Author Topic: US Presidency Post Donald Trump  (Read 6338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 629
US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« on: January 17, 2020, 13:45:18 »
Iran was more or less winning the asymmetrical fight, they were using proxies, mostly with poor Afghans and others to fight in die for a pittance, their Iranian leaders more or less safe. By this action the US has said, that your no longer safe outside your borders, making Command and Control of their proxies far more difficult and dangerous. Coupled with mounting sanctions, raising domestic issues, Iran may find it difficult to both lead and pay for these proxies, meaning they won't operate with a common goal. As long as Trump is willing to offer a political solution to the Iranian leadership, coupled with an aggressive response posture and continued sanctions, we may very well see meaningful change within the power structures of Iran. What I have found interesting is how quickly the Clerics and the government blamed the IRGC for both the shooting the airliner down and the coverup of the blunder. They know the people want blood and are forcing the IRGC to put up it's own sacrificial goats in order to save the Government/clerics from the wrath. I suspect there are many palace intrigues going on and lot of sleepless nights for the leadership. If Trump gets re-elected, they are going to be very worried.

A country like Iran being very worried of a re-elected Trump is all the indication many should need to vote Trump this November.   


Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 26,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 693
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2020, 14:09:26 »
A country like Iran being very worried of a re-elected Trump is all the indication many should need to vote Trump this November.   

It's a high risk high reward strategy.  If you're comfortable that the risk is worth the reward then yes you would want him re-elected.  If you're more risk adverse maybe not so much.

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 629
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2020, 14:14:12 »
It's a high risk high reward strategy.  If you're comfortable that the risk is worth the reward then yes you would want him re-elected.  If you're more risk adverse maybe not so much.

I suppose it depends on what you'd consider higher risk; appeasement or deterrence.  Which just brings us back to foreign policy. 

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 233,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,865
  • It's all good
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2020, 15:48:10 »
A country like Iran being very worried of a re-elected Trump is all the indication many should need to vote Trump this November.   

How about the other 180 countires that are also worried?

Bam-bam is interesting as a troddler - a great character.  Bam-bam the drunk wife-beater?  Not so much.

Note - This is a metaphor.  I know he doesnt drink - not sure about Aderall.  As far as I know he doesnt beat wives - he just routinely changes them.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 125,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,563
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2020, 16:27:58 »
I am worried about the next socialist President after Trump. We cant afford the price tag of a green new deal or carbon taxes disrupting the economy.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2020, 20:27:05 »
I am worried about the next socialist President after Trump. We cant afford the price tag of a green new deal or carbon taxes disrupting the economy.

For all intents and purposes (and by most US conservatives' standards these days) Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a "socialist" albeit he was a Republican. That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

 ;D
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Online Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2020, 20:38:39 »
For all intents and purposes (and by most US conservatives' standards these days) Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a "socialist" albeit he was a Republican. That didn't turn out so bad, did it?

 ;D

Surely you are not comparing Teddy Roosevelt and the New Deal with T6's concerns about the havoc that a Bernie Saunders or clone would unleash on the US economy. That would turn out bad, wouldn't it?
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 314,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,218
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2020, 20:50:03 »
Surely you are not comparing Teddy Roosevelt and the New Deal with T6's concerns about the havoc that a Bernie Saunders or clone would unleash on the US economy. That would turn out bad, wouldn't it?

FDR was the 'New Deal' guy. I'm no Economist, but it would be hard to imagine a financial crisis as serious as the Great Depression of the Dirty Thirties ever being possible again, thank Gawd....

20% unemployment would be almost impossible to achieve these days with the global supply chains so inter-dependent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2020, 20:58:48 »
A highly infectious plague running rampant in SE Asia might create temporary unemployment in those numbers, with a slow switch to manufactured goods taking time to correct for such. Such a plague would have to more or less shut down much of the marine shipping traffic and Air service, both freight and passenger.

Online Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2020, 21:11:06 »
FDR was the 'New Deal' guy. I'm no Economist, but it would be hard to imagine a financial crisis as serious as the Great Depression of the Dirty Thirties ever being possible again, thank Gawd....

20% unemployment would be almost impossible to achieve these days with the global supply chains so inter-dependent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Perhaps you missed my point. For FJAG to equate Roosevelt with socialism because of the policies he enacted under the New deal program is like saying that Jesus can't swim because he walked on water.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 314,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,218
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2020, 21:16:09 »
Perhaps you missed my point. For FJAG to equate Roosevelt with socialism because of the policies he enacted under the New deal program is like saying that Jesus can't swim because he walked on water.

But Roosevelt was a socialist. A great big one. With a fondness for centralized state control of everything, like a dictatorship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2020, 21:17:36 »
FDR was the 'New Deal' guy. I'm no Economist, but it would be hard to imagine a financial crisis as serious as the Great Depression of the Dirty Thirties ever being possible again, thank Gawd....

20% unemployment would be almost impossible to achieve these days with the global supply chains so inter-dependent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt: Trust busting; railroad controlling; pure food and drugs; conservation; imperialist yet Nobel Peace Prize winning; Panama Canal building -- that guy. A real progressive (aka "socialist") Republican (back in the days when Republicans actually did something for the country's benefit rather than for their own.)

FDR was great too. I just wanted to establish the fact that "socialists" come in all stripes and are not necessarily the devil's spawn. (p.s. I don't like Bernie one bit - I prefer Larry David  ;D)

 :stirpot:

Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Online Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2020, 21:29:11 »
But Roosevelt was a socialist. A great big one. With a fondness for centralized state control of everything, like a dictatorship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Historian George H. Nash argues:

Unlike the "moderate," internationalist, largely eastern bloc of Republicans who accepted (or at least acquiesced in) some of the "Roosevelt Revolution" and the essential premises of President Truman's foreign policy, the Republican Right at heart was counterrevolutionary. Anti-collectivist, anti-Communist, anti-New Deal, passionately committed to limited government, free market economics, and congressional (as opposed to executive) prerogatives, the G.O.P. conservatives were obliged from the start to wage a constant two-front war: against liberal Democrats from without and "me-too" Republicans from within.


You say poh tay toe...I say poe tat toe
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Online Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2020, 21:38:04 »
I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt: Trust busting; railroad controlling; pure food and drugs; conservation; imperialist yet Nobel Peace Prize winning; Panama Canal building -- that guy. A real progressive (aka "socialist") Republican (back in the days when Republicans actually did something for the country's benefit rather than for their own.)

FDR was great too. I just wanted to establish the fact that "socialists" come in all stripes and are not necessarily the devil's spawn. (p.s. I don't like Bernie one bit - I prefer Larry David  ;D)

 :stirpot:
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Online Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: Re: Iraq Unravels
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2020, 21:39:37 »
I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt: Trust busting; railroad controlling; pure food and drugs; conservation; imperialist yet Nobel Peace Prize winning; Panama Canal building -- that guy. A real progressive (aka "socialist") Republican (back in the days when Republicans actually did something for the country's benefit rather than for their own.)

FDR was great too. I just wanted to establish the fact that "socialists" come in all stripes and are not necessarily the devil's spawn. (p.s. I don't like Bernie one bit - I prefer Larry David  ;D)

 :stirpot:

My apologies FJAG. I was one Roosevelt too late
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 228,644
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,053
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2020, 00:07:56 »
This discussion would be so much more interesting if the Democrats actually had someone electable to put forward.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2020, 00:30:09 »
This discussion would be so much more interesting if the Democrats actually had someone electable to put forward.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you on that one. There are several folks there that appeal to the Democrats (and IMHO who would be a better president than the incumbent-not a high bar) but my guess is they don't appeal to the middle of the road/go in either direction types. Last time there was a "anyone but Hillary" movement out there amongst the undecided. It will be interesting to see if an "anyone but Trump" movement will gel this time amongst those that were gobsmacked in '16 when DJT won.

 :dunno:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 125,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,563
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2020, 00:36:53 »
In US elections its all about the economy. Trump's policies have freed it from the onerous Obama rules. Personally I expect 4 more years of President Trump. None of the current crop of Democrats is likely to unseat him. Already Democrat leaders are predicting a contested convention that might see a Hillary or Michele Obama. When that happens I will get the popcorn out.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2020, 12:04:27 »
>if the Democrats actually had someone electable to put forward.

Trump is so egregious that if he hadn't actually been elected, I would not have believed he could be.  I would like to believe that with an impeachment pinned to his tail he could not be re-elected, but the weak slate of Democratic front-runners is the least of the party's problems.  If the DNC and some media agencies (eg. CNN) are thought to be tilting the table for one of the progressives (Sanders, Warren) and then later on against the progressive in favour of the centrist (Biden), pissed-off voter defections to a third party candidate (eg. Green) can be the difference in key states just as in 2016.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2020, 12:57:06 »
Janet Daley is a senior columnist with the Daily Telegraph in the UK.  She is an American but went to Britain as a hard-core Marxist-Leninist.  And then the Unions turned out the lights and turned off the heat and closed down the railways.  And she became a fan of Margaret Thatcher and a confirmed Tory.

She is also a Brexit supporter and has railed against the deafness of the elite.  But she has never reconciled herself to Trump.

In this article she tries to explain to a Euro-Brit audience why Trump supporters are Trump supporters and why they seem to be willing to set aside the Constitution and its Institutions.  She fears the consequences.

I am a big fan of her opinions but here I think she is wide of the mark. 

Process or Intent.

Which drives you?

My sense is that for many people Intent rules their decision making.  They pragmatically decide on a course of action based on their appreciation of the current situation to achieve their intent.  The Process, the plan, the mechanism is secondary.  I believe that that is true for the vast majority of the population to whom life happens.  They have little sense of being in control.  They deal with a world of constant change on a daily basis.

The other side of the coin are those people comfortable in Process.  Content in their sense that by conforming to, and managing, the Process, then the world is ordered, someone is in control and they, as part of the mechanism, are able to exert control.  Some people are content to believe that others know what they are doing, are in control.  Some people aspire to be in control themselves.  Still others are just content to be professional courtiers and exploit the institutions of Process for their personal benefit.

It is my further belief that the divide between Trump supporters and the Never-Trumpers is the divide between those comfortable with managing chaos through pragmatism and those more comfortable with imposing order through principles and process, between those focused on Intent and those focused on Process. 

For those focused on Intent I suggest that the US Constitution is sacred for what it promises, what it intends - to provide a society of free individuals.  At the other end of the spectrum are those that accept the Intent but don't believe that you can get there without the Process.

But when does adherence to the Process result in Illiberalism?  When does the demand for conformity to the Process, for obeisance to the institutions, for obedience to the people in office become illiberal and threaten those pragmatically inclined free individuals and their ability to achieve their own personal intents?

My belief is that the inevitable tension between those demanding order and focusing on Process and those accepting chaos and focusing on Intent has reached the point it has because those that believe in Process, by establishing themselves in dominant positions and claiming to be the masters of the institutions to which they give credit for managing the situation, have set themselves up as targets for those no longer able to achieve their Intents.  Those denied that ability are forced to work harder, with less surety of success and accept that they will struggle to meet Laszlo's hierarchy of needs.  And they end up blaming those that were claiming the credit.

Apparently the concept of the "Knowledge Economy" gained popularity in 1969. I'm sure it sounded like a good idea at the time, appealing both to people in universities and to the vanity of Westerners, residents of all those brilliant Western countries.  And if their countries were brilliant then Westerners were brilliant too.  No problem then to start shipping jobs from Canada, the US, Britain and Germany to Mexico, Spain, Poland and China.  Those brilliant Westerners could then enjoy limitless vacations in green and pleasant lands buying cheap goods from prosperous Chinese.  If only they had money to buy fuel, food, clothes and shelter. 

Getting a ration of fuel, food, clothes, shelter and life from other people, no matter how well Intentioned they are, even if they are sanctioned through membership in an institution, is not a satisfactory answer.

Sooner or later people, individuals, will reassert themselves, pragmatically opting to do that which allows them to achieve their intent.

Democracy, or populism if you prefer, like capitalism, is not something that is imposed.  It is a base state, a chaotic state, upon which order struggles to be imposed by Process.  But imposing order demands energy and sooner or later people run out of the energy to maintain the order and entropy prevails.  Chaos reasserts itself.  Democracy, unqualified, unfettered, uncontrolled recurs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/18/teflon-trump-just-start-wests-post-democratic-apocalypse/



« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 13:00:36 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2020, 13:01:38 »
>if the Democrats actually had someone electable to put forward.

Trump is so egregious that if he hadn't actually been elected, I would not have believed he could be.  I would like to believe that with an impeachment pinned to his tail he could not be re-elected, but the weak slate of Democratic front-runners is the least of the party's problems.  If the DNC and some media agencies (eg. CNN) are thought to be tilting the table for one of the progressives (Sanders, Warren) and then later on against the progressive in favour of the centrist (Biden), pissed-off voter defections to a third party candidate (eg. Green) can be the difference in key states just as in 2016.

I'm not sure that CNN and that ilk are tilting the table for progressives. Unfortunately, with all his manic and frantic activity, Trump continues to suck all the oxygen from the media's room. They are paying so much attention to his ramblings that whatever message the Democratic candidates are transmitting, is not being received by the public due to the random white noise out there. I may dislike Trump --in fact a lot--but I have to admit, he knows how to make everything be all about himself. (Just take a look at the administration's recent incentive to role back Michelle Obama's healthy school lunch programs in favour of the type of foods Trump prefers. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-announces-proposals-loosen-guidelines-school-meals/story?id=68361208&cid=clicksource_4380645_5_film_strip_icymi_hed) That's not going to stop anytime soon.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2020, 13:10:02 »
Janet Daley ... In this article she tries to explain to a Euro-Brit audience why Trump supporters are Trump supporters and why they seem to be willing to set aside the Constitution and its Institutions.  She fears the consequences.

I am a big fan of her opinions but here I think she is wide of the mark. 

Interesting. Like you, I think she is wide of the mark. However, you and I don't often agree. Why do you think she's off the mark?

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2020, 13:39:21 »
Interesting. Like you, I think she is wide of the mark. However, you and I don't often agree. Why do you think she's off the mark?

 :cheers:

Short form? I don't fear the apocalypse.  My sense is that events like the Brexit elections, the Scottish referendum, the Catalonian rebellion, the Yellow Jacket riots, the Greek and Spanish and Italian and German ...... ad nauseam .... all are contributing to establishing a new equilibrium.  That will involve redirecting the course of some institutions, the fall of others and the creation of still others. 

If the United Kingdom is an institution it will survive, just as the Communist Party of China has survived, by reinventing itself.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see a United Kingdom comprising a devolved array of regional governments and free ports more akin to the Isle of Man and Channel Islands than to the old Westminster model.  Equally I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some accommodation between English Ireland and the United Kingdom on the basis that Gaelic has never caught on over there any more than it has in Scotland.  Wolfe Tone failed to join Ireland to revolutionary France.  The EU succeeded for a while but I firmly believe that language trumps all else in the culture stakes.

In the US - they too are slapping their institutions around a bit.  Shaking them down and moving them around. 

There is a book.  "The Cousins' Wars" by Kevin Phillips.  It argues that the Jacobean Wars of Britain (also known as the English Civil Wars), the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution and the American Civil War are all of a kind with all of them having a trans-Atlantic connection.  I am inclined to believe that that connection still exists and the current tumult is a continuation of those struggles - if a more polite version.  (I am also inclined to see them not so anglo-centrically but as a continuation of the broader Huguenot and other religious struggles on the Continent). 

The point of contention, as I tried to suggest above, is how to manage chaos, who gets to manage it, at what level?

Personally I don't see the debate, or the struggle ending.

And I'm content with that.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2020, 15:14:12 »
I should have written more clearly.  I meant that right now CNN appears to be tilting the table for one progressive (Warren) against the other progressive (Sanders).  There was a blow-up over questions asked in the recent debate, which were classic examples of embedding a premise not proven (the premise being Warren's version of Sanders's past comments about the hurdles faced by women in a presidential race).  Sanders supporters are pissed off.  Already too many people suspect that the establishment (DNC and Democrat-favouring media) is playing games to fix the outcome: initially, to ensure the more acceptable of the two progressive front-runners beats the other in case Biden doesn't look electable; later, to ensure Biden is picked if he does look electable.  If the eventual Democrat nominee loses because some voters stayed home, will it be more reasonable to blame them for not taking one for the team, or more reasonable to blame the establishment players who angered the voters?

The problems with the messages the Democratic candidates are transmitting are the content.  People aren't tuned out because Trump is a distraction; people are tuned out because the candidates are all talking to small sub-factions of potential Democratic voters and most of their ideas are so impractical as to be ridiculous.  But, best that people go on blaming Trump, so that the messaging goes uncorrected and the next administration is Republican.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2020, 20:32:46 »
Short form? I don't fear the apocalypse. ...

Perhaps that's because you, like me, never had to live through one. My early years were spent in immediate post-war Germany and I heard more than one story from my aunts (most of my uncles never made it through the war) and parents about what wartime and interwar Germany was like. I expect the same for people who experience living in Vietnam during the 50s to 70s, Cambodia during the Khmer days; Ukraine post WW1; the Rwandan Civil War; the Yugoslavian breakup; or even Venezuela today. Here's a little list of what chaos and misery can look like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#1980s

There is a book.  "The Cousins' Wars" by Kevin Phillips.  It argues that the Jacobean Wars of Britain (also known as the English Civil Wars), the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution and the American Civil War are all of a kind with all of them having a trans-Atlantic connection.  I am inclined to believe that that connection still exists and the current tumult is a continuation of those struggles - if a more polite version.  (I am also inclined to see them not so anglo-centrically but as a continuation of the broader Huguenot and other religious struggles on the Continent). 

The point of contention, as I tried to suggest above, is how to manage chaos, who gets to manage it, at what level?

Personally I don't see the debate, or the struggle ending.

And I'm content with that.

I'm not. But like that part in the alcoholic's crede, I've recognized the things that I can't change so I don't get heartburn over that anymore. I do agree that many of the conflicts are based on religious (and/or racial) differences making people intolerant of each other but I think that fundamentally it's an economic struggle where the have's fight hard to keep and to increase what they have while the have-nots do the best they can to survive until the situation becomes intolerable. Modern communications capabilities make the sharing of grievances simpler and heightens the level of frustration. When the antivax movement can convince so many people to do stupid things in the face of science, imagine how easily a real grievance can be circulated and adopted by the masses.

The trouble is that true democracy only works well in small societies where direct participation is possible. The larger a given society gets the more it needs to rely on representative government which automatically means there will be winners who feel included and losers who feel excluded.

I think in Trumpism we have a unique confluence of Haves who are generally of Republican ideals and who see his administration fostering their ability to grow what they have; Evangelicals who feel they are losing what was once Christian control over the morals of the country; and Economic Have-nots (victims of the Rust Belt and others) who are searching for someone who will bring back the 1950s industrial powerhouse and solid jobs. On some issues, their interests coexist, on others they don't.

You can't realistically micro-manage a large country or even a province--it's simply too hard to handle all the details. What you have to do is set up a system whereby large numbers of small communities--neighbourhood by neighbourhood--manage themselves (and the chaos) under a stable framework. The way that I see the differences between Democrats and Republicans (or conservatives v liberals) is that Democrats favour a very detailed framework and Republicans favour a very loose one.

The problem with Trump is that he is undermining that stable framework. Equally important is that there will come a point, where his supporters will stop pretending that their interests are in alignment. The only question is: will the Democrats be able to offer an alternative vision that will pull their supporters and the pragmatic middle together? Or will there be a power struggle at the various neighbourhood levels?

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2020, 01:41:52 »
>The only question is: will the Democrats be able to offer an alternative vision that will pull their supporters and the pragmatic middle together?

Impossible, if "You can't realistically micro-manage a large country or even a province".  Their answer to nearly everything they imagine to be a problem is to consolidate more authority at the highest level, with increasing amounts of regulation that become increasingly impossible to reasonably know and follow.  Call it "gouvernment conduit"; it should be about as successful as "bataille conduit".  Their entire political instinct is self-defeating.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,999
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2020, 10:01:17 »
I want to thank everyone contributing to this thread. The presentation of well argued, differing points of view in a thoughtful and respectful manner is a shining example of what all debate should be.

Keep it coming. I am learning alot.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 566,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,922
  • Keep 'em rolling.
    • The job.
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2020, 11:33:59 »
Perhaps that's because you, like me, never had to live through one. My early years were spent in immediate post-war Germany and I heard more than one story from my aunts (most of my uncles never made it through the war) and parents about what wartime and interwar Germany was like. I expect the same for people who experience living in Vietnam during the 50s to 70s, Cambodia during the Khmer days; Ukraine post WW1; the Rwandan Civil War; the Yugoslavian breakup; or even Venezuela today.
 :cheers:

Quote
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.


In any war, there are two tremendous tasks. That of the combat troops is to fight the enemy. That of the supply troops is to furnish all the material to insure victory. The faster and farther the combat troops advance against the foe, the greater becomes the battle of supply. EISENHOWER

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2020, 13:04:27 »
>The only question is: will the Democrats be able to offer an alternative vision that will pull their supporters and the pragmatic middle together?

Impossible, if "You can't realistically micro-manage a large country or even a province".  Their answer to nearly everything they imagine to be a problem is to consolidate more authority at the highest level, with increasing amounts of regulation that become increasingly impossible to reasonably know and follow.  Call it "gouvernment conduit"; it should be about as successful as "bataille conduit".  Their entire political instinct is self-defeating.
It also makes the lives of those charged with enforcing Regulations and Acts miserable as more are piled on, often so poorly written they are contradictory, unclear or completely unenforceable.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2020, 13:08:34 »
It also makes the lives of those charged with enforcing Regulations and Acts miserable as more are piled on, often so poorly written they are contradictory, unclear or completely unenforceable.

If there's one thing that I've learned it's that writing legislation and regulations is an art form and that there are very few artists in government.

 ;D
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2020, 14:09:03 »
Several of my friends have sat in the drafting rooms for legislation as SME's for the NWPA>NPA>CNWA. I am so glad that I didn't, as I don't think I could play the game without hitting someone. The drafters use the drafting instructions and TB polices, along with DOJ lawyers to write the stuff, occasionally they ask the SME if it will work and then often get huffy when the SME brings to much reality in the room. The chance of you getting good drafting instructions, good drafters, switched on Lawyers with actual court experience and the right SME are few and far between. Throw in rushed timelines and there is a reason lawyers make millions arguing fine points of law on the finished product.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 228,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,991
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2020, 14:51:33 »
Imagine them drafting the Ten Commandments!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2020, 15:11:28 »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2020, 15:28:26 »
Perhaps that's because you, like me, never had to live through one. My early years were spent in immediate post-war Germany and I heard more than one story from my aunts (most of my uncles never made it through the war) and parents about what wartime and interwar Germany was like. I expect the same for people who experience living in Vietnam during the 50s to 70s, Cambodia during the Khmer days; Ukraine post WW1; the Rwandan Civil War; the Yugoslavian breakup; or even Venezuela today. Here's a little list of what chaos and misery can look like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#1980s

I'm not. But like that part in the alcoholic's crede, I've recognized the things that I can't change so I don't get heartburn over that anymore. I do agree that many of the conflicts are based on religious (and/or racial) differences making people intolerant of each other but I think that fundamentally it's an economic struggle where the have's fight hard to keep and to increase what they have while the have-nots do the best they can to survive until the situation becomes intolerable. Modern communications capabilities make the sharing of grievances simpler and heightens the level of frustration. When the antivax movement can convince so many people to do stupid things in the face of science, imagine how easily a real grievance can be circulated and adopted by the masses.

I think we can both agree that experience impacts one's sense of the future.  I believe that that applies to groups as much as to individuals. I further believe that that shared experience, that history and its perception, defines a culture - whether it be a familial, clan, tribal, national, imperial or racial culture. Those cultures will inevitably drive decision-making. 

Geography also plays its part. It decides whether cultures are isolated or dispersed.  Whether certain characteristics flourish or are submerged.  Whether change is rapidly accommodated or submerged in inertia.

I understand that your perceptions and my perceptions, and those of our respective cultures, could be at significant variance.  I can understand how continental history and experience, going back thousands of years, can encourage views similar to your own.  Being trapped in a circling mass of ever changing influences likely inclines people to seek to create order out of chaos.

On the other hand, the culture in which I grew up, generally has a different outlook.  I venture to suggest a more optimistic one.  One summarized as "It will all work out in the end" no matter how bad things get. Or "It will be right come the night". 

The world looks different across the Channel. That can be ascribed to the access to the open seas.   And America, Canada, Australia and Japan are far across the Channel.

That different view is what drives our different senses of what is necessary.

I believe the European sense is driven by a belief that one can't escape one's neighbours.  Therefore it is necessary to control one's neighbours.

The alternative sense is that one can always find breathing room, whether on the high seas or the lone prairies. You don't have to worry about fists and noses coming in contact.

And there you have the difference between the Urban and the Rural as well.  And the difference between free trading merchants, also known as pirates, and licenced traders with authorized and controlled monopolies.

I do agree that many of the conflicts are based on religious (and/or racial) differences making people intolerant of each other but I think that fundamentally it's an economic struggle

Actually I think you and I talk past each other on religion.  I believe that when you see me write the word religion you infer that I am talking about God or gods, whether wine is blood, whether there is a heaven or hell or we just keep going around in circles.  Just to be clear,  that is not what I am meaning at all. 

When I say that I believe that religion is important to culture I am not talking about what a particular religion, church, sect or cult believes but rather the polity of the religion. How does a group of people decide on what they believe?  And how do they decide with whom they will associate?

My sense on this is that for millennia the debate has been between those who hold that there is a truth and that that truth can be revealed and that that revealed truth must be imposed.  In mediaeval Europe, including Britain. That position was the position held by the Church of Rome and dominated discourse.  It upheld the concept of a priesthood schooled in mysteries who would then underpin secular authority.  That priesthood predates Christ, Rome and Babylon.  It is a caste. Belief is entirely divorced from its existence.

That caste has always struggled against those that disagree with the need for such a caste.  Heretics are heretics not because of the beliefs they hold but because they don't accept the authority of the priesthood.  Any priesthood.

Those heretics have included Gnostics, Arians, Unitarians, Bogomils, Cathars, Albigensians, Lollards, Waldensians and many many more prior to the Reformation.  The Reformation didn't spring magically in the 1500s.  It was merely yet another eruption of a longstanding debate.

Luther gave voice to the Universal Priesthood, essentially a gnostic position, that every individual can understand god in their own way.    This largely came from the Papacy having lost its cachet due to three Popes all running around claiming to be the one, true, repository of the truth.   In the interests of order Luther, and the Kings and the Papacy all came to accept that divine authority could be distributed - within limits.  And that that authority could only be distributed as far as the King.  The King got to decide on the religion and control the church.

Calvin disagreed.  As did the citizens of Geneva.

Sweden, one of the first countries to adopt Luther was also one of the first countries to categorically reject Calvin.  Because Calvin rejected all priests and undermined all authority.

Then Calvinism gained a great advantage.  In 1560 it secured a national home and a supportive government that could buy arms and raise armies.  John Knox organized Presbyterian Scotland.  A country that devolved power to local communities and decided things in a general assembly.  That assembly was permitted by the local powers because the local churches were controlled by local magnates and their supporters acting as Elders of the Kirk.  If not quite democracy it certainly distributed power more broadly.

Meanwhile, in England, the English Lutheran church was suppressed by Bloody Mary Tudor and the protestants were driven underground, dispersed and detached from each other.   Each detached congregation was forced to, and free to, adopt their own set of beliefs and organizing principles.  Once that freedom had been found in the face of persecution and burning martyrs it was very hard  for anybody to convince people raised in that environment to accept subjugation to higher authority. And thus you have the Congregationalist Puritans.

From there you move on to the Quakers who believe that each individual experiences god their own way and is free to do so, and express it openly, when surrounded by friends.

I would further argue that that open, friendly association devolves in the Free Masons and from there to the Labour Party and Socialists and Communists and ultimately to modern atheists that feel free to accept or reject god, express their beliefs openly and associate with whom they like.

The mediaeval Roman church believed what the Pope believed.  The Lutheran churches believed what the King believed. The Presbyterian Church believed what the Lords of the Congregation believed  The Congregationalists believed what the Congregation decided.  The Quakers believed whatever they liked.  Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Quakers shifted and dissolved and changed direction and reformed as people associated freely choosing whose authority to accept and how much authority to voluntarily give up.  A chaotic polity if you will.

That polity moved from the religious world to the secular with the rise of the Masons, some of whom felt that God was necessary, some of whom felt that any deity was adequate and some, dominant on the Continent were accepting of atheism.

Those free associations, those underground meetings, suppressed by authority, gave space for the masses to meet and for the rise of secular movements leading to political beliefs like liberalism, communism and socialism.

Democracy rises regardless of authority.  The masses have their own organizing principles.




The trouble is that true democracy only works well in small societies where direct participation is possible. The larger a given society gets the more it needs to rely on representative government which automatically means there will be winners who feel included and losers who feel excluded.

I take exception to the notion of true democracy.  I have no idea what true anything is.  And, to quote Bill Murray.  It just doesn't matter.  I do agree that size matters. And it is why I am disinclined to accept any imperium.

I think in Trumpism we have a unique confluence of Haves who are generally of Republican ideals and who see his administration fostering their ability to grow what they have; Evangelicals who feel they are losing what was once Christian control over the morals of the country; and Economic Have-nots (victims of the Rust Belt and others) who are searching for someone who will bring back the 1950s industrial powerhouse and solid jobs. On some issues, their interests coexist, on others they don't.

As you like.  As I suggest above, by focusing on the beliefs of the Christian trees you might be missing the forest of the Christian polity.  And as to wanting to put food on the table... I find it hard to disagree with people that used to be able to do that and remember those days fondly.

You can't realistically micro-manage a large country or even a province--it's simply too hard to handle all the details. What you have to do is set up a system whereby large numbers of small communities--neighbourhood by neighbourhood--manage themselves (and the chaos) under a stable framework. The way that I see the differences between Democrats and Republicans (or conservatives v liberals) is that Democrats favour a very detailed framework and Republicans favour a very loose one.

And there, without demur, we agree.

The problem with Trump is that he is undermining that stable framework. Equally important is that there will come a point, where his supporters will stop pretending that their interests are in alignment. The only question is: will the Democrats be able to offer an alternative vision that will pull their supporters and the pragmatic middle together? Or will there be a power struggle at the various neighbourhood levels?

I have difficulty accepting that a framework that is constantly being modified, that is variously being attributed to 1968, 1945, 1776, 1689, 1519 ... can be defined as stable. I don't perceive Trump's disruption as any greater than Trudeau Srs effect on my life. 

As to his supporters - some will continue to find interests in alignment even when they find others in conflict.  No self-delusion is necessary. 

And as to the Democrats - the Lutheran party of the Prince and the Priesthood - we shall have to see at the next election whether they or the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Quakers, the Masons and the freethinkers prevail.

I will always put my money on the neighbourhood and the individual.

 :cheers:  Your good health, Friend.

Edit:  And the difficulty of finding people capable of drafting good, let alone perfect, rules and regulations, I would argue, just strengthens my case.

Jeez.  I did it again.  Didn't I?





"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 244,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,389
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2020, 15:52:10 »
. . .  there are very few artists in government.


Other than bullshit artists?
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Online Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2020, 16:33:02 »
Hey...…...I'm right here.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2020, 23:59:39 »
...
When I say that I believe that religion is important to culture I am not talking about what a particular religion, church, sect or cult believes but rather the polity of the religion. How does a group of people decide on what they believe?  And how do they decide with whom they will associate?
...
As I suggest above, by focusing on the beliefs of the Christian trees you might be missing the forest of the Christian polity.
...

This kind of leaves Trump aside for a moment (and I don't think this small diversion deserves its own thread).

It's not really the belief in a god that bothers me about religion; it is the polity. To my understanding church polity is generally one of three types: episcopal (a single all powerful leader of the church); presbyterian (a body of governing elders); or congregational (final authority rests with the congregation itself). Of the three, my objection to congregational is the least, however, being the cynic that I am I take the view that once faith and scripture is involved, there will always be someone in the congregation that will browbeat the others into how to think on any given topic based on their own interpretation.

Back to experiences that form your views. I started life as a Lutheran, a religion which in my youth I thought was pretty good because we didn't do all that Catholic fancy stuff (that's how you think at the age of eight). I then learned about the Lutheran doctrine of Justification - you are only saved from your sins by God's grace alone through faith alone on the basis of scripture alone. Further, we are all saddled with original sin because Adam and Eve upset the apple cart by trusting in their own strength, knowledge and wisdom. Basically my religion told me not to rely on myself but to take everything on faith as set down in the scriptures by some sheep herders and fishermen two to three millennia ago. If I did start to rely on my own strength, knowledge and wisdom (or that of others) I'd be damned to hell. The more I thought about it and looked at other religions the more I came to believe that I seemed to be involved in some weird ecclesiastical shell game.

While many tribes and states had kings before Christianity, it was with the general dissemination of the Christian scriptures that the concept of the divine right of kings came to Europe:

Quote
1 Sam 15 (1) Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: ...

IMHO, Christianity and the divine right was the primary reason that the Greek and Roman Republics concepts of democracy (flawed as they might have been) were suppressed for a thousand years. Democracy made its way back in spite of Christian polity rather than as a consequence of it. Even today, many Christian faiths (not all - and other faiths too - I don't want to single out Christians alone) preach intolerance towards their fellow citizens who are "different" from what their congregation believes the scriptures demand.

When I sat as a hearing officer with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission I argued, unsuccessfully, that human rights should be tiered so that there would be guidance when conflicting human rights were at issue. At the top tier there should be those characteristics which the individual has no control over: race, colour, ethnicity, physical disability, sex, sexual orientation etc while those characteristics over which the individual has some choice, such as their religion, political belief etc should be in a second tier. In that way someone expressing a human right in the second tier would not be able to discriminate against someone in the first tier regardless of how "honestly held" that belief is. Perhaps this is why I was never assigned a case dealing with religious issues.  :dunno:

Again, IMHO, everyone ought to be able to have and exercise their own religious beliefs up to the point where it does not harm another individual (and so long as it is doesn't cost the state anything - in fact I think religious entities should be taxed like any other business enterprise).

I can appreciate that Christianity has many facets some of which have evolved or at least transmuted but, that said, the faith's general dogma is enshrined in a book that reflects an old and non democratic society and which its adherents consider infallible.

In answer to your question:

Quote
How does a group of people decide on what they believe?  And how do they decide with whom they will associate?

My simplistic answer is: it depends on how they were initially indoctrinated and what social need their continued association with their faith group fulfills.

Have a good one.
 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2020, 11:45:24 »
.... To my understanding church polity is generally one of three types: episcopal (a single all powerful leader of the church); presbyterian (a body of governing elders); or congregational (final authority rests with the congregation itself). Of the three, my objection to congregational is the least, however, being the cynic that I am I take the view that once faith and scripture is involved, there will always be someone in the congregation that will browbeat the others into how to think on any given topic based on their own interpretation.

I find your concerns about congregationalism interesting, in particular your comment
Quote
there will always be someone in the congregation that will browbeat the others into how to think on any given topic based on their own interpretation
.  That describes pretty much any meeting that I have ever had when discussing rules and regulations, laws and constitutions with anybody.  But it is particularly true of dealing with the local priesthood: the guild of inspectors.  Essentially, I believe the problem, as you define it, is endemic to the human condition.  And, in my view, further reason to support distributed decision making, like congregationalism, and to reject centralization of authority which merely creates a larger unitary congregation for "someone to browbeat the others into how to think on any given topic based on their own interpretation".

I know of many people that put their faith in the US Constitution, or the Canadian Charter, or QRAO, or the Canadian Electrical Code and are paid for their interpretations.

 :cheers:

Edit: Sorry if I sounded as if I was going after Lutherans. Not my intent.  I only use it to differentiate, generically, Papal episcopals from National episcopals like Lutherans, Anglicans, Gallicans and Methodists. Again, my apologies if I caused offense.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2020, 13:37:43 »
None whatsoever. Hey. I'm a functional atheist. I won't be so  arrogant as to say that there is no god but I choose to live my life as if there isn't one. I tend to react negatively to people/organizations who insist categorically that there is one; who insist that their form of worship is the only way to be a moral person and to get into the afterlife; and who demand that I get on board their system. I put Lutheranism into that category. I don't dislike religions per se; I do dislike ones that proselytize aggressively.

And yes, I agree that unofficial leadership in a congregation is a human trait. I've always believed in the nine corporate personas: Initiates to the organizations are termed Bambi's (bright eyed and bushy tailed); with time they progress to becoming either Believers or Pragmatists; Believers progress to becoming Soldiers, Survivors or Alphas; while Pragmatists progress into Toilers, Naturals (ambitious and talented but not wedded to their work) or Heretics. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevefaktor/2012/11/15/feature-the-9-corporate-personality-types-how-to-inspire-them-to-innovate/#4eecf8e62753

Religous congregations are no different.

Okay. That's my last one on the topic. Back to Post Donald.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2020, 15:17:45 »
And bringing it back on track: Will Donald's congregation survive his departure?

My sense is that it will because I believe that the cultures from which his congregation recruits predate his leadership.  He is less of a creator than he is a figurehead, or better yet, a champion.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 26,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 693
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2020, 16:23:22 »
And bringing it back on track: Will Donald's congregation survive his departure?

My sense is that it will because I believe that the cultures from which his congregation recruits predate his leadership.  He is less of a creator than he is a figurehead, or better yet, a champion.

I think he is an opportunist.  He sensed a frustration amongst a group of people and took advantage of it.  Which is why the professional politicians have no answer for his methods.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2020, 16:56:28 »
More of a rallying point of some pretty diverse groups with very different agenda's. It's the Dems slide into sillyness that drives a lot of Trumps power. If the Dems could find a middle of the road candidate that does not alienate people outside their base and can see all of the country and not just the States they are strong in, then they can win and hold. Like Canada, it's the undecided vote that wanders that really decides elections, convince them your not crazy and you do a reasonable job on economy, not tax them to death and not interfere to much, you can win them.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 566,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,922
  • Keep 'em rolling.
    • The job.
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2020, 17:42:27 »
More of a rallying point of some pretty diverse groups with very different agenda's.

A rallying point for some more than others,

Quote
The 2018 midterm vote

Percentage who voted for Republican candidates,

Black 9 %
Hispanic 29 %
Asian 23 %
Jewish 17 %
White, born again, evangelical Christian 75 %
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/07/how-religious-groups-voted-in-the-midterm-elections/


« Last Edit: January 20, 2020, 17:48:18 by mariomike »
In any war, there are two tremendous tasks. That of the combat troops is to fight the enemy. That of the supply troops is to furnish all the material to insure victory. The faster and farther the combat troops advance against the foe, the greater becomes the battle of supply. EISENHOWER

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 396
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2020, 22:34:22 »
A rallying point for some more than others,
I wonder how many of the undifferentiated Asians are also Christians of some sort: thinking specifically of South Korea's Catholic and evangelical Protestant communities.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2020, 22:45:53 »
The vote share for black and hispanic doesn't look much different than for 2014.  Asian share down.  "White born again evangelical" up a little, assuming it's roughly the same as "white protestant".

Not particularly strong evidence for "rallying point" so much as "typical voting pattern".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2020, 12:54:01 »
Trying not to, but it is hard.

Quote
White, born again, evangelical Christian 75 %

Not all whites are Christian.
Not all Christians are white.
Not all evangelicals are protestant.
Not all protestants are evangelicals.
Not all Christians, protestant, catholic or evangelical are born again.
Not all Christians go to any church.

Many people, of all sorts of backgrounds, support Trump... for various reasons. 
Many people accept that everybody has feet of clay.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 244,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,389
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2020, 14:00:30 »
Trying not to, but it is hard.

Not all whites are Christian.
Not all Christians are white.
Not all evangelicals are protestant.
. . .

All good points, but perhaps discussion of the jumbled statistics provided in that previous post may be better served if the actual comparisons made (in the articles linked in that post) were used, such as demonstrated in these two charts.




Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #47 on: January 21, 2020, 16:28:19 »
Thanks

But those polls are demonstrative of net tendencies.  No necessarily reliable predictors.  It doesn't take much rounding, justifiable by considering variance, before you can reliable say half the population is for and half is against.  Half the men, half the women, half the Catholics, half the Protestants, half the College grads, half the non-college grads... etc.

And even a 70/30 split, especially among a very small population, can change rapidly when some small number changes their minds on one or two issues. 

The individual is a lot more important than the group.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 314,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,218
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #48 on: January 22, 2020, 11:42:30 »
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,446
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #49 on: January 22, 2020, 12:34:20 »
Interesting article.

One of the lines that stuck out to me says

Quote
Social-media mobs intimidated anybody who dared to criticize his government.

In Trumps case it's mobs intimidating anyone who supports him.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2020, 12:38:40 »
How wondrous for speculation is the universe of outcomes that constitutes "things that are possible".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 629
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2020, 13:02:59 »

Quote
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/modis-second-term-could-be-catastrophic/604159/

Quote
Trump’s first term is at best an imperfect guide to the horrors that would await us if he manages to win a second one

The melodrama of the reaction to a second Trump term will be pure entertainment. 

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 176,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,367
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2020, 14:14:42 »
The melodrama of the reaction to a second Trump term will be pure entertainment.

If the last four years are anything to go by...
Optio

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,644
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2020, 22:42:50 »
With McCabe off the hook, Barr’s recent comments about tweets and a few other things, I wonder if done in the Republican Party are eyeing the 25th Amendment fir 2021 especially since it appears the Dems are going to hand Trump the election.
... Move!! ...

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2020, 22:56:43 »
Using the 25th A would be political suicide.

Barr is just playing it straight, which is consistent with his reputation.

Not every misstep deserves a criminal trial, but if some scalps don't get nailed to a door soon for egregious conduct, tempers will worsen.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 566,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,922
  • Keep 'em rolling.
    • The job.
Re: US Presidency Post Donald Trump
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2020, 23:18:09 »
, I wonder if done in the Republican Party are eyeing the 25th Amendment fir 2021

As far as we know, the current occupant of the White House has not suffered a major stroke or serious brain injury since the election.

He is the way he is.

The people who voted for him , in their wisdom, were ok with that.





 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 10:43:56 by mariomike »
In any war, there are two tremendous tasks. That of the combat troops is to fight the enemy. That of the supply troops is to furnish all the material to insure victory. The faster and farther the combat troops advance against the foe, the greater becomes the battle of supply. EISENHOWER