So do you really think this is OVER?

[ChristianPatriot]

I hope you understand that I'm trying to address that very point. We and they are interchangeable in my example...we are they from the opposing perspective. No one wants to be compelled to live by someone else's ideals.

Of course no one should be compelled by the threat of Government Force to bake the cake. In a less divided world we wouldn't have people looking for an ideologically opposed baker to force a point to begin with. In a slightly more tolerant world that ideologically opposed baker might take things with a little bit of grace and humor, and bake the cake anyway...what better way to defuse the situation than to take their money and deliver the best damned hate-cake they ever had?

The Internet makes it too easy to drag politics into every arena of conversation now, and it's just an ugly part of human nature that sometimes people feel the need to "own" their (our) opponents rather than focus on their (our) own journey.

I'm guilty of it.

That sounds nice, but in the real world it just doesn’t work that way. I would argue that conservatism is exponentially more “live and let live” than leftism. If you value liberty and freedom, there is only one side of the we/they​ that you can stand on.

 

[PaulF]

Are you thinking end of the Union? Or just a good ol' down home technocracy?
It should be recognized by everybody at this point that the Trump presidency is nothing if not a Three Stooges eye poke at the technocratic elites, and that the bank bug, the great reset and dismembering of the middle classes globally are nothing except the path for establishing global technocracy.

I'm just trying to talk through what I see. I don't have any great insight into these things, I'm just interested.

I think that America could peel off the federal system entirely and still have plenty of government left to conduct the people's business. I don't want to see the end of the union at all, but I think we have allowed the Federal government far too much influence in local affairs. Those guys are supposed to run the post office and raise a navy when needed...not decide how I conduct my affairs.

IF I could ask the founding fathers one question it might well be this: 200-some years later, are we supposed to be living under the government we want, or the one you want for us?

I see the modern iteration of the US Federal Government as being an impediment to the greatest amount of people having the greatest access to practical government of their own choosing.

I think there is room for improvement.

 

[NKBJ]

I'm just trying to talk through what I see. I don't have any great insight into these things, I'm just interested.

I think that America could peel off the federal system entirely and still have plenty of government left to conduct the people's business. I don't want to see the end of the union at all, but I think we have allowed the Federal government far too much influence in local affairs. Those guys are supposed to run the post office and raise a navy when needed...not decide how I conduct my affairs.

IF I could ask the founding fathers one question it might well be this: 200-some years later, are we supposed to be living under the government we want, or the one you want for us?

I see the modern iteration of the US Federal Government as being an impediment to the greatest amount of people having the greatest access to practical government of their own choosing.

I think there is room for improvement.

Comprendo amigo.

 

[PaulF]

That sounds nice, but in the real world it just doesn’t work that way. I would argue that conservatism is exponentially more “live and let live” than leftism. If you value liberty and freedom, there is only one side of the we/they​ that you can stand on.

I would disagree and argue that it is all so much political theatre. I have met plenty of live-and-let-live conservative individuals over my lifetime, but make no mistake: the national Republican party shares no such ideal. The conservative/liberal divide is a useful tool for the ruling class to distract the voters from the fleecing of their liberties and their wealth. The conservatives are no more "live and let live" than the liberals are. If I think you are my enemy my real enemy is free to continue their assaults unburdened. This works both ways.

If we try to set aside our ideological biases for a bit, I think we might both see that we have become the victims of a VERY successful divide and conquer campaign waged by the would-be 'elites' of our society. So long as their machine continues to draw power, our ability to live and let live is realistically lessened.

I think the American people win - regardless of political ideology - when we get to choose to live they way we want to for ourselves.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I would disagree and argue that it is all so much political theatre. I have met plenty of live-and-let-live conservative individuals over my lifetime, but make no mistake: the national Republican party shares no such ideal. The conservative/liberal divide is a useful tool for the ruling class to distract the voters from the fleecing of their liberties and their wealth. The conservatives are no more "live and let live" than the liberals are. If I think you are my enemy my real enemy is free to continue their assaults unburdened. This works both ways.

If we try to set aside our ideological biases for a bit, I think we might both see that we have become the victims of a VERY successful divide and conquer campaign waged by the would-be 'elites' of our society. So long as their machine continues to draw power, our ability to live and let live is realistically lessened.

I think the American people win - regardless of political ideology - when we get to choose to live they way we want to for ourselves.

“Inalienable rights” is an not ideology, it is an absolute truth. At some point there has to be a set philosophies that we all agree on, or else we can’t have a nation together. Whether you want to see it or not, there is a very large, vocal, unapologetic movement taking over the Democrat party that completely disagrees with the absolute truths our country was correctly founded on.

 

[NKBJ]

I would disagree and argue that it is all so much political theatre. I have met plenty of live-and-let-live conservative individuals over my lifetime, but make no mistake: the national Republican party shares no such ideal. The conservative/liberal divide is a useful tool for the ruling class to distract the voters from the fleecing of their liberties and their wealth. The conservatives are no more "live and let live" than the liberals are. If I think you are my enemy my real enemy is free to continue their assaults unburdened. This works both ways.

If we try to set aside our ideological biases for a bit, I think we might both see that we have become the victims of a VERY successful divide and conquer campaign waged by the would-be 'elites' of our society. So long as their machine continues to draw power, our ability to live and let live is realistically lessened.

I think the American people win - regardless of political ideology - when we get to choose to live they way we want to for ourselves.

The false left-right paradigm operates on the basis of manipulating the basic instincts of mankind, making its pressing forward oh so very irresistible.

 

[printcraft]

I would disagree and argue that it is all so much political theatre. I have met plenty of live-and-let-live conservative individuals over my lifetime, but make no mistake: the national Republican party shares no such ideal. The conservative/liberal divide is a useful tool for the ruling class to distract the voters from the fleecing of their liberties and their wealth. The conservatives are no more "live and let live" than the liberals are. If I think you are my enemy my real enemy is free to continue their assaults unburdened. This works both ways.

If we try to set aside our ideological biases for a bit, I think we might both see that we have become the victims of a VERY successful divide and conquer campaign waged by the would-be 'elites' of our society. So long as their machine continues to draw power, our ability to live and let live is realistically lessened.

I think the American people win - regardless of political ideology - when we get to choose to live they way we want to for ourselves.

There was no legislation or proposed legislation in the last 4 years that impacted what I imagine you care about policy wise.
What makes you think President Trump cared what the national republican party did?
He wasn’t the traditional or wanted choice by them anyhow, you know, the jeb/romney wing who you saw working against him in this election.
THOSE are the big government types that you say you hate, Trump was the best opportunity you had to change that but your personal view of him clouded your vision.

 

[PaulF]

“Inalienable rights” is an not ideology, it is an absolute truth. At some point there has to be a set philosophies that we all agree on, or else we can’t have a nation together. Whether you want to see it or not, there is a very large, vocal, unapologetic movement taking over the Democrat party that completely disagrees with the absolute truths our country was correctly founded on.

I don't disagree with you about the Democrats, and it isn't that I don't see it.

It's that I don't believe the Republicans (national party, not individual voters) value "Inalienable" any more than the Democrats do. No matter what they tell their voters, it isn't in either national party's best interests to allow people to choose their own path. The national parties aren't going to move us toward liberty...not with the allure of absolute power just a few incremental steps out of grasp.

If we want liberty to thrive we have to find a way to neuter the status quo, and that will never happen if we continue to perpetuate the false dichotomy.

 

[BugI02]

Love it when a plan comes together. I have to hand the democrats credit. They had this thing in the bag from 5 different directions. Well played.

It may well be that Trump would have lost the election anyway. Every competitor, whether it's an election, a ballgame, or a shooting match, has the responsibility to put the outcome beyond the reach of shenanigans. Trump didn't do that.

However. The democrats were obviously leaving nothing to chance in this one.

I don't believe they had anywhere near the level of fraud they found they needed to use planned in advance, only the framework existed. I believe a great deal of the irregularities were hurried and ads hoc and such interventions will have left discoverable traces. the question is whether that evidence can be pursued in the face of an all hands on deck effort by Dems and fifth columnists to prevent same

 

[PaulF]

There was no legislation or proposed legislation in the last 4 years that impacted what I imagine you care about policy wise.
What makes you think President Trump cared what the national republican party did?
He wasn’t the traditional or wanted choice by them anyhow, you know, the jeb/romney wing who you saw working against him in this election.
THOSE are the big government types that you say you hate, Trump was the best opportunity you had to change that but your personal view of him clouded your vision.

You ask me to take a "more realistic" view of Trump while simultaneously refusing to budge on your own highly idealized view of him.

That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You ask me to take a "more realistic" view of Trump while simultaneously refusing to budge on your own highly idealized view of him.

That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works.

It isn't an idealized view but rather recognizing that even if far from perfect he offered the only realistic chance of moving the ball our direction, and that only because he was the highly exceptional outsider willing to use his own resources to overcome the establishment war chest.

 

[jamil]

We are just replacing one deeply unpopular man with another.

People rightfully wanted nothing to do with Clinton...and without that there would have been no Trump...but Trump isn't what most of us want, either.

A lot of people, myself included, have reached the point of saturation with trump. All the lies, the insincerity, the closed-mindedness...his behavior tends toward crass and boorish, his demeanor is abrasive, and...there's no nice way to say this...he's dumb as a box of hammers. A president is supposed be a placeholder for every American on the world stage. I want one that highlights the best of what we can be...Trump highlights the worst of what we are today.

A little less than half the voters selected Trump, a little more than half the voters selected Biden. Neither man is capable of speaking for all of us...for being the avatar that best represents our ideals.

This isn't over because the population of our country is deeply divided, and having the "other side's" agenda imposed isn't palatable to any of us.

At some point we are going to have to find a way to let people live the lives they want without imposing the lives we want on them, and that isn't what happens today...and I don't think we are headed in a direction that will lead to a non-violent resolution.

The president has too much power. He should be a figurehead, taking photo ops and shaking hands, signing legislation that is already agreed upon by the legislative bodies, pardoning turkeys. The fact that one man can create so much distress in the lives of millions of people is strong evidence that we have allowed power to become too centralized, and not just at the executive. The beauty of the American system was its limitation and separation of powers...much of that has been undermined through 150+ years of the same two parties trading power between themselves.

The population of the entire US in 1870 was less than the population of California today. I think we are asking too much of centralized government now...and as a result we now have too much centralized government.

1) I think you think the President is more than he should really be. I don't see him/her as a placeholder at all. I see the POTUS as a policy setter, an administrator, a commander-in-chief, the principle diplomat and negotiator between nations. Trump isn't all that great at some of those rolls, but is likely much better at some other of those rolls than you give him credit for. I don't generally abide people who can't or won't try to see all of it regardless of their personal feelings. There are things objectively better about the world that Trump had something to do with. And there are some things objectively worse about the world that Trump had something to do with. Whether that's better or worse overall to you is largely subjective. From where I sit, I am much better off now than I was when Trump first took office.

2) sides' agendas: The nation is deeply divided. Agreed. There is a culture war going on. The line seems to be between collectivist minded people and individualist minded people. Republicans and Democrats are not going to solve that. Someone will lose. Someone will win. It looks to me like the collectivists' agenda has made it to the establishment, so that's a difficult thing for individualists to fight. Either way someone's agenda will ultimately win the next pendulum sweep. However, embedded within collectivist's proposals for how the world should be, is an inherent imposition on individuals. Not forcing me to do something for you that I don't want to do is not an imposition on you. Forcing me to do something for you that I don't want to do is. So if we're saying it's a matter of who imposes on whom, that's not where the battle is. It is between collective authority and individual liberty.

3) The president does indeed have too much power. He should not be a figurehead. The executive branch needs to be a political position and not a bureaucracy of unelected, unaccountable people imposing their will on people. There needs to be an executive branch. And it would likely save the Nation if its executive power were neutered. For example, I don't want the chief executive to be able to declare a national emergency just to pay for something Congress doesn't want funded.

4) Distressed lives? Are you saying Trump distressed lives? Yeah. Sure. The TDS has been indeed exceedingly strong, and I suppose that would distress people who have it. I get that. But we should be talking about reality here, which is not the fantasy oppressed-LARPing where TDS'ers imagine that Trump is any greater threat to democracy than Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or any president in the modern age. That's just some nonsense expressed by an establishment that didn't want a populist to hold the office. There was never any threat of fascism. In fact, people on the left have a really hard time understanding what fascism is. Ask a far lefty. They'll say it's basically capitalism.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

If we want liberty to thrive we have to find a way to neuter the status quo, and that will never happen if we continue to perpetuate the false dichotomy.

So what’s the alternative? Don’t vote for Republicans? You can be certain that the people who want a pure democracy (majority rule) are going to vote. If we could get a country-wide movement where everybody in the middle that hates both sides would say ok now it’s time for everybody to vote Libertarian, that might work. But that’s a delusion.

 

[BugI02]

Yeaahhh. That was debunked and is BS
https://www.news18.com/news/world/n...-votes-in-michigan-it-was-a-typo-3044501.html

Yasss! Debunked, as in 'we have invented a lame excuse so you shouldn't look into that any further' - like Joe and Hunter and China

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/0...ction-in-michigan-wisconsin-and-pennsylvania/

Then, something strange happened in the dead of the night. In both Michigan and Wisconsin, vote dumps early Wednesday morning showed 100 percent of the votes going for Biden and zero percent—that’s zero, so not even one vote—for Trump.


In Michigan, Biden somehow got 138,339 votes and Trump got none, zero, in an overnight vote-dump.


When my Federalist colleague Sean Davis noted this, Twitter was quick to censor his tweet, even though all he had done was compare two sets of vote totals on the New York Times website. And he wasn’t the only one who noticed—although on Wednesday it appeared that anyone who noted the Biden vote dump in Michigan was getting censored by Twitter.

Others were quick to note the partisan censorship from Twitter and raise concerns over how 100 percent of a vote dump could possibly go to Biden. But the social media giant has maintained its crackdown on sharing this information. Twitter users could not like or share a tweet from the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh noting the 138,339-vote dump.


Buzzfeed later reported that according to a spokesperson at Decision Desk HQ, the votes for Biden were the result of a “data error” from a “file created by the state that we ingested.” When the state noticed the “error” it updated its count, which somehow gave 138,339 votes to Biden and zero to Trump.


It turns out, the vote dump was the result of an alleged typo, an extra zero that had been tacked onto Biden’s vote total in Shiawassee County, Michigan. It seems the error was discovered only because Davis and other Twitter users noted how insane and suspicious the vote totals looked, and demanded an investigation that uncovered what was either a typo or an incredibly clumsy attempt to boost Biden’s vote count.


There was also something suspicious about the vote reporting in Antrim County, Michigan, where Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 30 points in 2016. Initial vote totals there showed Biden ahead of Trump by 29 points, a result that can’t possibly be accurate, as plenty of journalists noted.

After the strange results caught national attention, election officials in Antrim County said they were investigating what they called “skewed” results, working with the company that provides their election software to see what went wrong. The county clerk said they plan to have an answer by Wednesday afternoon.


Then another mysterious all-Biden vote dump happened in Wisconsin. Biden miraculously overcame a 4.1-point Trump lead in the middle of the night thanks to vote dumps in which he got—you guessed it—100 percent of the votes and Trump got zero.


Note the vertical lines in both graphs below:

View attachment 93016

 

[BugI02]

The credits are rolling. Wasn’t the ending I wanted. But this one’s done. I dunno. Maybe there’s a mid-credits teaser. But Thanos did snap his fingers. Half the people are still ****ed.

We’ll see how the sequel goes. My prediction. Biden is a laughing stock. A bumbling senile idiot who can’t put together two coherent sentences. But the media covers for him. The WH press room will again be the president’s fellatio parlor. Except Biden will need the little blue pills.

Yond Kamalius hath a lean and hungry look

 

[jamil]

I hope you understand that I'm trying to address that very point. We and they are interchangeable in my example...we are they from the opposing perspective. No one wants to be compelled to live by someone else's ideals.

Of course no one should be compelled by the threat of Government Force to bake the cake. In a less divided world we wouldn't have people looking for an ideologically opposed baker to force a point to begin with. In a slightly more tolerant world that ideologically opposed baker might take things with a little bit of grace and humor, and bake the cake anyway...what better way to defuse the situation than to take their money and deliver the best damned hate-cake they ever had?

The Internet makes it too easy to drag politics into every arena of conversation now, and it's just an ugly part of human nature that sometimes people feel the need to "own" their (our) opponents rather than focus on their (our) own journey.

I'm guilty of it.

In a predominately individualist system you don't get to force someone to bake the cake. The government shouldn't have the power to do that. In a predominately collectivist system, the central government has to be powerful to enforce the collective will. The reality is that ideologues searched for bakers that they could use as examples to publicly shame them, and take it through a court system dominated by progressives. If they can't get the laws they want passed through legislatures, they'll do it through the courts. That's not democracy. It wasn't the internet that drug that issue into politics. It was far Left ideologues.

 

[BugI02]

Are you thinking end of the Union? Or just a good ol' down home technocracy?
It should be recognized by everybody at this point that the Trump presidency is nothing if not a Three Stooges eye poke at the technocratic elites, and that the bank bug, the great reset and dismembering of the middle classes globally are nothing except the path for establishing global technocracy.

I'm thinking I've already got the countdown timer set for 42 months, I just need to figure out when to start it

 

[BugI02]

I would disagree and argue that it is all so much political theatre. I have met plenty of live-and-let-live conservative individuals over my lifetime, but make no mistake: the national Republican party shares no such ideal. The conservative/liberal divide is a useful tool for the ruling class to distract the voters from the fleecing of their liberties and their wealth. The conservatives are no more "live and let live" than the liberals are. If I think you are my enemy my real enemy is free to continue their assaults unburdened. This works both ways.

If we try to set aside our ideological biases for a bit, I think we might both see that we have become the victims of a VERY successful divide and conquer campaign waged by the would-be 'elites' of our society. So long as their machine continues to draw power, our ability to live and let live is realistically lessened.

I think the American people win - regardless of political ideology - when we get to choose to live they way we want to for ourselves.

I just note that the horrors of federal power are always front and center whenever the guy in power is conservative, but the reconciliation/just lay back and enjoy it rhetoric comes out when it isn't my guy in power. Like the arrow of time, the arrow of compromise - according to it's most vocal proponents - always seems to point in the same direction

Discrete surrender as opposed to continuous. No thanks

 

[BugI02]

I don't disagree with you about the Democrats, and it isn't that I don't see it.

It's that I don't believe the Republicans (national party, not individual voters) value "Inalienable" any more than the Democrats do. No matter what they tell their voters, it isn't in either national party's best interests to allow people to choose their own path. The national parties aren't going to move us toward liberty...not with the allure of absolute power just a few incremental steps out of grasp.

If we want liberty to thrive we have to find a way to neuter the status quo, and that will never happen if we continue to perpetuate the false dichotomy.

So, if your guy can manage to cling to power, dying to know how you are going to move to hold him accountable and prevent that overreach you are saying both parties are guilty of

'Be the change you want to see', or something

 

[PaulF]

So what’s the alternative? Don’t vote for Republicans? You can be certain that the people who want a pure democracy (majority rule) are going to vote. If we could get a country-wide movement where everybody in the middle that hates both sides would say ok now it’s time for everybody to vote Libertarian, that might work. But that’s a delusion.

It's a really good question, and I want to make it clear I don't have a really good answer...I'm just trying to talk through some of these things to make sense of them for myself.

IDK, not voting for Republicans gives the Democrats cover to do their worst. Not voting for Democrats affords the Republicans the same cover.

I don't think this is something that Democrats and Republicans can fix, and I honestly don't think they really want to if they could.