Will Joe Biden die of old age or be sent to prison?

[Weather Man]

I agree with your assessment of your head's location and the associated view. Based on your lack of integrity and propensity to insult others rather than respecting them, I doubt it will change. For the record, your well wishes are meaningless.

LOL, well damn, I can tell I really upset you and that ironically bothers me. Now I have to go back to page one and read all your posts to see if you may possibly have a point that I am indeed being "unfair". I'll let you know.

Sponsored

 

[Caballus]

LOL, well damn, I can tell I really upset you and that ironically bothers me. Now I have to go back to page one and read all your posts to see if you may possibly have a point that I am indeed being "unfair". I'll let you know.

Not upset at all. Absolutely no emotion associated with these statements. I just prefer truth and respect over misinformation and insults. When not a matter of fact, but a difference of opinion, respect still matters. This is particularly so when the subject is the health of the nation. Don't care if it's a bar, a forum or a voting booth. There are basic principles that we, as Americans, represent. Again, not upset. No reason to be.

 

[Gregs24]

I agree with you in principle, and like you wish there was a place to simply have a civil, respectful discussion without all the vitriol and name calling. Funny thing is, the name calling would definitely not happen in person. Anyway, speaks volumes about the person levying insults.

On the other hand, challenging misinformation is always worthwhile. Not doing so is undermining our democracy. When someone is provided with facts and responds with insults, the facts still win.

As for outcomes being determined by the center, I differ with that assessment. I think instead the pendulum continues to swing between illogical extremes. Each seeks vindication. I also think that our refusal to understand issues is reflective of our broader social laziness. We see it in our fitness (lack there of), our drug abuse, our lack of fiscal discipline, etc. For the most part, what is true of the U.S. is true of the UK in that regard.

Finally, as for socialism, I don't know of any socialist states that have succeeded. I think we are confusing socialism with social welfare. With socialism the government controls the means of production; i.e., there is no (or minimal) private enterprise. The type of wealth redistribution that we are seeing (and debating on the fringes) is welfare, not socialism. In this sense, (I believe) the contemporary conditions being described have outstripped the dated paradigms being used to describe them.

My comments about the outcome being decided by the centre are purely mathematical. The extreme right and left will never change views, but the centre ground (or 'flippers' as some on here refer to them) actually do make the difference.

The UK is a case in point where the centre ground really does determine the outcome. The longest serving PM's in the UK have all had the support of the centre (or wherever the centre was at that time - it does move about). So examples are Thatcher (when the majority of the UK were fed up with the loony left unions) or Blair when the extreme elements of the right were taking control of the Conservative party. There will be people who voted for Thatcher and Blair (in theory right and left)

I was perhaps a bit incorrect in my term socialist states, I actually meant left wing governments that some in the US would class as commie socialists, but in reality are left of centre. Having said that China as a socialist state is incredibly successful, with only limited private ownership and plenty of state control. I suppose it depends on how you define success. China's GDP is rapidly catching the US and will overtake it, the resources and potential are truly awe inspiring, but if you define success as political and personal freedom China is a non starter.

I am an optimist and would like to think the moderate law abiding majority will prevail, but the US certainly has a rocky road ahead.

Nice to have a reasonable discussion with somebody that doesn't involve childish insults by the way.

 

[Weather Man]

Hmmmm, well OK, dolt was unfair in light of acquired insight of the poster and the constraints he operates under.

Your post was fair but 100% at odds with what I experienced, what my son at the University of Colorado, Boulder experienced and my daughter at North Dakota State University experienced. It also makes it impossible for you to understand how it colors my view of what is currently going on in the USA. It is also a serious problem for men attending college, but that is a topic for another day.

I think we also cross-talking on the political spectrum, it is clear that the left is trying very hard to redefine that. That is simply a function of the fact that there is NO faculty to speak on the right left on college campuses and hasn't been for a long time.

So it is fair to ask how I see the political spectrum. And as I stated before, it is harm to the innocent man by the politic. This chart sums it up fairly well. People like to point out that Pinochet was on the right. He may have been, but he ruled as a dictatorial king (rule of one).

Vis-a-vis Russian influence of the American electorate versus actions of the left and the threat it poses. On this topic it isn't even close, I believe the left poses an existential threat to the American way of life. The impact of proposed D policy as currently formulated would result in a significant reduction of quality of life for most Americans.

Are the Russians trying to influence Americans, undoubtedly, how much? That is the question no one can quantify. In a sea of bots from all parties and uncountable companies, what is the impact of the Russian bots. I just don't see it, but maybe someone who lived on twitter and such would ingest more?

Your comment on ice operations was thoughtful.

So anyway, I was unfair to call you a dolt and lefty, but we still have our disagreements.

 

[Weather Man]

 

[Weather Man]

 

[Weather Man]

Easy answer, the polling told them to.

 

[Gregs24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polit...at represent independent political dimensions.

I believe there may be confusion between left / right and controlling structures. For example China / Russia with established left wing socialist approach and Naziism with a similar ruling structure to communism but established right wing approach.

'Although the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, the axes of popular biaxial spectra are usually split between economic issues (on a left–right dimension) and socio-cultural issues (on an authority–liberty dimension)'

So Russia is authoritarian left and Nazi Germany was authoritarian right

 

[Weather Man]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#:~:text=A political spectrum is a,that represent independent political dimensions.

I believe there may be confusion between left / right and controlling structures. For example China / Russia with established left wing socialist approach and Naziism with a similar ruling structure to communism but established right wing approach.

'Although the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, the axes of popular biaxial spectra are usually split between economic issues (on a left–right dimension) and socio-cultural issues (on an authority–liberty dimension)'

So Russia is authoritarian left and Nazi Germany was authoritarian right

The problem with authoritarian right is that it implies a benevolent dictatorship, which is an inherent contradiction in terms. I could see a dictator in making promising to provide the illusion of freedoms of the right, right up until he assumes power. The left has powerful ideological reasons for putting Hitler on the right, his actions however put him firmly on the left. I.E. how did his actions impact the innocent man.

 

[Gregs24]

The problem with authoritarian right is that it implies a benevolent dictatorship, which is an inherent contradiction in terms. I could see a dictator in making promising to provide the illusion of freedoms of the right, right up until he assumes power. The left has powerful ideological reasons for putting Hitler on the right, his actions however put him firmly on the left. I.E. how did his actions impact the innocent man.

I think you are missing the point completely. You are mixing up left and right (which are economic methodologies) with social, cultural and control methodologies.

I think this might be why you get so hot under the collar about Naziism not being right wing which is the established viewpoint of experts in the field.

Give the Wiki article a read, it is long and detailed, but it really isn't simply left v right for everything. I'm not going to 'argue' about it, because many people with far greater expertise than either of us on the subject demonstrate it really is a lot more complex than being suggested. Eysenck's comment about how the image below varies by country may go a way to explain why you believe left / right is all consuming and that the vertical part gets lost.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polit...at represent independent political dimensions

One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the United States and Great Britain, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis, while in France the T-axis was larger and in the Middle East the only dimension to be found was the T-axis: "Among mid-Eastern Arabs it has been found that while the tough-minded/tender-minded dimension is still clearly expressed in the relationships observed between different attitudes, there is nothing that corresponds to the radical-conservative continuum"

 

[Weather Man]

I think you are missing the point completely. You are mixing up left and right (which are economic methodologies) with social, cultural and control methodologies.

I think this might be why you get so hot under the collar about Naziism not being right wing which is the established viewpoint of experts in the field.

Give the Wiki article a read, it is long and detailed, but it really isn't simply left v right for everything. I'm not going to 'argue' about it, because many people with far greater expertise than either of us on the subject demonstrate it really is a lot more complex than being suggested. Eysenck's comment about how the image below varies by country may go a way to explain why you believe left / right is all consuming and that the vertical part gets lost.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#:~:text=A political spectrum is a,that represent independent political dimensions

One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the United States and Great Britain, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis, while in France the T-axis was larger and in the Middle East the only dimension to be found was the T-axis: "Among mid-Eastern Arabs it has been found that while the tough-minded/tender-minded dimension is still clearly expressed in the relationships observed between different attitudes, there is nothing that corresponds to the radical-conservative continuum"

We will have to agree to disagree, left and right economic policies are inseparably intertwined. Wiki as a source for political information has been utterly corrupted by the people who control it, from my perspective, useless.

I personally believe that any particular politic can be judged on a continuum by its impact (control) on the innocent man i.e. Joe Blow on the street.

 

[Gregs24]

We will have to agree to disagree, left and right economic policies are inseparably intertwined. Wiki as a source for political information has been utterly corrupted by the people who control it, from my perspective, useless.

I personally believe that any particular politic can be judged on a continuum by its impact (control) on the innocent man i.e. Joe Blow on the street.

I'm not prepared to 'argue' about it as all the information is there in front of you. Wiki is merely bringing together a selection of relevant references from people who know an awful lot more about the subject than you or I.

Are you suggesting that all of the people in the Wiki article are incorrect or don't understand their own specialism ?

Do you agree with any of it, some of it, most of it or just the fact that Naziism is shown to be right wing offends you ?

 

[Weather Man]

I'm not prepared to 'argue' about it as all the information is there in front of you. Wiki is merely bringing together a selection of relevant references from people who know an awful lot more about the subject than you or I.

Are you suggesting that all of the people in the Wiki article are incorrect or don't understand their own specialism ?

Do you agree with any of it, some of it, most of it or just the fact that Naziism is shown to be right wing offends you ?

Wiki is controlled by those whose agenda I trust as far as I could throw you.

 

[Gregs24]

Wiki is controlled by those whose agenda I trust as far as I could throw you.

But, you didn't answer the question. Which people quoted or parts of the article do you not agree with ?

Or do you not agree with any of it ?

 

[Weather Man]

But, you didn't answer the question. Which people quoted or parts of the article do you not agree with ?

Or do you not agree with any of it ?

The problem is that when someone has 100% control over something and can edit at will, it becomes almost impossible to determine what is accurate and what is not. I feel that the accuracy of things I have read on there isn't accurate, therefore I am disinclined to trust wiki.

Sponsored