Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and the "Green New Deal".

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The agenda's the same. Acquire and keep power.

How do you do that?
(1) Acquiring power is expensive. Campaigns, advertising, rallies and so on cost enormous amounts of money and there is a direct correlation between campaign spending and votes. You need donations, preferably from people with lots of money because poor people don't tend to donate much. People don't give lots of money to political parties who will increase their taxes and create any sort of barriers to their accumulation of wealth.
(2) Preferably keep the media on your side. It helps when the most watched news channel is also your propaganda arm.
(3) Your policies are designed to keep your propaganda arm and your billionaire donors happy. You need to either distract attention away from that or make your policies that are designed to funnel wealth away from the working class and middle class and from services that help them.... sound like they are really designed to make their lives better.

(4) The alternative to 3 is to create constant distractions from what you are really doing. Say crazy stuff, that gets people arguing about whether you are sane or not. Describe any factual information about what you are doing as "fake news". Create fear and loathing towards immigrants, foreigners. Start wars, but always be sure to describe them as defensive wars. Heck, the Romans conquered and ruled a vast empire for 500 years and every single war or campaign they ever fought was defensive.

[Jack]

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.

That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.

Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.

That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.

Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.

My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.

I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.

I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.

[Jack]

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.

That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.

Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.

My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.

I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.

I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.

Sometimes I say what I think, but sometimes I am a contrarian here, and even more annoying, I've been known to take on both sides of a topic. Though in this context it doesn't seem so important to actually hold a point of view, or even avoid being full of crap. While it's probably always been irritating, only the last couple of years it's seemed upsetting. This forum long served as a bit of an evolutionary training ground because I had to reinvent myself, but now I'm Jack. Times like this I just wonder if I've settled in the wrong place here.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.

That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.

Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.

My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.

I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.

I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.

Sometimes I say what I think, but sometimes I am a contrarian here, and even more annoying, I've been known to take on both sides of a topic. Though in this context it doesn't seem so important to actually hold a point of view, or even avoid being full of crap. While it's probably always been irritating, only the last couple of years it's seemed upsetting. This forum long served as a bit of an evolutionary training ground because I had to reinvent myself, but now I'm Jack. Times like this I just wonder if I've settled in the wrong place here.

Nah, if anyone is out of place here it's me. Sorry if I'm giving you the impression that you are doing something wrong. Even Cal said earlier on that he normally has a lot of respect for your positions and so do I, at least for the way you present them and don't get too emotionally invested in them. Cal was a bit harsh on you for (I assume) the same reason that I was a bit lost, it seems in hindsight that your arguments were predicated on a hypothesis that neither of was privy to.

Being a contrarian is fine. Being able to competently take on both sides of a topic is great for one's intellectual development, it's almost a form of steel-manning. Considering some of the long-winded gobbledegook and insult-based arguments we have the pleasure of choosing to wade through (or not) on here, you're doing fine.

[Jack]

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.

That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.

Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.

My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.

I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.

I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.

Sometimes I say what I think, but sometimes I am a contrarian here, and even more annoying, I've been known to take on both sides of a topic. Though in this context it doesn't seem so important to actually hold a point of view, or even avoid being full of crap. While it's probably always been irritating, only the last couple of years it's seemed upsetting. This forum long served as a bit of an evolutionary training ground because I had to reinvent myself, but now I'm Jack. Times like this I just wonder if I've settled in the wrong place here.

Nah, if anyone is out of place here it's me. Sorry if I'm giving you the impression that you are doing something wrong. Even Cal said earlier on that he normally has a lot of respect for your positions and so do I, at least for the way you present them and don't get too emotionally invested in them. Cal was a bit harsh on you for (I assume) the same reason that I was a bit lost, it seems in hindsight that your arguments were predicated on a hypothesis that neither of was privy to.

Being a contrarian is fine. Being able to competently take on both sides of a topic is great for one's intellectual development, it's almost a form of steel-manning. Considering some of the long-winded gobbledegook and insult-based arguments we have the pleasure of choosing to wade through (or not) on here, you're doing fine.

You and I read him say different things. Not really trying to say this is about him or even you. Haven't spent as much time around you or Cal, but when Odeon starts talking down to me like he does Srap and Benjiman, maybe I need to check myself.  This is I2 and have weathered a lot crap flinging, but it was expected from some, and also easy to ignore because my interactions didn't completely devolve into it. I've more than once thought the years of extreme hostility this site suffered, might have created an environment that can't tolerate anything more than naval gazing, ego stroking, and idle chit chat. However this isn't the first time a topic has been turned into to the topic of me and my stance of opposition. Maybe it's me.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I got the impression that you and I (and you and Cal, and you and Odeon) were simply talking past each other in this thread, I pretty much gave up. I knew I was missing something.

If I didn't respect you then I'd probably treat your opinions with the same amount of respect that I normally treat Pappy's opinions or Al's opinions. I'm obviously not doing that.

[Jack]

If I didn't respect you then I'd probably treat your opinions with the same amount of respect that I normally treat Pappy's opinions or Al's opinions. I'm obviously not doing that.

Actually I thought that's exactly what was happening while you were making indirect cool aid comments in relation to what I said about the federal government providing services to the public. That's not what I'm talking about. I've had three end of conversation slams in this thread. I could conclude the problem is you guys, so I should just sit back and let you all fist bump and congratulate each other about how right you are. Though three to one signifies I'm the one not worth talking to. Personally have always liked talking to those other guys. Al's verbosity and penchant for analogies and hypotheticals means I have to struggle to keep myself on topic, so I'm certain my difficulties talking to him are my own. I'm not even sure how many times Scrap has called me a moron in so many words, and he has long been one of my favorites here to talk to. It's a shame they don't come around much anymore.

[odeon]

Sorry if I've talked down to you, Jack. You remain one of my favourite people here if that means anything.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Reference to Kool Aid was never directed specifically at you. Perhaps directed at what I perceive to be mainstream political opinion in the US, which you appeared to be buying into. Believe it or not I'm a bit of a leftist, about where Bernie Sanders is or slightly to the left of that. So basically everyone more than about an inch to the right of Bernie Sanders is "drinking the kool aid" as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to see examples of me deliberately talking down to people you can reference pretty much any exchange between myself and Pappy and between myself and Al.

[Calandale]

Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.

Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.

I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.

It is unwise.

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda. I don't mind being wrong, so you're right and I'm wrong. If I cared about appearing a fool here,

More than 'distinct'. To make the statement you did, you'd have to believe 'unchanging'. And history just doesn't show that.

I don't mean to be nasty or anything, but we just don't share a reality enough to have this discussion.

I'm on the 'non-accepted' view of reality on enough things (my mysticism especially) to understand that I just
can't involve myself in meaningful discussions with others surrounding them.

I wouldn't also post as a gopher.

I feel like I've been catfished.

[Jack]

I don't care if people talk down to me; disagreement has always come along with fighting here, and that's a completely different struggle I've had with other people who see my disagreement as hostility. I don't think that's what's happening here. I'm talking about what seems to be an atmosphere of intolerance for disagreement so great, that I can't disagree without others shutting down, and me ending up in a position where I either have to say I'm wrong or say I can't accept when I'm wrong. Since I think I'm being told I'm the problem, then I just have to process that.

[Jack]

Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.

Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.

I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.

It is unwise.

Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda. I don't mind being wrong, so you're right and I'm wrong. If I cared about appearing a fool here,

More than 'distinct'. To make the statement you did, you'd have to believe 'unchanging'. And history just doesn't show that.

I don't mean to be nasty or anything, but we just don't share a reality enough to have this discussion.

I'm on the 'non-accepted' view of reality on enough things (my mysticism especially) to understand that I just
can't involve myself in meaningful discussions with others surrounding them.

I wouldn't also post as a gopher.

I feel like I've been catfished.

I know a long time ago being a democrat or republican meant almost completely opposite things. I can't even figure out if I'm discussing the entire timeline of American history, or within your lifetime since Reagan. Though I do see the basic platforms of either party as fairly consistent and they have been for a long time. Call it a conflict of reality, but if I shared yours then I guess thats means I would agree with you, and then we could high five.

[Calandale]

I know a long time ago being a democrat or republican meant almost completely opposite things. I can't even figure out if I'm discussing the entire timeline of American history, or within your lifetime since Reagan. Though I do see the basic platforms of either party as fairly consistent and they have been for a long time. Call it a conflict of reality, but if I shared yours then I guess thats means I would agree with you, and then we could high five.

I remember (and it's still not far from the case) that the two parties were almost entirely the SAME thing.

The boundaries were not just the law, but the traditions of where society fell. It was a pretty narrow range of disagreement.

Conservative Democrats sat to the right of liberal Republicans on most issues. Compromise never involved bending very far.

Reagan moved that needle, and the Democrats (eventually) followed. It kept drifting rightward. But, the consequences
of that move, on many planes, made it clear that it had been dangerous.

Now that the Dems have broken free of the constraints of the center that they helped allow to drift,
they've accelerated in the other direction. I'm not sure they've made up all the ground the right took,
but they've certainly moved as far left of where things were in the 70's as the center moved over the
past few decades.

[Jack]

I feel like we're saying very similar things, but envisioning different types of scales to represent it. What you seem to view as the same thing and a narrow range of disagreement, I'm seeing as balance because one side's platform doesn't function without the other one. You also seem to be describing a fluid scale that also contains scales within the parties, and the center moves because it can only be represented by the distance between the sides. Maybe I'm just being too simplistic by envisioning a more concrete scale where the tipping of balance is created by influence and the center is simply the center. From 69-93, four of the five presidents were republican. It's doubtful the democrats have made up all that ground, but it does make sense they are perceived as moving back to the left.