Jump to content
mugtang

The GOP has lost it

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NevadaFan said:

Actually no, I don’t know. I think the media is biased but I certainly don’t think it’s fake. I implicitly trust peer reviewed content from universities and science. So I’m curious... Where do people who don’t look for information. 

Breitbart and Alex Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

American flag sales have gone up.  Expected after the bernie bros stole so many from front porches.

Patriotism=colonialism

National Anthem= insensitivity and violence.

Vandalizing statues of Washington, Lincoln, Teddy, Mathias Baldwin (and several other abolitionists) = being opposed to fascism.

Giant had a point worth considering.  Why do so many feel this country is not working for them?  From the small town hicks to the coastal elites. From the college educators to wisconsin farmers.  Suburban white kids deatroying buildings while crips chase them out.

Get past the teams and shit and you realize the cross section is incredibly diverse and worth exploring beyond " +++++ rednecks".

Nah, it's much easier and more ego confirming to say, Phuck Them.

  • Cheers 1

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, toonkee said:

 It's going to be hilarious 7 years from now when we're in the second great depression, Biden's been assassinated and Alex Jones is president.

@thelawlorfaithful and @halfmanhalfbronco be like..."uh, actually, President Jones only killed 4 million Jews. F'ing lightweight...lulz."

:P

Alex Jones! Alex Jones! Alex Jones! Alex Jones!

trump and Evangelical Preachers - Imgflip

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

You should read her book and then tell me what you think. Cuz that's actually how history works. Historical scholarship doesn't just stop at some point, with Lawlor deciding what is ahistorical and what is not. Theres a significant amount of scholarship dedicated to the role that public rhetoric in religious, government and other institutions played in shifting widespread public sentiment in the south about slavery from ambivalence in the early 19th century to the defining institution of the region in the middle of the century. I get that you don't read those books or don't go to those AHA panels because you think it's ahistorical. Maybe too postmodern for you. You know, punch yourself in the balls and all. But those people know their shit. I don't know the civil war as well as her (nor as you), but the stuff I know more about than only a handful or so of people... I regularly get some guy who has read a few books telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. And usually after a conversation, sometimes even over a beer, it gets straightened out who's the expert and who's not. 

I'm curious about what her response will be to the specific comments you made. I'm going to shoot them off in an e-mail (anonymized of course). 

In his mind it does.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

You should read her book and then tell me what you think. Cuz that's actually how history works. Historical scholarship doesn't just stop at some point, with Lawlor deciding what is ahistorical and what is not. Theres a significant amount of scholarship dedicated to the role that public rhetoric in religious, government and other institutions played in shifting widespread public sentiment in the south about slavery from ambivalence in the early 19th century to the defining institution of the region in the middle of the century. I get that you don't read those books or don't go to those AHA panels because you think it's ahistorical. Maybe too postmodern for you. You know, punch yourself in the balls and all. But those people know their shit. I don't know the civil war as well as her (nor as you), but the stuff I know more about than only a handful or so of people... I regularly get some guy who has read a few books telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. And usually after a conversation, sometimes even over a beer, it gets straightened out who's the expert and who's not. 

I'm curious about what her response will be to the specific comments you made. I'm going to shoot them off in an e-mail (anonymized of course). 

Just curious what field do you specialize in?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SharkTanked said:

@thelawlorfaithful was FDR fascist?

The nice kind. Sure, he’d suspend your rights as a citizen on the basis of you were a potential traitor without any evidence, strip you of your property, force you into concentration camps. But he didn’t enslave you, genocidally beat your culture out of you, or gas your entire family. And he pretty much did beat Hitler and Mussolini, which is a pretty anti-fascist thing to do. So he’s got that going for him.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

You should read her book and then tell me what you think. Cuz that's actually how history works. Historical scholarship doesn't just stop at some point, with Lawlor deciding what is ahistorical and what is not. Theres a significant amount of scholarship dedicated to the role that public rhetoric in religious, government and other institutions played in shifting widespread public sentiment in the south about slavery from ambivalence in the early 19th century to the defining institution of the region in the middle of the century. I get that you don't read those books or don't go to those AHA panels because you think it's ahistorical. Maybe too postmodern for you. You know, punch yourself in the balls and all. But those people know their shit. I don't know the civil war as well as her (nor as you), but the stuff I know more about than only a handful or so of people... I regularly get some guy who has read a few books telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. And usually after a conversation, sometimes even over a beer, it gets straightened out who's the expert and who's not. 

I'm curious about what her response will be to the specific comments you made. I'm going to shoot them off in an e-mail (anonymized of course). 

The civil war is literally the most written about subject in American history. If all I did was read new civil war books every year I couldn’t get through half of them. Some are good, many are bad, every once in awhile one is groundbreaking. Do I really need to read a pretty unremarked on book on how, yes, the political elite in Washington were not at each other’s throats at a war tempest the entire time? The caning of Charles Sumner was such an egregious crime because it so violated the, frankly, very low bar of decorum officials had with each other.

The premise seems to reframe the sectional conflict and political failures as dumb politicians stirring up a hornets nest which otherwise could have been resolved with slavery intact if only they’d played nice. No. Slavery was a pox on this land from the founding. It was the one issue of republican government that can honestly be said that remarkable generation of framers faced up to, and blinked. It only got worse as it became industrialized and could no longer be defended as a dying, regrettable institution, but instead had to be said to be a positive good for both races. There were deeper fissures in the land that politicians can’t fix in Smokey back rooms. An unknown, prairie lawyer prophetically articulated the house divided zeitgeist 22 years before South Carolina took the plunge.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SharkTanked said:

It seems that has been the tacit policy. Ignore them and what they want until they elect arguably the worst President ever who will tell them what they want to hear (but not really do anything for them either). Maybe Trump just took a page out of the Dems playbook there.

All I am saying is it would probably be unwise to just dismiss their complaints as entitled whining. Seems like they are a good part of the population according to the last election. Or maybe that is overstating it. :shrug:

It is entitled whining when looked at through a lens of historical sufferings. I don’t dismiss it though, or at the least dismiss it far less than I use to. The key lies in realizing that good part of the population doesn’t so much reject globalization as a matter of course, but that they have been excluded from its benefits. That’s the conundrum. And until someone has a good answer for it, fighting the culture war is the best way to bring them into any coalition.

  • Like 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The key lies in realizing that good part of the population doesn’t so much reject globalization as a matter of course, but that they have been excluded from its benefits. That’s the conundrum. And until someone has a good answer for it, fighting the culture war is the best way to bring them into any coalition.

The entire country has benefited from it

So has the rest of the world

world_population_in_extreme_poverty_absolute(1).png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Maji said:

The entire country has benefited from it. So has the rest of the world

world_population_in_extreme_poverty_absolute(1).png

I’m aware my man. But you’re speaking in the aggregate, which I’ve done here for years. It was only during Trump’s pre-corona years that the population we’re speaking of started to gain in excess of the wealthy. Nobody knows why that is yet. We certainly didn’t have a boom in manufacturing jobs.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I’m aware my man. But you’re speaking in the aggregate, which I’ve done here for years. It was only during Trump’s pre-corona years that the population we’re speaking of started to gain in excess of the wealthy. Nobody knows why that is yet. We certainly didn’t have a boom in manufacturing jobs.

Not all of Trump’s voters are rural manufacturers though. Biden won the suburban vote, but Trump still received a massive amount of votes from suburbs. Those people have definitely benefited

The other thing is that rural counties skew older. Some of those Trump voters don’t even work anymore. They benefit from things like affordable prices, global research, and innovation.

My guess re: the wage growth is that we basically reached full employment. The growth cycle went on for a long time too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maji said:

Maybe rural residents should vote for politicians interested in investing in rural communities. Infrastructure spending in rural communities would help their economy

Yes.

One of the reasons I supported a candidate for Guv with whom I don't politically agree with. Albeit, he lost.

In spite of his being a Trump supporter, the former House Speaker was supportive of not just rural economic development, but getting education funding into these communities and has been a force in getting the various  players to the bargaining table to work on the bigger issues facing Utah. Without all the political rancor and Isolationism.

I wish we had more leaders who were interested in that and not scoring political points by owning the other party 

  • Like 1

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 11:24 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

The civil war is literally the most written about subject in American history. If all I did was read new civil war books every year I couldn’t get through half of them. Some are good, many are bad, every once in awhile one is groundbreaking. Do I really need to read a pretty unremarked on book on how, yes, the political elite in Washington were not at each other’s throats at a war tempest the entire time? The caning of Charles Sumner was such an egregious crime because it so violated the, frankly, very low bar of decorum officials had with each other.

The premise seems to reframe the sectional conflict and political failures as dumb politicians stirring up a hornets nest which otherwise could have been resolved with slavery intact if only they’d played nice. No. Slavery was a pox on this land from the founding. It was the one issue of republican government that can honestly be said that remarkable generation of framers faced up to, and blinked. It only got worse as it became industrialized and could no longer be defended as a dying, regrettable institution, but instead had to be said to be a positive good for both races. There were deeper fissures in the land that politicians can’t fix in Smokey back rooms. An unknown, prairie lawyer prophetically articulated the house divided zeitgeist 22 years before South Carolina took the plunge.

I think if you claim she "got the civl war wrong," and her take is ahistorical, then you absolutely should pick up the book and give a little respect for the fact that someone got the degree and actually read all those books that you say are impossible to read, and then spent the time in the stacks with the primary sources to be in a position to make the argument. I think a lot of historians got it wrong on the topics I know. But they're not ahistorical. Quite the opposite... I have to contend with them when I argue something else. And I would consider it an act lacking in intellectual humility to say they got it wrong after reading a relatively short op ed and making assumptions about their scholarship. History is a process. Those who want to be part of it need to engage with it, because when they do, they often find that the scholars are not arguing the things they say they are arguing. 

If she's reframing anything it's she's pushing against the argument that you seem to think she's making — that the blundering generation in congress got us into the civil war by inflaming the passions of the people — by pulling up the rug of that argument and looking underneath it. Looking at their relationships behind the scenes, and the internal politics in DC, she seems to be arguing that they largely thought they could simultaneously create compromises and hold the union together while their constituents around the country increasingly sunk into sectarian division. And that they could simultaneously enflame and control the passions of their constituents by steering the federal government toward a resolution that diverged from the direction of those passions while acting to those passions. She's not saying that caused the civil war. It's nuancing the political history leading up to the war. She seems even to be interested in nuancing the caning of sumner as well.

Like I said, it's not my area. But The little reading and listening re: her approach here suggests that she isn't getting the civil war "wrong." I dunno... that feels like a BlueToolsian thing to say around here. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 8:09 PM, sactowndog said:

Just curious what field do you specialize in?  

Environmental History, mostly related to water in the American West and California in the 19th and 20th Century. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...