Politics

Somehow, there is multi party system in majority of western democracies, but once they regroup, and society stabilizes it always comes down to two major parties, one left other right, and the rest of them remains marginal.
Since this is going since the dawn of democracy, this must be natural state of affairs. Binary system in the eyes of people, and how they see the world - left or right, black and white world, right or wrong, etc.
 
Somehow, there is multi party system in majority of western democracies, but once they regroup, and society stabilizes it always comes down to two major parties, one left other right, and the rest of them remains marginal.
Since this is going since the dawn of democracy, this must be natural state of affairs. Binary system in the eyes of people, and how they see the world - left or right, black and white world, right or wrong, etc.
To an extent, yes that is a trend, and these things do go in cycles for sure. But for instance this is the current breakdown at the Federal level in Austria....

Capture.JPG
 
There are reports that Biden will issue an executive order cracking down on asylum within the next month. We will see soon enough.

There are certainly open borders “whackos” in the Democratic Party, but I do not think Biden is one of them. I would say that he is closer to those who want to reform immigration policy so it is much more liberal on the ease of legal entry and work authorization.

Given Biden’s comments on border reform, he clearly recognizes the border to be one of his biggest electoral vulnerabilities. What has Biden in a bind is that the system is being overwhelmed with fake asylum claims. While any type of restriction on immigration would trigger progressives, severely restricting asylum has become something of a third rail even among some liberals. With most predicting that the 2024 election will be decided on a razor thin margin, they are trying to avoid anything that will significantly suppress Democratic turnout.

In my opinion, the biggest reason for the Biden admin’s failure to take necessary action on the border is the same reason for most every other of their policy blunders, and that is extreme risk aversion. For example, just look at how often they say “deescalation” and “containment” when discussing Iran. It is this desire to keep everything on an even keel that has kept this administration from taking decisive action.
Border reform/immigration reform will not be "reformed" until white, christian europeans have the almost impossible restrictions taken off!! OTOH, we can't have potential republicans being let into the country, can we?
 
Your post is a contradiction. A border bill was killed by the Democrat controlled Senate, yet the House Freedom Caucus is supposed to compromise with the Democrats?...... Yeah right!

Aside from funding of the Ukraine, name me one worthy item that they should compromise with the Dem's on?

I'll wait.....
It is not a contradiction. It is a poison pill bill that would have never passed the Senate, but looks good at home.

There were a number of budget items GOP could have gotten from Schumer IF the Chaos Caucus had not killed it and forced a further compromise with the Democrats in the House.
Heck, earlier in the year Chip Roy was mad at his own caucus for killing it saying they had gotten considerable amount of their priorities in.

They wanted 100% and ended up with even less.
 
There are reports that Biden will issue an executive order cracking down on asylum within the next month. We will see soon enough.

There are certainly open borders “whackos” in the Democratic Party, but I do not think Biden is one of them. I would say that he is closer to those who want to reform immigration policy so it is much more liberal on the ease of legal entry and work authorization.

Given Biden’s comments on border reform, he clearly recognizes the border to be one of his biggest electoral vulnerabilities. What has Biden in a bind is that the system is being overwhelmed with fake asylum claims. While any type of restriction on immigration would trigger progressives, severely restricting asylum has become something of a third rail even among some liberals. With most predicting that the 2024 election will be decided on a razor thin margin, they are trying to avoid anything that will significantly suppress Democratic turnout.

In my opinion, the biggest reason for the Biden admin’s failure to take necessary action on the border is the same reason for most every other of their policy blunders, and that is extreme risk aversion. For example, just look at how often they say “deescalation” and “containment” when discussing Iran. It is this desire to keep everything on an even keel that has kept this administration from taking decisive action.
Thank you Saul for sharing from the Democrat perspective, I admit I battle to understand progressive or liberal motivation. If I may pose a few questions please:
1. What is the motivation for allowing/encouraging more and more people into the US? Is it just because they just want to be nice to all the humans? Or is the plan to swell the population no matter what in the belief that more is better? Yes, I know the voter swelling angle, but what else?
2. Do Democrats realise that if they destroy the Republican party that that more or less destroys democracy since the US will effectively be a one party state? Ala the dictatorships.
3. What is The Master Plan? What do the liberals and progressives see as the utopia?
 
I'm going to catch hell for this, but pot stirring can be fruitful (if not just fun) at times.

Part of me thinks that a Biden re-election could lead to...
1.) The Republican party being so pissed at each other and at each others throats they split
2.) Biden doing such a horrible job in his second term, it also causes a split in the Democrat Party

And honestly.... I would be perfectly fine with four political parties (5 with the Libertarian party). I think this would allow for far more honesty and transparency as far as what candidates run on, and what they also actually vote on and prioritize, and more Americans would feel genuinely represented even if it's just by a little bit.
There is great danger that the US devolves into effectively a one party state if the Democrats get to adjust districts, create more states, etc. A disenfranchised large chunk of a population that is perpetually frustrated is a dangerous thing. The answer is as you have said, more than two effective parties. Coalitions are hard work, but they get things done. Log jams, as Ukraine funding and the border have demonstrated, are the inevitable result of a near 50/50. It couldn't be closer to that right now in fact.
 
There is great danger that the US devolves into effectively a one party state if the Democrats get to adjust districts, create more states,

Changing states' borders has the potential to benefit both sides. For example a potential Washington DC statehood would likely result in 2 Dem Senators and 1 Dem Congressman. However, if something like the Greater Idaho Project were to come to fruition, the Republicans would very likely gain more house seats. The latter proposal (in theory) is easier to get done as well, because it doesn't create a new state, just changes the borders of existing states.

https://www.greateridaho.org/
 
Changing states' borders has the potential to benefit both sides. For example a potential Washington DC statehood would likely result in 2 Dem Senators and 1 Dem Congressman. However, if something like the Greater Idaho Project were to come to fruition, the Republicans would very likely gain more house seats. The latter proposal (in theory) is easier to get done as well, because it doesn't create a new state, just changes the borders of existing states.

https://www.greateridaho.org/
Where would the capital move to if DC becomes a state? By the Constitution, it cannot reside inside any state's boundaries. That is why the DC exists.
 
Where would the capital move to if DC becomes a state? By the Constitution, it cannot reside inside any state's boundaries. That is why the DC exists.
I honestly have no idea the legal theory behind it, I've just heard various rumblings over it throughout the years. Maybe they could set it up to where literally just the Capitol grounds and the white house are a new legal status? Sort of like how as tiny as Fort Sumter is it's technically under the governing body of the National Park service not South Carolina. As far as it being "unconstitutional", I'm not 100% sure that concept really matters anymore anyway when it comes to the modern Democrat party pushing legislation.
 
Thank you Saul for sharing from the Democrat perspective, I admit I battle to understand progressive or liberal motivation. If I may pose a few questions please:
1. What is the motivation for allowing/encouraging more and more people into the US? Is it just because they just want to be nice to all the humans? Or is the plan to swell the population no matter what in the belief that more is better? Yes, I know the voter swelling angle, but what else?
2. Do Democrats realise that if they destroy the Republican party that that more or less destroys democracy since the US will effectively be a one party state? Ala the dictatorships.
3. What is The Master Plan? What do the liberals and progressives see as the utopia?
I am probably further to the right on immigration than most Democrats, but I will try my best.

1. Assigning a single motivation is not possible as there is quite a diversity of views amongst Democratic voters. By and large, your typical Democrat believes immigrants are hard workers who help the economy and that the current immigration system is too onerous so they would like to see it streamlined to make it easier for people to come legally and get a work permit. Biden is someone who holds such a view. Then there are those who actually want less immigration precisely because it would mean more workers. These are the old-school socialists and union members. Bernie Sanders used to align with this view until running for president. In fact, I remember hearing an interview with him in which he called open borders a “Koch brothers plot” against unions. Then there are those who are actually for open borders because they have a humanist view of nations and believe that America should use its wealth to improve the lives of everyone. These are your progressive “squad” types.

2. I do not think the Democratic Party has ever sought to destroy the Republican Party any more than the Republican Party has sought to destroy them. The vast majority of Democrats, myself included, do see elements in the Republican Party today that are unrecognizable from the Republican Party 10 years ago, let alone the party of Reagan. We do not want those elements to become the Republican Party.

3. The “master plan” again depends on which group of Democrats is being asked. Your typical Democrat wants to see a socially tolerant society with a robust safety net. The “utopia” looks something like your typical small town in America but on a national scale. Liberals and progressives operate on the idea that societal problems are caused by poverty and that poverty is perpetuated by systemic injustices. Liberals, seem to have a more urban focus, with more emphasis on affordable housing and other policies aimed at low-income people. The “utopia” for liberals is something more akin to a NYC. Progressives are where you start seeing a real focus on redistribution and “equity.” My assessment is a little biased here as I find this area of Democratic politics to be infuriating. The focus is on redressing historical harms and compensating for perceived systemic privileges. Their “utopia” is probably closer to something like an idealized version of Berkeley or Portland.

There is a whole lot more to it than that and I did not do it justice but that is a quick outline of how I understand these other views.
 
I am probably further to the right on immigration than most Democrats, but I will try my best.

1. Assigning a single motivation is not possible as there is quite a diversity of views amongst Democratic voters. By and large, your typical Democrat believes immigrants are hard workers who help the economy and that the current immigration system is too onerous so they would like to see it streamlined to make it easier for people to come legally and get a work permit. Biden is someone who holds such a view. Then there are those who actually want less immigration precisely because it would mean more workers. These are the old-school socialists and union members. Bernie Sanders used to align with this view until running for president. In fact, I remember hearing an interview with him in which he called open borders a “Koch brothers plot” against unions. Then there are those who are actually for open borders because they have a humanist view of nations and believe that America should use its wealth to improve the lives of everyone. These are your progressive “squad” types.

2. I do not think the Democratic Party has ever sought to destroy the Republican Party any more than the Republican Party has sought to destroy them. The vast majority of Democrats, myself included, do see elements in the Republican Party today that are unrecognizable from the Republican Party 10 years ago, let alone the party of Reagan. We do not want those elements to become the Republican Party.

3. The “master plan” again depends on which group of Democrats is being asked. Your typical Democrat wants to see a socially tolerant society with a robust safety net. The “utopia” looks something like your typical small town in America but on a national scale. Liberals and progressives operate on the idea that societal problems are caused by poverty and that poverty is perpetuated by systemic injustices. Liberals, seem to have a more urban focus, with more emphasis on affordable housing and other policies aimed at low-income people. The “utopia” for liberals is something more akin to a NYC. Progressives are where you start seeing a real focus on redistribution and “equity.” My assessment is a little biased here as I find this area of Democratic politics to be infuriating. The focus is on redressing historical harms and compensating for perceived systemic privileges. Their “utopia” is probably closer to something like an idealized version of Berkeley or Portland.

There is a whole lot more to it than that and I did not do it justice but that is a quick outline of how I understand these other views.

Saul,
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. While we may not be aligned on many issues, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them logically and without rancor.
Bill
 
I am probably further to the right on immigration than most Democrats, but I will try my best.

1. Assigning a single motivation is not possible as there is quite a diversity of views amongst Democratic voters. By and large, your typical Democrat believes immigrants are hard workers who help the economy and that the current immigration system is too onerous so they would like to see it streamlined to make it easier for people to come legally and get a work permit. Biden is someone who holds such a view. Then there are those who actually want less immigration precisely because it would mean more workers. These are the old-school socialists and union members. Bernie Sanders used to align with this view until running for president. In fact, I remember hearing an interview with him in which he called open borders a “Koch brothers plot” against unions. Then there are those who are actually for open borders because they have a humanist view of nations and believe that America should use its wealth to improve the lives of everyone. These are your progressive “squad” types.

2. I do not think the Democratic Party has ever sought to destroy the Republican Party any more than the Republican Party has sought to destroy them. The vast majority of Democrats, myself included, do see elements in the Republican Party today that are unrecognizable from the Republican Party 10 years ago, let alone the party of Reagan. We do not want those elements to become the Republican Party.

3. The “master plan” again depends on which group of Democrats is being asked. Your typical Democrat wants to see a socially tolerant society with a robust safety net. The “utopia” looks something like your typical small town in America but on a national scale. Liberals and progressives operate on the idea that societal problems are caused by poverty and that poverty is perpetuated by systemic injustices. Liberals, seem to have a more urban focus, with more emphasis on affordable housing and other policies aimed at low-income people. The “utopia” for liberals is something more akin to a NYC. Progressives are where you start seeing a real focus on redistribution and “equity.” My assessment is a little biased here as I find this area of Democratic politics to be infuriating. The focus is on redressing historical harms and compensating for perceived systemic privileges. Their “utopia” is probably closer to something like an idealized version of Berkeley or Portland.

There is a whole lot more to it than that and I did not do it justice but that is a quick outline of how I understand these other views.
Thank you Saul.
 
Saul, In my opinion the minorities in this country can thank Liberal policies for being segregated and held back from achieving levels that poor white peoples did.

the New deal and LBJ ruined the black nuclear family with their misguided policies.


Excerpt, and the heart of the matter. from the article below.

“Instead, by incentivizing government funding of single mothers who did not marry the fathers of their children, and by expanding the panoply of welfare state programs to Americans who were already experiencing serious stress and hardship, a series of significant problems became an unstoppable conflagration often referred to as a tangle of pathologies.

Millions of Americans were soon engulfed in permanent chaos and dysfunction. Major metropolitan areas were comprised of block upon block of victimized children, broken families, and shattered lives.

A plague of fatherlessness ensued, leading to nearly 72 percent of all American black children being born without married parents by 2015. Marriage had become a rare and distant thing.

Did it have to be this way? When Johnson came to office in late 1963, more than 90 percent of all American babies had married parents. The 1960 census showed that nearly 9 of every 10 children from birth to 18 years of age lived with two married parents.

In fact, between 1940 and 1965, illegitimately had grown from 4 percent to 8 percent, but in the 25 years that would follow, those numbers would dramatically jump to nearly 30 percent by 1990.

Today more than 40 percent of all Americans are born to unmarried mothers. More than 3 of every 10 children live in some arrangement other than a two parent home. Cohabitation continues to climb, and has become the acceptable norm for millions of Americans. The most recent Census Bureau report says barely half of all American children are living with both married biological parents.

Marriage rejection rooted in the 1960s has real ramifications: never-married adults who are 34 years old or younger is now 46 percent of that demographic.

The Great Society produced a miserable society in some of America’s most difficult neighborhoods while the nuclear family became entangled by a federal government too often engineered by unaccountable, distant bureaucrats. Unparalleled family breakdown in America’s toughest neighborhoods is, in part, the sad result of Lyndon Johnson’s miscalculations and unworkable solutions.”


 
Excerpt from the New Deal and democrat Segregation policies

“The Home Owner's Loan Corporation invented 'redlining’, a term which color-coded tracts in metropolitan areas based on how ‘safe’ it was to issue loans to those residents. All-Black neighborhoods were always coded red, as were integrated districts. All-white districts near all-Black districts were coded yellow, and only all-white districts at a remove from African-American communities were green. Eighty years after the institution of redlining, seventy-five percent of redlined districts still struggle economically. Redlined neighborhoods even feel more adverse effects from COVID-19, according to reports.

The segregation enforced by the FHA and the HOLC has led to generations of inequality. The New Deal programs lifted millions of white Americans from poverty and made it possible for them to build property wealth to pass on to future generations. In addition to being excluded from being able to buy suburban homes, Black Americans also had to deal with a host of other issues like predatory lending, lower wages, less career mobility, and higher rents. Black Americans stayed behind in the inner-cities where the rents were so high – because they were deemed unsafe tenants – that they often had to double up. Plagued by overcrowding and purposefully fewer government services like sewage and garbage pick-up, these neighborhoods became ghettos.

The upshot, according to Rothstein, has been devastating.

“African-American family incomes are about sixty percent of white incomes. African-American household wealth is only about five percent of white household wealth,” he said. “That enormous disparity is the direct consequence of unconstitutional de jure segregation created by the federal government, and its effects endure to this day because that wealth gap is what creates much of the racial inequality that we have in this country.”

The segregation of the New Deal is still evident around the country today. African-Americans around the country still live in or near poverty because their families were denied the tools to build generational wealth that so many whites benefitted from. We may be more than fifty years past the official end of segregation in America, but the scars are still visible. “
 
Democrats have held a Masterclass for decades on switching the blame for minorities and especially blacks economic woes.

They created the disaster and were successful in blaming conservatives for the condition of minorities in this country. And it still works

And the destruction continues. Democrats are aligned 100% behind the national teachers union. Not allowing vouchers for minorities to escape the inner city “education” system.

After decades of ruinous policy. The only chance those kids have is a proper education. The public education system needs serious competition. Allow black kids a proper education. Either trade schools or college.

And help the next generation escape the democrats dystopia
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe we were discussing banks. You all protect each other.

Oh, okay. My bad. Didn't realize that negates everything.

If you're implying that banks are not "business" and/or can't be used in this conversation because it's not your preferred flavor, that's nonsense. In addition, a great deal of bankers become investors and business owners and operators. Banking and investing are part of the business ecosystem no matter what Bernie Sanders or J.D. Vance believe.
 
Anecdotal of course, but given my personal experiences, I don't think I'm kidding myself. I studied liberal arts in undergrad and went to business school. Apart from two courses (financial derivatives and quantitative portfolio management), business school was a walk in the park compared to undergrad. Business school and business education are not particularly difficult or challenging. Based on what I heard from my business school classmates, I'm not the only one who shares this opinion.

There's such a variety of experiences in liberal arts education that I can't agree that business school students are more well-rounded. The liberal arts student who majors in econ or government or English and takes electives in astronomy, history, classics, statistics/probability, and studio art is pretty well rounded--certainly no less so than the business major who took some humanities and social science electives. But I submit that well-roundedness is subjective I'd be curious how you defined and measured that in your research paper.

Agreed that accounting, finance and budgeting are very important subjects and have real world applications. All young people could benefit from learning them. However, one does not need to study it in college or business school. If one has aptitude, they are easily learned within the first year or two on the job. In my banking cohort, there wasn't a measurable difference in quality or productivity between those folks who studied business in undergrad or something else. Banks recruit for hustle and raw aptitude; the finance and business skills side of it can be taught pretty quickly.
I have lots of experience paying for college (my kids all had substantial 529 accounts) but non attending. Well I have taught marketing one day and been a guest speaker a couple times, and attended various extension classes and short courses. Some very worth while Also!

Also have lots of experience hiring and working with college graduates and people with Doctorates. Having a Dr. In front of your name or a PhD behind it certainly does not mean you know anything about business.

It is absolutely amazing the lack of business acumen amongst many of them.

In any case I think Scott makes a relevant point and my experience backs that up. I do seriously think that doctors especially should have an MBA to go with their medical degree. If they knew how to do business efficiently, perhaps health care would be cost effective and more doctors might make a better living also....
 
It would appear that the Israeli strike was a message in the way the Iranian attack was as well. It will be interesting to see what lessons each state takes from the experience.

After several days of analysis, I suspect Israel is taking a cautionary hard look at its missile defense systems. With extensive support of the US and lesser support of the UK and Jordan, the air breather threat, drones and cruise missiles, were successfully taken down. However, apparently as many as a half dozen of the ballistic missiles struck their target(s), which were military installations. There apparently was no significant damage to these sites, but had any one of those missiles been carrying a nuclear warhead, this would be a very different discussion this morning. Israel's size alone precludes it absorbing any sort of nuclear attack.

There is still little detail yet with regard to the Israeli attack, other than it was very restrained and did not hit any key economic infrastructure. Within Iran, the key target seems to have been a military base near Isfahan. Setting aside the nature of the target itself and whatever damage may have been caused, the strike would make it clear to the Iranian regime that Israel can hit targets as deep inside Iran as they desire. Moreover none of the targets seem to have been struck by aircraft overflying Iran. That would indicate either cruise missiles or ballistic missiles or both. Open source material indicates that Israel has as many as eighty nuclear weapons. The Mullahs also have some math to work through.
 
It would appear that the Israeli strike was a message in the way the Iranian attack was as well. It will be interesting to see what lessons each state takes from the experience.

After several days of analysis, I suspect Israel is taking a cautionary hard look at its missile defense systems. With extensive support of the US and lesser support of the UK and Jordan, the air breather threat, drones and cruise missiles, were successfully taken down. However, apparently as many as a half dozen of the ballistic missiles struck their target(s), which were military installations. There apparently was no significant damage to these sites, but had any one of those missiles been carrying a nuclear warhead, this would be a very different discussion this morning. Israel's size alone precludes it absorbing any sort of nuclear attack.

There is still little detail yet with regard to the Israeli attack, other than it was very restrained and did not hit any key economic infrastructure. Within Iran, the key target seems to have been a military base near Isfahan. Setting aside the nature of the target itself and whatever damage may have been caused, the strike would make it clear to the Iranian regime that Israel can hit targets as deep inside Iran as they desire. Moreover none of the targets seem to have been struck by aircraft overflying Iran. That would indicate either cruise missiles or ballistic missiles or both. Open source material indicates that Israel has as many as eighty nuclear weapons. The Mullahs also have some math to work through.
Joe;
Thanks again for these updates. Hope to hear more as to information becomes available.

Question on that last sentence; Do you believe those Mullahs actually look at that math? Many people prescribe to the notion that the current leadership in Iran has the core belief that the World must end in fire..... in other words they would potentially be very dangerous adversaries with nuclear weapons as the whole concept of deterent may have little to no meaning to them.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
55,059
Messages
1,169,310
Members
95,630
Latest member
MargeryGal
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

A.A. wrote on Msprenger!'s profile.
Are you still looking for a 375 H&H?
NRA Life, ASSRA Life, GGCA Life
Sable @ the lodge this morning

Buffalo encounter this morning!

here with available dates for 2024/25

1-13 September 2024
14-31 October 2024
1-7 November 2024
18-24 November 2024

March 2025 is wide open!
12-17 April 2025
24-28 May 2025
15-21 June 2025
7-12 July 2025
22-28 July 2025
13-31 August 2025
15-30 September 2025

October and November 2025 is wide open!
 
Top