeneracy and
> crisis heart.

This is exactly the point -- that Strauss and Howe, and the entire FTF
community -- abandoned their own theory, and I'm pretty much the only person
left who considers generational theory (and the original SH theory after
I've corrected the errors) to be valid.

Strauss and Howe were/are committed Democrats, and when they wrote the
FT book in the 1990s, they clearly intended a Fourth Turning crisis to
be a world war. But after 9/11/2001, they had to abandon their own theory
for purely political reasons. Saying that the Fourth Turning crisis would
be a world war would support the views of the Republican neocons. And so,
like any good leftist, they put left-wing politics ahead of their own
beliefs.

When Obama made his nutty, delusional campaign promises in 2008, the
FT community, led by Neil Howe and David Kaiser, adopted the new
theory that the Fourth Turning crisis would be a political
transformation led by Obama. That's a totally ridiculous delusion,
but that's what Howe, Kaiser and Obama believed.

During the Obama administration, which occurred after Strauss died,
Kaiser adopted the "Great Man Theory of History," with Obama as the
Great Man. Having already modified the 1996 theory by denying the
prediction of a new war, Kaiser was stuck with trying to explain what
the "Fourth Turning crisis" would be. He adopted the theory that
Obama's policies would bring about "the death of an old political,
economic and social order [creating] an opportunity for any determined
movement or leader to put a new vision in place."

In other words, in Kaiser's view, the Fourth Turning crisis would not
be a war. It would be a new social order created by Obama's policies
-- closing Guantánamo, healing the world, and so forth.

As I've written above, Obama himself finally rejected this concept --
the "Great Man Theory of History" -- in 2014, and essentially adopted
the Generational Dynamics view that presidents do not and cannot bring
about such a new social order. Here's what Kaiser wrote in a 2016
article:

> "In 2009 ... I hoped that Barack Obama and the
> Democratic Congress would use the economic crisis of our own age
> to revive the values of the New Deal. ...

> As it turned out, Obama failed to embark on a New Deal. He
> evidently believed that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with
> our system and that it could be fixed with only marginal
> adjustments."

I find this absolutely astonishing -- that Kaiser is blaming Obama
for failing to transform society with his delusional promises.

So now it's happening again -- this delusion that the Fourth Turning
"crisis" will be some sort of political tranformation engineered by
Biden. It's as ridiculous and delusional today as it was in 2009 with
Obama. And it certainly contradicts the original FT theory and
generational theory in general.

So yes, I'm the only person left who considers generational theory
(and the original SH theory after I've corrected the errors) to be
valid.

Bob Butler wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 10:18 am > You don't seem to believe the crisis transformation possible. You
> may have to argue that we are not experiencing a trigger,
> regeneracy and crisis heart.

Of course we're not experiencing a regeneracy. Since when is a regeneracy
an election? That's completely ridiculous, and a violation of generational
theory.

The whole "regeneracy" concept is that it regenerates civic unity and
unites the country for the first time since the end of the previous
crisis war (WW II). Biden's election did nothing of the sort, and so
it's not any sort of regeneracy. In particular, there are 75 million
Trump voters, most of whom completely reject Biden.

The actual regeneracy will occur with something similar to Pearl
Harbor or the Bataan Death March -- things that united the country
behind Roosevelt, who had been just as divisive as Obama, Trump and
Biden. We can only guess what those events will be this time.

Obama in not taking the revenge on the Wall Street people considered to blame for the Great Recession, in taking things done step at a time and getting no further than Obamacare, in running into Republican obstructionism, in concentrating more on being a good first black president rather than pushing the Democratic agenda in the face of obvious obstruction... Well. He was clearly no crisis president. He didn't push for it anywhere near enough.

We will see if Biden goes differently.