Weep

I genuinely believe that America is at a watershed... and will probably go the wrong way...

Is this your story, Bob? You've led an interesting life

Just an observer, on fact. 

I'm amazed when I step back, to take in the sweep of history we've lived through. 

I was born in 1962 and only a few months old during the Cuban Missile crisis. Apparently my dad got called up for his physical but they sent him back home because he had a wife and baby.

I will never forget the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Grenada Invasion, the Falkland Islands War, the first WTC bombing, OKC bombing, Waco, and the devastation of 9/11.

And yet, right now, our country's conservatives have put on full display their regressive tendencies. This can not look good to an onlooking set of nations. We look 'small' and politically mal-nourished overall right now.

Let's hope Joe Biden wins this presidency, and can forestall our national 'fall' into a state that other western nations can not or outright refuse to follow or lay with us.

Let's hope Joe Biden wins this presidency, and can forestall our national 'fall' into a state that other western nations can not or outright refuse to follow or lay with us.

Let's hope so. My worry is that the Republicans are now permanently anti-democratic. 

Even if Biden wins, he'll have to spend the four years on the pandemic, while fighting a hostile Republican Senate over stimulus. He'll have to try to reverse Trump's attacks on the nation's parks and forests; and to restore the environmental rules Trump tore up. And so on... 

In brief... repairing Trump's damage will largely consume a Biden Presidency. That's not very sexy. It would be easy for supporters to slip away. 

... and if a Republican wins in 2024... or ever... it will all begin again. 

The Iran Hostage affair was a trauma... but was it a game-changer? To my mind, it was just another event in the long series of "who struck first" between the two nations. In the end, the only casualty was Jimmy Carter.

From an Iranian point of view, that's very little, compared to either the Savak, or to American aid to Sadam Hussein (yup) during the Iraq - Iran war. 

It is a vicious cycle. Democrats rebuking republican policies ever two and four years. And bet this: Republicans like pouring, 'sticky, running, political molasses' out ahead of the democratic party leadership.

Yup

I see the Iranian Hostage Crisis as a game-changer. Because it emphasized and focused attention on President Carter as a faithful man more dedicated to peace than the speedy resolution of the Crisis. The crisis gave way to Ronald Reagan coming into power prematurely and he did at least one disturbing policy as president:

1. (Reagan) Shutdown large swaths of in-patient mental asylums (if not all), which led to the residual effects of homeless people (with a check) on our streets today!

(Reagan changed the funding for college veterans too during his administration - such that veterans no longer got a full college education, but had to pay half of the cost. I can't remember or locate the program, nevertheless!)

He also broke the backs of the unions with his firing of the air traffic controllers

Reagan was a proto-Trump. He shredded propriety, too. He wasn't as blatant as Trump... or perhaps the Congress wasn't yet as servile. 

Yes. He did.

Trump was a student of Roy Cohn. Then, the 'student' became a master user of users!

Conservatives are not perfect by a longshot, but don't go acting like the liberal left is clean and pure as the newfallen snow with zero faults!

... don't go acting like the liberal left is clean... 

No one says that. The world is not black-or-white. It's a spectrum of grey, from near black to near white. 

This is the essence of the "both sides do it" fallacy. Dark grey and light grey are both "grey", but they are very different.

It's foolish to evaluate an item by comparing it to another. An independent measure is the way to go. Comparing two items without a "scale" is folly: "every one eats too much" is a true... but meaningless. "Some people occasionally eat too much, but maintain a healthy diet overall."... "Some people eat too much, to the point that their health suffers."

It's not simple, but we have no choice. We must always be more precise than "both sides do it". 

I can agree with that. Thank you.

My friend, define: "Longshot" in your sentence.

When Donald Trump is permitted to obviously lie to this great people he is suppose to be serving to get what he wants and is collaborated with and in some cases undoubtedly been aided and abetted in the 'paving over' of a crime - by a continuum of legal and political surrogates what can the world expect it will receive in return for its involvement from a renewed four year Trump Administration.

Ed, you tell me. Your thoughts on this subject, please.

This is the essence of the "both sides do it" fallacy. Dark grey and light grey are both "grey", but they are very different.

Another example is this. I have often stated that I am a forgiving person; that does not mean that I will be gracious or allowing of free punches and rocks pelts to the head or body! Forgiven means having an expectation of not receiving more of the same. It means a boxer needs to take off the gloves; a striker needs to quit slapping, a thrower drops its rocks!

In all these cause and effects political battles there exist starter problems which deteriorate downward and no one moves in a positive effort to bring them "up" to any degree of repair.

So what is the solution? We can declare many protracted problems as "existing and ruled upon" or "existing and stable."

Take a stance which allows people behaving legal and proper in our society to live and advance their chosen freedoms "to be."  Let others, like me, us, 'adjust.'

No compromise is possible with a flat-Earther. A compromise would be something like "the world is a hemisphere, flat on one side and round on the other".

Water boils at 100° C. No amount of "belief" will change that.

We should be polite with everyone, but with TrumpTrueBelievers, compromise is unlikely. 

Also, it is "impossible" to entertain any combative, belligerent, aggressive person. Unless, you are knocking common-sense (back) into him or her.

Have you observed that Trump's "team" for this election "rebuttal campaign" all come to the microphones and press events with their game faces on? Did you get a look at Cory Lewindowski's game face off to the side of the presser: Priceless! Cory looked like somebody was 'bunching his jock' every few seconds!

Yes. It takes two to dance. 

I'm sorry, I should have clarified that. In my neck of the woods down here in the border, people use the word longshot to mean a great deal.

Interesting. I've never heard of "longshot" being used that way. Regional usages are fascinating. 

Isn't Yuma speak a different dialect?😁

Not that I'm aware of. 

Then again... I don't have a great ear, so my opinion is kinda flaky. 

Bob, are you an "international citizen of America"?  Straighten me out!

I have double citizenship: American and French. I was born and raised in the US, and went to Europe after my time in the Army. One thing led to another... and I spent most of my adult life in France.

About ten years ago, Hélène and I began spending Winter in Yuma, Arizona, first with my father and then at our own place.

I think my transatlantic life has led me to have an open perception. I know Europe better than most Americans... which isn't saying much... but sometimes (very occasionally) someone listens. 

Same here. During my 20 years in the Navy I lived so many different places over the years both in CONUS and overseas. For example, as a fluid Spanish speaker, I have had people tell me I sound like I am Puerto Rican, a Spaniard, a Peruvian, and others I can't remember. I have had many people in different parts of the country here try to guess at my American accent as well.

No hablo español. Mi esposa y yo estudiamos un poco. Pero... ahora... con el Covid.... ¿quien sabe?

In English, I have a neutral Midwest accent. In French, I have an American accent (what else!). I was already adult when I learned, and the accent is permanent.

I first learned about Spanish dialects over fifty years ago. I spent a month on leave in Europe before heading to Vietnam. In Madrid, I spent a lot of time with some guys doing tinto y tapas. A Mexican and a Spaniard never stopped hassling each other. 

I understand. BTW, have you noted how open-minded I am?

have you noted... 

Truthfully? No. 

But that's not a reflection on you. 

My belief, very deep, is that "open-minded" is what separates a thinking being from a zombie. "Open-minded" is normal. "Narrow-minded" is less than human. 

So... I perceive you as an thinking person. 

These days, that's a high compliment. 

I accept that. Yes, I am very open -minded and love all people who want to be loved by others like and different from themselves! What I abhor is repeat liars, cheats, thieves, murderers, and any other assortment of villains. That is, any group or organization which pleads its divergent case before the people and win its freedom is acceptable to me! I think PEOPLE rock!

 I think PEOPLE rock!

That's a good way of life.... 

Yes, people make the world go round:

Note: Stellar song. Video is 'artistic' work of the uploader (I think). The song and accompanying video does express my point of view, nevertheless. Killer song!

You lived in an interesting time. It will only get more interesting now Bob.

I just realized... 

You mean in the Chinese sense, don't you?

Yes

............ probably right....... 

... sigh........ 

When we have a cop that is suing the people that were involved in the killing they themselves committed and calling it emotional stress to him, something is seriously wrong. With society and institutions.

I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter who is 'voted' in. The top infrastructure is going to do what ever it wants. The population itself is an after thought.

America electing a Black President was a very big deal, all around the world. Sadly, the man himself was not combative enough to stand against the Republicans. A huge opportunity was squandered.

My friend, Bob. The first black president was a novelty—even across eight years, dealt with a "great recession," a republican (tea-party) revolt, and a "do-nothing" congress that was broken for years. With all due respect, black leaders have no practical experience managing a large, powerful, diverse nation. Someone had to break the ceiling and do so with gravitas, it was a difficult process. Obama and Mitchell handled themselves admirably. It is noted by fair-minded 'mericans and world citizens.

We don't really have enough distance, yet. While the symbolism of electing a Black man was stunning, I'm not sure what's left, just four years later.

Obamacare is actually Pelosicare. The economy was (as it should be) run by the Fed. Obama helped push the stimulus, but so did Bush.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Obama made mistakes. I just don't think he accomplished as much as he could have. 

You're right, my friend. I would note the Affordable Care Act was relabeled "Obamacare" as a pejorative by republicans. And later the labeling was grafted by democrats to take away the barb of the Tea-party and republican party. It could have been called "Pelosi-care," I guess, but the house bill needed the patronage of a powerful sponsor-president!

My larger point is Barack Obama avoided crashing and burning into a an 'merican black stereotype, while his critics scrutinized him looking for purchase to say "See, we knew he could not measure up."

Thus, the accomplishments (which were many by the way though I will not revisit listing any of it) were steady and left a pleasant sense of advancement in the minds (and hearts) of many.  And at the end of the day, our best presidents are men who have served the nation with honor and discipline whether than with national angst and lack.

All in all, I think, Obama accomplished as much as he could -qualified.

I just don't think he accomplished as much as he could have.

And thank God for small blessings.

I will give Obama credit for his domestic policies. Unfortunately many of his foriegn policy decisions were abysmal.

Frankly, I don't know of any significant decisions, in any direction. 

You know how it is: "If you do nothing, you don't make any mistakes." 

Well, that's a start.

Well, I don't know what to do with that! I can't believe you are suggesting (Obama) he did nothing for two terms? What was the justification for the second term (approval)?

We were talking about foreign policy. 

What nation did Obama start any war ? How many terrorist incidents occurred due to his actions and policies? What is the issue you are disturbed about, my friend? I need some context to your "upset' here!

I didn't say I was upset. Obama just didn't do much of anything. 

Okay. You are entitled to your opinion of the former president, Indeed. We can agree to disagree. (Smile.)

Works for me.

'black leaders have no practical experience managing a large, powerful, diverse nation'

I don't wish to sound censorious, but I find that inappropriate. President Obama did and didn't as he did NOT because he is black, but because he represented his social class, the Next 9% after the 1%.

Suez, Budapest, the Cuban missile crisis, et. al. -- I lived through all those as well. Those issues where driven by the contradictions inherent in Capitalist political economy. Obama's election represented the even then long established Democrat Party shift away from a working class orientation, to focus on identity issues [race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.] substituted IN PLACE OF working class interests. Today, identity politics seeks to pretend an allegedly 'left' fig-leaf cover for bipartisan attacks on refugees, pensions, health care, public education, public housing, and on and on and on.

Obama was and is Obama because of class. The attempt to make his supposed 'failures' due to the inexperience of black leaders is a reactionary line that has no place in any progressive platform.

Excuse me, but Barack Obama clashed with the republicans (often while crafting and offering policies up from roots of republicanism) because of liberalism and civil rights. "Identity politics" occur because conservatives, by definition, seek a 'status quo' based on the Constitution and nothing else. Why is that? Because they think that using the constitution they can forestall the advance of other races and groups, by the sheer force and some misguided maybe expectation of "managing" the majority.

There has been much approved law made in this country that carries this nation beyond the Constitution, that is: Rule of Law.

To be blunt, it was not Barack's fault that conservatives could not let go of the past for the present and the coming future of progress. Being the first 'anything' brings with it a learning curve and a chance to make a positive first impression. Of course, republicans, ever the opportunists, took advantage of the misery of the recession, and the public's lack of knowing about that presidential moment in time when a black man took the reins to try to handicap his presidency. And so they did. There was a great deal of "ridiculousness" that ensued. Too much to rehash here. Let's just say that moment when republicans went to the White House to hold their first formal meeting with President Barack Obama they managed to come out of it to a white house lawn stand of microphones and immediately tried to label him as 'inaccessible; and "an angry (black) man). Quite telling. And though no one other than republicans believed this of Barack and it failed the smell test, an attempt was made, nevertheless!

Finally, when I mentioned black leaders it should have been understood that I am referring to this nation's lack of any black presidential "head."  Before Barack Obama and beyond him there is no other black American endowed with the leadership role (and accompaniment of secrets) of this nation besides.

'Obama clashed with republicans...'

Of course he did! They represent different sections of the ruling class.

The petty bourgeoisie employs identity politics because it can otherwise offer no semblance of a progressive program to the working class, which it deserted many decades ago. And opportunism is a primarily a trait of the petty bourgeoisie.

‘…it was not Barak’s fault …

Who faults Barak for conservative reaction? Barak is to be faulted for deporting more refugees and immigrants than any prior president – and likely more than them all combined. Barak is to be faulted for extending Bush’ discretionary, for-profit wars. Barak is to be faulted for attacks on public education. Barak is to be faulted for what until then was the greatest upward transfer of wealth in world history. I could go on, but you get the point.

When Obama campaigned for ‘change,’ the 295,000,000 who are the US working class heard a ‘quiet’ word for ‘revolution.’ It was eight years of ongoing betrayals of the working class that prepared the way for the most despicable public figure in US history. This was very evident as late as one week prior to Disaster 2016.

Ex: 5,000 transit Philly workers struck and brought a city of 1.5 million to a virtual halt. The Pittsburgh Orchestra was on strike. In NY state and Ohio, chemical workers went on strike against health care and pension cuts. LA voice actors were demanding better compensation and working conditions. In Indiana and NY State, hundreds of workers were in their seventh month of lock-down after rejecting health care concessions demanded by Honeywell. A whole series of strikes was betrayed by treacherous trade unions lest they break out against H. Clinton’s presidential campaign – Penn State faculty, Minnesota nurses, glass workers in Ohio, Jim Beam workers in Kentucky. And there were others also. Earlier in 2016, 40,000 Verizon workers went on strike. And on the eve of the 2016 vote, there was the real possibility of strike action by 95,000 California state employees, UPS aircraft mechanics, GE appliance workers in Kentucky, and bus drivers in Illinois and Ohio.

In nearly all these struggles, a common motif is opposition to corporate demands for higher out-of-pocket health care costs. Even alongside President Obama’s signature domestic ‘achievement,’ the offloading of health coverage costs from companies to workers continued to escalate. This is NOT to say, ‘obviously, Obama was worse than Bush.’ The point is that Obama CONTINUED and FURTHERED the trajectory of Bush’ malfeasant administration.

You point to recession and say – but they exploited these conditions? We know. Released 4 days before the ’16 election, the October Labour Department reported continuing stagnation. We know that by design, its import was suppressed by focusing on raw job numbers rather than job quality. But none of this is the question. The question is, on the eve of the 2016 election, where were the policy solutions?

When Clinton ramped up the right-wing appeals with anti-Russian, pro-war rhetoric [including revisiting our ‘no first nuclear strike policy] – that wasn’t the right answer.

Also about a week prior to Disaster 2016, a NYT/CBS published poll disclosed that by a margin of 82% / 13%, respondents indicated that the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump filled them with revulsion. The profound dysfunction of the whole political apparatus cannot be covered. Parties, leaders [so-called], campaigns and elections are broadly despised and, for entirely justifiable reasons, are viewed with contempt. The working class knows that this system leaves them disenfranchised. It has abandoned them – deserted them to their own destiny.

Barak is/was as brilliant/polished as Trump is not. He is astute and erudite. Obama knew full well that the proletarian class wanted a transformative FDR presidency. He knew. Instead, Barak gave them … well … Barak. Since we’re being ‘forthright,’ please don’t tell me ‘because he was “first”’ and NOT because of his reactionary policies.

‘…it should have been understood that I am referring to this nation's lack of any black presidential "head."’

The point was not missed.

Well, you wondered if I was a foil said that you'd watch me closely to see if I was here and articulated the same line after the vote. Hope you're not disappointed. I look forward to more banter.

Take care, man!

The petty bourgeoisie

Now that's a phrase I haven't heard in a while!

(Brings back some memories...)

Just curious...are you a member of CPUSA?

Great question! I hope you get a clear reply to it.

Excuse me, but Barack Obama clashed with the republicans (often while crafting and offering policies up from roots of republicanism) because of liberalism and civil rights.

1. This is the context of my statement: the first sentence (@4.2.1). The clashings went beyond any "ruling class" distinctions (whatsoever class you suggest Barack was graduated into) or normal policy differences-extending to Barack's views and policy plans for civil rights for the unserved citizens of our country.

The petty bourgeoisie employs identity politics because it can otherwise offer no semblance of a progressive program to the working class, which it deserted many decades ago. And opportunism is a primarily a trait of the petty bourgeoisie.

This paragraph 'speaks' but it is unclear as to message or is a throw-away. Can you elaborate?

In nearly all these struggles, a common motif is opposition to corporate demands for higher out-of-pocket health care costs. Even alongside President Obama’s signature domestic ‘achievement,’ the offloading of health coverage costs from companies to workers continued to escalate. This is NOT to say, ‘obviously, Obama was worse than Bush.’ The point is that Obama CONTINUED and FURTHERED the trajectory of Bush’ malfeasant (sic) administration

Again, this is confusing. Because President Barack Obama was pursuing national healhcare system development and reconstitution based on a republican idea which had been talked about for well over 30-40 preceding years to his time in office. Also, there was the escalating and astronomical costs of health care insurance which threatened to do major damage to the future of healthcare, or some such thing. (I am going from memory alone here.)

Barak is/was as brilliant/polished as Trump is not. He is astute and erudite. Obama knew full well that the proletarian class wanted a transformative FDR presidency. He knew. Instead, Barak gave them … well … Barak. Since we’re being ‘forthright,’ please don’t tell me ‘because he was “first”’ and NOT because of his reactionary policies.

What I will agree with, is yes, Barack planned many liberal policy changes in his first and second administrations. However, the best laid plans can pale and fail when you encounter self-described, "do-nothing congress" - plural. Also, in the senate, New majority leader was donning his robes as "the grim reaper" of liberal and civil rights policy-making.

What I will tell you was President Obama was "boxed-in' politically. At the outset, there was republican power-stalling and an ugly-visually-unappealing-protracted healthcare battle on our television sets for two straight years; it led to republican house victories, and later on republican senate victories. I am not inclined to rehash the Obama years.

Nothing you have stated have proved that republicans did not blend in their own reactionary strategy against Barack based on: 1. Liberalism.  2. Civil rights agenda.

As for Barack being the first of his 'lineage' it speaks for itself. I will not over-explain it, per se.

Krishna:

I replied to this earlier, but you must have missed it. I support but am not [yet] a member of the Socialist Equality Party .

TIG might find this organization you support to be a "cerebral" discussion if not simply a "heady" one!

TIG is a good guy and logical (to the point of distraction at times (Smile-TiG)). Moreover, during the Bernie Sanders' democratic party primaries, he provided clarifying subject matter articles on the proper characterization of what socialism is versus "democratic-socialism" or "social-democracy" —thereabouts. Have you heard/commented with him?

IMT, I have placed your link on my "read list" in coming days. I think I may find your worldview interesting, if impractical or pragmatic in the United States for my life or in my lifetime.

And I'm "only" 10 years older, so what I remember besides what the article posted are:

WWII Victory Gardens - we had one behind our garage (these are all stock internet photos).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The end of WWII

A famous headline

the Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup three times in that decade

My father bought a 1947 Chrysler Royal "Airflow".

I recall that the colour of the speedometer in that car was green during speeds up to and including 30 mph, then turned yellow up to and including 50 mph, and red over 50 mph - never seen that in a car ever since.

Gee, Buzz... 

You almost make me envious of your extra years...

... but not quite...