Early Retirement Extreme Forums

In the spirit of Occam's Razor, Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate and most of the country were at best wearily indifferent toward the policies of the self-labeled progressives that had been running the show and that she tried to piggyback on.

In the simplest sense there are two tacks a politician can take: sell your policy vision to the voters (change their mind) or align you policies with the concerns of the voters. Trump did a slightly better job by taking the latter approach over the former. Clinton's approach was that she was going to "fight for" everybody except Joe Sixpack and his family. It's no wonder she lost a number of purple states and thereby the election. No need to speculate about conspiratorial evil secret subcultures.

Dragline wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:49 pm

BTW, was Khan ever invited to the street corner to drink beer with the guys in King of the Hill?

I believe so. But he was generally disliked because he moved to the neighborhood from California, brought with him a massive superiority complex, and constantly called everyone rednecks and hillbillies while insulting their educations, jobs, and lifestyles. KOTH nailed the cultural dynamics way better than people realize.

Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:29 am

"immigration" and "atheism" and etc, etc.

que? brute is an atheist and loves immigrants.

You're also not every self-proclaimed libertarian. You're right (no pun intended), though. I should've used more specific libertarian bogeymen. Like "taxes".

I guess I sometimes forget the factions of the right hate each other as much as the factions of the left. My bad.

maybe using a less meaningless scale than "right" or "left" would help.

for reference, brute is pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro immigration, anti war, pro atheism, pro black humans not being shot by the police. if that's "right", then the easter bunny is right-wing too.

You're confusing economics with social policy. If you support capital, you're right-wing. If you support labor, you're left-wing. There is no real representative of the left in mainstream US politics, so I understand this confusion. What you would call a liberal, progressive, or Democrat represents a center or center-right ideology focused on saving capitalism from its own contradictions through various government social programs. How socially progressive you think yourself to be isn't really a factor, except insofar as whether you're deluding yourself or not, since most of the systemic issues of oppression that social progressives fight for are very closely linked with those aforementioned inherent contradictions of capitalism.

You can buy some serious acreage in rural Michigan for the price of a college education.

Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:11 pm

You're confusing economics with social policy. If you support capital, you're right-wing. If you support labor, you're left-wing.

lol what

I'm looking for the typo or miscommunication in what I said and I'm not seeing it, so I assume you're tritely disagreeing with the content of the statements. Has the left-right spectrum not always been an economic one? Separate from (but very informative as to) the "authoritarian versus libertarian" and "progressive versus conservative" spectrum? I thought this was actually pretty mainstream political spectrum theory.

IlliniDave wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:10 am

In the spirit of Occam's Razor, Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate and most of the country were at best wearily indifferent toward the policies of the self-labeled progressives that had been running the show and that she tried to piggyback on.

I'd say that she since won the popular vote, she lost because she didn't concentrate on securing the electoral college. Both candidates were terrible and the one who won the electoral college is now an obnoxious bully president "facing down" another bully in warmongering language.

looks like the term originated during the French revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics), where "right wing" meant monarchist, and "left wing" meant republican (i.e. non-monarchist).

it also seems to be applied to pretty much anything, completely losing any meaning it might have had. maybe that's why brute doesn't like the right/left distinction.

George the original one wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:26 pm

I'd say that she since won the popular vote, she lost because she didn't concentrate on securing the electoral college.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. He won by winning the critical swing (i.e., purple) states which she largely ignored in both her platform, and her campaigning. I think she understood perfectly well how the electoral system works, what she misunderstood was people. Just $0.02-worth from someone who voted for neither of them.

BRUTE wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:58 pm

Dragline wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:18 pm

But Prospecting Theory won a Nobel Prize, so I'll take Occam and Nobel over a complex theory that seeks to justify bad behavior.

yea, but "the other side are irredeemable, stupid assholes" triggers brute's bullshit alarm, especially when coming from the side in power.

Dragline wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:18 pm

You did not respond my assertion that your theory does not hold up given the disparity in age-based voting. Do you have a response or do you agree that my factual assertion (and thus falsification of your theory) was correct?

false. brute did respond. Dragline can check above.

People who cozy up to assholes eventually get shat upon themselves. Hope they have a plan B or at least some antibiotics.

Please quote your response, as I did not see any such response.

To me right, right/left is just about where they seat in the parliament, and every other uses should be avoided.

I wonder if there isn't a pretty even balance of people who have fled the thuggish and bigoted masses they perceive in rural flyover areas for the safety of the big urban areas, and people who have fled the hives of scum and villainy they perceive in the big urban areas to seek sanctuary in the quieter places.

I've always taken right versus left as two ends of the same continuum, and virtually synonymous with republican and democrat in current US politics. In that sense I see them as relative and malleable. I suppose I see libertarian and progressive to be two ends of a different continuum as well, one that is not strictly orthogonal nor parallel/overlapping to right-left, and more rigid in definition. But political erudition is not my strong suit and I tend to infer definitions from everyday usage of the words, understanding that in the current environment it is popular to apply labels to those who don't share our opinions which may put me at odds with formal academic definitions. I leave it at that because my interest is biased towards trying to understand people I am listening to versus what a textbook might say.

That's interesting about the origin of the "left-right" spectrum. I'm referring to the common current usage based on modern political spectrum tests like the Nolan Chart and its derivatives.

"According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite conservatism and capitalism on the right."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Duly noted that this is not necessarily the assumed meaning.

Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:15 am

That's interesting about the origin of the "left-right" spectrum. I'm referring to the common current usage based on modern political spectrum tests like the Nolan Chart and its derivatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... _chart.svg

on which Libertarianism is centrist, relative to the left/right axis. on other charts on there, there are explicit "left" and "right" libertarians.

analogous to calling brute "right", brute could call Spartan_Warrior a fascist - because he's opposed to Libertarianism, and Fascism is on the other end of the spectrum. all those fascist ideologies like Communism, Socialism, National Socialism.. oh, those fascists disagree amongst each others about who to genocide? details.

point being, with specific/political enough definitions, etymology can be offensive.

I just counted, and I have lived in 23 different residences in the Midwestern "purple" state of Michigan, running the gamut from extremely rural woods&water or farm country, highly affluent suburban, working class, underclass/immigrant gritty big city, world-class ivory tower uber-liberal University center, etc. I have also always been the sort of person who hung out with the drama girls, the burn-outs, the crew neck sweater A.P. track kids, the cheerleaders, the farm Christians and the nerds.

If you had talked to me when I was 17 and felt oppressed due to very minor persecution (and extreme boredom) I suffered due to being smarter than the boys in my science classes in the rural-turning-suburban bastion of Young Republican ideology where I graduated from high school, my take would have been more like that expressed by Dragline. However, since my experience was that my parents were early-issue version urban yuppies, and my mother was manic about interior decoration and my father was tolerant of commute, they moved out further and further from the big city center throughout my childhood, before finally circling a bit back and landing in Ann Arbor, and I have chosen to inhabit all of these sorts of realms in the years since, as an adult among other adults, my take now differs. Also, the fact that while moving around in this manner, I have been in relationships with men running the gamut from working-class-upbringing social/financial conservative African-American (he would say "Black man") to affluent background liberal-minded PhD immigrant Muslim (he would say "Green man"), to red-headed hipster musician (literally whitest white man) only one generation off the farm, etc. etc. this has also influenced my perspective towards "Ain't that simple."

It is useless to try to apply any sort of simple dichotomy to such a complex system of systems. For instance, my BF just purchased an oddly shaped parcel of land in a part of the state that is clearly Red. The parcel includes 1/30th of 100 ft of great lake frontage, 1 skinny acre of main highway access just across the highway from the lake, and 10 acres of backwoods attached to the skinny acre. So, at one end of his property, his neighbor just built a 7 million dollar secondary residence on the water. Stone's throw from there the property values drop to very middle-middle class, and at the back of his property, there are people living off of narrow, gated, over-grown two-tracks only accessible by snowmobile or ATV. So, there is as much socio-economic diversity as in a big city, but at a lower human population density with more proximate and literal boundaries. So, everybody knows everybody, and everybody has to exhibit at least rough respect (as opposed to altruism/paternalism!!) for all others, including the adult male bear who also is known to inhabit this range, and the cougar who is rumored to inhabit this range, and none of them are inclined towards voting in favor of funding any sort of major governmental program of any kind for very simple, yet highly varied, reasons in clear alignment with self-interest.

IOW, it is not any characteristics associated or correlated with rural residence that is causative of the red/blue split. It is the differences caused by the fact of rural vs. urban residence that causes the split. It is more like the power struggle between the Latin literate clergy and the minor feudal landlords in previous human eras/realms, which used to be moderated by first son inheriting the land, second son being sent to be educated by clergy/scholastic, third son commissioned to military, and 4th son sent off to seek fortune in Jamaican realm of childless Uncle.