What are America's interests?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 17:48
VIEWED: 19080
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, November 11, 2016 1:38 PM (P)

It's a question that I've asked over and over, that nobody has answered.

For the purposes of definition, "America" is the land inside the borders of the self-defined nation-state of the United States of America, and "Americans" are citizens of that nation.

WISHIMAY

Friday, November 11, 2016 6:22 PM (P)

FREE WI-FI FOR EVERYONE!!!

SECOND

Friday, November 11, 2016 7:44 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's a question that I've asked over and over, that nobody has answered.

For the purposes of definition, "America" is the land inside the borders of the self-defined nation-state of the United States of America, and "Americans" are citizens of that nation.

And now you have your answer: Trump campaigned against lobbyists. Now they’re on his transition team.

After campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, he is filling his transition team with the very same people he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists:

1) Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.

2) Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the “energy independence” portfolio. Mr. Catanzaro’s client list is a who’s who of major corporate players.

3) Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.

4) Michael McKenna, another lobbyist helping to pick key administration officials who will oversee energy policy, has a client list that this year has included the Southern Company, one of the most vocal critics of efforts to prevent climate change by putting limits on emissions from coal-burning power plants.

5) Martin Whitmer is overseeing “transportation and infrastructure” for the Trump transition. He is the chairman of a Washington law firm whose lobbying clients include the Association of American Railroads and the National Asphalt Pavement Association.

6) David Malpass, the former chief economist at Bear Stearns, the Wall Street investment bank that collapsed during the 2008 financial crisis, is overseeing the “economic issues” portfolio of the transition, as well as operations at the Treasury Department. Mr. Malpass now runs a firm called Encima Global, which sells economic research to institutional investors and corporate clients.

7) Dan DiMicco, a former chief executive of the steelmaking company Nucor, who now serves on the board of directors of Duke Energy, is heading the transition team for the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, declined a request for comment, as did nearly a dozen corporate executives, consultants and lobbyists serving on his transition team, which was outlined in a list distributed widely in Washington on Thursday.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/3217279-2016-11-10-Transition-Team-Lis
t.html

One of the reasons you had such anger among voters is people rigging the system, gaming the system. This represents more of the same. Voters responded to Trump’s vow to restore the voices of forgotten people, ones drowned out by big business and Wall Street.

http://msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaigned-against-lobbyists-
now-they%E2%80%99re-on-his-transition-team/ar-AAk9Rg3?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

SIGNYM

Friday, November 11, 2016 9:05 PM (P)

SECOND: ANOTHER second-hand post from a second-rate thinker??? Why don't you post YOUR OWN thoughts instead of someone else's? Or are you so thoroughly propagandized that you don't have any of your own?

Donald Trump was elected. And the fact that you keep bitching and whining about it just proves that you hate America and are trying to bring down its democratic institutions. So good on YOU, commie troll!!

BUT, if you can manage to post YOUR OWN THOUGHTS (if you have any) and can manage NOT to bitch about Trump (like you do endlessly) and actually address THE TOPIC then maybe we can have a discussion!

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SECOND

Friday, November 11, 2016 10:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND: ANOTHER second-hand post from a second-rate thinker??? Why don't you post YOUR OWN thoughts instead of someone else's? Or are you so thoroughly propagandized that you don't have any of your own?

Donald Trump was elected. And the fact that you keep bitching and whining about it just proves that you hate America and are trying to bring down its democratic institutions. So good on YOU, commie troll!!

BUT, if you can manage to post YOUR OWN THOUGHTS (if you have any) and can manage NOT to bitch about Trump (like you do endlessly) and actually address THE TOPIC then maybe we can have a discussion!

There is always new facts about Trump because he energetically creates new atrocities. That is not true about you. I've read your thoughts. Why are you always repeating yourself? Are you stuck in a loop?

For a change, please have a new series of thoughts in your head because America is not interested in the old you. Maybe talk about Firefly and post something related to it that other fans (and America!) are interested in. Here are two examples I did this month:
www.fireflyfans.net/bluesun.aspx?bid=24871
www.fireflyfans.net/bluesun.aspx?bid=24872

SIGNYM

Friday, November 11, 2016 10:34 PM (P)

SECONDHAND/SECONDRATE: THIS IS NOT THE THREAD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP.

I REALIZE THAT YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR AMERICA-HATING PROPAGANDA INTO AS MANY THREADS AS POSSIBLE. YOU FIND IT SO DIFFICULT TO TALK ABOUT AMERICA WITH PRIDE AND CARE BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH YOUR OWN GROUP OF NEO-LIBERALOIDS. THAT IS WHY I'M NOT RESPONDING TO YOUR POSTS, COMRADE TROLL.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SECOND

Friday, November 11, 2016 11:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECONDHAND/SECONDRATE: THIS IS NOT THE THREAD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP.

I REALIZE THAT YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR AMERICA-HATING PROPAGANDA INTO AS MANY THREADS AS POSSIBLE. YOU FIND IT SO DIFFICULT TO TALK ABOUT AMERICA WITH PRIDE AND CARE BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH YOUR OWN GROUP OF NEO-LIBERALOIDS. THAT IS WHY I'M NOT RESPONDING TO YOUR POSTS, COMRADE TROLL.

Isn't your thread titled What are America's Interests?

It is in America's Interest to not delay Trump's trial:

Trump seeks to delay trial until after inauguration

Trump wants to delay the federal fraud trial he faces here Nov. 28 until after his inauguration in January, his attorney Daniel Petrocelli told Judge Gonzalo Curiel on Thursday.

Petrocelli said he would make a formal request to delay the trial by Monday. After court Thursday, Petrocelli told reporters Trump wanted to testify in person before his election as president.

"Now he’s going to have to take into account whether that’s the best use of his time, and he has to weigh his desire to be here against the needs of the country right now," Petrocelli said. It’s hard to say a sitting president is less busy or more expendable than a president-elect. Petrocelli did not have the balls to request the trial be delayed until Trump is out of office in eight years.

Judge Curiel said he understood and said it would be wise for the two sides to settle the case, a class-action fraud lawsuit involving Trump and his now-defunct Trump University.

At Curiel's suggestion, Petrocelli said he was open to the help of another federal judge, Jeffrey Miller, in trying to find a way to settle before trial.

"I can tell you right now I'm all ears," Petrocelli told Curiel.

Curiel didn't say how he would rule but said he expects the case to last into mid-December if it starts as scheduled. An attorney for the plaintiffs, Jason Forge, told USA TODAY after the hearing that he didn't think the request for a delay got any traction with Curiel.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 11, 2016 11:27 PM (P)

SECONDHAND/SECONDRATE:

1) First of all, just because you didn't supply a link doesn't mean that your post is your own writing. I don't believe you wrote that. I doubt you can respond INTELLIGENTLY to any questions about that post because it is not a product of your own mind.

2) "It is in America's Interest to not delay Trump's trial"

Is it? Why? How? WHO is this good for, and who is it not good for?

My god, you have the focus of a flea. The fact that you are willing to ignore and dismiss the interests of roughly half of Americans was the reason why you Hitlery-ites lost the election, and demonstrates once again that you hate America, and furthermore, you hate an awful lot of Americans. So good on you, comrade-toll, for hating democracy!

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SECOND

Friday, November 11, 2016 11:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECONDHAND/SECONDRATE:

1) First of all, just because you didn't supply a link doesn't mean that your post is your own writing. I don't believe you wrote that. I doubt you can respond INTELLIGENTLY to any questions about that post because it is not a product of your own mind.

2) "It is in America's Interest to not delay Trump's trial"

Is it? Why? How? WHO is this good for, and who is it not good for?

My god, you have the focus of a flea. The fact that you are willing to ignore and dismiss the interests of roughly half of Americans was the reason why you Hiltery-ites lost the election, and demonstrates once again that you hate America, and furthermore, you hate an awful lot of Americans. So good in you, comrade-toll, for hating democracy!

It is in America's Interests (the title of Signym's thread) to know before Trump is inaugurated if he is a fraud or not. If he loses the case, he is a fraud. If he settles the case, he is afraid of being proven a fraud. If he delays the case, there will be a delay before America realizes Trump is a fraud. The only honorable action is for Trump to testify without delay and prove he is not a fraud. America needs to know who Trump is, as decided by a Court.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Friday, November 11, 2016 11:54 PM (P)

Quote:
It took all of 4 posts until trolled: = GSTRING

Oh, my!
You hate being trolled?
You can dish it out but ya can't take it?
Well, suck it up, ya crybaby!

This, from the guy whose thread wound up in troll country.

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:14 AM (P)

Quote:
It is in America's Interests (the title of Signym's thread) to know before Trump is inaugurated if he is a fraud or not.= SECONDHAND/SECONDRATE

So speaking of degenerate-America-hating trolls...

I think it''s in America's greater interests to have Hitlery and her sexual predator partner testify UNDER OATH about their email, Foundation, and pay-to-play dealings, don't you? I mean, what is of more importance? To know about Hitlery's backdoor dealings with her biggest supporter and fan club, Saudi Arabia, whose asshole we seem to have our State Dept/ CIA nose stuck in for the past 8 years??

Talk about being anti-American!

And you were her big supporter which- in my book- makes you anti-American too. My god, you just can't get over losing, can you? You're one of those "generation snowflake"-types who makes a career out of feigning victimization! Suck it up, you anti-American troll, you.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:25 AM (P)

Now at SOME point- after Monday, when I will be done dosing you all with your own medicine - you might want to talk about AMERICA'S interests. Not "women's" interests, not "the poor illegal immigrant's" interests, not "black lives matter" interests, not the interests of some godforsaken nation that most Americans can't find on a map, but the interest where we almost all intersect, the interests which draw us AMERICANS together, not the interests which pit us against each other. 'Cause that being-pitted-against-each-other thing? That's a fool's game.

So let me know if you're ready to stop being fools.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Ha! You think I care what you type or think or feel? You only make yourself look bad so bring it! The more the better. Let your full hate out!=GSTRING

Good lord, child, if you didn't care you wouldn't respond. You manage to be an asshole with every post: May I remind you that YOU looked SO BAD that it was YOUR thread that got banished to troll country??? And you don't even see it. You STILL can't figure out what you did wrong!

What an idiot.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SECOND

Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:44 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
It is in America's Interests (the title of Signym's thread) to know before Trump is inaugurated if he is a fraud or not.= SECONDHAND/SECONDRATE
So speaking of degenerate-America-hating trolls...

I think it''s in America's greater interests to have Hitlery and her sexual predator partner testify UNDER OATH about their email, Foundation, and pay-to-play dealings, don't you? I mean, what is of more importance? To know about Hitlery's backdoor dealings with her biggest supporter and fan club, Saudi Arabia, whose asshole we seem to have our State Dept/ CIA nose stuck in for the past 8 years??

Talk about being anti-American!

And you were her big supporter which- in my book- makes you anti-American too. My god, you just can't get over losing, can you? You're one of those "generation snowflake"-types who makes a career out of feigning victimization! Suck it up, you anti-American troll, you.

You weren't following the news, were you? Hillery did willingly testify to Congress. On the other hand, Trump has been delaying his fraud case for five years. Trump said he did not trust the Mexican judge to give him a fair trial in US District Court. The judge is NOT Mexican, despite what Trump said. Along with Mexicans, Trump possibly does not trust American Courts. If true, not very American of Trump, is it? Which America will be interested to know for sure about Trump, once he goes on trial for fraud.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:49 AM (P)

Quote:
Hitlery did willingly testify to Congress.- SECONDRATE

Like with a cloth???

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SECOND

Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:39 AM (P)

I have another American interest story for Sygnym. It certainly interests me:

It's not clear that the GOP leadership is on board with Trump, who could be impeached by a Republican Congress that would prefer a President Mike Pence — someone who establishment Republicans know and trust.

The man who predicted Trump would win, Allan Lichtman, said. “They don't want Trump as president, because they can't control him. He's unpredictable. They'd love to have Pence — an absolutely down the line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I'm quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook.”

Lichtman actually isn't the only person to predict a Trump impeachment; this morning, the New York Times's David Brooks suggested a Trump impeachment or resignation was “probably” in the cards sometime within the next year. "His main problem is going to be his own attention span, ignorance and incompetence. If he’s left to bloviate while others are left to run the country and push through infrastructure plans, maybe things won’t be disastrous."
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/opinion/the-view-from-trump-tower.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Saturday, November 12, 2016 2:18 AM (P)

second

Trump or Pence wouldn't matter if democrats had control of even ONE house in Congress. But your beloved 'democratic' party - whose asshole your mouth has been so firmly pressed against, eating up all the party shit and spewing it back out here - lost the entire congress during Obama's first term, and never got it back.

"Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress ... the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats ... Republicans held 41 seats."

You tell ME second -

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 2:46 AM (P)

Quote:
I have another American interest story for Sygnym. It certainly interests me:

It's not clear that the GOP leadership is on board with Trump, who could be impeached by a Republican Congress that would prefer a President Mike Pence — someone who establishment Republicans know and trust. - SECOND

If the Republican ESTABLISHMENT gets rid of Trump, then the Republican ESTABLISHMENT will get the same drubbing as the Democratic ESTABLISHMENT.

People need change that will improve their lives.

But you're such an American-hating droid that I doubt you will ever admit that the Dems screwed up their commitment to Americans.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SECOND

Saturday, November 12, 2016 4:03 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second . . . your beloved 'democratic' party - whose asshole your mouth has been so firmly pressed against, eating up all the party shit and spewing it back out here - lost . . . You tell ME second -

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

What you want to read is The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble by Matthew Yglesias. He is a Dem:
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party-s
moking-pile-rubble

The down-ballot party has withered, and Obama’s policy legacy will be largely repealed. That is a problem for the Democrats to solve.

What Democrats do about the mess is not my problem.

I live in Texas, which is controlled by Republicans. I am of the 1%, making the Republican Party my natural home. The GOP looks after my people – rich, white, powerful families who once were cotton planters and slave owners.

My ancestors got rid of the slaves, kept the plantation and bought more land west of San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Life has been good since natural gas and crude were discovered beneath our ground.

My Mother’s “broken down aristocracy” (Father's joke) became wealthy. Not broke now! God blessed my people with unearned royalties. My Father says there is nothing shameful about owning land and being rich. Ask Trump how that works.

Once Trump is President, I look forward to my very large tax cut. I did not vote for him but I will feel no shame taking his money.

Thank you Republican voters! I love you poorly educated little people with pinched lives limited by lack of opportunity. Keep voting GOP! I want more Trump money! I can’t say I feel sorry when the little people don’t receive the benefits that the GOP feels are my right and privilege. That money is for natural winners, not for you.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Saturday, November 12, 2016 6:44 AM (P)

No wonder your posts are so stupid. You don't understand the 99% people of any party so you couldn't effectively argue a side. And you certainly can't afford any real disruption in the system. Game changers like Bernie are far too threatening to your way of life so you dismissed him out of hand.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:52 AM (P)

None of whatever you said Sigs...

I'm kind of fucking awesoe part tine
'

if I gave a single fuck about fuck, i'd be pretty awesome.

i soulc toll you kile 18more way better shows, bit kBlack Mirror

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:56 AM (P)

america is fucked for sure

but they7 only now see the black moirror

fucking so any better better moments
but The Waldo Moment, right?

Thje fucking Walop Moent
Go eat and Waldotaqoei Diaoiset?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:02 AM (P)

END TIME is that we turened uyye itPlable wanabe

Are you not?

to

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:04 AM (P)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Saturday, November 12, 2016 10:44 AM (P)

Hey Jack

If you haven't already, how about you put down the bottle and go to bed, OK?

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SECOND

Saturday, November 12, 2016 3:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
No wonder your posts are so stupid. You don't understand the 99% people of any party so you couldn't effectively argue a side. And you certainly can't afford any real disruption in the system. Game changers like Bernie are far too threatening to your way of life so you dismissed him out of hand.

1kiki is not acknowledging that 99% of Republicans can't argue convincingly for Trump. But wasn't Trump also 1kiki's game changer? Trump would change the way the USA handles foreign policy and save the world from Hillary and WWIII.

And Bernie would change the game in domestic policy, according to 1kiki.

Small footnote: 1kiki might not have noticed, but Bernie lost the Democratic primary by 4 million votes. Hillary is ahead of Trump by a million votes. The crooked electoral college will take away Hillary's victory. I think the college would do the same to Bernie. Never forget, Bernie lost the primary by 4 million votes, Hillary won the general election by a million.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Saturday, November 12, 2016 3:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hey Jack

If you haven't already, how about you put down the bottle and go to bed, OK?

The Big Banks are celebrating. Why shouldn't Jack get as drunk as the bankers?

It is in America’s Interest that large banks make large profits! Thank you Trump! I will have another drink.

The eight riskiest financial firms saw their market value up $53 billion the first day after Trump's surprise win. Thank you Trump!

http://rooseveltforward.org/trumps-election-immediately-gave-50-billio
n-dollars-wall-street/

New hopes of bank deregulation, and fat profits for Big Pharma, the stock market hit record highs:

The moves partly reflected expectations that a Trump administration would push to scale back financial regulation and increase government spending in a bid to boost economic growth....Thursday’s gains came as the president-elect’s transition team promised to dismantle the Dodd-Frank law, regulation that came out of the financial crisis....Pharmaceutical companies also jumped, with some analysts and investors saying drug-pricing restrictions would have been more likely under Democrat Hillary Clinton. Health-care companies had sold off sharply heading into the election.

www.wsj.com/articles/markets-rise-as-investors-begin-buying-in-to-trum
p-1478766871

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 3:46 PM (P)

Quote:
second . . . your beloved 'democratic' party - whose asshole your mouth has been so firmly pressed against, eating up all the party shit and spewing it back out here - lost . . . You tell ME second - How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly? - KIKI

What you want to read is The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble by Matthew Yglesias. He is a Dem:
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party-s
moking-pile-rubble= SECOND

What a stupid article! Does the author think this is some "hard hitting" opinion-piece??

It ignores VAST problems with Democratic party and Democratic policy in favor of some kinder, gentler ... inaccurate ... version of the party's fundamental problems.

To spare you all the tedium of reading the article, is does describe how Democrats have lost the "downballot" vote, depending on Presidential politics "to bequeath a legacy" but allowing everything from Congress to city councils to slip away.

Now, to some extent I agree that the most consequential positions are at the Federal level. Towns, cities, and states can only do a few things: They can fight amongst themselves over the number of available manufacturing jobs by offering even better tax deals than the next city/state over, BUT THEY CAN'T INCREASE THE OVERALL NUMBER OF JOBS. They can decide where they are going to spend their revenues and even borrow money but - in the end- they have to manage their budgets just like any household because - unlike banks or the Federal government, THEY CAN'T PRINT MONEY.

o, given the straightjacket that the smaller political units find themselves in, what is the "Obama legacy"? (And, one should add, the "Clinton legacy" before that?)

The author, Matthew Yglesias lists...
1) "sheltering unauthorized residents" (i.e. illegal immigrants)
2) climate change, and
3) Obamacare
... as Obama's signal accomplishments, his "legacy".

The author NEGLECTS to mention the following further "accomplishments"...
4) endless wars,
5) vast giveaway to financial institutions,
6) promotion of even more "free trade" agreements,
7) systemic party corruption,
8) financial policies designed to promote the top 0.01%, and
9) continued splitting and pandering to various ""victim" interest groups at the expense of an American identity
... as possible reasons for the DNC's poor showing.

Quote:
More broadly, the Obama-Clinton style of liberal incrementalism promised that while it wouldn’t deliver utopia, it would deliver wins and concrete results. And for a while, it did.

IT DIDN'T. You can quote chapter and verse about unemployment and per-capita gains, but the REALITY is that the Obama administration catered to the very wealthy, and gave everyone else cheap part-time service jobs. All of that talk about recovery was just that: TALK. People experiencing the reality of part-time existence on part-time wages remained unconvinced. As they should.

Quote:
To make its comeback, what’s left of the Democratic Party establishment — not just its elected officials but the leaders of its aligned institutions and its major donors — need to recognize that a strategy [aiming at the Presidency] they believed was working as recently as Tuesday afternoon has in fact failed quite badly.

As long as the DNC believes this is a "STRATEGIC" problem and not a problem of GOALS they will continue to fail spectacularly. The author's pandering to the DNC is doing them no favors: They need to be bitch-slapped by reality, and most of them need to step down and be replaced by those who have a real fervor for America.

But this isn't a Dem v GOP issue, because the Repub party faces the same problem: It's leadership is tied to the wealthy just as much as the Dems, and if the GOP- with Trump as its new mascot- fails to bring meaningful impr

SECOND

Saturday, November 12, 2016 3:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

But this isn't a Dem v GOP issue, because the Repub party faces the same problem: It's leadership is tied to the wealthy just as much as the Dems, and if the GOP- with Trump as its new mascot- fails to bring meaningful improvement to people's lives, all hell will break loose - again.

Trump has already failed you, Sygnym. All hell should break loose today. It is in America’s Interest that it knows what Trump has planned for Americans.

Though it was obscured from the voters during the campaign, Trump has a very clear stated agenda on finance, and it’s a bonanza of tax cuts and massive deregulation.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13573294/donald-trump-financ
ial-regulation

Similarly, Trump’s plan for economically struggling whites is to drastically reduce their income by signing Paul Ryan’s plan to roll back the social welfare state.
/ www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13572172/donald-trump-white-
working-class

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 4:03 PM (P)

AND NOW ... to America's interests.

Definitionally, I argue that "America's interests" are Americans' interests.

Not the interests of the vanishingly tiny but extremely powerful elite, and not the interest of some nation far-away, or of non-citizens within our borders, but the collective interests of the overwhelming majority of American citizens.

Now, we can look at this from the microscopic scale:

1) By looking at the interests of the various interest-groups that we have been so unfortunately divided into and seeing where they overlap and generalizing outward from there,

2) Or we can look at this from a theoretical viewpoint and narrow down to specifics.

I THINK THE FIRST APPROACH IS UNLIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL BY ITSELF. For example, if we start out with the idea that Black Lives Matter, and Women's Pay Matters, and Gay Marriage Matters, what we will wind up is with the truism that ... well, gosh, we should all be treated fairly and equally. Who could argue with that??? But we will STILL be fighting over the scarce resource of "jobs" (albeit more fairly!) and never get to the realization that maybe what we ALL need are better-paying, consequential jobs.

So I'm going to approach this from a theoretical POV, and start with WHAT DO HUMANS NEED? and work my way from there.

I hope you come along for the discussion, I've ended my trolling (which is really boring). Unless YOU start trolling again, in which case this will be a good discussion, spoiled.

And I'm going to ignore SIX's drunken posts, and I hope you do too. Because SIX is an intelligent guy when he isn't drunk, but that only seemed to have lasted for two days.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 12, 2016 4:06 PM (P)

No joke..

I'm going to masturbate to Fantasies of Britney Spears when She was 20 years old and Perfect.

Not because She was young and stupid back then, but because She was Young and Perfeckt back then and I would have done anything She asked. She should have been the first Madame President, no joke.

Men are particularly easy to manipulate. Especially White Males.

Every Woman in the RWED seems to want to deny that fact and/or work entirely against it, for better or for worse.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 4:15 PM (P)

SECOND - Firstly, Trump's policies are something we should hear from the Trump administration, not something we should hear from a hostile source.

Secondly, I intend to take the discussion in a very different direction. While Trump's policies deserve discussion, I'm going to look at this from a NONPARTISAN POV.

Feel free to bitch and kvetch about Trump all you want - I'm sure there will be PLENTY to bitch about* - but not in this thread. You can start an infinite number of OTHER threads for your purpose of bagging on Trump, 'mkay?

*I'm going to judge Trump's performance on the three things, and ONLY the three things, that I voted for:

1) Ending our pointless wars and making nice with Russia and everybody else. That means reining in the CIA and the State Dept and their endless "interventionism" abroad. And good luck with THAT, Donald!

2) Backing out of the "free trade" agreements that we seem to have negotiated in favor of the transnationals. The only trade agreement that I might be willing to let stand is the WTO ... and maybe not even that.

3) Getting rid of illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants.

I don't expect Trump to make a lick of sense on climate change, I doubt VERY much that he will be able to materially increase manufacturing in the USA because his policy is incomplete, and healthcare is going to be a nightmare.

But this whole discussion belongs elsewhere.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 4:17 PM (P)

WHAT ARE PEOPLE'S NEEDS?

Well, Americans are people, are they not? The best description of "people's needs" comes from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, described as follows:

I think this is pretty complete, but if you can think of anything else, let me know.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 4:34 PM (P)

Quote:
*raises hand* When can I disagree?- G

With what? If it's about Trump, take your post anywhere else. HERE http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60997 for example.

If it's respectful and on-topic, any time.

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 5:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Define "respectful." heh

Why? You seem to have a pretty good knowledge of what that means.

Quote:
You can't put everyone in the same static, hierarchical triangle. FAIL. That's what both parties did. FAIL. That is to me the lazy man's way to try and achieve Understanding.

Well, I agree. People will trade "belonging" for "safety", as when they go to war and risk (and lose) their lives in order to "belong". Even Maslow agreed: his opinion was that all of these are active at any one time. Although I guess it's a truism that if one ceases to exist (physiological) then all of those other needs disappear too; so meeting physiological needs is foundational for all others.

In studying apes there does seem to be a need for "fair". That is missing from Maslow's (not exactly) hierarchy of needs.

Also, people do seem to prefer stimulation, especially if it doesn't involve a lot of actual- yanno- physical effort. We get bored I guess, and that is relieved by storytelling, music, etc. Maybe we really crave learning: that "spark" creates a dopamine rush.

I'm not sure if or how this might fit in, but people need to have some sort of control over their lives. If you put a rat in a cage and shock it painfully at random times in a way that it can't escape, predict, or control, it cowers in a corner and loses its fur and condition. I can't believe that people are any different. "Teaching" and "religion" give us the impression of control, whether we have it or not. Maybe that belongs under "safety" in that we need to ensure our FUTURE safety as well as our present safety.

The thing that Maslow purposefully left out was the motivations of deviants ... sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. Although I don't think that a society SHOULD try to meet the needs of the few at the expense of the many, it certainly needs to recognize that they exist. Although The Death of Doctor Island by Gene Wolfe says otherwise.

---------------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 12, 2016 5:43 PM (P)

Strange Situations make Strange Bedfellows...

It's Strange for me to NOT be with you Sigs.

IMO you have become Insane, and Self Serving.

I'd love to help you, but I really don't care about anybody here that much and never did.

It's just hard to sit back and watch one of the Good Ones become a mindless Ideologue.

Please know that you are now everything I always hated from either side, and God or the Spagetti Monster help us that Trump isn't one of You.

I TRULY hope you come back Sigs

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 12, 2016 5:46 PM (P)

AND THE SAME GOES FOR ANYONE WHO KICKS SIGS WHILE SHE'S DOWN.

ANYONE who is hostile to Sigs in this post I will consider a Hostile to Me as well.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 12, 2016 6:22 PM (P)

OK, other things not covered by Maslow's needs: Maslow focused on the individual. But the individual can do quite well and even "self actualize" (not sure what that is but ... ok) BUT

The human species would still die out if people didn't reproduce

And the society which sustains these individuals would fail if its mores and memes couldn't be passed down.

So Maslow is limited by the assumption that he is only focusing on the individual. That's as many additions and modifications that I can make to Maslow's theory for now.

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THX

Sunday, November 13, 2016 7:52 AM (P)

Should be to increase of wealth and quality of life of Americans regardless of the effects on the rest of the world. Every nation in the world has the same goal for themselves. If the government is NOT serving these goals (such as supporting immigration, foreign wars of aggression, etc...) then it is a clear indication of corruption.

1KIKI

Sunday, November 13, 2016 8:16 AM (P)

Quote:
1kiki is not acknowledging that 99% of Republicans can't argue convincingly for Trump.

Another post and another (inevitable) strawman from second.

Quote:
But wasn't Trump also 1kiki's game changer? Trump would change the way the USA handles foreign policy and save the world from Hillary and WWIII.

Has he failed even before taking office? I'd sure like a cite on that.

Quote:
And Bernie would change the game in domestic policy, according to 1kiki.

Got a quote on that? I'm pretty sure I never posted that. Or are you still making shit up, as usual?

Quote:
Small footnote: 1kiki might not have noticed, but Bernie lost the Democratic primary by 4 million votes. Hillary is ahead of Trump by a million votes.

You think democrats voting in the democratic primary = all voters voting in the general election. And because d primary voters = all general election voters, d primary results MUST = general election results. Let me inform you now, that's not true. There's a reason why we don't just have d primaries to pick the next president.

Quote:
The crooked electoral college will take away Hillary's victory. I think the college would do the same to Bernie. Never forget, Bernie lost the primary by 4 million votes, Hillary won the general election by a million.

Annnd ... here's second, barreling forward along the same dead-end - quoted to preserve it for posterity.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Sunday, November 13, 2016 8:43 AM (P)

We need to be in a survivable physiological state. So meeting physiological needs is the base of everything that comes after. We need (in order of how quickly we'll die), air, protection from extreme temperatures, water and food. And we also need an intact corpus - no bullet holes, battered brains or bodies, large cuts, etc. But I think we need more. Infants and young children need comfort and stimulation - without it they grow up as stunted, non-functional adults. Everyone needs a normal set of sensory experiences and physical activities, otherwise brains don't wire-up properly. We need to learn a language before adolescence, or it can't be learned at all. So I would put care, sensory stimulation, activity and language at the bottom of the hierarchy as well, since we need to have them to survive to adulthood and be functional in our physical and social world. I think without them, we wouldn't survive.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Sunday, November 13, 2016 9:40 AM (P)

I have a problem with safety/ love/ belonging.

First of all, to survive as a species, all we need to do is keep one replacement child per adult alive long enough to have a replacement child of its own. The requirements to do that are pretty minimal, and I don't think they even necessarily have to be friendly, enjoyable, or even occasionally comfortable - just survivable.

When you look at societies today that aren't part of a cash society, they exist in every kind of environment. And their environment is unrelated to their social/ material culture, from scattered small family groups to large cohesive villages. And neither of those are related to how they see themselves, strangers, or their place in the world - and therefor, what they expect from each other, and how they treat each other.

So I'm going to provisionally place (safety/ love/ belonging) aside as a hierarchy of needs and put them provisionally into a hierarchy of expectations as experienced by a male of a particular culture, time, and place.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:27 AM (P)

One thing that all adults have in common, is that they have their origins in an intact society that provided for their survival and development, from infancy into a functional adult that could have and care for offspring of its own.

So in the hierarchy of needs I would add - a functioning adult society and a place in it for offspring.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 13, 2016 4:53 PM (P)

Yes.

But I guess first of all, we have to recognize that there is an entity called "society" which

has a lifespan of its own
longer than the lifespan of its individual members
and that the "people" within it are like cells in the body, and have just as much chance of detecting the larger organism and understanding its behavior as the individual cells of a liver have of understanding the entire organism

Society and "people" are co-dependent, but not the same. And the behavior of "society" is not just the AVERAGE of the individuals within it, just as the behavior of a body is not just the average of the individual cells within it.

A body has ...
energy flows
division of labor
an inherited consensus among the cells as to "who does what" (very much unlike our view of individualism) ... which is information passed from generation to generation

The various labors include
defenders of the organization which attack both internal (cancer) and external (infection) threats
food energy processors and distributors
reproducers, not only of the organisms various class of cells (differentiated stem cells) but also colonizers ("babies") which carry the organism into different (elsewhere or future) environments

Now, occasionally, the body jumps off a cliff and takes all the individual cells with it (like the ecocide of Easter Island)

But to nail the analogy down, there are MANY self-created environments (societies, bodies) which can reproduce in some fashion. HOWEVER, they are not always suited for survival: Just as people engage in unhealthy behavior, so do societies not always tend to the survival of their individual members (cells) leading to their own destruction.

Okay, I know this is stretching an analogy but bear with me:

The most frequent occurrence of societal failure, as least as recorded in history, is the failure of the society to attend to the well-being of its critical but various individual members: the elite fail to attend to the wellbeing of farmers, manufacturers, and merchants and instead direct all energy to its elite members who are not only incapable of surviving on their own but who do not contribute to the rest of the body.

Think cancer.

But "cancer" isn't the ONLY demise of a body, it can become overwhelmed with infection, fail to colonize, starve, commit suicide, fail to adapt to new circumstances, and fail to reproduce its cells accurately ("age"). (Just trying to see what I can learn from this analogy...) ALSO, there are a multitude of conditions under which "the body" survives and endures: just because "the body" is alive doesn't mean that it is functioning optimally and that all cells are getting what they need, just that it means that it can continue for the time being.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

1KIKI

Monday, November 14, 2016 12:15 AM (P)

I'll think about the analogy later ...

... but to continue the thought that society isn't just the aggregate behavior of (free-living, independent) individuals ...
I think that's congruent with the observation that the form of society and its precepts are completely independent from the circumstances of the natural world around it. ie jungle-dwelling hunter-gatherers don't always live in small, peaceful, mobile, isolated family groups; or in large, warring, stationary, organized villages. They can be one, or the other, or any combination in between. So how people organize, and what they tell themselves about why they do things the way they do them, is stochastic (happens by random chance) and self-reinforced. And the only thing a society needs to be is survivable over some generations. And that considering how lax the short-term requirements are, almost any kind of society can exist for a while.

Also, that generally, in the absence of foresight, societies inhabit their environment like other animals, increasing numbers until at some point they exceed the resources available. At which time a certain portion will be at risk of death. IN GENERAL societies - like other animals - don't 'think' long-term, and so they face an inevitable choice - adapt, or die. And since, over the long term, very few societies show adaptability, or hindsight, (Guns, Germs and Steel; Collapse) nearly all societies face inevitable collapse.

If I were to say anything about human needs, it's that they can only be met by cooperation.

(If I were to say something about human nature, it's that we tell ourselves stories so as to be able to exist in cohesive groups. And that we frame our thinking as a problem of the 'other' that we need to defeat, and our stories around 'beings' - spirits for example. And due to that, our ability to solve our problems by identifying and fixing impersonal problems of how we organize ourselves in our environment is limited.

Then there's the mystery of the 'demographic transition'. perhaps its due to an evolutionary history where the need to acquire more resources is geared to inter-tribal competition, where those with the stronger tribe win. So birth rate goes UP with declining resources, and DOWN with increasing resources. Also, the tendency to form hierarchies with an increase of resources - may be a byproduct of the potential for positive feedback in that situation. In any case, humans do respond to hierarchies, living in them as if they were a part of the natural environment. And societies, geared to maintaining a set of rules generation to generation, would naturally transmit those hierarchies however stochastically formed, and whether or not those hierarchies are survivable long-term.)

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Monday, November 14, 2016 3:00 AM (P)

First, what "weird indents"?

I was doing 'carriage return" to make a non-enumerated list. Is that weird? Or are you just clueless?

Secondly, if "America's" interests are American's interests, and Americans are people, then I'm just trying to expand the scope as large as possible ... What are people's interests? just for the sake of completeness. It's called "brainstorming" ... yanno, just tossing ideas out there, and hoping that some ideas spark more ideas from others.

Feel free to add your own.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

SIGNYM

Monday, November 14, 2016 4:01 PM (P)

Well, except for calling my thoughts on the topic a "deflection" ... which is what G ALWAYS calls my posts, no matter what I say .... it appears that G doesn't have any thoughts on THIS topic, either!

G: You're STILL following me from thread to thread in "attack" mode! Here I am, noodling about a fairly important topic, and looking at it from the broadest possible scope, and you have nothing ON TOPIC to say???

It seems YOUR posts are a "deflection"!

-----

The idea of framing "society" as an organism isn't new, but what IS new is the detail of our understanding of how "organisms" survive and colonize. so I'm gping to have to think how far the analogy goes, and where it breaks down- WITHOUT G'S HELP - since G never has anything germane to say on topic.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

1KIKI

Monday, November 14, 2016 10:39 PM (P)

As for 'g' - I hear his nasal online voice in my head saying: 'but thinking is harrrrrrrrrrd ... it's too haaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrd ... and trolling is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun ... '

When I think of organisms, I think about very specific things. An enzyme. A mitochondrion. Lungs. And so on. Nothing useful to your train of thought. You'll have to go on ahead without me, old paint.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Monday, November 21, 2016 7:05 AM (P)

Century of Self gave me more insights into this thread.

Implicit in that documentary is the concept that there is something called "society" which (in this case) is ruled by an elite.

I accept that "society" exists. That it is a real entity with its own sources of energy, it's own lifespan, it's own requirements for survival.

There are also individuals within those societies which have their own necessities for survival.

Societies can't exist without the individuals within it, and humans (specifically) can't survive without "society", even if that society is comprised of just a few individuals. That is necessitated by the fact that human babies are incredibly helpless and require MORE THAN ONE ADULT to survive.

--------

Having gotten that far, there are many (what I would consider to be) entirely dysfunctional societies which manage to survive and even (in some senses) thrive:

The Taliban, for example, consigns its female members to a degraded life of poverty and constraint, but since women have NO role except to have children, and no choice in the children that they have, they will. Unless the food, health, or security circumstances are so dire that women and children are dying in droves, the Taliban society could expand it's population quite quickly. And that's a successful society, isn't it? Able to reproduce its members and its memes at furious rate?

The circumstances that people live in ... the foods they eat, the technology that they use, the control that they individually have over their lives and the height of their hierarchy, the way they treat each other and "foreigners", the way they treat their environment, what they think is "real" and "not real"... are to a great extent set by their society (interacting, of course, with the environment).

And "people" can live in an extremely wide set of circumstances that are set for them by society. There have been societies that sacrificed thousands of people every year, societies where most of the people (including all of the women) were slaves, societies that ruthlessly and relentlessly killed others in its various colonizations .... there is no guarantee that just because a society survives and even "thrives" ... i.e. brings more and more people under its control and expands its physical reach .... doesn't mean that it's a "good" society or one that WE would like to live in, just that it continues to reproduce its physical members and continue its memes.

Counterpose what "society" needs to what humans need (and desire). Humans need sufficient shelter, water, food, and sleep for reproduction. Imagine lab rats in a not-so-nice ongoing laboratory environment.

But our evolution drives us in certain directions. Evolution has guided us to the highest-calorie foods, the most labor-saving methods, and a fairly robust sex drive, especially among males. (Also, among males, a tendency towards intraspecies competition - from "showing off" to outright fights.) That is, more food, more sex, and more fun with less work.

Evolution has also built in a need to have some control over our environment (remember the electric-shocked rats) which involves at its most fundamental level the ability to observe, connect an event with reward (or punishment) which prompts an activity (repetition or avoidance), remember the results, abstracts the situation and predict probable outcomes the next time.

And since we are (mostly) SOCIAL animals, evolution has also built in (for most of us) a desire to interact with others, and especially the need to feel accepted by a group - and therefore safe.

So although a society can thrive by exploiting its members terribly, we would probably want a society which meets our evolutionary drives as well as our physical needs. That doesn't mean endlessly "pander" to our desires ... do we really want to be diapered and fed by mach

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 5, 2017 3:25 PM (P)

bump

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 5, 2017 5:19 PM (P)

So, what are AMERICA'S interests??

Well, there are both individual and societal interests (as described) and although they depend on each other, they aren't the same.

Tackling societal interests first:

energy: wind, solar, carbon, hydro, animal, human etc
materiel: food, water, metals, cements and clays, fibers, etc
environmental sustainability: resources for the foreseeable future
robustness: the ability to withstand or recover from disruption
transportation
reproduction of its memes (because that is what society is: ideas of how we're supposed to live together)
self-defense against internal and external threat
and something we have yet to achieve: SOCIAL SELF AWARENESS. The ability to modify our society as necessary to get it back to the "right track"

Personally, I believe that society's purpose is to meet OUR needs, not to achieve some "higher goal" like "serving god" or "being s steward of god's creation" or "conquering the universe" or even "learning the universe" (Although that seems like a benign and possibly even useful goal). Religiously-based societies will, of course, disagree with me. But OUR needs, aside from physical requirements are

belonging to a society which doesn't stress us including (for most people)...
close personal acceptance
learning and mental stimulation
at least SOME control over our environment and future
a feeling of fairness and sharing
physical labor and manual activities
some feel the need for a "larger purpose" in life

As I mentioned, there is a fairly large parameter-space in which "societies" can exist and even thrive.

Here is where I think American's interests lie, and where they aren't being met:

We potentially have enough of all of the resources required - except energy and some transition or specialty metals - to meet most of our needs and many of our wants. With proper utilization of resources, we should be able to trade in a balanced fashion for anything that we don't have.

However, we live in a sick society: the resources, control, work, and rewards are distributed unfairly and unevenly. Worse, we live in a society where we are encouraged to consume individually and compete universally, rejecting the idea that "society" even exists or needs tending, leading to a failure of communities, extended families, and nuclear families, a universal feeling of never "belonging" (progressive atomization) and an inability to evaluate how our "society" is functioning and redirect its organization, if necessary. "They" say that you can only lengthen your life by (1) giving up smoking or (2) reducing stress. Just look at the number of stressed-out people on our society: I think it's fair to say that our dysfunctional approach is, literally, killing us.

We've lost the "meme" that would make us prosper: hard work for fair compensation. It's been hijacked by oligarchs and globalists who have not only convinced us that there is no society and that work is stupid, but that "greed is good". In this way, they can continue their parasitism without fear of reaction.

We're highly dependent on distribution technology: Any prolonged and widespread interruption of water, food, power and communication distribution, and trash and sewage removal due to solar flare, hurricane, earthquake etc. in a large city would lead to catastrophic failure.

We're too dependent on labor-saving and interaction-saving technology to the extent that we're UNHEALTHY.

Furthermore, our energy use and (in the west) water use is unsustainable. In fact, we're chewing up our natural environment ... reducing the variety of species and numbers of wild plants and animals to the extent that our ecosystems are becoming fragile and less productive.

Our infrastructure is crumbling ... has been, for decades.

We aren't well set up to resist cyber-attack. "The inter

THGRRI

Sunday, March 5, 2017 7:37 PM (P)

Originally posted by G:

You have to be getting paid by the post because we're 50 posts in and you haven't said anything of value. The most telling assertion: "bear with me."

And what's with the weird indents? It's like you have copied someone else's writing and reposted it without realizing there's no floating return.

I await your deflection.

---------------------

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, March 5, 2017 7:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Originally posted by G:

You have to be getting paid by the post because we're 50 posts in and you haven't said anything of value. The most telling assertion: "bear with me."

And what's with the weird indents? It's like you have copied someone else's writing and reposted it without realizing there's no floating return.

I await your deflection.

Thgr, he's got a point. Lately your indents have been all screwed up. we can't tell what is you and what is G. you gotta have the same number of |quote|s as |/quote|s (i can't do the brackets obviously or you wouldn't see them)

SIGNYM

Monday, March 6, 2017 9:08 AM (P)

Quote:
Thgr, he's got a point. Lately your indents have been all screwed up.

They display fine here.

Quote:
we can't tell what is you and what is G.

It's easy: all of the white letters are mine. All of the blue letters are quoted from someone else; the usual "quote" format. As you can see, I haven't really quoted ANYBODY... most of the posts are all mine

Quote:
you gotta have the same number of |quote|s as |/quote|s (i can't do the brackets obviously or you wouldn't see them)

I do. Tell me where the formatting looks screwed up; there may be some weird interaction between my OS and this website.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

1KIKI

Monday, March 6, 2017 10:05 AM (P)

Going back to the title of the thread - What are America's interests? - I'd say it depends on what you think is 'America'. Assuming 'America' is a political collection of people, with a political system that's supposed to be "of, by, and for the people", then 'America's' interests are the people's interests as a whole.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Monday, March 6, 2017 10:09 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Originally posted by G:

You have to be getting paid by the post because we're 50 posts in and you haven't said anything of value. The most telling assertion: "bear with me."

And what's with the weird indents? It's like you have copied someone else's writing and reposted it without realizing there's no floating return.

I await your deflection.

Thgr, he's got a point. Lately your indents have been all screwed up. we can't tell what is you and what is G. you gotta have the same number of |quote|s as |/quote|s (i can't do the brackets obviously or you wouldn't see them)

The whole quote is G responding to SIG. I just reposted it. So you suggesting G has a point about my indents, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), implying you noticed the same thing is, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), well funny.

Any suggestions, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), on how I can fix that.

You said you wanted to start anew with me. Then stop being disingenuous and try being more candid and sincere.

---------------------

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 6, 2017 10:28 AM (P)

America is currently built on control of the oil market in dollars, to back the fiat currency it issues and uses to run everything badly.

A new america might believe in ingenuity and develop something new.

America as a piece of land wants rid of these humans.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 6, 2017 10:31 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

oic. i thought he was responding to you. Your quotes were effed on the last 50 or so posts. they all got mashed together. maybe formatting in your sig?

1KIKI

Monday, March 6, 2017 10:49 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The whole quote is G responding to SIG. I just reposted it. So you suggesting G has a point about my indents, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), implying you noticed the same thing is, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), well funny.

Any suggestions, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), on how I can fix that.

You said you wanted to start anew with me. Then stop being disingenuous and try being more candid and sincere.

Oops - your stupidity is slipping.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Monday, March 6, 2017 10:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

oic. i thought he was responding to you. Your quotes were effed on the last 50 or so posts. they all got mashed together. maybe formatting in your sig?

Bullshit

---------------------

1KIKI

Monday, March 6, 2017 11:03 AM (P)

Going back to the title of the thread - and hopefully something actually on topic and not part of THUGGER's attempt to start a flame war - What are America's interests? - I'd say it depends on what you think is 'America'. Assuming 'America' is a political collection of people, with a political system that's supposed to be "of, by, and for the people", then 'America's' interests are the people's interests as a whole.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 6, 2017 7:01 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The whole quote is G responding to SIG. I just reposted it. So you suggesting G has a point about my indents, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), implying you noticed the same thing is, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), well funny.

Any suggestions, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), on how I can fix that.

You said you wanted to start anew with me. Then stop being disingenuous and try being more candid and sincere.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

oic. i thought he was responding to you. Your quotes were effed on the last 50 or so posts. they all got mashed together. maybe formatting in your sig?

Bullshit

---------------------

Meh. If you're going to make the same comments, the same attitude, and same dumb mistake and then swear at me for trying to help you correct a formatting problem in your posts, i'm just going to let that sleeping dog lie.

Yeah, I know you'll flame this post, but you'd do the same if I said "That was brilliant THGRRI!" so what does it matter?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 6, 2017 7:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

That's why I haven't posted much on this topic - it seems pretty obvious what our interests are. We don't need 10,000 words on the subject.

- Honest wage for an honest day's work.
- a safe and healthy food supply within the financial means of every citizen
- well regulated banks and financial institutions who without regulations could bring down the economy.
- safety from local and international threats.

As a people?
We disagree, hence the arguing. Imho, the constitution is quite clear.
- safety from international threats.
- protection of 10 base rights.
- sovereignty of states.
- ability to move freely between states
that's where it ends
according to the constitution is all.

passed that? I think trump is dangerously fast and loose with deregulation, but i also think that in general regulation props up rather than restrains, industry
what the state of ny or ca wants is a different matter.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 6, 2017 10:25 PM (P)

A concatentation of ideas on the topic:

Quote:
- Honest wage for an honest day's work.
- a safe and healthy food supply within the financial means of every citizen
- well regulated banks and financial institutions who without regulations could bring down the economy.
- safety from local and international threats.

- safety from international threats.
- protection of 10 base rights.
- sovereignty of states.
- ability to move freely between states
that's where it ends
according to the constitution is all.

What about a clean environment? Other amendments to the Constitution? Equality of sexes before the law? (which some say isn't addressed by the Bill of Rights)

It seems to me that there is some confusion between the "interests of Americans" and the Federal government's role in accomplishing those interests. A distinction between "what" and "how" isn't being made. For example, it is in the interests of Swiss goat- and cow-herders to share mountain pastures (a commons). They COULD appeal to their national government to intervene, but choose to utilize a local cooperative structure instead. Just because there isn't a goat- and cow-herder's Constitutional clause doesn't eliminate pasturage as an interest.

Think broad-scope. Once goals are defined, mechanisms can be addressed.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

THGRRI

Monday, March 6, 2017 11:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The whole quote is G responding to SIG. I just reposted it. So you suggesting G has a point about my indents, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), implying you noticed the same thing is, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), well funny.

Any suggestions, ( sorry, I'm laughing to hard ), on how I can fix that.

You said you wanted to start anew with me. Then stop being disingenuous and try being more candid and sincere.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

oic. i thought he was responding to you. Your quotes were effed on the last 50 or so posts. they all got mashed together. maybe formatting in your sig?

Bullshit

---------------------

Meh. If you're going to make the same comments, the same attitude, and same dumb mistake and then swear at me for trying to help you correct a formatting problem in your posts, i'm just going to let that sleeping dog lie.

Yeah, I know you'll flame this post, but you'd do the same if I said "That was brilliant THGRRI!" so what does it matter?

You claimed that 50 or more of my posts were effed ( Fucked up ),confusing. Therefore, don't make sense to you. Now you suggest it's a formatting error on my part. You cleaned it up but the assertion stands. You are essentially claiming my posts are confusing. I haven't even posted fifty times since your return here. That further implies to you, none of my posts make sense. Bullshit is the best way to answer your declaration.

Let's get right down to it. Your passive aggressive style won't fly with many of us here.

I suggest you go back and reread your posts. When I tell you your thoughts are fragmented. That most of your posts containing more than a few sentences, are peppered with thoughts that make no sense, it is me passive aggressively saying, you aren't bright enough to hang here.

---------------------

1KIKI

Monday, March 6, 2017 11:49 PM (P)

Signy

There are a few problems with social goals expressed as national interests.

Ultimately, society is a way to continue human population into the future. But that requirement is met with very minimal technology, levels of cooperation, or indeed humanity. (If that wasn't true you wouldn't see such a wide variety of societies, because all societies would be forced into common forms by common external circumstances.)

So, since one doesn't need to strictly bow to necessity in all things (just 2 very important ones: 1 - the continuation of generations one to the next and 2 - the maintenance of an environment that will support humans indefinitely into the future), there's a lot that's a matter of preference when it comes to discussing America's interests.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Monday, March 6, 2017 11:51 PM (P)

it is me passive aggressively saying, you aren't bright enough to hang here said the troll.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:00 AM (P)

Thgr, No, I said your formatting was, not the concept of your posts. The quotes were not showing up with indents. Which is why I reacted to the comment about indents.

Sig,

Add your own. I like the environment, but the EPA is a bunch of oil lobbyists who love fracking and hazmats int the drinking water. I think the citizens need the property rights to shut down anything contaminating or lower the viability or value of their property, a right they had up until the 1880s.

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:56 PM (P)

So, is anyone ready to start discussing the goals we can all mostly agree on?

I realize that there will be a lot of disagreement on HOW to realize them, but can we at least see if we can head in the same direction? Or is everyone so consumed by partisanship and media shit-shows that this topic is going to be ignored ... again?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:03 PM (P)

I changed the title of the post to add the ideas posted in A thread for Democrats Only.

The reason why I added to THIS thread is because SECOND accused me of not proposing anything.

Clearly, I have spent many words on discussing America's interests, starting from the interests of individuals (Maslow's hierarchy of needs), societal interests (society as an organism*: To reproduce/expand individual membership and reproduce the language, memes, and technology which bind the members into a functional whole. *This incorporates the possibility of social evolution) and national interests (a nation being that which is governed by a written set of laws and policies).

Many of my thoughts revolved around economics: the exchange of labor (goods and services) between members.

The discussion in "A thread for Democrats only" veered heavily into economic theory, which I will try to reproduce here in some reasonable format.

******
KIKI

Unlike you, SECOND understands that wealth is nearly always acquired through an unearned, undeserved fluke of external circumstances - having wealthy parents for example, or owning land that turns out to have resources buried underground. America is not a meritocracy. That's a fact you need to grasp if you want to live in reality.

But SECOND'S imagination is limited by his fears of poverty; and your imagination is limited by your blind ideology. You both assume that to lift everyone up, the wealthy must be made POOR. Instead, they need to be made SUFFICIENT and SECURE, as does everyone else. And their living needs to come from their work - their productive input to society; and not from family, or from control over the levers of power.

*****

JO753
Good post.
I mostly agree. The only differens being that earning money by working iz a consept that's dayz are numbered.
Assuming the current mess eventually gets scrapped, I think the only peepl who will be paid in the future beyond the normal standard credit will be athletes and artists.

*****
JSF

WTF?

*****
1KIKI

Quote:
"Remove the resources and effectiveness of the most successful" (who you mistakenly assume are the 'most capable') and, as you imagine, replace them "with the average McDonald's or Walmart employee".

In other words, make the formerly rich into the poor. BTW, you aren't rich. The REALLY rich, the people Janet Yellen and Hillary Clinton care about, don't ever worry about it all being taken away or lost.

*****

JEWELSTAITEFAN
That was me pointing out the stupidity of second's concept. The "genius" was sarcasm.

*****

1KIKI
It's the assumptions you two make I have a problem with. Whether you agree it'll work or not, both you SECOND assume that to make poor people better off, rich people need to be made poor. You claim SECOND sees it as a viable solution while you think it'll fail. Neither of you seem to understand that there's a different way to get there, that doesn't involve anyone being poor.

*****

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:...Instead, they need to be made SUFFICIENT and SECURE, as does everyone else. And their living needs to come from their work - their productive input to society; and not from family, or from control over the levers of power.- KIKI

Good post.
I mostly agree. The only differens being that earning money by working iz a consept that's dayz are numbered.
Assuming the current mess eventually gets scrapped, I think the only peepl who will be paid in the future beyond the normal standard credit will be athletes and artists. - JO

Well that kind of sounds like communism to me.
I can't imagine we're going to be seeing an America where I'm getting paid to stock product overnight the same amount that a brain surgeon gets paid.
I do, however, believe that there could be a ton of benefits to a Basic Universal Income. That's $12,000 per year to everyone, regardless of race, sex, and class. Y

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:16 PM (P)

And so, here we are ...

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

SIGNYM

Friday, May 11, 2018 12:33 AM (P)

CC, I wanted to reply to the RELEVANT part of your post in the other thread:

Quote:
I also note for the record that Consumers are rarely, A) mentioned as being an involved party, or B) held responsible for their actions in the Kiki/Signym anti-corporate, anti-bank, anti-younameit fantasy world they talk about.- CC

The driver of ALL production is consumption, either present or future.
You want to save the whales (and other animals) restore wetlands, halt global warming? It's to ensure future renewables which are for consumption.
You want to invest in a new widget-making factory? For consumption.
You want to make the economic system more robust? Revitalize infrastructure? It's to stabilize FUTURE production against catastrophe, production which is for consumption.

Except for a small level of blue-sky research which may (or may not) have an impact on production and a few other categories of activities which I can't think of at the moment but are probably "out there", human labor is almost ALWAYS geared towards consumption of one sort or another. It goes without saying

What I'm trying to do is balance production with consumption which requires that the rewards of production flow to the producers, and to put consumption on a sustainable path that can continue for the foreseeable future AND be resistant to natural catastrophe or man made disruption (war, financial collapse). What this will mean is that MANY marginally employed/ unemployed will have meaningful jobs, that everybody will experience economic security, and that SOME people (the infinitesimally small elite) will experience a vast reduction in circumstance and power.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, May 11, 2018 1:08 AM (P)

Polishing a turd.
The best part of today's summary.

Now that Trump has given America free reign to pollute, has America been able to catch up to China, or is China still the World's Greatest Polluter?
Has the Middle East Region been able to maintain title of Worst Air Polluter?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 10, 2020 1:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CC, I wanted to reply to the RELEVANT part of your post in the other thread:

Quote:
I also note for the record that Consumers are rarely, A) mentioned as being an involved party, or B) held responsible for their actions in the Kiki/Signym anti-corporate, anti-bank, anti-younameit fantasy world they talk about.- CC

The driver of ALL production is consumption, either present or future.
You want to save the whales (and other animals) restore wetlands, halt global warming? It's to ensure future renewables which are for consumption.
You want to invest in a new widget-making factory? For consumption.
You want to make the economic system more robust? Revitalize infrastructure? It's to stabilize FUTURE production against catastrophe, production which is for consumption.

Except for a small level of blue-sky research which may (or may not) have an impact on production and a few other categories of activities which I can't think of at the moment but are probably "out there", human labor is almost ALWAYS geared towards consumption of one sort or another. It goes without saying

What I'm trying to do is balance production with consumption which requires that the rewards of production flow to the producers, and to put consumption on a sustainable path that can continue for the foreseeable future AND be resistant to natural catastrophe or man made disruption (war, financial collapse). What this will mean is that MANY marginally employed/ unemployed will have meaningful jobs, that everybody will experience economic security, and that SOME people (the infinitesimally small elite) will experience a vast reduction in circumstance and power.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

so, in the mode of "I told you so", ROBUST production without long, complicated and fragile supply chains, are in America's interests. COVID19 and our reliance on foreign manufacturing (Say, did you know that the USA does not make a speck of penicillin internally?) proves that.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:28 PM (P)

Carried over from http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63473&p=31#1100
234

Quote:
SIGNYM: But I think I've made that point plenty of times. It's like asking "What are America's (or Americans') interests?" Since nobody even recognizes the category of "America" and "American" as meaningful (except to whip up hysteria about some perceived enemy) and nobody recognizes kinship with other Americans, I guess America is truly dead. Anyway, back on-topic.

SECOND: If "America is truly dead", then it has always been dead. Before the Civil War, slaves were 30% of the population in some states, 40% in others. As high as 57% in South Carolina. Ask yourself why the government let this happen to those people. Once you have imagined why it happened, then you will understand why in today's America 30%, 40%, and even more Americans live in despair and why today's equivalent of the Underground Railroad is run by charity, not by government. (I will give you a hint if your imagination fails: it is not in the interests of most Americans that all Americans live a good life; the class which I call "most" will vote accordingly.)
https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htm

If comparing desperate Americans today with slaves seems too extreme, ask yourself why the Federal government let Reconstruction collapse after the Civil War. Still too extreme? Ask about the extreme hostility toward LBJ's War on Poverty. Still too extreme? Then ask why there is hostility to raising the Federal Minimum Wage and expanding Medicaid.
www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/poverty/lemunf1.htm

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:45 PM (P)

Quote:
SECOND: If "America is truly dead", then it has always been dead. Before the Civil War, slaves were 30% of the population in some states, 40% in others. As high as 57% in South Carolina. Ask yourself why the government let this happen to those people. Once you have imagined why it happened, then you will understand why in today's America 30%, 40%, and even more Americans live in despair and why today's equivalent of the Underground Railroad is run by charity, not by government. (I will give you a hint if your imagination fails: it is not in the interests of most Americans that all Americans live a good life; the class which I call "most" will vote accordingly.)
https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htm

If comparing desperate Americans today with slaves seems too extreme, ask yourself why the Federal government let Reconstruction collapse after the Civil War. Still too extreme? Ask about the extreme hostility toward LBJ's War on Poverty. Still too extreme? Then ask why there is hostility to raising the Federal Minimum Wage and expanding Medicaid.
www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/poverty/lemunf1.htm

It's because it's always proposed as a zero-sum system for the people who work for a living. Those people's benefits can only come at MY expense.

If you create a system where everybody who can and is willing to work has the ability to create a good life for themselves by working - and without invoking bias to give one group more-better than another group - then my benefit is my benefit, and your benefit is your benefit, and the one has nothing to do with the other.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:49 PM (P)

Carried over from http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63473&p=31#1100
234

Quote:
SIGNYM: But I think I've made that point plenty of times. It's like asking "What are America's (or Americans') interests?" Since nobody even recognizes the category of "America" and "American" as meaningful (except to whip up hysteria about some perceived enemy) and nobody recognizes kinship with other Americans, I guess America is truly dead. Anyway, back on-topic.

SECOND: If "America is truly dead", then it has always been dead. Before the Civil War, slaves were 30% of the population in some states, 40% in others. As high as 57% in South Carolina. Ask yourself why the government let this happen to those people. Once you have imagined why it happened, then you will understand why in today's America 30%, 40%, and even more Americans live in despair

There was one historic reason why slavery was allowed in the USA: the Founding Fathers simply could not get the slave-owning colonies to fight against the British unless wealthy slave-owners got to continue their way of life (profit).

That there was slavery in the USA isn't an indictment of all, or even most, Americans at the time. Many northerners were against slavery either actively (Abolitionists) or tacitly and, in the end, many northerners fought and died in the Civil War which freed the slaves.

When people bring up slavery as some sort of indictment of today's Americans, I just kind of chuckle. "My people" didn't come to the USA until 1920 (at the earliest), so what did they have to do with slavery? And if blacks deserve some sort of reparations for wrongs done generations ago and we were to do a deep dive into historical records and find the descendants of slave-owning families and assign blame ... what about the descendants of northerners whose sons died in the Civil War? Do they deserve brownie points by this same post-fact assignment of blame or reward?

Anyway, please come up with a more cogent and recent explanation than some generalized guilt-tripping about something that the people of today had no involvement with.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:37 PM (P)

In any case, I honsetly think Americans can agree on just about everything of importance: A safe place to sleep, nutritious food to eat and clean water to drink, a way to earn our place in society, support in illness and disability, environmental remediation, infrastrucural repair, and agency over our individual and collective futures.

The question isn't "what", but "how". HOW do we achieve a future that we probably mostly agree on? That seems to be the sticky wicket!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

1KIKI

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:35 PM (P)

I have a very general rejection of what I call religious hokum. It's when people use phrases like 'the market', or 'market forces' as if they were an answer.

If you can't tell me EXACTLY how it's supposed to work, step by step, in logical and concrete detail, where inevitable effect follows specific cause, then it's religious hokum.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In any case, I honsetly think Americans can agree on just about everything of importance: A safe place to sleep, nutritious food to eat and clean water to drink, a way to earn our place in society, support in illness and disability, environmental remediation, infrastrucural repair, and agency over our individual and collective futures.

The question isn't "what", but "how". HOW do we achieve a future that we probably mostly agree on? That seems to be the sticky wicket!

Unless you can somehow lobotomize every human being you're never going to get it.

Because we don't agree on it. Everybody has their own opinions, ideas, perceptions and motives. And most people aren't genuine about any of that, even with themselves.

Most people that don't have it want it, but when they got it they still wouldn't be satisfied and would always want more. Most people that have all of that don't really want everyone else to have that because it diminishes how "special" they are. They are just virtue signalling for clout or to ease their own guilt for having what others don't have. But they don't really want others to have it too.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 6:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Carried over from http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63473&p=31#1100
234

Quote:
SIGNYM: But I think I've made that point plenty of times. It's like asking "What are America's (or Americans') interests?" Since nobody even recognizes the category of "America" and "American" as meaningful (except to whip up hysteria about some perceived enemy) and nobody recognizes kinship with other Americans, I guess America is truly dead. Anyway, back on-topic.

SECOND: If "America is truly dead", then it has always been dead. Before the Civil War, slaves were 30% of the population in some states, 40% in others. As high as 57% in South Carolina. Ask yourself why the government let this happen to those people. Once you have imagined why it happened, then you will understand why in today's America 30%, 40%, and even more Americans live in despair

There was one historic reason why slavery was allowed in the USA: the Founding Fathers simply could not get the slave-owning colonies to fight against the British unless wealthy slave-owners got to continue their way of life (profit).

That there was slavery in the USA isn't an indictment of all, or even most, Americans at the time. Many northerners were against slavery either actively (Abolitionists) or tacitly and, in the end, many northerners fought and died in the Civil War which freed the slaves.

When people bring up slavery as some sort of indictment of today's Americans, I just kind of chuckle. "My people" didn't come to the USA until 1920 (at the earliest), so what did they have to do with slavery? And if blacks deserve some sort of reparations for wrongs done generations ago and we were to do a deep dive into historical records and find the descendants of slave-owning families and assign blame ... what about the descendants of northerners whose sons died in the Civil War? Do they deserve brownie points by this same post-fact assignment of blame or reward?

Anyway, please come up with a more cogent and recent explanation than some generalized guilt-tripping about something that the people of today had no involvement with.

I was trying to get you to think about why America, even to this day, treats the poorer half of its people like they are slaves, but you won't think about it, will you? Slaves in modern America don't get universal healthcare. Instead, their illnesses are treated like a charity or, maybe even a worse comparison, they are treated like sick pets at ASPCA. www.aspca.org

And slaves don't get paid well. Think why raising the Federal Minimum Wage to living wage is treated with so much hostility. www.aft.org/resolution/increase-federal-minimum-wage-living-wage

Quote:
There was one historic reason why slavery was allowed in the USA: the Founding Fathers simply could not get the slave-owning colonies to fight against the British unless wealthy slave-owners got to continue their way of life (profit).

What a load of bullshit, Signym. The Continental Army never numbered more than 17,000 men out of a population of 2,400,000. The Slave States almost got a free ride during the Revolution. Funny thing about that, the American Generals were slave-owners protecting their property from the British, who would soon after the Revolution free all slaves in British controlled colonies. The Founding Fathers such as Jefferson, Washington, Monroe didn't want that happening to their slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army#Soldiers

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 7:51 PM (P)

Quote:
SIGNYM:
In any case, I honsetly think Americans can agree on just about everything of importance: A safe place to sleep, nutritious food to eat and clean water to drink, a way to earn our place in society, support in illness and disability, environmental remediation, infrastrucural repair, and agency over our individual and collective futures.

The question isn't "what", but "how". HOW do we achieve a future that we probably mostly agree on? That seems to be the sticky wicket!

SIX: Unless you can somehow lobotomize every human being you're never going to get it.
Because we don't agree on it. Everybody has their own opinions, ideas, perceptions and motives. And most people aren't genuine about any of that, even with themselves.

First of all, you seem to think that with 327 million Americans there are 350 million opinions.

Au contraire, SIX.

First, MOST opinions fall into several categories (Hate to tell you this, you're not all that unique!) and on this board they fall into two

a) Big Daddy Government is supposed to take care of everything
b) Rugged Individual Effort and the Fight of All Against All

Given that we have all been subject to propaganda our entire lives, most people's opinions (ideologies) have been "kettled" into a few narrow avenues.

Second, not all opinions are equal. It's like science ... there are only a few procedures that yield success. Or maybe baking: If we all agree that we want a particular kind of cake, there are only a few recipes that make it.

So far, I would say that given how far away we are from where we want to be, whatever recipe we were using has CLEARLY not worked to yield the desired results!

Quote:
Most people that don't have it want it, but when they got it they still wouldn't be satisfied and would always want more. Most people that have all of that don't really want everyone else to have that because it diminishes how "special" they are. They are just virtue signalling for clout or to ease their own guilt for having what others don't have. But they don't really want others to have it too.

Well, that's exactly an example of how your opinion has been "kettled". You believe that because YOU believe something about people it must be true of ALL people, that no other POV is possible.

I find it interesting that you describe your motivation using the exact same word that KIKI used to describe you (special), so I wonder whether this is just a great case of projection. Secondly, don't you recall my astonishment watching the Chinese military parade and how much the same eveyone looked? The Chinese, for example, don't place that much emphasis on being different. What they REALLY want is to fit in It's a different national ethos than ours. The only similarity is that we both believe that we're the greatest thing since sliced bread.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 8:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
SIGNYM:
In any case, I honsetly think Americans can agree on just about everything of importance: A safe place to sleep, nutritious food to eat and clean water to drink, a way to earn our place in society, support in illness and disability, environmental remediation, infrastrucural repair, and agency over our individual and collective futures.

The question isn't "what", but "how". HOW do we achieve a future that we probably mostly agree on? That seems to be the sticky wicket!

SIX: Unless you can somehow lobotomize every human being you're never going to get it.
Because we don't agree on it. Everybody has their own opinions, ideas, perceptions and motives. And most people aren't genuine about any of that, even with themselves.

First of all, you seem to think that with 327 million Americans there are 350 million opinions.

Au contraire, SIX.

First, MOST opinions fall into several categories (Hate to tell you this, you're not all that unique!) and on this board they fall into two

a) Big Daddy Government is supposed to take care of everything
b) Rugged Individual Effort and the Fight of All Against All

Given that we have all been subject to propaganda our entire lives, most people's opinions (ideologies) have been "kettled" into a few narrow avenues.

Second, not all opinions are equal. It's like science ... there are only a few procedures that yield success. Or maybe baking: If we all agree that we want a particular kind of cake, there are only a few recipes that make it.

So far, I would say that given how far away we are from where we want to be, whatever recipe we were using has CLEARLY not worked to yield the desired results!

Quote:
Most people that don't have it want it, but when they got it they still wouldn't be satisfied and would always want more. Most people that have all of that don't really want everyone else to have that because it diminishes how "special" they are. They are just virtue signalling for clout or to ease their own guilt for having what others don't have. But they don't really want others to have it too.

Well, that's exactly an example of how your opinion has been "kettled". You believe that because YOU believe something about people it must be true of ALL people, that no other POV is possible.

First of all, I find it interesting that you describe your motivation using the exact same word that KIKI used to describe you (special), so I wonder whether this is just a great case of projection. Secondly, don't you recall my astonishment watching the Chinese military parade and how much the same eveyone looked? The Chinese, for example, don't place that much emphasis on being different. What they REALLY want is to fit in It's a different national ethos than ours. The only similarity is that we both believe that we're the greatest thing since sliced bread.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

You seem to be confused as to the point you're trying to make.

And I don't have any motivation regarding this topic, since this is the way things always were and the way things always will be.

I didn't make the rules.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:12 PM (P)

Quote:
SIX: You seem to be confused as to the point you're trying to make.

Not at all.

Quote:
SIX: I didn't make the rules.

Why not? This is a democracy after all, so maybe you should.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

SECOND

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 11:54 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I find it interesting that you describe your motivation using the exact same word that KIKI used to describe you (special), so I wonder whether this is just a great case of projection. Secondly, don't you recall my astonishment watching the Chinese military parade and how much the same eveyone looked? The Chinese, for example, don't place that much emphasis on being different. What they REALLY want is to fit in It's a different national ethos than ours. The only similarity is that we both believe that we're the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I was once, 50 years ago, expecting a base on the Moon by now, but then Americans lost interest. Too expensive. Too much work. Too risky. Same with the idea of not treating the lower half of Americans like they are slaves. American idealism evaporated. It was too much effort. Too expensive.

Then I was reminded today in an editorial why great things aren't attempted by any level of American government. Are stupid things like the Iraq War attempted? Sure. There is always money for stupidity, but it is mostly private citizens who will try to be great, not the larger groups such as the Nation, or a state, or a small city. Those groups won't even try. There are too many citizens who say "NO!" to any effort. Why is "NO!" their constant and unending answer to every good idea? Is it because America has become Weak and Sniveling?
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/05/has-america-become-weak-and-sni
veling/

One of the things the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted is the American public’s unwillingness these days to see a fight through. Consider:

1 After only a few weeks of lockdowns, Americans seem barely willing to continue fighting COVID-19.
2 After the financial crash, Americans were willing to support only a half-baked stimulus, and for less than a year, before they panicked over the national debt and supported it no longer.
3 Americans gave up on the Iraq War very quickly after not winning an instant victory. By 2004 even supporters had gotten tired of it.

All of these things have a political valence to them. Conservatives fought the stimulus from the beginning and lockdowns within a few weeks. Liberals mostly opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. This obviously makes it way harder to demand sacrifices from the public for a long period.

This is hardly unique to Americans and hardly unique to politically volatile topics. Still, it’s hard not to think that it’s getting worse—both because Americans are too comfortable and partisan polarity has become so pervasive. It took many years for people to get tired of, for example, World War II, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. Probably not coincidentally, all three had broad bipartisan support among the mainstream.

Asking for sacrifice is always hard, but you’d think that something like a deadly pandemic would finally be enough to do it. Surely for a few months at least. But after it was inexplicably turned into a partisan affair, half the country started to turn against it despite overwhelming evidence from around the world about what needed to be done.

It’s hard to think of anything less inherently partisan than a pandemic. It’s also hard to think of anything better suited to a purely expert response. And yet experts are mostly used as props by the White House and the response has become almost comically partisan.

Is there anything left that would bring liberals and conservatives together to demand some kind of sacrifice from the American public? And even if that happened, would the public respond? I’m starting to wonder.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:09 AM (P)

Somewhat off topic, deleted

Though this probably belongs more in the new deadly ... thread, so I'll post it there.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:13 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I find it interesting that you describe your motivation using the exact same word that KIKI used to describe you (special), so I wonder whether this is just a great case of projection. Secondly, don't you recall my astonishment watching the Chinese military parade and how much the same eveyone looked? The Chinese, for example, don't place that much emphasis on being different. What they REALLY want is to fit in It's a different national ethos than ours. The only similarity is that we both believe that we're the greatest thing since sliced bread.

SECOND: I was once, 50 years ago, expecting a base on the Moon by now, but then Americans lost interest. Too expensive. Too much work. Too risky. Same with the idea of not treating the lower half of Americans like they are slaves. American idealism evaporated. It was too much effort. Too expensive.

Then I was reminded today in an editorial why great things aren't attempted by any level of American government. Are stupid things like the Iraq War attempted? Sure. There is always money for stupidity, but it is mostly private citizens who will try to be great, not the larger groups such as the Nation, or a state, or a small city. Those groups won't even try. There are too many citizens who say "NO!" to any effort. Why is "NO!" their constant and unending answer to every good idea? Is it because America has become Weak and Sniveling?
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/05/has-america-become-weak-and-sni
veling/

One of the things the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted is the American public’s unwillingness these days to see a fight through. Consider:

1 After only a few weeks of lockdowns, Americans seem barely willing to continue fighting COVID-19.
2 After the financial crash, Americans were willing to support only a half-baked stimulus, and for less than a year, before they panicked over the national debt and supported it no longer.
3 Americans gave up on the Iraq War very quickly after not winning an instant victory. By 2004 even supporters had gotten tired of it.

All of these things have a political valence to them. Conservatives fought the stimulus from the beginning and lockdowns within a few weeks. Liberals mostly opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. This obviously makes it way harder to demand sacrifices from the public for a long period.

This is hardly unique to Americans and hardly unique to politically volatile topics. Still, it’s hard not to think that it’s getting worse—both because Americans are too comfortable and partisan polarity has become so pervasive. It took many years for people to get tired of, for example, World War II, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. Probably not coincidentally, all three had broad bipartisan support among the mainstream.

Asking for sacrifice is always hard, but you’d think that something like a deadly pandemic would finally be enough to do it. Surely for a few months at least. But after it was inexplicably turned into a partisan affair, half the country started to turn against it despite overwhelming evidence from around the world about what needed to be done.

It’s hard to think of anything less inherently partisan than a pandemic. It’s also hard to think of anything better suited to a purely expert response. And yet experts are mostly used as props by the White House and the response has become almost comically partisan.

Is there anything left that would bring liberals and conservatives together to demand some kind of sacrifice from the American public? And even if that happened, would the public respond? I’m starting to wonder.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

I left your quotes up in long-form because they circle around an untrue assumption about how Americans "SHOULD" behave.

I DO NOT BELIEVE AMERICANS SHOULD SACRIFICE THEMSELVES OR THEIR HARD WORK OR ANY PORTION OF THEIR PAYCHECK UNLE

SECOND

Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I left your quotes up in long-form because they circle around an untrue assumption about how Americans "SHOULD" behave.

I DO NOT BELIEVE AMERICANS SHOULD SACRIFICE THEMSELVES OR THEIR HARD WORK OR ANY PORTION OF THEIR PAYCHECK UNLESS IT IS TO THEIR BENEFIT.

WHEN ASKED TO DO ANYTHING, THE FIRST QUESTION SHOULD BE "WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME?"

IF AMERICANS ROUTINELY ASKED THAT QUESTION AND REFUSED TO BUDGE UNTIL THEY GOT AN ANSWER THAT MADE SENSE TO THEM, MANY EGREGIOUS MISTAKES WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED THAT I DID NOT ASK "HOW CAN AMERICANS SLIT THEIR WRISTS ON THE ALTAR OF PROGRESS, OR PROFIT, OR FOR ELECTRONIC DOODADS, OR FOR MINDLESS PATRIOTISM?" BUT "WHAT ARE AMERICA'S INTERESTS? WHAT BENEFITS THEM, SHORT AND LONG TERM?"

Everyone seems to think that we are all so very different that we're all like non-intersecting Venn diagrams - no overlap.

But in reality we have MANY needs in common, and the only real disagreement seems to be HOW we get there, not where we're going.

Since whatever we've attempted so far ... mindless patriotism, personal greed, liberalism, conservatism, Big Daddy Government, Rugged Individualism, gun ownership, trans rights... seems to have gotten us EXACTLY NOWHERE maybe it's time to set aside our tribes and start that long-overdue conversation about where we're going and where we WANT to go, and HOW to get there?

Because that discussion is so long-overdue, and the political climate is so fraught (charged, distressed) it would likely be a conversation that would take YEARS to reach not only common goals but also agreed-on approaches AND checkpoints to see if we're heading in the direction "we" want/

So, better late than never! is my view.

WHAT ARE AMERICA'S INTERESTS?

WHAT DO WE NEED? HOW WILL BE GET THERE?

*****

BTW, it is my observation that finger-pointing, blame-laying, and internal division only happen when things are falling apart ... when the team loses a series of games, or the Party loses a series of elections, or the elite suddenly start running out of money and the rest of us are taking a hit in living standards.

All of this squabbling is really a symptom of falling expectations. That's why the next generations want to see the boomers die off, and the CIA is contending with the military, and men are pitted against women, the globalists against the nationalists, and so forth.

It is precisely BECAUSE our living standards and expectations are falling apart that we should STOP partisan squabbling and general ill will (even tho fighting over control is a natural reaction to diminished resources) and figure out HOW TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING IS GETTING US NOWHERE.

Signym asks, "What is America's Interests?" Everybody gets two bottles of water per day and 2,000 calories. 25 square feet of shelter per person. One change of clothes. If you want more, find a job with a rich person. Maybe working on his farm, picking cotton by hand if you are not a PhD or Engineer.

Signym, with your formulation of the problem as "in reality we have MANY needs in common, and the only real disagreement seems to be HOW we get there, not where we're going", some rich guy will define your job for you and your needs and how much you will be paid, assuming he lets you work for him. America ends up exactly where it is now. Minimum wage is $7.25. No health insurance for the poor, but there are charity hospitals. And half the country live like slaves. Those Americans who don't work for a rich guy, like me, end up owning the country and the Federal government. That is how rich guys like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, slave-owners, designed the Constitution and that's how they ended up as President. America has the same Constitution and the same kind of rich guys making decisions today. And more people who live like slaves than in 1776, except

SIGNYM

Friday, May 8, 2020 5:38 PM (P)

Quote:
Signym, with your formulation of the problem as "in reality we have MANY needs in common, and the only real disagreement seems to be HOW we get there, not where we're going", some rich guy will define your job for you and your needs and how much you will be paid, blah blah blah....

SECOND, why do you post "some rich guy WILL define..." like this is going to happen some time in the future???

WE'RE ALREADY THERE.

Some rich guy is ALREADY defining our pay, our prospects, what our future looks like.

I've been trying ... fruitlessly, apparently .... to point out that this endless bickering over "who has it worse? White males or hetero females? Whites or blacks? Trans or gay?" is getting us NOWHERE. All it's doing is allowing that rich guy to CONTINUE to define our future for us.

I only recognize a few categories whose interests are categorically different:

Non-citizens. Except for promising ... and KEEPING our promise ... not to keep fucking their nations over, we have no say on how their nations progress internally, and they have no say in ours.

The young (babies and children) who can't produce but have the potential
The old and infirm, sick and disabled, who can't pull their weight but have a history of producing
The rentier capitalist and industrial capitalist who steal the production of others

So far, only KIKI and JO seem to "get it". They are the only ones who can (apparently) even think of Americans as a whole and not get hung up in these micro-identities that have been crafted for us.

The reality is, whether you're a Democrat/Republican/other; white/black/other; male/female/other; etc, as goes the nation, so do you.

So, yanno,it might be useful to raise your eyes from the row that you're hoeing to which you've been appointed, and look at horizon.

What do we need? Where are we going? How do we get to where we need to go?

I've provided MY list about what I think we need, to seed the discussion. It's not the end-all and be-all of possibilities.

Think of this as a brainstorming thread ... something to get the ideas flowing. (JO has plenty! Go look at his website!)

No ideas will be discounted!

EVERYONE needs to start thinking about ...not their future, but OUR future. Otherwise the some rich guy will CONTINUE to define who you are, and what you and your children able to become.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, May 8, 2020 7:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I've been trying ... fruitlessly, apparently .... to point out that this endless bickering over "who has it worse? White males or hetero females? Whites or blacks? Trans or gay?" is getting us NOWHERE. All it's doing is allowing that rich guy to CONTINUE to define our future for us.

I only recognize a few categories whose interests are categorically different:

Non-citizens. Except for promising ... and KEEPING our promise ... not to keep fucking their nations over, we have no say on how their nations progress internally, and they have no say in ours.

The young (babies and children) who can't produce but have the potential
The old and infirm, sick and disabled, who can't pull their weight but have a history of producing
The rentier capitalist and industrial capitalist who steal the production of others

So far, only KIKI and JO seem to "get it". They are the only ones who can (apparently) even think of Americans as a whole and not get hung up in these micro-identities that have been crafted for us.

That's easy for you to say, and also easy for you not to recognize the fact that your generation is the last one that will go out with the things that you've got, most of which came off using your houses for ATMs until the housing market crashed and off of ponzi schemes and insurance claims (another ponzi scheme) that the generations after you have to foot the bill for.

Here's a graph. I know you like graphs.

Bonus graph.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Friday, May 8, 2020 7:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I've provided MY list about what I think we need, to seed the discussion. It's not the end-all and be-all of possibilities.

Your list is 3 years old: March 5, 2017
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60986&mid=1025569#
1025569

Ask yourself why none of the tasks on your list have been finished. Once you discover who has been very efficiently vetoing/roadblocking/sabotaging/suing/underfunding/delaying your plan, you need to decide what to do about them. Once you've done it, then your plan can start moving forward. Or you can take it easy, do as little as possible, and give up.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Friday, May 8, 2020 7:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Is there anything left that would bring liberals and conservatives together to demand some kind of sacrifice from the American public? And even if that happened, would the public respond? I’m starting to wonder.

Sure, there definitely could be. But not with this orange sh*t head in office. He's a divider, scorched earth sales person who values winning and subservience (I was going to say loyalty, but he doesn't give a sh*t about that - only what it might bring him). He's has done more to divide this country than any other leader in the history of this planet could.

1KIKI

Friday, May 8, 2020 8:24 PM (P)

To answer, I think one needs to delve into 'what are people's interests?' We are people before we're citizens.

But at the start I have to reject nearly all arguments based on 'human nature'. For just about every supposed rule about human nature, I can provide many exceptions. And studies of non-monetary cultures still in existence today show that there's no correlation between environment, technology, means of survival (hunting, fishing, gathering, ad hoc agriculture) and resources v social or economic organization, or the reason why cultures give to answer why they do what they do. Groups of people do what they do because that's what they tell themselves people do. (And people who don't do what they do are also defined as either not people, or not proper people - they're some lesser existence.)

That said, no peoples set their infants out to survive on their own - all peoples understand the need to care for the young. And the young are demanding of attention and interaction! or they grow up severely mentally stunted. No peoples live as isolated individuals (like bears or tigers). No peoples live without language. And no peoples live without at least rudimentary tools and technology.

But even things we assume are 'natural', like nursing mothers caring for their infants, aren't universal as they can be substituted with other mothers or animals that provide milk. Nuclear families are not the norm across peoples. Pair bonding is optional. Even the role for males is up for grabs. All that needs to happen is that males don't exist in fatal competition for resources with females and offspring. It's not how 'fit' the males are that determines species survival - sterility beats virility. But it's not even fertitliy that determines species survival. Those offspring need to survive long enough themselves to have offspring of their own that then survive ... in at least replacement numbers. If not, the species dwindles and dies. Offspring mortality beats fertility. (As a separate group, the Spartans ignored that and met their demise.)

Also, technology makes up for a lot of human frailties. Technology allows human survival at numbers greater than the immediate resource limits.

So for me, the questions are - what kind of technology do we want, and, how do we want to arrange ourselves to ensure survival? It's pretty much up for grabs, I think.

1KIKI

Friday, May 8, 2020 8:41 PM (P)

Silent generation 1928-1945
Baby boomers 1946-1964
Gen X 1965-1979
Millennials 1980-1994

The Silent Generation was that group of people born during the Great Depression. The baby boomers were born during the US post-war boom. Gen X was that group born as US global dominance was beginning to be eroded by recovering and emerging nations around the globe. Millenials were born into voodoo economics (also called trickle down or peed-on economics).

These graphs are misleading though, because they're driven by NUMBERS of people in each generation as well as money. Obviously there's very few of the Silent Generation left, so as a group they have very little of the total wealth in the country. AS INDIVIDUALS though, they're far wealthier than any other generation.

Quote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2018/03/16/the-graying-of-wealth
/#76d3ec7c302d Faring the best were the 75+—an age bracket largely occupied by the Silent Generation (born 1925 to 1942). This group experienced a 32% increase in median household net worth and a 60% increase in mean net worth. Today, the net worth of a typical retiree is $264,750. This amount shrinks moving down the age ladder: The Silent hold roughly 1.3 times the amount of wealth as Boomers, more than twice that of Xers, and 23 times that of Millennials.
One reason why the Silent Generation fares so well in median comparisons is that its wealth is more evenly distributed than younger generations (i.e., its Gini coefficient is lower). One quick indicator of inequality is the ratio of mean to median. Among 75+ households, the ratio is 4.0. Among younger age brackets, it rises—to a peak of 6.2 and 5.8 among 55-64 and 45-54 households, respectively.

The Baby Boomers still have large numbers left. Subsequent generations are smaller in size because the birth rate has been below replacement.

On top of that, Baby Boomers have had a full lifetime of work, while later generations are decades behind.

A PER CAPITA YEARS-ADJUSTED accounting would be FAR more accurate.

Bonus graph.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, May 8, 2020 8:58 PM (P)

Are you going to argue that wages have not been stagnant in the last 20 years and have not even gone up with inflation?

Are you going to argue it's untrue that health insurance has become unaffordable for most people, and that homeowners insurance isn't far behind?

Are you going to argue that a college education has not become a life-long burden for most future adults to pay off the rest of their lives?

Are you going to argue it's untrue that credit card interest rates are more than double what they were 20 years ago despite the fact that the FED interest rate is near zero?

Are you going to argue it's untrue that after outsourcing most of our manufacturing jobs overseas we have now manufactured most of our tech jobs overseas and the majority of jobs left for us to fight over are low paying service jobs?

Are you going to argue it's not true that nearly 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck in 2020?

If the answer to any of those questions is no. Then plug them into the graphs and use your goddamned brain for once instead of needing a fucking link to do your thinking for you.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Friday, May 8, 2020 9:08 PM (P)

That's easy for you to say.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, May 8, 2020 9:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

That's easy for you to say.

Yeah. It is.

I'm usually proven right with time. That's because I don't ingest much news and let other people do my thinking for me, and instead base my opinions off of other people and their behavior and the fact that history repeats itself. Always.

No surprise you didn't want to answer any of those questions though.

Does this mean I win again?

Thanks for playing.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Friday, May 8, 2020 9:13 PM (P)

I'm usually proven right with time.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, May 8, 2020 9:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I'm usually proven right with time.

Not this time.

I'm afraid that you've imbibed in far too much of the Kool Aid.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Friday, May 8, 2020 9:16 PM (P)

I'm afraid that you've imbibed in far too much of the Kool Aid.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE