Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

The best place for discussion of current events. News about Buddhists and Buddhism is particularly welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28537
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:25 pm

Nemo wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:27 am

I don't think you understand how good cop, bad cop works. It means the cops collude to put on a show that makes you think one is good and the other is bad. But really they are tricking you and both work for the same boss. The good cop is only pretending to be your friend.
This is very lazy thinking.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Nemo » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:36 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:25 pm
Nemo wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:27 am

I don't think you understand how good cop, bad cop works. It means the cops collude to put on a show that makes you think one is good and the other is bad. But really they are tricking you and both work for the same boss. The good cop is only pretending to be your friend.
This is very lazy thinking.
Keep trying that lesser evil strategy. That's not a con either :thumbsup: ;)

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6393
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Queequeg » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:49 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:17 am
Queequeg wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:51 pm


You're kind of dodging the question... :smile:
That's because the question is premised on something you believe in to one degree or another that I probably don't - some sort of unique quality in a president that would change things for the better. My view of politics doesn't revolve around elites leading "the people" into some notion of progress. Progress, (such as it exists) happens when "the people" push the elites to concede to something more humane than what they are used to, despite the fact that those elites must give ground to achieve it, that's about it.
No, my question was open ended - "What would your ideal president look like?" I am assuming that our democratic government, more or less as it is now would continue - three branches under the constitution as currently ratified. You have a laundry list of criticisms... maybe its presumptuous of me, but it would seem your ideal president would at least not do those things. I wasn't asking about physical or personality traits, political views and platforms, in particular, but all are certainly in the scope of the question.

Your view of politics is contemplated in our present system, except the divide that seems to underlie your view between "the people" and "elites" is actually pretty blurry, and blurrier the more local you go. I've heard of small towns where electing officials is almost like drawing straws to see who gets saddled with the responsibilities. In my village of 9000 people, less than 1000 votes are cast in off year local elections and challengers are few and far between. Officials are chosen when someone decides they don't want to do it anymore and then they're scrambling to find someone to run.

I don't know if you have experience on major political campaigns, but on the inside you see how terrified politicians are of voters - there is a reason they fight so hard to gerrymander districts and pay ridiculous amounts of money on polling, consulting and media. If "the people" want to make a change, they can do it. What puzzles many is that they don't, or when they vote, they vote against their interests. The real issue in our system seems to be, "Why did you vote against yourself?" "or even more basic, "Why didn't you vote?"
Bernie is the only person I've ever seen come near a major public office that puts forth the sorts of values I am for, and even he is a politician that must work within the narrow confines of this system and it's set of assumptions, put simply, I don't think a president has a lot to do with what actually happens, but you can take the values I've espoused and safely assume that I would probably favor a candidate who was for reforming the things I mention, it's not complicated, I just don't think that personal qualities of presidents mean that much.
What alternative is there to the system we have? What assumptions does the system impose? I can connect that sort of vocabulary with various forms of discontent, but what does it actually mean?

I know that there are different ways to look at these things, but I could not disagree with you more about the personal qualities of the president. I can tell you right now, in at least one way, this president has had a significant impact in a way that affects people daily: the racists and bigots have come out of the woodwork. IMO, the most significant role of the president comes from their Bully Pulpit where they get to set the tone with their words and actions. It is the deep brain effect of charisma. When we elect a jerk, people feel emboldened to let their inner jerk out. When we elect a decent person, that sets the tone for everything else.
So? Is there some rule that we need a really detailed plan for the future in order to object to things that are clearly morally objectionable and should change? Why? The critique of and within itself is of value, especially when a lot of he assumptions about "how things are" are predicated on what I consider to be false claims, and many of the things i'm complaining about are self-evidently wrong. I'm sorry you see it as "blind complaining", that's your prerogative, but it probably means we're done here. My reason for jumping into the conversation in the first place was that I think liberals who continue to vote for mainstream, corporate centrist Democratic candidates are, on many levels driving us further into our already dire situation. If you don't agree that's fine, but to me it's a valid criticism, and i don't need any kind of "plan" to make it, it's simply my opinion, and not "blind complaining".

So what do I think would help? Lots of stuff, but for the purposes of this conversation a Democratic party not run by corporate lackeys who mouth progressive platitudes while selling off the pieces of democracy..people who actually believe in a civic culture, and who regard citizens as more than passive consumers or consent machines... the only way that will happen is if people demand it, so complaining is quite justified in my opinion.
So if your approach to current circumstances that involves criticism is criticized, that signals the end of the discussion. "We're done here." So, criticism is a one way street. Gotcha.

On one hand, you assert that a criticism MO is enough, but then you also do offer some outlines of how you think things ought to be.

I'm going to point something out that should be obvious - Criticism is not possible without some notion of how things ought to be. I asked you a question to get past your list of critiques to get at how you think things ought to be. That's all.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18005
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Grigoris » Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:03 pm



"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28537
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:16 pm

Nemo wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:36 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:25 pm
Nemo wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:27 am

I don't think you understand how good cop, bad cop works. It means the cops collude to put on a show that makes you think one is good and the other is bad. But really they are tricking you and both work for the same boss. The good cop is only pretending to be your friend.
This is very lazy thinking.
Keep trying that lesser evil strategy. That's not a con either :thumbsup: ;)
The greater evil is shrugging one's shoulders in apathy.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Bristollad
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Bristollad » Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:45 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:03 pm
...
Always love a bit of Yes Minster/Yes Prime Minster. Though it often pushed a free marketer's jaundiced view of government intervention, I loved the accurate portrayal of an entrenched bureaucracy with poor old Bernard's naiveté alongside Jim Hacker's relentless (but often clueless) search for political success and gravitas.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 8359
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:49 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:49 pm


So if your approach to current circumstances that involves criticism is criticized, that signals the end of the discussion. "We're done here." So, criticism is a one way street. Gotcha.

On one hand, you assert that a criticism MO is enough, but then you also do offer some outlines of how you think things ought to be.

I'm going to point something out that should be obvious - Criticism is not possible without some notion of how things ought to be. I asked you a question to get past your list of critiques to get at how you think things ought to be. That's all.
No, I just have a hard time talking politics with you, to be honest, and don't see the discussion going anywhere good. I don't want to get past my list of critiques, you do. It's like you are scolding me for being too negative, think the criticisms are not justified, and are claiming that my way of approaching it simply isn't correct. Would you stick around for that? I'm sure that's not your intent, just one of those wavelength things, we communicate and think very differently on this subject. If that changes in the future, i'll be sure to stop by.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6393
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Queequeg » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:20 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:49 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:49 pm


So if your approach to current circumstances that involves criticism is criticized, that signals the end of the discussion. "We're done here." So, criticism is a one way street. Gotcha.

On one hand, you assert that a criticism MO is enough, but then you also do offer some outlines of how you think things ought to be.

I'm going to point something out that should be obvious - Criticism is not possible without some notion of how things ought to be. I asked you a question to get past your list of critiques to get at how you think things ought to be. That's all.
No, I just have a hard time talking politics with you, to be honest, and don't see the discussion going anywhere good. I don't want to get past my list of critiques, you do. It's like you are scolding me for being too negative, think the criticisms are not justified, and are claiming that my way of approaching it simply isn't correct. Would you stick around for that? I'm sure that's not your intent, just one of those wavelength things, we communicate and think very differently on this subject. If that changes in the future, i'll be sure to stop by.
If all you have are critiques and want to shut down after they're delivered... well. The reason why I'm asking you is because you clearly have an idea of how things ought to be, and so I'm asking about that.

Don't make me out to be something that I'm not. Just so we're clear ... you are the one making this personal. I've tried to avoid that.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 8359
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:15 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:20 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:49 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:49 pm


So if your approach to current circumstances that involves criticism is criticized, that signals the end of the discussion. "We're done here." So, criticism is a one way street. Gotcha.

On one hand, you assert that a criticism MO is enough, but then you also do offer some outlines of how you think things ought to be.

I'm going to point something out that should be obvious - Criticism is not possible without some notion of how things ought to be. I asked you a question to get past your list of critiques to get at how you think things ought to be. That's all.
No, I just have a hard time talking politics with you, to be honest, and don't see the discussion going anywhere good. I don't want to get past my list of critiques, you do. It's like you are scolding me for being too negative, think the criticisms are not justified, and are claiming that my way of approaching it simply isn't correct. Would you stick around for that? I'm sure that's not your intent, just one of those wavelength things, we communicate and think very differently on this subject. If that changes in the future, i'll be sure to stop by.
If all you have are critiques and want to shut down after they're delivered... well. The reason why I'm asking you is because you clearly have an idea of how things ought to be, and so I'm asking about that.

Don't make me out to be something that I'm not. Just so we're clear ... you are the one making this personal. I've tried to avoid that.
I haven't said anything personal at all QQ. I'm talking quite specifically about the way you are communicating with me, and why it's not working for me, those are not the same thing.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

-Jeff H.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4174
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Wayfarer » Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:10 am

David Brooks' current OP on how the Democrats are not taking on Trumpism:
the Democratic campaign is inadequate to the current moment. It offers no counter-narrative to Trump, little moral case against his behavior, no unifying argument against ethnic nationalism. In politics you can’t beat something with nothing. Democrats missed the Trumpian upsurge because while society was dividing into cultural tribes, they spent 2008 through 2016 focusing on health care. Now that the upsurge has happened, they are still pinioned to health care.
...

It has now become evident that Republicans are better at politicizing cultural issues and Democrats are better at offering economic benefits to those who are struggling. If you think voting behavior is primarily motivated by material appeals, the Democratic strategy is fine. But if you think it’s motivated by cultural identity, a desire for respect, a sense of what’s right, loyalty to a common story, the Democratic strategy leaves a lot to be desired.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

Bristollad
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Bristollad » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:53 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:10 am
David Brooks' current OP on how the Democrats are not taking on Trumpism:
the Democratic campaign is inadequate to the current moment. It offers no counter-narrative to Trump, little moral case against his behavior, no unifying argument against ethnic nationalism. In politics you can’t beat something with nothing. Democrats missed the Trumpian upsurge because while society was dividing into cultural tribes, they spent 2008 through 2016 focusing on health care. Now that the upsurge has happened, they are still pinioned to health care.
...

It has now become evident that Republicans are better at politicizing cultural issues and Democrats are better at offering economic benefits to those who are struggling. If you think voting behavior is primarily motivated by material appeals, the Democratic strategy is fine. But if you think it’s motivated by cultural identity, a desire for respect, a sense of what’s right, loyalty to a common story, the Democratic strategy leaves a lot to be desired.
And that’s what I don’t get about American attitudes to health care, that you think it’s all about economics. The National Health Service in the UK was instituted after the Second World War because of a sense of what’s right, a desire for respect for those who had served and suffered, because people were motivated by the desire to change the status quo and not simply return to how things were before. It’s become a treasured part of our cultural identity that even Mrs Thatcher dared not privatise.

“The astonishing fact is that Bevan’s vision has stood both the test of time and the test of change unimaginable in his day. At the centre of his vision was a National Health Service, and sixty years on, his NHS – by surviving, growing and adapting to technological and demographic change – remains at the centre of the life of our nation as a uniquely British creation, and still a uniquely powerful engine of social justice.” Gordon Brown talking about Nye Bevan who was the Health Minister in 1948 when the NHS started.

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Nemo » Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:11 am

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:16 pm
Nemo wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:36 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:25 pm


This is very lazy thinking.
Keep trying that lesser evil strategy. That's not a con either :thumbsup: ;)
The greater evil is shrugging one's shoulders in apathy.
I worked in politics for years Malcolm. In the end all I had the power to do was enrich myself and a few friends. Maybe give a black eye to a corrupt oligarch. I left disgusted, heart broken and well paid. It was get paid or buried. The cancer has spread too far. Parties are all compromised and those in charge use them for legitimacy. Google Morneau scandal. That was me at my peak. Best bet is going grassroots and never joining a party. Good cop, bad cop is over simplified but it is wholly accurate. It was better in the 80s when I helped get the Montreal Protocol ratified and saved the ozone layer. Since then the elites have become much more sophisticated. The bones of a democracy are still there but big money is now in control.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4174
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Wayfarer » Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:52 am

If it’s anger vs apathy, then anger will always win, because it will go out and vote. Apathy will stay at home and kvetch. It plays directly into the hands of those that really are trashing democracy.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28537
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Malcolm » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:15 am

Bristollad wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:53 am
Wayfarer wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:10 am
David Brooks' current OP on how the Democrats are not taking on Trumpism:
the Democratic campaign is inadequate to the current moment. It offers no counter-narrative to Trump, little moral case against his behavior, no unifying argument against ethnic nationalism. In politics you can’t beat something with nothing. Democrats missed the Trumpian upsurge because while society was dividing into cultural tribes, they spent 2008 through 2016 focusing on health care. Now that the upsurge has happened, they are still pinioned to health care.
...

It has now become evident that Republicans are better at politicizing cultural issues and Democrats are better at offering economic benefits to those who are struggling. If you think voting behavior is primarily motivated by material appeals, the Democratic strategy is fine. But if you think it’s motivated by cultural identity, a desire for respect, a sense of what’s right, loyalty to a common story, the Democratic strategy leaves a lot to be desired.
And that’s what I don’t get about American attitudes to health care, that you think it’s all about economics. The National Health Service in the UK was instituted after the Second World War because of a sense of what’s right, a desire for respect for those who had served and suffered, because people were motivated by the desire to change the status quo and not simply return to how things were before. It’s become a treasured part of our cultural identity that even Mrs Thatcher dared not privatise.

“The astonishing fact is that Bevan’s vision has stood both the test of time and the test of change unimaginable in his day. At the centre of his vision was a National Health Service, and sixty years on, his NHS – by surviving, growing and adapting to technological and demographic change – remains at the centre of the life of our nation as a uniquely British creation, and still a uniquely powerful engine of social justice.” Gordon Brown talking about Nye Bevan who was the Health Minister in 1948 when the NHS started.
I support single payer. Always have. The HMO system was started by Nixon. It sucks.

As Kenneth Apple, a conservative economist, pointed out in the 60’s, markets only can function if people can make reasoned choices based on good information so they can make informed choices. Since this is not possible with regard to healthcare decisions, free market theory does not function in healthcare.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

PeterC
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by PeterC » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:14 am

Bristollad wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:53 am
And that’s what I don’t get about American attitudes to health care, that you think it’s all about economics. ...
Well - it is and it isn't.

If the question were, "how do you provide affordable good universal healthcare?", then we knew the answer decades ago. Single provider addresses the adverse selection issue, treatment guidelines and/or modest copays address the principal-agent problem, price regulation restrains the pharma industry from making supernormal profits. You allow a smaller private medical system to operate in parallel for those who want to pay a little more and get better treatment. It's worked fine in many countries for many years now.

However in the US, an extra part is appended: "...without the insurance/payor-provider and pharma industries losing significant amounts of profit?". There is no answer to that question, and in that form, it cannot be voiced openly, because it is an obscene question. A decent society will only have one response to it.

So instead, it is reframed in moral terms - or rather, moralizing terms. We can't have socialized medicine, because socialism is evil. We can't give everyone unlimited free medicine because it will lead to waste and corruption. We can't let the deadbeats free-ride on the backs of the hardworking (and we know what that is code for). This conveniently excludes the obvious and correct solution to the first question. It ironically creates more waste and corruption - a *lot* more; it keeps the poor poor, which is a helpful side-effect if your broader goal is to maintain concentration of wealth; and generally it results in a lot more evil.

A flimsy economic argument is also advanced to support this, that high costs support R&D, and the US, in its imagined role as the savior of the world, is therefore subsidizing drug development for all these bad countries that are free-riding on it by setting very low drug prices. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the economics of drug development and the financial performance of the pharma industry knows that this is horseshit. But the average voter does not understand these things and politicians find it too difficult to explain them.

In my mind the 'how' is purely an economic problem. Morality poses the fundamental question: it seems obvious that a society should want all its members to have the healthcare they need. The economic problem is then how to provide that in a resource constrained environment, and we know the answer. The US debate arises from the problem that a minority of the country come to a different conclusion on the moral question. They simply don't care that a large segment of population cannot afford decent healthcare, or that the mode of delivery (tying it to employment) creates all sorts of unwanted consequences - or perhaps they even view this as, indirectly, a good thing. (I strongly suspect that there is a similar unstated goal in the management of the education system.) They cannot voice that conclusion. So they engage in a bad-faith pseudo-debate that proceeds from intentionally wrong premises. By making that the debate, they have already won.

Bristollad
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Bristollad » Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:51 pm

PeterC wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:14 am
Well - it is and it isn't....
Very helpful analysis, thank you. :namaste:

But why do so many not recognise the false debate?

PeterC
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by PeterC » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:13 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:51 pm
PeterC wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:14 am
Well - it is and it isn't....
Very helpful analysis, thank you. :namaste:

But why do so many not recognise the false debate?
My guess:
1. Insufficient knowledge of other healthcare systems - belief that what they’re surrounded by is the natural state
2. To have a proper discussion about the topic they need to know the basics of healthcare economics - adverse selection and risk pooling, principal/agent, etc. Voters don’t have the patience to be educated and politicians feel it’s not worth the effort vs just falling back on rhetoric
3. People prefer emotive slogans to reason. Generally the electorate’s capacity for collective analytical thinking is poor

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Nemo » Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 pm

You are missing that in politics no one cares what you think. Listening is not sharing power.
Republicans preach greed and money and Democrats are corrupted by greed and money.

We tell you how to think and frame every argument. All paid for by people like George Norcross. Giving a black eye to a Norcross ends your career. You need to learn how power actually works. Otherwise you are just watching a puppet show. It's less real than professional wrestling.
https://www.phillymag.com/articles/2013 ... mocracy/2/

Image

User avatar
Quay
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Quay » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:19 pm

Nemo wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 pm
You are missing that in politics no one cares what you think. Listening is not sharing power.
Republicans preach greed and money and Democrats are corrupted by greed and money.

We tell you how to think and frame every argument. All paid for by people like George Norcross. Giving a black eye to a Norcross ends your career. You need to learn how power actually works. Otherwise you are just watching a puppet show. It's less real than professional wrestling.
https://www.phillymag.com/articles/2013 ... mocracy/2/
It's all George Norcross' fault? He'd be so pleased to hear that. :smile:

Seriously, though, it is nice to see what I think is more informed sophistication in this thread. My favorite fundamental definition:

"Politics: who collects what money to spend on what for whom." --Gore Vidal

That's the basis and in service of that the pursuit of money, sex, and power is the path and pretty much the entire game. The fruit is all around us but people mistake the dazzling show as something real.
"Knowledge is as infinite as the stars in the sky;
There is no end to all the subjects one could study.
It is better to grasp straight away their very essence--
The unchanging fortress of the Dharmakaya."

– Longchenpa.

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Democrats are compulsive self mutilators

Post by Nemo » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:34 pm

Norcross is a type obviously. There are hundreds like him.

Post Reply

Return to “News & Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 39 guests