Gyroscopic Investing

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.

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:22 pm

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.

I can't believe it isn't completely obvious how distasteful it is to have a high school named after Robert Lee with a statue of him out front and have to attend that school as an African American. Is that really controversial? I'm just stunned that people are surprised that might be offensive.

Are these features of the new republican populism...as they are with other forms of populism?




division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”

a proud antagonism toward intellectuals

the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct

the promotion of polarizing views

demonization of one’s opponent

a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers

a strong intolerance of free press

In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:03 pm Are these features of the new republican populism...as they are with other forms of populism?




division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”

a proud antagonism toward intellectuals

the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct

the promotion of polarizing views

demonization of one’s opponent

a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers

a strong intolerance of free press

Goddamn, I do have to post in response to this. I should print this in 128pt font and put it on my cube wall. This is exactly it, isn't it? We are repeating history, but at a much accelerated pace.

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:07 pm In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:36 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:07 pm In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:46 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:36 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:07 pm In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

It seemed longer than a brief period to me. Of course, following 911 I joined the military, so I probably have a bit distorted of a view as the 4 years following were all from the perspective of a young active duty enlisted serviceman.

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:50 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:46 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:36 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:07 pm In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

It seemed longer than a brief period to me. Of course, following 911 I joined the military, so I probably have a bit distorted of a view as the 4 years following were all from the perspective of a young active duty enlisted serviceman.

I joined in '99, Army. What branch were you in?

And I'm from Michigan also

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:50 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:46 pm

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:36 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:07 pm In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

It seemed longer than a brief period to me. Of course, following 911 I joined the military, so I probably have a bit distorted of a view as the 4 years following were all from the perspective of a young active duty enlisted serviceman.

Though not directly related to how long it lasted....this is of interest: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... e-closest/


For the record....on 9/10/01 I had gone to the top of the Statue of Liberty. All the way back on the ferry I was staring at the Twin Towers as I was always fascinated by them. 24 hours later they were no longer.

When 9/11 happened the next morning I was in a motel in Yonkers, 20 miles north. As I was leaving I briefly met someone who had himself been on an airplane and had seen one of the airplanes going into one of the towers. I saw and heard our jets flying above us. Then I came home....about 180 miles away from New York City.

Vinny

Simonjester wrote:

pmward wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:44 am

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?

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..

Yes my main pushback is that it's not realistic in this current point in time. I mean, look at the power struggle between "liberals" and "conservatives" today as an example. I do think that as the human race evolves slowly over time the top down portion likely will be able to shrink. This won't be in our lifetimes though. We simply have not progressed far enough, we are still too animalistic in nature. The population of the world overtime shows a very slow gradual shift over centuries of slowly evolving to being more civilized and less animalistic. We are no longer making animal sacrifices to the gods. We are no longer crucifying people. We are no longer enslaving people. But we are still oppressing people. When/if we reach a point where we are close to fully civilized then yeah we probably could almost entirely get rid of the top down portion. But there's many centuries of evolution to go until we get there. In the meantime, the top down direction is necessary. Obviously not in the extreme like communism or the like. But until society as a whole can be civilized on its own (including taking care of those that are oppressed, needy, sick, old, etc) then we need some top down training wheel "shade of grey" direction towards civility.

This is where it gets complicated though... what is the Goldilocks just right amount of top down direction? I really don't know. All I know is I still see a much larger portion of our population suffering than I feel a truly "civilized" society should have. Not to mention a large portion of our country not only turning a blind eye, but in some ways actively trying to keep these people stuck where they are at permanently. This isn't civility, this is an animalistic alpha dominance battle playing out between some of the "haves" and "have nots" across the population.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:29 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:03 pm Are these features of the new republican populism...as they are with other forms of populism?




division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”

a proud antagonism toward intellectuals

the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct

the promotion of polarizing views

demonization of one’s opponent

a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers

a strong intolerance of free press

Goddamn, I do have to post in response to this. I should print this in 128pt font and put it on my cube wall. This is exactly it, isn't it? We are repeating history, but at a much accelerated pace.

Hooray, glad you jumped back in Cortopassi! This thread is definitely a much more civil discussion than past ones have been. If we can all manage to maintain respect for other people's expressed opinions the forum will be a much better place.

Regarding this...I think these points are vast oversimplifications and frankly I totally disagree with many of them. For example:

It's the Democrats who are perverting the free press. The Republicans/conservative voters are the victims, not the instigators.

Polarization is happening on both sides. Takes two to tango.

Antagonism toward intellectuals. I'll give you that one, but I think it is richly deserved. Who the heck made a class of people who are entitled to make rules that everyone else must follow? Cancel culture for example is the most dangerous, anti-democratic development since Stalin. And may I remind you that again, conservatives are victims here not the instigators. A key aspect of NRP is a backlash against cancel culture, political correctness, "thought crimes" etc.

Also, if you start proposing top-down social control you have to acknowledge something that everyone has been dancing around. If you want someone to behave in a way that they don't want to behave, you have two ways to go about it. One is to persuade, if you can. The other is to use force. When you use force against someone who is not physically harming you, you step over a line that every historical document we have was supposed to guard against. And, you should be prepared to acknowledge what you're doing, and state explicitly what forms of force you plan to use and when. If you find yourself unable to stomach that description, that's probably a good sign that what you're proposing is a bad idea.

sophie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:06 am you should be prepared to acknowledge what you're doing, and state explicitly what forms of force you plan to use and when. If you find yourself unable to stomach that description, that's probably a good sign that what you're proposing is a bad idea.

Lots of lefties are very comfortable with stating how they want to hurt people who won't obey. That is the basis for their entire political philosophy so let's hope comfort isn't the only criteria.

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:34 am Looking forward to reading the 8 pages of this and responding...the first page looked awesome. Hopefully pages 2-8 did not degrade in quality and tone.

get used to disappointment. ahahah--kidding