Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
“I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.
Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.
The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.”
― Carl Sagan
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Rick, the nature of my feelings are not crazy, but profound disappointment. I have always held my conservative colleagues in reasonably high esteem....while profoundly different than me, I believed in the fundamental decency and patriotism of them. I was brought up in a republican family that emigrated from Wyoming, certainly part of the Heartland.
But now it's like me being the Professor that I am, and discovering that the brilliant graduate student, one of the smartest people I've ever encountered, has made the decision to falsify information and cheat in his research. He has destroyed his own potential, he has sold out to base instincts, and he has damaged all around him.
I've always looked at my GOP opponents, not as enemies, but as those who walk another path, but dedicated to patriotism, freedom, and equality within our country. I thought we shared far more than we differed.
Now, I understand that the end justifies the means.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
One of the first things that really concerns me, is the military fronts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. All three of these are "hot" wars, with huge potential.
Trump's bellicose statements about blasting with bombs, massive military might, sets him up for the first military setbacks.
What do the terrorists want? They want us back in there, on the ground, on a massive scale. All we become, are targets.
The Russians couldn't win in Afghanistan. We couldn't win in Afghanistan. A coalition of the Russians and the US will not win in Afghanistan.
I think we are going to become involved in far more military action.
We'll look back at drones with envy, as the body bags come back.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Afghanistan - the graveyard of empires.
Darius of Persia, Diodotus of Bactria, Alexander of Macedonia, Maurya of India, Scythians, Parthians, Huns, Mongols, Tamarlane, Great Britain, USSR, USA.
The only thing they hate more than their women and each other is everyone else. My brother was a Marine Recon - two tours in Vietnam - and he ended up training special ops around the world. That included the Mujahadeen and he said the Afghans he was in charge of training were effing crazy and he didn't sleep the whole time he was there expecting to get his throat slit by them.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
The Russians are doing pretty well in Syria. Expect their pipeline engineers to arrive shortly.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
China is winning. They are investing in mining.
They play Go - the long game of strategy.
They are playing us and we choose to be morons.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The Russians are doing pretty well in Syria. Expect their pipeline engineers to arrive shortly.
Where they will discover what easy targets fixed infrastructure becomes. We learned that in Iraq.
There is nothing to 'win.' Nothing at all and there never was. Ever.
So very true. Seems like the only strategy is to keep the brothers busy turned in on each other. The drones perhaps help with that. We'll never stop the heroin.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
And who is going to fund/supply these anti-Russian rebels?
Trump sure as hell won't.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Mexico.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
I think Garrison Keillor summed up what happened best:
"So he won. The nation takes a deep breath. Raw ego and proud illiteracy have won out and a severely learning-disabled man with a real character problem will be president. We are so exhausted from thinking about this election, millions of people will take up leaf-raking and garage cleaning with intense pleasure. We liberal elitists are wrecks. The Trumpers had a whale of a good time, waving their signs, jeering at the media, beating up protesters, chanting "Lock her up" -- we elitists just stood and clapped. Nobody chanted "Stronger Together." It just doesn't chant.
The Trumpers never expected their guy to actually win the thing, and that's their problem now. They only wanted to whoop and yell, boo at the H-word, wear profane T-shirts, maybe grab a crotch or two, jump in the RV with a couple six-packs and go out and shoot some spotted owls..."
Time for us liberals to sit back, relax, and see what our new government of clowns will produce.
Curt
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
There is nothing to 'win.' Nothing at all and there never was. Ever.
I heard there was a big stash of rare earth metals in Afghanistan. Very valuable for smart phones and the like.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Ding, ding, ding! K-man for the win!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Watched the Keith Olbermann message, and thought it held weight.
The GOP doesn't like Trump any more than Clinton does, but they found they could hitch their wagon to his train for the win. Once in office, they'll slide him out of there as fast as they can.
Get used to saying "President Pence."
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
Trump is a slow motion train wreck, with his ego at the throttle. When the GOP throws him under the bus, it will be the best thing they have done in many years.
Hopefully that happens before he finishes selling us out to Russia.
|
|
trailridge127
Trad climber
Loveland, CO
|
|
Honestly, why is there so much hate for Russia?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Wow, that Olberman tape is a powerful statement. I'm not particularly fond of Olberman, typically the liberal attack-dog. But this discussion is very eye-opening with regards to the dilemma of Trump supporters.
|
|
Yury
Mountain climber
T.O.
|
|
Name calling in this discussion was quite entertaining but this is a road to a dead end.
Mark Force:
Wow. Yury, Your friends got played big time! Initially (following a similar approach) I also felt that liberals supported Hillary because of their limited intellect and limited access to information. Essentially I felt that they were brainwashed by MSM propaganda.
Apparently this explanation is too simplistic because we have quite a few bright intellectuals on the left side.
I still do not understand why some people supported Hillary and some people supported Trump.
Could you please help me to figure this out without name calling and using an explanation of limited intellectual ability.
George Lakoff started a discussion about underlying values of supporters of Trump and Hillary:
https://georgelakoff.com/2016/11/22/a-minority-president-why-the-polls-failed-and-what-the-majority-can-do/.
However, being a liberal, he had his thinking severely constrained and as a result came up with some conclusions that seem ridiculous to me.
For example one of his key points (under "13: The Nation as Family Metaphor") is a metaphor of "The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative)".
This metaphor seems invalid to me because I see progressives trying to limit other people ability to think outside a set of allowed thoughts and supress people with "wrong" thoughts. These phenomena are especially pronounced on campuses of liberal universities.
I do not see such approach as "nurturing" - it seems rather "paternalistic" to me.
I still suspect that this is caused by underlying values, but have a challenge identifying them.
Could you please help me?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Honestly, why is there so much hate for Russia?
It is context. Much of this comes from the Cold War, in which we were deathly foes.
It often comes down to the issue of "existential threat". I don't think people actually think of what that term means. It means a threat that goes against the very existence of the country.
What such threat exists?
There is no navy or air force that could land and take over the country. Never. Our natural oceans provide huge protection. (but watch the Canadians!)
So the only actual threat is nuclear annihilation. Who can do that?
Apparently, only Russia has the nuclear weapon infrastructure. China probably not.
Russia is an odd country, swirling in history, intrigue, strategy. The people seems to believe that the Cold War was "the good old days", and they pine to having the world respectability that they had at that time. They believe in the destiny of Russia to rule the world, in the sense of the old world domination of Spain or England.
Much of the "old infrastructure" of cold warriors in the US totally understand this, and view the Russians as only playing a game that involves incremental encroachment on the power centers of the US.
Having no political philosophy or background in history (nor interest), Trump does not understand what he is dealing with. He does not understand that he has signed up to play a vast game of 3-dimensional chess, where the sacrifice of a pawn on a side board will result in a massive action. What would he do if Russia invaded Ukraine? Does he even care?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Yury, you are wise to read Lakoff. He has insights that few others have. I don't believe that you understand his family analogy, but perhaps we can talk about that down-thread. Suffice it to say that he proposes it as an analogy of differences in world view. His criticism of liberal thinking seems nothing short of brilliant, to me.
I still do not understand why some people supported Hillary and some people supported Trump.
Could you please help me to figure this out without name calling and using an explanation of limited intellectual ability.
I think this is on many people's minds, and has been difficult for many to understand. First, I think it is important to understand Lakoff's point that voters often vote, not on the basis of objective information, or even their own best interests, but upon emotion.
In this election, there were two contrasting views fighting for voters: that the country is generally moving in a good direction, or is rapidly falling apart and becoming third world.
That is a highly emotional argument.
Hillary represented a continuation of the course we'd been on for the last 8 years. I'll not describe my interpretation of that, but to Hillary supporters, it represented a "course correction" "incremental" "move to the center" approach of making the country better. She represented putting your savings under your mattress.
Trump represented a "tear the place down" (I think he actually used those words) approach to near-revolution, promising to not be limited by our customs, laws, or previous actions----basically promising to ignore anything that got in his way to make things "right" (which he never defined, but which had great emotional appeal. He represented putting your savings on number 28 on the roulette wheel.
As the campaign progressed, Trump was masterful in playing on the emotional linchpins---so much so that there was basically NO meaningful policy debate on issues. He wants "to make America great again", but never says HOW. The key was to get people to subscribe to the slogan, without looking behind it. Enough people of respectability stood beside him to give him just enough credibility for doing SOMETHING.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Hello yuri,
as I read the first sentence of your post
Name calling in this discussion was quite entertaining but this is a road to a dead end.
I was relieved to learn that you wished to engage in a meaningful discussion that I may want to participate in, and then I read further
Initially (following a similar approach) I also felt that liberals supported Hillary because of their limited intellect
in which you immediately and intentionally insult the "intellect" of the "liberals"
and at that point I lost all interest, realizing what you really wanted was to engage in vague insults
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!