Good article on the current state of our politics

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,469
3,149
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#21
I couldn't actually make it through the BS.... I got through the first 2 paragraphs of seemingly left wing nonsense and rhetoric, disagreeing with most of the statements and cringing at the rest --- until I got to this sentence... then I just gave up and wrote the whole thing off as pure-T crap.

"That said, there’s no question that the United States is at a level of political polarization unseen for many decades."

He had just spent 2 paragraphs outlining how bad it has always been, then has the audacity to make an inflammatory claim like that.

Trump's fondness for "authoritarians"? What the heck is that clown even talking about? Trump plays the dictators like a fiddle and has them dancing around like marionettes.

It was Obama that had the fondness for authoritarians, and when out of his way to demonstrate such. (off mic admissions to Putin, Cuba and Castro, Book exchange with Venezuela, Cash for Mullahs, and on, and on, and on).

This "journalist" is nothing more than a partisan hack, spewing more leftist rhetoric.
Right or wrong this right here is why I enjoy your input.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,506
2,162
743
Where else but Stillwater
#23
https://www.the-american-interest.c...-the-new-deal-era-and-the-coming-realignment/

Another interesting take. Cali, feel free not to click, it wasn't written by Mark Levin.
No doubt, except for the very last sentence(we don't need another one), CaliforniaCowboy would quite vehemently disagree with the conclusion reached in this paragraph in the article:

"This New Deal debate continues to drive our parties today. Democrats continue to think in terms of New Deal liberalism. Republicans continue to fight against big government. Yet that debate, notwithstanding all the sound and fury of our politics, is essentially over and has been for many years. America resolved it decades ago, sometime in the 1990s, and everybody knows it. The American people reached a consensus. As in every party system, neither party won the debate outright. America adopted some of what the Democrats proposed but agreed to some of the limits that Republicans proposed. It agreed that government would indeed take responsibility for many matters of health, safety, and welfare. It would have Social Security, Medicare, and an Environmental Protection Agency. America also agreed that those responsibilities shouldn’t be unlimited in scope, and that national planning isn’t always the best way to meet them. There will be no more Great Societies."
 
Last edited:

osupsycho

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
3,809
2,374
1,743
Valhalla
#25
so.... I didn't click on it..... let me guess, it was written by a Russian bot, right?
Actually it was long but very good, basically saying neither party is right for the current environment of the country and their demise is inevitable, as has happened throughout the history of the US.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,564
2,438
1,743
So Cal
#28
Well if you read the article you would know that it depends on how they disappear. It could be a peaceful transition or it could be on the other end of the spectrum which led to the civil war or the great depression.
If we have a choice between civil war or great depression, I'm leaning more towards civil war.
 

osupsycho

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
3,809
2,374
1,743
Valhalla
#29
If we have a choice between civil war or great depression, I'm leaning more towards civil war.
I am definitely not when you consider all the weapons that are currently in our military arsenal that one or both sides would find a way to get and use. I could easily see one side deciding if they couldn’t win then no one will and nuking the whole country.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,564
2,438
1,743
So Cal
#30
I am definitely not when you consider all the weapons that are currently in our military arsenal that one or both sides would find a way to get and use. I could easily see one side deciding if they couldn’t win then no one will and nuking the whole country.
I guess I don't understand your point.

remember, we're comparing this to a progressive induced depression.
 

osupsycho

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
3,809
2,374
1,743
Valhalla
#31
I guess I don't understand your point.

remember, we're comparing this to a progressive induced depression.
Civil war means the country splits into two factions at war and at least one would have all of our country’s current weapons which include nukes. Civil wars are normally very bloody affairs and then throw in a full modern aresenal there likely would not be much country left. Just saying not a good option to lean toward as a depression would likely be much less carnage.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,564
2,438
1,743
So Cal
#32
Civil war means the country splits into two factions at war and at least one would have all of our country’s current weapons which include nukes. Civil wars are normally very bloody affairs and then throw in a full modern aresenal there likely would not be much country left. Just saying not a good option to lean toward as a depression would likely be much less carnage.
it's a false narrative.

nobody in the US is going to nuke another US city... not ever.

We had a revolution and we had a depression - which one changed things?

we must have a revolution if things are going to change - even if it's a cultural and educational revolution.
 
Nov 6, 2010
530
234
593
#34
I think most of you are missing the point of the article. It's not a matter of if/when a major change or issue will happen. The article speaks to how the parties are not set up to debate and deal with whatever seismic issue will inevitably occur. I would have liked the author to offer his ideas about what the next big issue/change will be, but I guess that's pretty tough to do. My guess is if climate change turns out to be as big of an issue as many claim, (and I'm not saying it will be), then that issue will automatically realign our politics. It's just as likely to be something we can't even realize yet though, something like first contact or as some have said, war.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,564
2,438
1,743
So Cal
#35
I think most of you are missing the point of the article. It's not a matter of if/when a major change or issue will happen. The article speaks to how the parties are not set up to debate and deal with whatever seismic issue will inevitably occur. I would have liked the author to offer his ideas about what the next big issue/change will be, but I guess that's pretty tough to do. My guess is if climate change turns out to be as big of an issue as many claim, (and I'm not saying it will be), then that issue will automatically realign our politics. It's just as likely to be something we can't even realize yet though, something like first contact or as some have said, war.
Like I said in my initial post, I disagree with the point of the article.

i.e., we're not missing the point, the author of the article has no idea what is happening in America and wrote a blow-hard, whoa-is-me article trying to set one group against the other, as the leftists always do.

We the People don't like any of them.... Democrat Party nor Republican Party....

"the people" for the most part are fine - it is the parties that are clamoring for power - our power.

The people, for the most part, are done with the politics as usual. Trump is President for a reason, and neither the ruling elitists of the left nor the right will even admit that this political revolution is aimed at them.

and the "media", bless their hearts, are oblivious to all of it.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,353
23,779
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#36
My guess is if climate change turns out to be as big of an issue as many claim, (and I'm not saying it will be), then that issue will automatically realign our politics.
The reverse is also true, if man made climate change turns out to be a dud, then that could cause a shake up. I doubt that issue will be resolved either way in our life time, if ever. IMO, the debt is what will cause a problem. Eventually the bill is going to come due and the entire government will collapse under it's own weight.....of course, I'm not convinced that that isn't the plan for some in DC.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,112
1,892
1,743
Oklahoma City
#37
To all this, I strongly recommend the book "RAPT". The thesis of the book is that we are not as rational as we would like to believe. On the contrary, we all believe what we pay rapt attention to. A simple example are the car advertisements we see on TV. None tell us much about the car. They only tell us how we will feel when we buy the car. We will feel wonderful driving around with a beautiful woman and staying in fancy hotels etc. The book's key lesson for me is to take special care of what I watch and read. Remember....junk in.... and junk out.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,564
2,438
1,743
So Cal
#38
To all this, I strongly recommend the book "RAPT". The thesis of the book is that we are not as rational as we would like to believe. On the contrary, we all believe what we pay rapt attention to. A simple example are the car advertisements we see on TV. None tell us much about the car. They only tell us how we will feel when we buy the car. We will feel wonderful driving around with a beautiful woman and staying in fancy hotels etc. The book's key lesson for me is to take special care of what I watch and read. Remember....junk in.... and junk out.
I get the point... I think.... but frankly, I've never bought a car based on a commercial. I usually test drive them.

I don't recall even one test drive that included a beautiful woman to drive around with (except the woman that I brought with me). and If she didn't like the car, we weren't getting it, and the commercial of driving around with a beautiful woman didn't have much effect on her.

I like books, but is that one just a lot about "don't impulse buy"?

Don't shop when your hungry. Don't get a tattoo when you're drunk. etc.