Time To Recognize Who We Are; Reunite America

[PoliTalker]

Hello NiftyNiblick,

Accurately recognizing who we REALLY are would bring us to a much different place than re-uniting.

I don't think most people are really that hateful.

 

[Earl]

Hello NiftyNiblick,



I don't think most people are really that hateful.

Most of us are not as hateful as you when you cheered the economic loss to millions of Americans and their families due to the virus from China that China failed to contain.

PoliTalker:

"Dive, market, DIVE!

Take DT down with you.


02-28-2020, 06:47 AM #5 | Top
PoliTalker


"Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

We're going down.

BZZZZZT! BZZZZZT! BZZZZZT!

Dive! Dive! Dive!"

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Well if taking aggressive action on climate change means 'extreme' then I would expect that is where the party is headed. But I wouldn't look for that to progress at a break neck pace because of all the big corporate money flowing in. Corporations don't have children, much less grandchildren. Their interest is making money in the hear and now and screw the future.

That's the inherent weakness with capitalism.
The shareholders don't know the first thing nor do they even minutely care about the goods and services provided by the company that they own.
All that matters is return on investment.
If they could get a return for providing nothing at all in exchange for the consumer's money, that would be the theoretically ideal capitalist business model.

And while they don't care about the consumers, they care about the employees even less.

We're always going to have private sector entrepreneurship.
Modern socialism doesn't preclude that.
What it can do is regulate the private sector enough so it doesn't run like the organized crime it so often seems to be now.

And as always, business still makes out better in the long run because working people have money to buy things and companies offer things worth buying.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Accurately recognizing who we REALLY are would bring us to a much different place than re-uniting.

Partial agreement: We have to know who we are in order to reunite.

A month or so ago I read an article about how America was different from Euro nations because it reinvented itself after a few generations. If true, then we are nearing the end of the beginning; the part where there's lots of dissent and some chaos. So far, not too many bodies though. Does this mean we are more civilized about it or that we haven't reached that point yet?

 

[Granule]

The election is over.

Our nation has been torn apart by very different ideas. Not only do Americans disagree on what our government should do, we don't even agree on basic facts. That is because we now get our information from two entirely different streams of non-overlapping sources.

We are really two nations sharing one government and one land.

If that is not difficult enough, we have a lot of forces seeking to keep this division as polarized as possible, making great profits from whipping up hatred, and dehumanizing 'the other side.'

There is no pretending that we only disagree during election season and then go back to 'normal life' afterwards any more. It's like we are in constant election season and it never ends.

The best thing we can do is recognize that our fellow Americans do not share our beliefs but they do share our country.

We know that we have to live together.

The best thing we can do is to remember that we must share this country, and resign ourselves to accepting that it takes all of us to make America what it is.

Bitter hatred and disrespect is not helpful at all, accomplishes nothing, makes us dysfunctional.

We have big enough differences without adding hatred on top of everything else. We have to try to rise above that.

Our challenge is rediscover respect for one another.

If America is really great then part of that has to mean we respect all Americans. A hateful and bitterly divided nation cannot be great.

David Brooks:

"Well, if ever there was a campaign that was going to be a blowout, I thought this was it. I thought we had an unpopular president that people were ready to get rid of. I expected a large margin. And I was wrong. It's a 2.8 percentage margin nationally.

And so I think what we have learned is that we a very evenly divided nation, two groups of people in non-overlapping universes. For a time, it seemed — and I think people in both camps thought, well, the people on my team could eventually crush the people on the other team, and my team will get to rule.

I think we now have to face reality. That's just never going to happen. The other side is never going to go away. And we have got to find a way to live with each other.

And so, to me, that's the biggest takeaway of where we are right now."

That's the tone of this excellent discussion of where we stand as a nation:

Shields and Brooks on PBS Newshour

We'll unite with a Republican president, thanks.

I don't know how much more race baiting the country can take with a democrat in the White House.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Hello NiftyNiblick,



I don't think most people are really that hateful.

We know different people!

 

[Nordberg]

Oh, so now you want to reunite.

After the daily...hourly attacks on the president and his family, you want to reunite.

Perhaps you can “reunite” after cheering the economic loss of millions of Americans and their families caused by the virus from China that China failed to contain.

There will be no reuniting and Biden is not the president-elect.

The Supreme Court has not spoken.

What did the Supreme Court say about the elections in 2016, 2012,200,.2004? You say the weirdest things.

 

[blackascoal]

The election is over.

Our nation has been torn apart by very different ideas. Not only do Americans disagree on what our government should do, we don't even agree on basic facts. That is because we now get our information from two entirely different streams of non-overlapping sources.

We are really two nations sharing one government and one land.

If that is not difficult enough, we have a lot of forces seeking to keep this division as polarized as possible, making great profits from whipping up hatred, and dehumanizing 'the other side.'

There is no pretending that we only disagree during election season and then go back to 'normal life' afterwards any more. It's like we are in constant election season and it never ends.

The best thing we can do is recognize that our fellow Americans do not share our beliefs but they do share our country.

We know that we have to live together.

The best thing we can do is to remember that we must share this country, and resign ourselves to accepting that it takes all of us to make America what it is.

Bitter hatred and disrespect is not helpful at all, accomplishes nothing, makes us dysfunctional.

We have big enough differences without adding hatred on top of everything else. We have to try to rise above that.

Our challenge is rediscover respect for one another.

If America is really great then part of that has to mean we respect all Americans. A hateful and bitterly divided nation cannot be great.

David Brooks:

"Well, if ever there was a campaign that was going to be a blowout, I thought this was it. I thought we had an unpopular president that people were ready to get rid of. I expected a large margin. And I was wrong. It's a 2.8 percentage margin nationally.

And so I think what we have learned is that we a very evenly divided nation, two groups of people in non-overlapping universes. For a time, it seemed — and I think people in both camps thought, well, the people on my team could eventually crush the people on the other team, and my team will get to rule.

I think we now have to face reality. That's just never going to happen. The other side is never going to go away. And we have got to find a way to live with each other.

And so, to me, that's the biggest takeaway of where we are right now."

That's the tone of this excellent discussion of where we stand as a nation:

Shields and Brooks on PBS Newshour

Much respect for your thoughts good brother, but this IS who we are. Ignoring that truth blinds us into being participant in our own demise. We are a nation where half of us doesn’t believe in science. A nation of white supremacists, while at the same time a nation where nearly half of its people are waking up to that reality. How did they wake up, they stopped ignoring what has been tight in front of their faces for a very long time. They stopped believing in the America they wish it were and started dealing with the America that is.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Well if taking aggressive action on climate change means 'extreme' then I would expect that is where the party is headed. But I wouldn't look for that to progress at a break neck pace because of all the big corporate money flowing in. Corporations don't have children, much less grandchildren. Their interest is making money in the hear and now and screw the future.

Define "taking aggressive action on climate change" because there's a big fucking difference between mandating LED light bulbs and banning private transportation. That's not what I mean by "extreme".

This is extreme:

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello NiftyNiblick,

That's the inherent weakness with capitalism.
The shareholders don't know the first thing nor do they even minutely care about the goods and services provided by the company that they own.
All that matters is return on investment.
If they could get a return for providing nothing at all in exchange for the consumer's money, that would be the theoretically ideal capitalist business model.

And while they don't care about the consumers, they care about the employees even less.

We're always going to have private sector entrepreneurship.
Modern socialism doesn't preclude that.
What it can do is regulate the private sector enough so it doesn't run like the organized crime it so often seems to be now.

And as always, business still makes out better in the long run because working people have money to buy things and companies offer things worth buying.

Win/win is best. Then you are firing on all cylinders. When the environment wins, customers win, and workers win, then management and investors win too.

Basically, you want a system where there is a place for everybody and everybody has the basics covered. Some do better than others according to advantage, determination and diligence. But the one thing you don't want is for some to be so disadvantaged they are left without. That represents an imbalance in the system which must be rectified, and it is a waste of human capital. The overall system could be more productive if everyone's talents were recognized and utilized. There is no place for racism in a healthy economy.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Hello NiftyNiblick,



Win/win is best. When the environment wins, customers win, and workers win, then management and investors win too.

Basically, you want a system where there is a place for everybody and everybody has the basics covered. Some do better than others according to advantage, determination and diligence. But the one thing you don't want is for some to be so disadvantaged they are left without. That represents an imbalance in the system which must be rectified, and it is a waste of human capital. The overall system could be more productive if everyone's talents were recognized and utilized. There is no place for racism in a healthy economy.

We completely agree on values but envision different solutions, I guess.
I'm more married to the values than the solutions, true, but I'm much too old, it seems, to be patient.

 

[PoliTalker]

Define "taking aggressive action on climate change" because there's a big fucking difference between mandating LED light bulbs and banning private transportation. That's not what I mean by "extreme".

This is extreme:

I am not advocating for totalitarian anything.

No, private transportation should not be banned at all.

We can find a cleaner more environmentally sensitive way forward that creates well-paying jobs, allows personal transportation, and does it efficiently and productively, AND earns a profit.

We just have to keep on working on it until we get where we want to go. There are lots of great ideas out there already and more to come. Lots of work to be done figuring it all out. Lots of money to be made solving these problems.

Capitalism has always endeavored to furnish society with what it wants.

Society wants a clean sustainable carbon-neutral future.

If the new tech gave the left everything it wants and still generated profits for investors then everybody can be happy.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello NiftyNiblick,

We completely agree on values but envision different solutions, I guess.
I'm more married to the values than the solutions, true, but I'm much too old, it seems, to be patient.

The older I get the more patient I get.

I realize that, because I dream big, that some of my dreams will not be realized in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean they won't come to fruition eventually. I think it is cool to be a part of something much bigger than me. That works in the immediate sense and also in the macroscopic.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello NiftyNiblick,



Win/win is best. Then you are firing on all cylinders. When the environment wins, customers win, and workers win, then management and investors win too.

Basically, you want a system where there is a place for everybody and everybody has the basics covered. Some do better than others according to advantage, determination and diligence. But the one thing you don't want is for some to be so disadvantaged they are left without. That represents an imbalance in the system which must be rectified, and it is a waste of human capital. The overall system could be more productive if everyone's talents were recognized and utilized. There is no place for racism in a healthy economy.

Win/Win is always best. Even birds are able to recognize that shitting in the nest is bad. https://www.audubon.org/news/what-are-fecal-sacs-bird-diapers-basically

Industry is good. If all the factories in the world stopped working for six months, billions of people would die in the interim. In the beginning it would be fratricide in the competition for food. After that, starvation will be the killer. Cormac McCarthy's pulitzer-winning 2006 novel "The Road" gave a depiction of what such an event would look like. A real life example was when Bush signed the Biofuel bill and we started burning corn as fuel. That caused the price of corn to go up which pushed millions of people over the edge from subsistence living to starvation. Same thing happened when the price of oil shot up in 2008. Fortunately, those problems were corrected before millions died of starvation.

Obviously banning cars and shutting down the factories would solve the Global Warming issue but the result would be a very bad smell across the planet for a year or two until the amount of food grown supported the surviving population.

 

[blackascoal]

I am not advocating for totalitarian anything.

No, private transportation should not be banned at all.

We can find a cleaner more environmentally sensitive way forward that creates well-paying jobs, allows personal transportation, and does it efficiently and productively, AND earns a profit.

We just have to keep on working on it until we get where we want to go. There are lots of great ideas out there already and more to come. Lots of work to be done figuring it all out. Lots of money to be made solving these problems.

Capitalism has always endeavored to furnish society with what it wants.

Society wants a clean sustainable carbon-neutral future.

If the new tech gave the left everything it wants and still generated profits for investors then everybody can be happy.

Few words in American thought have been more mischaracterized, misused, and uneducated than the word socialism.

Why Socialism, by Albert Einstein

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am not advocating for totalitarian anything.

No, private transportation should not be banned at all.

We can find a cleaner more environmentally sensitive way forward that creates well-paying jobs, allows personal transportation, and does it efficiently and productively, AND earns a profit.

We just have to keep on working on it until we get where we want to go. There are lots of great ideas out there already and more to come. Lots of work to be done figuring it all out. Lots of money to be made solving these problems.

Capitalism has always endeavored to furnish society with what it wants.

Society wants a clean sustainable carbon-neutral future.

If the new tech gave the left everything it wants and still generated profits for investors then everybody can be happy.

Never said you did. You seemed to have some problem with defining extremism. I gave an example. Have you ever advocated gun confiscation? Regardless, are you denying several Democrats have advocated it? What are the odds President Biden will be signing a gun bill next year?

 

[Earl]

What did the Supreme Court say about the elections in 2016, 2012,200,.2004? You say the weirdest things.

The post was to PoliTalker and he will understand.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Win/Win is always best. Even birds are able to recognize that shitting in the nest is bad. https://www.audubon.org/news/what-are-fecal-sacs-bird-diapers-basically

Industry is good. If all the factories in the world stopped working for six months, billions of people would die in the interim. In the beginning it would be fratricide in the competition for food. After that, starvation will be the killer. Cormac McCarthy's pulitzer-winning 2006 novel "The Road" gave a depiction of what such an event would look like. A real life example was when Bush signed the Biofuel bill and we started burning corn as fuel. That caused the price of corn to go up which pushed millions of people over the edge from subsistence living to starvation. Same thing happened when the price of oil shot up in 2008. Fortunately, those problems were corrected before millions died of starvation.

Obviously banning cars and shutting down the factories would solve the Global Warming issue but the result would be a very bad smell across the planet for a year or two until the amount of food grown supported the surviving population.

We are still going to need factories. And just like the factories of today look nothing like the ones of 50 years ago, the factories of the future will be different from today. There has to be an emphasis on efficiency with everything.

One of the problems with our society is: we generate too much waste. We need clever engineering that takes what we once threw away, and puts it to some good use some new way. We are seeing more of that and I predict that trend continues. That's a win/win. I also think we need to give refuse-sorting another try. And we just need to let people decide if they wish to participate or not, but don't expect everyone to do it, and don't give them containers or bins if they are not going to properly sort everything. The one thing that totally screws that up is when people don't pay attention to what goes in what bin. It's no good if there's glass in the paper bin and steel in the aluminum bin. Un-monitored public bins just don't work because there is always a jerk in every crowd that puts the wrong thing in. They need to be under security camera and people using it need to be identified and written up if they put wrong things in.

We could use this new stream of raw materials for creative benefits. We just need some clever people to start working on what to do with all the stuff besides throwing it in a landfill.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



We are still going to need factories. And just like the factories of today look nothing like the ones of 50 years ago, the factories of the future will be different from today. There has to be an emphasis on efficiency with everything.

One of the problems with our society is: we generate too much waste. We need clever engineering that takes what we once threw away, and puts it to some good use some new way. We are seeing more of that and I predict that trend continues. That's a win/win. I also think we need to give refuse-sorting another try. And we just need to let people decide if they wish to participate or not, but don't expect everyone to do it, and don't give them containers or bins if they are not going to properly sort everything. The one thing that totally screws that up is when people don't pay attention to what goes in what bin. It's no good if there's glass in the paper bin and steel in the aluminum bin. Un-monitored public bins just don't work because there is always a jerk in every crowd that puts the wrong thing in. They need to be under security camera and people using it need to be identified and written up if they put wrong things in.

We could use this new stream of raw materials for creative benefits. We just need some clever people to start working on what to do with all the stuff besides throwing it in a landfill.

It'd be better to most most toxic industries into space. Why do you think more isn't being done to put mankind into space and on the Moon for industrial purposes and mining?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Never said you did. You seemed to have some problem with defining extremism. I gave an example. Have you ever advocated gun confiscation? Regardless, are you denying several Democrats have advocated it? What are the odds President Biden will be signing a gun bill next year?

That depends on the GA Senate vote on Jan 5.

Clearly something needs to be done. We have too many gun deaths.

I don't know. Maybe you don't think it's a problem or you think it's simply unavaoidable.

We should not accept this amount of gun deaths without wanting to do something.

What's the solution?