In Defense of Decency

[whirlingmerc]

I'm not going to provide a bunch of references because we were all privy to what went on in the process to dubiously get Donald Trump pseudo elected.

We all heard him bragging about grabbing women by their p######. We heard him telling security to throw dissenters out of his political rallies. We all know about the accusations that he went to bed with the Russians to manipulate the system so he would wind up occupying the White House. (Notice that I do not believe he was legally elected).

I think a large part of his pretend success is that he used unacceptable and antisocially rude commentary to level accusations at his opponents. It is amazing to me that the Republicans did not have anyone to run against him in the primaries. What about Kasich? Admittedly, Hilary was not suitable, and what happened to Bernie? I was AT the rallie when the bird landed on his podium, and had hoped that it was a sign from God or omen or something.

I remember when Bush was reelected and could not believe it happened. I believe the elections were being manipulated even then. Sure, perhaps pursuing Bin Laden into Afghanistan seemed like a good idea. But for me, going into Iraq was only ever about the oil there, and not about Saddam. There were no WMD's (I was surprised to read that Iraq is supposed to have the world's largest oil reserves, next to Iran) Yes, Saudi Arabia is running out.

And, Bush is said to have lied to the Congress 26 times. I believe that Trump lies that much every day.

I remember when Obama was elected. In every major city in America, there were parties all over the streets. I'm not astute enough to know what he did to so anger the Republicans, though I heard that the immigration policy first separating families started under Obama.

I'll confess to not having a single political cell in my body. For me it is all about common decency.

I just wish that people would get back to saying please and thank you, and telling the truth.

Bill Clinton had a 'bimbo eruption" problems and pretty much got a pass from liberals on it
was remarkable in fact

and no.... I am not a fan of Trump...

Bush appears a pretty decent guy as did Carter
I notice he was seen passing candy to Michelle Obama during the McCain service
which she happily appeared to take

 

[Ellen Brown]

Bill Clinton had a 'bimbo eruption" problems and pretty much got a pass from liberals on it
was remarkable in fact

and no.... I am not a fan of Trump...

Bush appears a pretty decent guy as did Carter
I notice he was seen passing candy to Michelle Obama during the McCain service
which she happily appeared to take

I actually think the issue in Bush II's administration was his three war monger advisers.

 

[Stanyon]

Feel free to mock morality and ethics and decency and honor as your "God Emperor"

The title President will do just fine.

 

[Stevicus]

I noticed, too, that with the advent of the "W" presidency, a lot of credence was suddenly being given to ignorance. Being uninformed and poorly educated became the new "savvy" American, because Bush himself was so obviously uninformed and poorly educated. And so suddenly every ignoramus in American was "out and proud". Every country-western song was all about it. While being well informed and educated meant you were some sort of egg-headed fool who had fallen for the lies of a biased media, a biased higher education system, and a biased democratic political agenda. The Reagan era ushered in the "greed is good" mantra, but it was the Bush era that made being an ignoramus socially acceptable in this country. And now Trump is legitimizing being a violent, bigoted, ignoramus.

And the common thread through all of this is the republican party needing to get someone besides the wealthy elite to vote for them to win elections, even though they clearly only serve the wealthy elite.

I tend to agree, although I recall that the Reagan era was also dominated by the same ignoramuses, perhaps even more so.

But the real problem was that so many in the Democratic Party crossed over and supported Republican economics, which is how we ended up with the Clintons. The fact that so many Democrats blindly went along with that (and still do today) indicated that their true loyalty was also with the wealthy elite.

All the attention paid to social issues and identity politics was just so much bunkum for the masses to give them a distraction and something to argue about, while the elite in both parties have been laughing all the way to the bank.

I also noticed a subtle shift in positions during my lifetime. When I was growing up (during the 60s and 70s), many Democrats and the left in general were seen as "anti-establishment," questioning authority, and they also gravitated towards a lot of conspiracy theories (with JFK's assassination being one of the biggest). There was also the Pentagon Papers and a lot of other stuff coming out about the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other government malfeasance. The Democrats were a party of dissenters and many "anti-government" types -- before "anti-government" became a dirty word.

But at some point around the 1990s, these positions had changed, and the Democrats were far more pro-establishment and were prone to lambasting others as "anti-government nuts." Events such as Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the OKC bombing also helped to set the tone for politics as we've seen in more recent years. Anti-government dissent had shifted from left to right, while the pro-government, pro-establishment viewpoint went from right to left.

 

[PureX]

I tend to agree, although I recall that the Reagan era was also dominated by the same ignoramuses, perhaps even more so.

But the real problem was that so many in the Democratic Party crossed over and supported Republican economics, which is how we ended up with the Clintons. The fact that so many Democrats blindly went along with that (and still do today) indicated that their true loyalty was also with the wealthy elite.

All the attention paid to social issues and identity politics was just so much bunkum for the masses to give them a distraction and something to argue about, while the elite in both parties have been laughing all the way to the bank.

I also noticed a subtle shift in positions during my lifetime. When I was growing up (during the 60s and 70s), many Democrats and the left in general were seen as "anti-establishment," questioning authority, and they also gravitated towards a lot of conspiracy theories (with JFK's assassination being one of the biggest). There was also the Pentagon Papers and a lot of other stuff coming out about the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other government malfeasance. The Democrats were a party of dissenters and many "anti-government" types -- before "anti-government" became a dirty word.

But at some point around the 1990s, these positions had changed, and the Democrats were far more pro-establishment and were prone to lambasting others as "anti-government nuts." Events such as Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the OKC bombing also helped to set the tone for politics as we've seen in more recent years. Anti-government dissent had shifted from left to right, while the pro-government, pro-establishment viewpoint went from right to left.

I think there are a lot of reasons for this, but the main reason is that greed generates fear, and fear generates greed. While they both escalate in ignorance. As the Reagan "greed is good" era came to prominence in the 80s, we all began to feel the squeeze of an economy that was becoming much more aggressive, much more exploitive, and very money-hungry. And that caused a lot of people to become frightened for their own economic security. Which unfortunately, played right into the hands of those who were promoting the whole 'money is everything' attitude that supported their contention that greed is (or should be) the primary motive for social interaction. The end result being the more greedy and frightening our culture became, the more inclined we were to support the people that were causing it. And we are STILL supporting them, thinking that somehow they will get us out of this mess, when they have no intention of doing anything for any of us, at all. They are simply going to take as much wealth as they can get from the rest of us, for as long as we allow them to, and then run off to Dubai with it to live like arab sheiks. But they've gotten so good at hiding behind all sorts of ideological smoke screens and our general fear and confusion (ignorance) that we STILL can't see them for what they are, and for what they are really doing to us.

 

[metis]

The title President will do just fine.

I wish he'd start acting like one instead of acting like an autocrat.

 

[sun rise]

I wish he'd start acting like one instead of acting like an autocrat.

I have not seen a flock of pink pegasus in the sky recently either.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If (and the key word is if) you are that concerned demand that democrats, or any other party opposed to Trump, have a solid platform to run and stand on. What does the opposition have to offer America? Hopefully more than "he's gonna start WWIII, Hitler, racism, Russians, he's a jerk etc. etc.. But these things will not be forgotten. Give them some substance or actual hope instead of rhetoric and the dems might actually win.

I could live with that. Seems every Dem at present just wants to roll naked in taxpayer money.

 

[metis]

I have not seen a flock of pink pegasus in the sky recently either.

That's because I grounded them for bad behavior.

 

[sun rise]

I could live with that. Seems every Dem at present just wants to roll naked in taxpayer money.

To me it seems like ever Rep wants to take from the poor and give to the rich and have the deficit increase faster and faster until China owns us "lock, stock and barrel".

 

[Ellen Brown]

To me it seems like ever Rep wants to take from the poor and give to the rich and have the deficit increase faster and faster until China owns us "lock, stock and barrel".

Our present condition is disillusioning to me. I want to see grown, mature adults reaching agreements, and it seems like they would rather act like preadolescences.

 

[Stevicus]

I could live with that. Seems every Dem at present just wants to roll naked in taxpayer money.

Well, to be fair, both parties are like that. They just have different departments which they emphasize. The Dems tend to spend more on social programs, while the Reps spend more on defense, police, and prisons.

Of course, most of that money will end up back in the private sector anyway, one way or the other. The government spends money far too quickly for anyone to have time to roll around naked in it.