Gyroscopic Investing

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:14 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:00 pm It's incorrect to say or imply that individualism means there should only be individual freedom and no collective constraints, or vice versa. (That's not meant to be a strawman, pmward. It's how I interpret the "black or white" accusation in your last couple of posts.)

Individualism simply means the priority should be on individual freedom as much as possible. In some cases, yes, individual freedom has to take a back seat to a collective constraint in order for society to function properly and smoothly.

One example would be the fact that even the individualistic founders of the U.S. knew that some collective constraint was needed. It's why they formed a government and not just a private business agreement.

I think that's a valid point i.e. not one in lieu of the other, but a hierarchy of one having priority over the other. The two are not always in a tug of war.

Right and I think we have that in the bill of rights. There is a clear priority to individualism. But if there was no need for collectivism they never would have created the federal government to begin with. Not to mention without any top down there would be nobody there to ensure people actually followed the bill of rights.

pmward wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:39 pm

Simonjester wrote: i have no problem with a mix, i disagree that it must be top down however, bottom up collectivism is far more in keeping with the American individualism ethos.. if we take care of ourselves, our family, our friends, our neighbors, our community, our towns and city's, the need for some uncountable, far away, and more often than not misguided (if not incompetent and criminal) bureaucracy would largely vanish..

Right, but the whole thread we had last week was my argument about why full on individualism did not work in the past and would not work in the future. You need the top down aspect as well. We can even step out of government and look at companies. What well run super successful company only has a bottom up structure? None. They need the top down direction to make sure each team in the company is functioning properly within the whole. Now you also need your bottom up, this is where a lot of innovation happens. You want the individuals to be empowered and able to create. But you need the top down to ensure they are spending their valuable innovation time on the things that benefit the company as a whole, make sure there's no redundancies, make sure nobody is stepping on each others toes, that everyone is playing fair, that everyone has equal benefits, and that everyone is following the mission statement and ideals of the company. Any well run company has a good mix of top down and bottom up. Likewise, any good government has a good mix of top down and bottom up. You go all bottom up, or all top down, and bad things happen... usually in the form of tyranny and oppression. We spent a great deal of time last week talking about the tyrannies and oppression that existed back when our country was a small mostly bottom up country. That's really all the proof I need to prove that point. It's just like how people can point to the failures of communism in the past for why a full top down approach also fails. On paper, both extremes can sound quite compelling. In actual practice, far from it. Now the real interesting question that is just stuffed full of wonderful nuance is not the black and white which is better, but what is the proper mix of both? What shade of grey is ideal? At what point is the grey too dark, and at what point is the grey too light? I don't think there is a definitive answer. I do know that neither extreme is good. I don't know what the exact Goldilocks mix of both is.

pmward,
I would like to agree with you and track back to last week's thread, but with a slightly different spin if I may.
Where the pure ideological bottom up liberarian, anarcho Ayn Rand ideology falls down, is that some influence or control is going to present itself from somewhere anyway.
For example, in a truly minimal government world, power will begin to accrue in the hands of corporations and their owners. Since the prevailing laissez faire motivator is self-interest, these power centers will turn their resources toward the accumulation of more power and before long there is little the public can do to avail itself from a private form of tyranny.
Look around at the pharma industry we have today and the way in which pharmaceuticals are advertised and pushed by physicians under threat of malpractice for falling below the standard of care which coincidentally is defined by ordering drugs most of the time. And prices are both fixed AND opaque. There are plenty of other examples, media being another prominent one.
My point is the fantasy of true individual liberty is just that, a fantasy, because the individual will always be subject to some level of manipulation from more powerful forces. Which would you rather they be? Private corporations like the pharma companies, media companies, food conglomerates? Or government, where theoretically you have some voting influence and representation?

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself what the food and drug industries would look like today if there was no FDA? What would our environmental situation be if there was no EPA and companies could truly do as they please? Would you sue them in a court system? On what basis if there are no regulations for them to have violated?

I'm not advocating for big government per se, but I am saying sometimes you have to pick your poison.

pmward wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:39 pm

Simonjester wrote:
i have no problem with a mix, i disagree that it must be top down however, bottom up collectivism is far more in keeping with the American individualism ethos.. if we take care of ourselves, our family, our friends, our neighbors, our community, our towns and city's, the need for some uncountable, far away, and more often than not misguided (if not incompetent and criminal) bureaucracy would largely vanish..

Right, but the whole thread we had last week was my argument about why full on individualism did not work in the past and would not work in the future. You need the top down aspect as well. We can even step out of government and look at companies. What well run super successful company only has a bottom up structure? None. They need the top down direction to make sure each team in the company is functioning properly within the whole. Now you also need your bottom up, this is where a lot of innovation happens. You want the individuals to be empowered and able to create. But you need the top down to ensure they are spending their valuable innovation time on the things that benefit the company as a whole, make sure there's no redundancies, make sure nobody is stepping on each others toes, that everyone is playing fair, that everyone has equal benefits, and that everyone is following the mission statement and ideals of the company. Any well run company has a good mix of top down and bottom up. Likewise, any good government has a good mix of top down and bottom up. You go all bottom up, or all top down, and bad things happen... usually in the form of tyranny and oppression. We spent a great deal of time last week talking about the tyrannies and oppression that existed back when our country was a small mostly bottom up country. That's really all the proof I need to prove that point. It's just like how people can point to the failures of communism in the past for why a full top down approach also fails. On paper, both extremes can sound quite compelling. In actual practice, far from it. Now the real interesting question that is just stuffed full of wonderful nuance is not the black and white which is better, but what is the proper mix of both? What shade of grey is ideal? At what point is the grey too dark, and at what point is the grey too light? I don't think there is a definitive answer. I do know that neither extreme is good. I don't know what the exact Goldilocks mix of both is.

Excellent elucidation of how it all works together and that there is a mix needed. Of course, the eternal question is what IS the proper mix, which you have also acknowledged. The battle is always over which end of the range of mix should be chosen.

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:32 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:39 pm

Simonjester wrote: i have no problem with a mix, i disagree that it must be top down however, bottom up collectivism is far more in keeping with the American individualism ethos.. if we take care of ourselves, our family, our friends, our neighbors, our community, our towns and city's, the need for some uncountable, far away, and more often than not misguided (if not incompetent and criminal) bureaucracy would largely vanish..

Right, but the whole thread we had last week was my argument about why full on individualism did not work in the past and would not work in the future. You need the top down aspect as well. We can even step out of government and look at companies. What well run super successful company only has a bottom up structure? None. They need the top down direction to make sure each team in the company is functioning properly within the whole. Now you also need your bottom up, this is where a lot of innovation happens. You want the individuals to be empowered and able to create. But you need the top down to ensure they are spending their valuable innovation time on the things that benefit the company as a whole, make sure there's no redundancies, make sure nobody is stepping on each others toes, that everyone is playing fair, that everyone has equal benefits, and that everyone is following the mission statement and ideals of the company. Any well run company has a good mix of top down and bottom up. Likewise, any good government has a good mix of top down and bottom up. You go all bottom up, or all top down, and bad things happen... usually in the form of tyranny and oppression. We spent a great deal of time last week talking about the tyrannies and oppression that existed back when our country was a small mostly bottom up country. That's really all the proof I need to prove that point. It's just like how people can point to the failures of communism in the past for why a full top down approach also fails. On paper, both extremes can sound quite compelling. In actual practice, far from it. Now the real interesting question that is just stuffed full of wonderful nuance is not the black and white which is better, but what is the proper mix of both? What shade of grey is ideal? At what point is the grey too dark, and at what point is the grey too light? I don't think there is a definitive answer. I do know that neither extreme is good. I don't know what the exact Goldilocks mix of both is.

pmward,
I would like to agree with you and track back to last week's thread, but with a slightly different spin if I may.
Where the pure ideological bottom up liberarian, anarcho Ayn Rand ideology falls down, is that some influence or control is going to present itself from somewhere anyway.
For example, in a truly minimal government world, power will begin to accrue in the hands of corporations and their owners. Since the prevailing laissez faire motivator is self-interest, these power centers will turn their resources toward the accumulation of more power and before long there is little the public can do to avail itself from a private form of tyranny.
Look around at the pharma industry we have today and the way in which pharmaceuticals are advertised and pushed by physicians under threat of malpractice for falling below the standard of care which coincidentally is defined by ordering drugs most of the time. And prices are both fixed AND opaque. There are plenty of other examples, media being another prominent one.
My point is the fantasy of true individual liberty is just that, a fantasy, because the individual will always be subject to some level of manipulation from more powerful forces. Which would you rather they be? Private corporations like the pharma companies, media companies, food conglomerates? Or government, where theoretically you have some voting influence and representation?

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself what the food and drug industries would look like today if there was no FDA? What would our environmental situation be if there was no EPA and companies could truly do as they please? Would you sue them in a court system? On what basis if there are no regulations for them to have violated?

I'm not advocating for big government per se, but I am saying sometimes you have to pick your poison.

Yes I made a similar argument in the thread last week. Basically in the bottom up anarcho libertarian end you wind up with distributed tyranny (aka plutocracy with a healthy dash of tyranny of the majority), whereas in the full top down communist system is a centralized tyranny.

Simonjester wrote: we need is organization ( your description of the function of leadership in top down corporations) and i don't disagree..

but organization can be achieved in many ways

So in other words, you're agreeing we need a shade of grey?

Simonjester wrote:
meh not sure.. depends on the grey, if you mean that we begin with the premise that individual liberty is the start point, and that authoritarian top down command is a negative that is always dangerous, then working from where we are toward more individual liberty is grey getting lighter.. fine..
I don't present any anarchist libertarian philosophical ideals as a "lets do it all right now" solution (i am well aware half of humanity are idiots ) but if given a choice between organization that is by force and organization that isn't, would you pick the -lets give these humans (half of whom will be idiots) a gun and tell them to point it at us and make us do what they think is right solution, over alternatives? just because humanity hasn't thought its way out of the "government is the only box thinking", doesn't mean we cant..

we have made unbelievable leaps in information/organization technology, at the same time government, even in the country with the absolute best checks and balances of power has become a banana republic.. i joked i would rather have a phone app than a government, but how much of what needs to be done is at its core just getting information from one place to another? we may well be at a point where we have tools that will get us out of the, point a gun at me (take my stuff) and tell me what to do method of organization..

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:01 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:14 pm

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:04 pm As far as needing a balance, that sounds as ridiculous as smoking one cigarette each morning with a multivitamin so you can balance the healthy with the unhealthy since too much healthy will make you less healthy.

Well considering that once again nobody has yet refuted the problems I identified in the other thread about the issues in our countries past when it was more bottom down... you can't really call it healthy. Was slavery healthy? Was the genocide of the native Americans healthy? Was the discrimination of women healthy? Would any of those things existed if there was enough top down enforcing the actual words of the constitution to balance out the bottom up? No it wouldn't have.

Things aren’t so black and white. The definition of healthy is subjective.

You're making my argument for me here. I was pushing back specifically against your black and white labelling of top down being straight up "unhealthy" and bottom up being straight up "healthy". I'm also intentionally not responding to the rest of your post, because you're going way too extreme, way too inflexible, and way too short sighted. Drop the extremes and the black and white thinking and come meet us in the middle for an actual discussion based on fact instead of assumption and dogma.

pmward wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:14 pm

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:04 pm As far as needing a balance, that sounds as ridiculous as smoking one cigarette each morning with a multivitamin so you can balance the healthy with the unhealthy since too much healthy will make you less healthy.

Well considering that once again nobody has yet refuted the problems I identified in the other thread about the issues in our countries past when it was more bottom down... you can't really call it healthy. Was slavery healthy? Was the genocide of the native Americans healthy? Was the discrimination of women healthy? Would any of those things existed if there was enough top down enforcing the actual words of the constitution to balance out the bottom up? No it wouldn't have.

Those are straw man and frankly irrelevant arguments. The values of periods in the distant past are different from what we hold today, and that's generally a good thing. An important feature of the New Republican Populism is that it is much more socially inclusive - and socially liberal - than the Republican Party had been prior to 2016. The party had acquired a reputation for intolerance of minority groups of all types, and rightly so. I was severely turned off by the Republicans because of it, even though I appreciated its economic message. Now that it has shed that baggage, people of all types are taking a second look. They like what they see.

Totalitarianism may work fine in China and other countries with a long history of social and governmental restrictions on personal freedom, but it's simply not going to fly here. People come to this country in part because they want to escape those types of restrictions. I just don't buy the argument that totalitarianism is justified because there exists a group of people somewhere that might feel rejected by society.

sophie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:45 am

pmward wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:14 pm

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:04 pm As far as needing a balance, that sounds as ridiculous as smoking one cigarette each morning with a multivitamin so you can balance the healthy with the unhealthy since too much healthy will make you less healthy.

Well considering that once again nobody has yet refuted the problems I identified in the other thread about the issues in our countries past when it was more bottom down... you can't really call it healthy. Was slavery healthy? Was the genocide of the native Americans healthy? Was the discrimination of women healthy? Would any of those things existed if there was enough top down enforcing the actual words of the constitution to balance out the bottom up? No it wouldn't have.

Those are straw man and frankly irrelevant arguments. The values of periods in the distant past are different from what we hold today, and that's generally a good thing. An important feature of the New Republican Populism is that it is much more socially inclusive - and socially liberal - than the Republican Party had been prior to 2016. The party had acquired a reputation for intolerance of minority groups of all types, and rightly so. I was severely turned off by the Republicans because of it, even though I appreciated its economic message. Now that it has shed that baggage, people of all types are taking a second look. They like what they see.

Totalitarianism may work fine in China and other countries with a long history of social and governmental restrictions on personal freedom, but it's simply not going to fly here. People come to this country in part because they want to escape those types of restrictions. I just don't buy the argument that totalitarianism is justified because there exists a group of people somewhere that might feel rejected by society.

My argument there wasn't against Republican policy at all. That whole thing was a tangent I got pulled on that was more in the context of libertarianism. So your argument in the first paragraph specific to the Republican Party is not really an argument against the point I was making.

In the second paragraph you're going way too extreme. I never once said we need totalitarianism here (and FWIW I feel like the "right" is embracing totalitarianism more than the "left" these days, but that's not a can of worms I want to open right now, so it's a tangent I will leave for another day). I have specifically said we need a shade of grey. We need the top down to provide direction and ensure that the rights and equalities laid out as our countries "mission statement" are upheld everywhere. But, a full on top down system inherently has weaknesses of being inflexible, fragile, and quite simply intolerable to live in. Bottom up on the other hand has complimentary strengths in that it is super flexible, agile (maybe even antifragile in some ways) and is for the most part tolerable to live in. The weaknesses of bottom up are that these local bottom up cells have the potential to get carried away, and without the top down checks and balances they can swing too far off center, infringe upon rights, and are susceptible to becoming a breeding ground for plutocracy and tyranny of the majority (which if you go back and read the thread I referred to, I made the argument that tyranny of the majority and plutocracy specifically were the root cause of issues like slavery, women's rights, and the genocide of the native Americans). So once again, you have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. Hence, you need the shade of grey to balance both out. Republicans are not anarcho libertarians. They are not in support of white or black, they are in support of a shade of grey. The ideal shade that Republicans and Democrats aim for are indeed a bit different. But there are some ways that Republicans want more federal control than Democrats, for instance in this very discussion we were talking about immigration. Republicans want more Federal power, i.e. more top down direction, on immigration than Democrats do. So this argument is not partisan at all, it is philosophical. Both sides have differing top down goals, but both still have top down goals none the less. I will also point out that I specifically stated that I do not know what the ideal shade of grey is. I also don't think anybody does. We are stuck doing the best we can with the limited information we have.

Sorry I really just can't read those walls of text. Can you be more succinct?

sophie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:32 am Sorry I really just can't read those walls of text. Can you be more succinct?

No. These things are extremely complicated. This is literally 400 level philosophy class material. There is no quick and easy cliff notes. You need to read and try to fully understand what I am saying. If you're unwilling to do that, then we cannot really have a discussion.

Basically as I understand it whether Republican or Democrat we are arguing over shades of grey. The correct balance of top down vs bottom up control..the details on how much individual vs collective. There are extreme voices (the loud and obnoxious minority) that drown out the middle of the road silent majority. Say...the communist workers party vs the anarcho capitalists. But that is not a realistic picture of the disagreement going on in this country. We are in many ways fighting world war 1 trench warfare...so much ammunition and bombs to gain 100 feet of territory.

This thread seems to be missing something. A growing number of people have become dissatisfied with the status quo, specifically the inaction, poor decision-making, and misbehavior of the established ruling class regardless of party. Call them the establishment, the elites, the deep state, the swamp, or whatever you want. They are not working in the best interests of everyday Americans and people have had enough.

{ Trump references removed. 2 paragraphs }
- DS

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:43 am Basically as I understand it whether Republican or Democrat we are arguing over shades of grey. The correct balance of top down vs bottom up control..the details on how much individual vs collective. There are extreme voices (the loud and obnoxious minority) that drown out the middle of the road silent majority. Say...the communist workers party vs the anarcho capitalists. But that is not a realistic picture of the disagreement going on in this country. We are in many ways fighting world war 1 trench warfare...so much ammunition and bombs to gain 100 feet of territory.

Yep, this is it right here.

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:52 am This thread seems to be missing something. A growing number of people have become dissatisfied with the status quo, specifically the inaction, poor decision-making, and misbehavior of the established ruling class regardless of party. Call them the establishment, the elites, the deep state, the swamp, or whatever you want. They are not working in the best interests of everyday Americans and people have had enough.

{ Trump references removed. 2 paragraphs }
- DS

I agree in many ways.

They are not working in the best interests of everyday Americans and people have had enough.

Our political system has been taken over by big money interests. You aren't going to win an election taking 5 dollar donations from grandma.

However, just because you are able to identify a trend or a need doesn't make you suitable to lead that battle. The political discourse is so confused right now that I feel like common men are pitted against one another when in the end they are fighting for the same thing. It's a pretty typical tactic..divide and conquer.

Ooppss I violated thread rules. I will edit

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:52 am This thread seems to be missing something. A growing number of people have become dissatisfied with the status quo, specifically the inaction, poor decision-making, and misbehavior of the established ruling class regardless of party.

I think your assessment is true for both the populist right and the populist left. Ray Dalio says the root of populism on both sides all comes down to the after effects of the financial crisis. Both sides have legitimate gripes, with the crisis, with the way it was handled, and how the recovery post crisis has not been fair. Some people have been left behind, others feel like they are in the crosshairs of the government wanting to "steal from the rich and give to the poor" to try to fix the imbalance the government itself created. Either way, yes, both sides feel this way. And both sides have a legitimate argument and a legitimate reason to be upset. The moment you begin to see this, the similarities that both sides hold as opposed to just focusing on the differences, is the moment of enlightenment where you can start to really break out of the extremist BS that the internet perpetuates and start to see the truth.

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:52 am That’s what the election of Trump was about. It attracted people from all walks of life that view themselves first as Americans, not as all of the ridiculous identity groups used to create division and discord. It wasn’t about character issues, it was about electing someone - anyone - that would finally cut through the BS and stand up and fight for regular people.

And for the "left" they felt (and still feel) this way about Obama. Both Obama and Trump were voted in by a specific sub-set of the population that saw the the respective president as their guy, looking out for their specific best interests.

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:52 am The New Republican Populism may be able to succeed if it continues to stay on that path. The Trump years were a huge red pill for America and more people are catching on. Lots of imperfections in the first go-round in terms of leadership, policy, and a lot else, but that can all be refined as things evolve. If the party goes back to its old ways, the swamp regains control, and there is a refocus on divisive social issues then they’re probably screwed.

While I don't agree with the isolationism and anti-immigration stance of the Republican populists, I will say that if they brought forth a candidate that didn't have the personality issues of Trump, that was more likable, that was more willing to work across the isle, and treated his position a little less like it was nuclear warfare against the others side, I do think they could potentially come to power and keep power. Whether or not it would be a "swamp" or not is to be determined. I personally don't see D.C. as any less swamp like today than it was in 2016. If anything, it feels more swamp like to me. How much of that current "swamp" uptick was caused personality issues and how much was caused by policy I don't really know. I know we are trying to stick to policy here in this discussion, so I will just say I am sure if those policies would improve the "swamp" in any meaningful way, but I lean towards the side of doubting that they would.

I give lectures on topics that are infinitely more complicated than what you're saying, and I need to be succinct because I am working within a time limit. Life is like that. We can't read walls of text so if you write them you won't get a response, that's all.

sophie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:22 am I give lectures on topics that are infinitely more complicated than what you're saying, and I need to be succinct because I am working within a time limit. Life is like that. We can't read walls of text so if you write them you won't get a response, that's all.

Ok, well my points stand as unrefuted since you refuse to actually read them. Literally, this was subject material in 400 level philosophy classes I took years ago as electives back at the university. For once I actually have found use for the info. But regardless, considering I had to write 20 page papers on this stuff, a 2 paragraph response IS the cliff notes version.

I read your original post Sophie so I'm responding to that.

I think the new populism of the republican party is a consequence of "He who shall not be named" making it ok to be pro American, family, apple-pie and all that again. The silent, overwhelming majority have values that are in total opposition to the democrat platform. Now that they're confident enough to express those values because someone made it ok again, they have glommed onto the republicans because there is no other easy option.

At least that's what I think is happening.

And I think it's a good thing. I hope it doesn't die out without a charismatic leader to channel it, or maybe one will emerge and REALLY embrace the principles the United States was founded on.

SomeDude wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:03 pm I read your original post Sophie so I'm responding to that.

I think the new populism of the republican party is a consequence of "He who shall not be named" making it ok to be pro American, family, apple-pie and all that again. The silent, overwhelming majority have values that are in total opposition to the democrat platform. Now that they're confident enough to express those values because someone made it ok again, they have glommed onto the republicans because there is no other easy option.

At least that's what I think is happening.

And I think it's a good thing. I hope it doesn't die out without a charismatic leader to channel it, or maybe one will emerge and REALLY embrace the principles the United States was founded on.

he silent, overwhelming majority have values that are in total opposition to the democrat platform.

The evidence doesn't seem to support this

I don't get that..when was apple pie and family ever not ok? Are democrats anti apple pie? Camel for Thanksgiving?

What values and principles specifically?

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:08 pm

SomeDude wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:03 pm I read your original post Sophie so I'm responding to that.

I think the new populism of the republican party is a consequence of "He who shall not be named" making it ok to be pro American, family, apple-pie and all that again. The silent, overwhelming majority have values that are in total opposition to the democrat platform. Now that they're confident enough to express those values because someone made it ok again, they have glommed onto the republicans because there is no other easy option.

At least that's what I think is happening.

And I think it's a good thing. I hope it doesn't die out without a charismatic leader to channel it, or maybe one will emerge and REALLY embrace the principles the United States was founded on.

I don't get that..when was apple pie and family ever not ok? Are democrats anti apple pie? Camel for Thanksgiving?

What values and principles specifically?

"apple-pie" is a euphemism for Americana, flag waving, chants of USA and we're #1, buy American, respect for the founders, basically all the stuff that the left says is evil and hurtful and disrespectful of the rest of the world and isolates us etc.

Family......well as someone who just spent months with a newborn baby in the NICU, seeing all those little buggers fighting to survive and their parents and teams of doctors and nurses working day and night to save them..........the idea of abortion being ok or a human right or whatever, is to ne anti-family. NOT looking to start an abortion discussion here. That is too charged of a topic and not the point of the thread. I'm just using it as an example of a big difference between the two large camps and now one of the camps seems more confident to come out and express it, along with other elements. At this point I don't think a pro abortion republican could win a primary which is indicative of a new wave of people joining that camp with different convictions, I think

SomeDude wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:20 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:08 pm

SomeDude wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:03 pm I read your original post Sophie so I'm responding to that.

I think the new populism of the republican party is a consequence of "He who shall not be named" making it ok to be pro American, family, apple-pie and all that again. The silent, overwhelming majority have values that are in total opposition to the democrat platform. Now that they're confident enough to express those values because someone made it ok again, they have glommed onto the republicans because there is no other easy option.

At least that's what I think is happening.

And I think it's a good thing. I hope it doesn't die out without a charismatic leader to channel it, or maybe one will emerge and REALLY embrace the principles the United States was founded on.

I don't get that..when was apple pie and family ever not ok? Are democrats anti apple pie? Camel for Thanksgiving?

What values and principles specifically?

"apple-pie" is a euphemism for Americana, flag waving, chants of USA and we're #1, buy American, respect for the founders, basically all the stuff that the left says is evil and hurtful and disrespectful of the rest of the world and isolates us etc.

Family......well as someone who just spent months with a newborn baby in the NICU, seeing all those little buggers fighting to survive and their parents and teams of doctors and nurses working day and night to save them..........the idea of abortion being ok or a human right or whatever, is to ne anti-family. NOT looking to start an abortion discussion here. That is too charged of a topic and not the point of the thread. I'm just using it as an example of a big difference between the two large camps and now one of the camps seems more confident to come out and express it, along with other elements. At this point I don't think a pro abortion republican could win a primary which is indicative of a new wave of people joining that camp with different convictions, I think

The were #1 chanting stuff a bit obnoxious...I don't know many who have any issue with the rest. Certainly not most democrats I know. Perhaps the parody of lib Dems on fox?

I don't know anyone pro abortion. I do think its a private decision if a woman has been raped or molested whether she should have to carry that baby. Also for families to privately decide if life of mother at risk or baby is severely deformed. I don't see why you or anyone else should be involved in that decision.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:00 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:49 pm

SomeDude wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:20 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:08 pm

SomeDude wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:03 pm I read your original post Sophie so I'm responding to that.

I think the new populism of the republican party is a consequence of "He who shall not be named" making it ok to be pro American, family, apple-pie and all that again. The silent, overwhelming majority have values that are in total opposition to the democrat platform. Now that they're confident enough to express those values because someone made it ok again, they have glommed onto the republicans because there is no other easy option.

At least that's what I think is happening.

And I think it's a good thing. I hope it doesn't die out without a charismatic leader to channel it, or maybe one will emerge and REALLY embrace the principles the United States was founded on.

I don't get that..when was apple pie and family ever not ok? Are democrats anti apple pie? Camel for Thanksgiving?

What values and principles specifically?

"apple-pie" is a euphemism for Americana, flag waving, chants of USA and we're #1, buy American, respect for the founders, basically all the stuff that the left says is evil and hurtful and disrespectful of the rest of the world and isolates us etc.

Family......well as someone who just spent months with a newborn baby in the NICU, seeing all those little buggers fighting to survive and their parents and teams of doctors and nurses working day and night to save them..........the idea of abortion being ok or a human right or whatever, is to ne anti-family. NOT looking to start an abortion discussion here. That is too charged of a topic and not the point of the thread. I'm just using it as an example of a big difference between the two large camps and now one of the camps seems more confident to come out and express it, along with other elements. At this point I don't think a pro abortion republican could win a primary which is indicative of a new wave of people joining that camp with different convictions, I think

The were #1 chanting stuff a bit obnoxious...I don't know many who have any issue with the rest. Certainly not most democrats I know. Perhaps the parody of lib Dems on fox?

I don't know anyone pro abortion. I do think its a private decision if a woman has been raped or molested whether she should have to carry that baby. Also for families to privately decide if life of mother at risk or baby is severely deformed. I don't see why you or anyone else should be involved in that decision.

If the left had any respect for our founders or the countless icons that made the US what it is, they wouldn't be ripping down statues everywhere trying to erase and rewrite American history. Maybe the Dems you know are moderates and not 'the left'. unfortunately, the left is where the party is headed.

The vast majority of this concerned confederate statues...the ones that waged war on the United States and advocated for the continued enslavement of millions of men women and children. I don't see what they have to do with our founders.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:50 am

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:38 am

sophie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:22 am I give lectures on topics that are infinitely more complicated than what you're saying, and I need to be succinct because I am working within a time limit. Life is like that. We can't read walls of text so if you write them you won't get a response, that's all.

Ok, well my points stand as unrefuted since you refuse to actually read them. Literally, this was subject material in 400 level philosophy classes I took years ago as electives back at the university. For once I actually have found use for the info. But regardless, considering I had to write 20 page papers on this stuff, a 2 paragraph response IS the cliff notes version.

pmward, I agree with Sophie and Tomfoolery. Your long run-on paragraphs are impossible to endure and make extracting the information too much of a chore, so I often read the first sentence and last, and skip what's in the middle (most of it). If that's your goal, great. If you actually want people to read what you write and have an intelligent conversation, it would be helpful if you would take the advice and put some formatting into your posts to make them more readable. This is on you, not on the rest of the forum.

I will take the note and try to add in more spacing. The arguments I'm making are very deep and well thought out though. Like, I would truly have to write a 1,000 page book to truly argue individualism vs collectivism. Philosophy is more about the process than the end result. The only way to truly prove a point is to try to tear it down and fully analyze every last detail from every possible angle. There's a reason why philosophy books are extremely long... and extremely dense at the same time. If you're not willing to read a couple paragraphs you're never going to be able get to the depth required to truly analyze these topics. These are not shallow topics, and shallow arguments will fall flat.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:00 pm If the left had any respect for our founders or the countless icons that made the US what it is, they wouldn't be ripping down statues everywhere trying to erase and rewrite American history. Maybe the Dems you know are moderates and not 'the left'. unfortunately, the left is where the party is headed.

Tearing down a statue is NOT erasing history. It is simply erasing a statue. A statue is not a history lesson, it is a monument to enshrine some person or idea. If a person or idea is not worth enshrining it should be torn down. The history books tell the "history". Germany can rip down a state of Hitler and not "erase history". The history books still tell the tale.