[Winstonm]

The problem is not Donald Trump - the problem is there are so many truly stupid American voters willing to support him.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-March-14, 17:16, said:

The problem is not Donald Trump - the problem is there are so many truly stupid American voters are willing to support him.

Basically, yes. But I would refine it a little. Some people are beyond reach. I suspect that this is more emotional than lack of intelligence. But not everyone is beyond reach.

Becky and I were talking a bit about this this morning. We had both watched Race for the White House, I mentioned it before. It's a somewhat superficial re-telling of various races, and the first one was about Kennedy/Nixon, 1960. There was a large group of Protestant ministers who were very anti Kennedy, largely based on his Catholicism. He did not write them off as stupid bigots. He arranged for a large meeting and addressed their concerns. He was very successful.

It is a truism that the country has become very divided. Is there a solution? Maybe, maybe not. But if there is, then it surely will come from speaking to and listening to people who see things differently.

Here is a personal experience. I got married for the first time in 1960. Sometime before the wedding we went up to introduce me to the future in-laws. Northern Miinnesota, iron mining country. My future father- in-law had been a miner until heart problems arose, he was currently a bartender. We went out to the bar with his friends. Fact about norther Minnesota in 1960. There were no black people there. But these guys had opinions. Everyone has opinions. I called nobody stupid or racist, but I stuck to my own views. And, importantly, I matched them drink for drink and I was still standing. Well, sitting, but I could stand if I wanted to. By the end of the evening, at least some of these guys thought maybe I was not totally crazy. Maybe the cure wore off, but maybe not completely.

Whatever you make of this, I think we change minds at a personal level, one mind at a time. And, just maybe, we learn something ourselves.

Sermon is now over, there are cookies in the chapel.

[Winstonm]

I heard a reporter tonight, I think CBS news, say that there is a large faction of Republicans who are angry at their own party and feel they have been lied to and marginalized. I think this is correct. The trouble comes when they cannot make the continued turn of thinking to point some of those fingers of blame at themselves for believing in lies. Instead, they point the finger at "thems": illegal immigrants, unions, Washington insiders, liberals, yada, yada, yadi.

The problem is that they have bought into a failed ideology. Faith will not resurrect a dead 1950s. Reagan was not a great President; he was a second-rate actor who believed in fairly tales, and we all went along with him because it was easier than hearing the truth.

We have met the enemy and he is us - all of us, myself included. I wised up. I hope others do the same in time to save the country. Fascism and rampant nationalism are not the solution.

[mike777]

 kenberg, on 2016-March-13, 07:22, said:

Those were exciting times. And nobody would accuse Truman of being indecisive. The Berlin airlift, the attempt to take over the steel mills during the Korean war, the firing of Douglas MacArthur, the integration of the armed forces, and, of course the use of the atomic bomb in WWII. Among many other things.

Limited wars with limited objectives are common these days. In the early 1950s they were not. I recall Korea being described as the first war in history that was fought in terms of pleasing the enemy. And with regard to the use of atomic weapons, Truman once commented on Oppenheimer "What's he whining about? He only built it, I'm the guy who decided to drop it". His civil rights efforts were advanced for the time, but when King was planning his march on Washington he spoke against it, saying that they would lose every friend that they had. Or so I recall.

Passive he wasn't.

And, for comic(?) relief, there is the well known story about his response to Paul Hume. I take this from the Wikipedia:

YOu make fair points but there is another side to the discussion. Among many issues I include three:

1) Truman botched the cold war
2) botched Korea
3) botched the whole issue regarding commies and the blacklists.


My main point is history today regards Truman above average, this may be overly generous extremely so.

[mike777]

As Far as Trump goes depending on what media I read and watch:

1)trump=Nazi brownshirts
2) those who try to deny Trump speaking=Nazi brownshirts.

you may read more of the history here:
https://en.wikipedia.../Sturmabteilung

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2016-March-14, 22:33, said:

YOu make fair points but there is another side to the discussion. Among many issues I include three:

1) Truman botched the cold war
2) botched Korea
3) botched the whole issue regarding commies and the blacklists.


My main point is history today regards Truman above average, this may be overly generous extremely so.

Truman was the first president I was really aware of, Roosevelt died when I was 5. Eisenhower won in 1952 when I was 13 and took office when i was 14. The point being that while I was interested in what was going on in those years, for example I still recall the headlines announcing the Inchon landing, I was pretty young. And I have made no study of it. I did buy David McCullough's book, but I never got very far in it. The only person I know who finished it was a Republican. He liked it a lot.

So my knowledge is mostly from the events as seen by a youngster. I am not much prepared to engage in serious debate on the merits of Truman or lack thereof.

I do think that the Korean war was some sort of turning point in our history, starting with the fact that we called it a police action, somehow allowing a massive military effort without a formal declaration of war. Of course now the idea of having Congress declare war before we send troops seems like some quaint historical formality. In 1950, it was seen as unusual.

In 1952 I proudly wore the campaign button: I Go Pogo.

Anyway, I think history matters and I am interested in Truman, but my knowledge is too limited for me to say much more than I already have.

[kenberg]

I'll take another (a last?) shot at what I think is going on. I take an excerpt from WaPo in today's paper.

Quote

"They talk to us like we are stupid," said Henderhan, a retired detective. "I don't have a 200 IQ, but I have a college degree and 30 years in law enforcement. I watch MSNBC. I watch Fox and CNN. It's insulting the way they talk down to us."

Exactly. There is a fair sized group that long ago decided that the Democrats had written them off, and they are now deciding that the Republicans have also lost interest in them. I am not so sure that they are wrong about this. The standard line is that these people are so stupid that it is not worth taking the trouble to talk to them. This might be a mistake.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-March-15, 08:42, said:

I'll take another (a last?) shot at what I think is going on. I take an excerpt from WaPoon in today's paper.



Exactly. There is a fair sized group that long ago decided that the Democrats had written them off, and they are now deciding that the Republicans have also lost interest in them. I am not so sure that they are wrong about this. The standard line is that these people are so stupid that it is not worth taking the trouble to talk to them. This might be a mistake.

I am convinced it is much more complicated than angry feelings. The blame lies with Samuel Morse.

Samuel Morse changed the way the nation received news. With the passage of time and increased sophistication of information exchanges, the populace became more and more dependent upon news sources to edit and fact-check news. When the Reagan revolution introduced its Rand-influenced reduction of government oversights, news changed from information centers to entertainment organizations, and in some cases, political agents. During the century plus that the change from only localized information availability to worldwide instantaneous information feeds we went from a population who deeply understood the issues to a people who relied on feelings, personal experience, and Oprah, et al, to tell us what our problems were and what we should think about them.

The difficulty comes because there is no simple and quick way to explain how Reagan and Reaganomics were such a disastrous failure - how it is impossibly ignorant to turn sand into glass because some people worldwide hate us - how continuous wealth disparity leads to less democracy - so most people don't even know it. To them, Reagan was a great President because Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Marco Rubio keep saying he was a great President, much to be emulated. They hear that if we just "put boots on the ground" our enemies will disappear or that "tax cuts" cure all problems. There is no curiosity to investigate those claims - and no quick, sound byte way to refute them.

This, IMO, is the Democrats big problem - those Republicans disaffected by their own party think "Washington" has failed them when in truth what has failed them is their own ideology - but there is no easy way to show them how this is so, and Samuel Morse has made it impossible to hope they may look deeply into it themselves.

We have met the enemy; he is us; and we are screwed.

[PassedOut]

Still, for all the anger whipped up by politicians and the propaganda machine in the US, I see that the US went up from 15th to 13th in the latest happiness rankings: Denmark Recovers Top Spot on World Happiness Ranking

Quote

LONDON — Denmark has reclaimed its place as the world’s happiest country, while Burundi ranks as the least happy nation, according to the fourth World Happiness Report, released on Wednesday.

The report found that inequality was strongly associated with unhappiness — a stark finding for rich countries like the United States, where rising disparities in income, wealth, health and well-being have fueled political discontent.

Denmark topped the list in the first report, in 2012, and again in 2013, but it was displaced by Switzerland last year. In this year’s ranking, Denmark was back at No. 1, followed by Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden. Most are fairly homogeneous nations with strong social safety nets.

Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2016-March-16, 11:17, said:

Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

This strikes me as a very real possibility.
However I am happy to see that we have all become happier. What, me worry?

Added: I see that the first six are Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada. Maybe there is something about the North. With Norwegian genes and growing up in Minnesota, that thought pleases me.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-March-16, 11:17, said:

Still, for all the anger whipped up by politicians and the propaganda machine in the US, I see that the US went up from 15th to 13th in the latest happiness rankings: Denmark Recovers Top Spot on World Happiness Ranking


Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

You don't think it might be due to marrying an ugly girl, do you? Just my personal point of view.

[Al_U_Card]

Since Andrew Jackson, the financial system has been the major "factor" in both happiness and political success. Pols backed by bankers (Hilary, anyone?) have sold the nation to the banks. Trump is bad but Hil is a shill for G-S. Money makes the world go 'round but debt is always an accident waiting to happen.

[Zelandakh]

 PassedOut, on 2016-March-16, 11:17, said:

Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

Or it might have gone up because 2 or more other countries got less happy. Also, if you go into the report and look at the numbers you will find that USA fell from 7.119 to 7.104 and occupies position 93 (of 126) on the "changes in happiness from 2005-2007 to 2013-2015" with a delta of -0.261. So I am not entirely sure one ought to see this as a major positive. Just for the record, the 2 countries that have fallen below USA between 2015 and 2016 are Costa Rica and Mexico. Costa Rica went from 7.226 to 7.087 while Mexico had a large drop from 7.187 to 6.778 - must be the worry at having to pay for that new fence!

[barmar]

Maybe Mexico got more unhappy because the unhappy Mexicans used to migrate to America, and it's become harder for them to do that. Or perhaps the prospect of being able to go to America gave them some happiness, and hearing about tightening the border worries them.

[WellSpyder]

 barmar, on 2016-March-18, 11:32, said:

Maybe Mexico got more unhappy because the unhappy Mexicans used to migrate to America, and it's become harder for them to do that. Or perhaps the prospect of being able to go to America gave them some happiness, and hearing about tightening the border worries them.

This somehow reminds of the claim that emigration from Scotland to England raises the average IQ in both countries....

[straube]

http://www.nytimes.c...cript.html?_r=0

[kenberg]

I saw in the paper this morning that there are two Republican governors who have publicly stated they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee. One of them is Larry Hogan from Maryland. I knew there was a reason I voted for that guy. I guess with Hogan a well as with me, party loyalty is not the only thing to be considered.
Not being a great enthusiast for either Clinton or Sanders my vote was up for grabs this time around. Trump will not be grabbing it, and I think that there are quite a few Rs whose vote he also won't be grabbing. What a disaster.

[blackshoe]

Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser evil?

[Winstonm]

I recently saw that 2 states (Kansas and Louisiana) that elected Republican governors (Brownback and Jindal) and Republican-dominated legislatures a few years back and then went full bore into the Right Wing ideology of tax cuts for businesses and the better off and welfare benefits slashing have since reduced budget surpluses into massive deficits, while other parts of the country recovered from the Great Recession. This, to me, is important data that disputes supply-side and Reaganomics. When these data are added to the quick and savage budget hole that Reagan found the federal government in after his initial tax cuts and the Bush II disaster of spending the Clinton surplus on tax cuts and leaving a huger deficit and near depression, it become pretty clear that the Republican ideology is based on fantasy rather than fact.

The truly troubling aspect of the campaign to me is the lack of hostility from the press - other than a few isolated instances, the candidates are allowed to say and repeat fantasies without challenge, without being called out on facts, and without being embarrassed nationally. Case in point is Ted Cruz's continued claim that "Obamacare" has cost thousands of jobs when the job market - since the ACA was passed - has shown historically unprecedented growth.

Huxley was right - we have become a nation of entertainers and the entertained.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2016-March-28, 07:04, said:

I saw in the paper this morning that there are two Republican governors who have publicly stated they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee. One of them is Larry Hogan from Maryland. I knew there was a reason I voted for that guy. I guess with Hogan a well as with me, party loyalty is not the only thing to be considered.
Not being a great enthusiast for either Clinton or Sanders my vote was up for grabs this time around. Trump will not be grabbing it, and I think that there are quite a few Rs whose vote he also won't be grabbing. What a disaster.

I voted for Kasich in the primary. But if either Trump or Cruz gets the republican nomination, I'm definitely going to vote for the democrat.