It’s pretty simple. The election was “saved” from “Trump’s plot”.
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
16
Governor Cuomo, Mass Murderer?
by Simon inwhat term would you use for a governor who enacts policies that directly cause the deaths of well over ten thousand and then covers up the death count for fear of prosecution?.
i think "mass murderer" is the correct term.. he's far, far from the "messiah" figure the media have portrayed him to be over his handling of covid.. let the lawsuits commence.. https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/cuomo-aide-admits-they-hid-nursing-home-data-from-feds/.
-
-
-
16
Governor Cuomo, Mass Murderer?
by Simon inwhat term would you use for a governor who enacts policies that directly cause the deaths of well over ten thousand and then covers up the death count for fear of prosecution?.
i think "mass murderer" is the correct term.. he's far, far from the "messiah" figure the media have portrayed him to be over his handling of covid.. let the lawsuits commence.. https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/cuomo-aide-admits-they-hid-nursing-home-data-from-feds/.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
It's worse than that. They had him on CNN, interviewed by his brother, lauding the "incredible way" he'd handled the virus as though NYC was the model for others to follow.
He was just “fortifying” the nursing homes.
-
83
Do You Think Trump Is Done?
by minimus incertain forces appear to be trying to make sure donald trump never runs for president again.
some republicans are clearly abandoning trump and of course the democratic press has been saying trump is done!
is trump’s goose cooked?
-
-
MeanMrMustard
It’s up to him. He might want to retire. If he does, good for him. But if his opponents can’t move on, and they continue to try to ruin him, it will only force him to fight back.
-
46
Sound Familiar?
by peacefulpete ina republican congressman voted his conscience to impeach trump.
the results might surprise some of us.. "my dad's cousins sent me a petition - a certified letter - saying they disowned me because i'm in 'the devil's army' now," kinzinger said in a phone conversation on thursday.
"it's been crazy, when you have friends - that you thought were good friends that would love you no matter what - that don't.".
-
-
MeanMrMustard
MMM, l am building the case for this: Though we aspire to justice in this country, we built national wealth by exploiting indigenous, immigrant or kidnapped labor. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS. We sorta/kinda try to honor individual rights in the U.S.A. but we no less than others on this planet have sacrifice zones, the boneyards of the discarded workers. Terrifying places. Absolutely heartbreaking and terrible.
I do not agree. The wealth of this nation came after the Civil War with the Industrial Revolution.
What are "sacrifice zones"? Are you defining them as "boneyards of discarded workers"? What do you mean by that?
Workers these days have much better conditions than they did in the past. But we have built up the capital needed to make this happen. Although, there is a myth floating around too, that workers had it much better as farmers before they were enslaved in the horrible, dirty industrial cities. I trust that wasn't what you were referring to.
When you say "We sorta/kinda try to honor individual rights in the U.S.A." what do you mean? What individual rights are denied today?
-
46
Sound Familiar?
by peacefulpete ina republican congressman voted his conscience to impeach trump.
the results might surprise some of us.. "my dad's cousins sent me a petition - a certified letter - saying they disowned me because i'm in 'the devil's army' now," kinzinger said in a phone conversation on thursday.
"it's been crazy, when you have friends - that you thought were good friends that would love you no matter what - that don't.".
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Likewise, the principle of private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, individual rights that are part of each human (of all races) as a matter of birth, whether you think that is from God or not, are embodied well in the constitution, especially the first ten amendments. The nation’s founding wasn’t framed to benefit white men over others. — MMM
Thomas Jefferson it’s assumed would agree to agree with your statement. But Jefferson was deeply dependent on slavery both for his life of privilege and ease. His slaves were not citizens. Persons of African descent were not citizens until 1868.
Pres. Lincoln was careful to avoid linking freedom/equal rights to black Africans (or even pale descendants of Africans) with the war to save the Union. So many Union troops despised the blacks that it was hardly the driving force behind the North’s recruitment drive.
Native Americans were not citizens until way after slavery. In fact Union Generals Sherman, Sheridan, Custer barely switched horses after the War between the States before killing Indians in the Western states and territories. So much for human and civil rights being for everyone.
I think you missed the point. You are still conflating history with principle. I was making a principled argument (quoted above), and you made a historical argument. When you respond with BUT! "Jefferson was deeply dependent on slavery" and "Lincoln was careful to avoid linking freedom/equal rights to black Africans" and "Native Americans were not citizens until way after slavery" - what are you appealing to? Those are all true. So? How is that a response to the principled argument I presented? To what end/conclusion are you arguing?
But the stains were built into the design of our nation.
To some extent, yes. The Constitution originally had explicit language regarding "negros". That was the basis for the Dred Scott decision. But don't miss the point - what principles were the foundation for the change? Do you really think the slavery was ended because of social justice? Do you really think the 14th amendment was the precursor to "wokeness"? What principles brought us to the current state of complete rights for everyone?
Those who “were not living up to the principles” of the Founding Fathers were the founders themselves !
Again, as above, so? What conclusion should I draw? Can you state it explicitly? I responded to more of your points, but realized that I was repeating the same response over and over. What are you advocating for? Do you think we should undermine private property in some way, as a response to the history you cite?
MMM, I believe in free enterprise, l love my country, l love the Constitution. I have real admiration for our flawed Founding Fathers. But there are problems that have been let grow.Snd our economy is breaking too.
What problems? List them - explicitly. Or, list maybe the top 2. No subjectivity, just a list.
Our economy is a mess. It was a mess before Trump, gained a little bubble-like growth during Trump, and will continue a rapid downward turn as the government prints more money and undermines the last vestiges of free enterprise. It will end in a crash that will probably include a currency crisis. This will be the responsibility of Democrat and Republican presidents alike - as more and more territory has been ceded to collectivist policies, the kind that produced the Bolivian example you first cited (end of page 4).
I do not believe the new administration going to solve the Divide . I don’t believe the last one even tried. The Divide was there and is still growing .
Yes, it is growing.
I hope you are well, MMM. I appreciate your ability to organize this conversation and glad you have persisted in a civil exchange.
Sure.
As an ending thought here: At what point, do you think, do we finally look ahead? I would say that many on the political "right" are looking ahead, and in fact, think they have been looking ahead for quite some time. The idea of "systemic racism" is just another way to keep the grievances going. And that is a large part of the divide.
-
46
Sound Familiar?
by peacefulpete ina republican congressman voted his conscience to impeach trump.
the results might surprise some of us.. "my dad's cousins sent me a petition - a certified letter - saying they disowned me because i'm in 'the devil's army' now," kinzinger said in a phone conversation on thursday.
"it's been crazy, when you have friends - that you thought were good friends that would love you no matter what - that don't.".
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Ok. So, a lot to cover here, and instead of writing a really large post, I’ll try to condense my thoughts. Nevertheless, I think the fundamentals of the divide are beginning to play themselves out in this thread. It hasn’t really changed my mind.MMM, you say we have grave differences about how to organize society. And you seem to suggest that there are destructive threats rising from these differences. Threats to the very the western principles upon which we have built our lives and our economic ( capitalistic) system.
If we accept this assessment the problem then a question comes to mind: When the Constitution was framed on Western values did it really provide a sound framework for social order? Or did it create a time bomb by failing to recognize the equal value of all citizen to have a share of, a voice in society.
The answer is historical: Native Americans, women, white men without property, and chattel slaves were bound to a social order that legally excluded them from enjoying the fruits of Western Values.
So while there is every reason to love the “new nation conceived in liberty” the Founding Fathers limited who they wanted to share those freedoms: Native Americans, women, white men without property, and chattel slaves were bound to a social order that legally excluded them from enjoying the fruits of Western Values.First, to answer your question, yes, the Constitution does contain the embodiment of many western values. But you are conflating the historical record with the foundational principles.
For example, we are all familiar with the golden rule. Roughly : Treat others the way you want to be treated. So, am I, as an atheist, after rejecting the Bible, justified in rejecting the golden rule? I don’t think so. Imagine if took it a step further and proclaimed that I would not only ignore the golden rule, but took steps to do the exact opposite in my life, completely inverting the principle because of its appearance in a book I reject?
Likewise, the principle of private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, individual rights that are part of each human (of all races) as a matter of birth, whether you think that is from God or not, are embodied well in the constitution, especially the first ten amendments. The nation’s founding wasn’t framed to benefit white men over others. Rather, the nation has stains on its past, created when people were not living up to the principles. Ultimately, because the nation was founded on the principles, the injustices, like slavery, ended. After all, what did Lincoln and Douglass appeal to?
And, so, there’s the divide. One side wishing to maintain the principles. The other focusing on something called “equity” - which is an attempt to force an equality of outcome. To do that, the foundational principles must be abandoned.
In the end, I still think I am right. There is no compromise. The divide will widen.
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Jan 6 ... the "Blue Pilling" of America.
-
46
Sound Familiar?
by peacefulpete ina republican congressman voted his conscience to impeach trump.
the results might surprise some of us.. "my dad's cousins sent me a petition - a certified letter - saying they disowned me because i'm in 'the devil's army' now," kinzinger said in a phone conversation on thursday.
"it's been crazy, when you have friends - that you thought were good friends that would love you no matter what - that don't.".
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@SWTTE:
There is a lot to say about your second post. It will take more time than I have right now. So, I thought I would respond to your post about the Cochabamba, Bolivia water company.
First, I didn't do a dive deep into the background information of "The Cochabamba Water War". However, I glanced at some information. If the purpose of the example is to illustrate the failures of private enterprise, it really, at least to me, affirmed quite the opposite. In fact, the more I read about this mess, the more it becomes clear to me that it is a great example of why the government should be small, with as little to do with the lives of the citizens as possible.
The backdrop of the problem was that the government had printed its currency into oblivion. We have massive government spending, monetized by money printing, effectively a tax, by extracting not really a quantity of money, but the value from it. At this point, the government has squandered the wealth of the nation, leaving everyone poor.
This is, first, part of the type of mindset that causes the divide. This idea that we need the government to engage in attempts to equalize resources often leads to poverty and starvation, or at least greater inequity, and in the process of attempting to force the outcome that seems "just", it undermines the very principles that would create a way out - like private property rights.
So, with the country in a fiscal mess, they turned to private companies to pick up the slack and start a recovery. Now, IMHO, this was a great idea. But they messed it up again, by bringing government control back into the picture, thereby causing yet another problem greater than the one before. True privatization here would be the government backing away completely. Force NO price controls. Allow any, and all, private resources to invest *if* they want. There were a bunch of firms that said "no". In the end, to get private money involved, certain promises had to be made. They granted a monopoly (again, governments like to do this for some reason), required licenses by law (this was the potential prohibition of collecting rainwater), and tried to guarantee a profit for the investors.
Basically, the government ran out of money. But they wanted to keep spending because it was part of their philosophy. They believed in big government spending. The population did too. So, as far as I can tell, if the Wiki article is correct, they promised profits to an private investment, expanded the demands, included "pork" (that is, required more and more of the private firms - electrical work, a new dam, and surprise! some extra stuff for a local politician), and then got quite angry when the price had to be raised. The Wiki article claimed that the $20/month charge came from people inexperienced in marketing. I don't buy it. I think the price had to be raised from the obvious costs involved - and probably combined with a mindset that they were guaranteed a certain profit, and they had a monopoly, so very little consequence (from the market) to restrain price increases.
From what I could tell, the people didn't really learn their lesson either - as is often the case.
BUT - back to the topic - I think this has a lot to do with the divide. A fundamental philosophy that government's role is to step in and create "equity", not equality. Step into the breach and right the wrongs of history, for justice.
-
22
What do you see?
by Simon indo you see a man with a backpack running into the woods?.
do you see a dog running out of the woods?.
i saw the man running first .... .
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Just a note: I looked at the image again on a computer monitor and the details in the dog face are much crisper. Originally, I viewed thread on my phone. My phone is a bit blurry around the face. The tail gets blurred in a way that makes it look more like the back of someone’s head.
-
22
What do you see?
by Simon indo you see a man with a backpack running into the woods?.
do you see a dog running out of the woods?.
i saw the man running first .... .
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I saw the man running and then it quickly changed to the dog. I think one reason is the left “foot” of the “man”. It looked unnatural, and from that, it changed to the dog almost instantly.