SCOTUS stops the election interference....cold!

satire works because it contains at least a kernel, if not more, of truth. In that clip, however, though he was emphasizing for comedic effect, his statements were not satirical. They were observational.

 

This is good. I don’t yet see any patterns in baz’s comments to make such a judgement (and I’m rather enjoying this fact) but at least you’re making observations and using your own knowledge and experience and hopefully reason to make your evaluation. This is much better, in my opinion, than waiting for someone else to define the situation for you and then citing their pronouncements as definitive truth.

 

...

 

...

 

I'm pleased about that. I don't hold any one person up to be the be-all-and-end-all.
There's no such thing as 100% and no such thing as perfection, certainly, not in politics.

I hold to some fundamental principles and I doubt there's another human who holds the same things in the same priority and same value and no single politician or political party either.
(there's never been a band I followed exclusively either in my younger years, preferring to enjoy some songs from some and other songs from others, a cocktail of dodgy musical taste lol.
That's OK.
We are each an individual.

Can we really be as harsh on those people as we feel we ought to be?
I think a lot of people feel dis-enfranchised (and in some cases fearful) and, so, if/when someone (man or woman) comes along who sounds like he speaks their language and who seems to be looking at things from their point of view or perspective, it's easy for those dis-enfranchised people fall in behind them as if that person is some sort of champion.

I look at things in the opposite direction. I burst things apart and rebuild them, to find out how they work and why they work as they do. Like many engineers do. (I am a self-taught software engineer as it happens).

I conclude that those who come along as some sort of saviour, out of the blue relatively, have merely looked at the state of things and the public mood and seized and opportunity to gain more power and control.
(If only they wanted that control in order to effect change that will endure and improve people's lives. Their ego prevents them from doing that. It's all about them and the consequent exploitation of the voter).

Those people can feel disproportionately good about things, feeling safer because they think someone is 'looking out for them' and they will defend that for as long as possible sticking up for it even if the logic dictates they should do otherwise.
They can't look at it logically and I don't blame them for that.
In all of us, there is the innate need to feel safe as possible and as we know turkeys don't vote for Christmas, which in this context means nobody will want to give up that feeling or perception of safety.

And that's where such division plays it part.
Division can instil fear and thus more people are drawn in behind that person who is thought to be some sort of saviour.

Thankfully politics is cyclical. Life is cyclical though not for the individual, imo.
That means the time will come when the current state of politics will be changed just as it was changed a few years back.
And when it is changed, to what many will prefer (by that time), it will have all been too much and too slow for those who have died by then, which means that change will have come too late.

My perception leads me to say that the US needs to move away from its historical political tribalism where it's almost like a baseball game in terms of winners and losers.
(I was about to use the terms 'black and white' and then obvs,not so thought to use 'binary' and neither says it correctly without introducing thoughts of other arguments).
So I shall say it this way instead.
Politics is not an all-or-nothing construct.
It's not a winners and losers thing.
Many seem to think it is and I think they should reflect on that.

If anyone loses out through politics, the whole country loses out.
It's not about pitting one group against another - well, it shouldn't be, because that is merely the deflection that those causing division want to see happen.

When the people turn on each other, those who caused it can sit back and be elected with greater numbers because people are feeling they 'have' to vote, which means more will and they vote more with emotion than pragmatism.

And then there's the flip side:
Those in power who aren't being seen (by the public), to do what the 'people' need and want.
Those same people who left the public feeling disenfranchised and who were lackadaisical.
So whatever the rights and wrongs of the current GOP, previous GOP and the Dems are all responsible for being lazy governments.
They all sowed the seeds and the GOP were taken over by the opportunists in what I consider to be the evolution in politics, anywhere and not just in the US.

UK went through it - still is going through it.
Lackadaisical governance for about two decades (ie not just one party but, actually, all 3 of them), led people to want change and that feeling of desire for change was so intense that the type of change didn't matter.
The thought was akin to "anything must be better than this".

Afterwards, in hindsight, such change hasn't been so good.
Economy dropped, jobs numbers have fallen, there's now a brain-drain with many professionals leaving for other countries and parts of the UK are now thinking that anything is better than this and will emotionally (again) vote for change when they get the ability to do so. That could lead to Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK and it actually becoming England and Wales only.


So, what do I think is the solution to such a sea-change politics?
Time combined with tumult.
Eventually people will see that the tumult is diminishing or killing their livelihoods and they will come back from the extremes, back from the push for 100% (remember there's no such thing) and return to the grey area, where compromise is the key.

And then all those politicians need to waken up and remember they MUST represent the whole of their communities and not just the part that voted for them.
They need to be inclusive (in the true meaning of the word) and not divisive because that will swap around with each new administration and cause the same situation all over again in some years.

The first rule of a government is to look after it's people - all of them, not just some of them.
To divide and conquer mentality is not a suitable strategy if stable government and a strong country is the desire.

That's my thought for this Friday. :\

 

Furthermore;
The current totems thrown about as the problems are nothing more than the tools of division.
Immigration is not the problem.
Well, if it is, isn't everyone the problem because we're all immigrants?
That "They're taking our jobs", isn't the problem because they're the lowest paid jobs which most citizens won't do anyway.

The problem is the leadership - it's always the CEO. In this case, the heads of successive governments.

 

I hold no grudges.
I think it's a useful example at a good time too, of the way in which people can say stuff on social media which are actually not what they might say in reality.
It's an affliction that we all need to be aware of and to avoid where possible. And when I say we all need to be aware of it, I include myself.

 

“Us vs them” is childish. They are not pure evil and we are not pure goodness.
We would be flipping out and certainly invading if they wanted to put bases and missiles in Mexico or Canada. Get off your high horse, you condescending little “social scientist”.

 

Agreed.

Who's thinking of putting new bases somewhere? The US? where?

 

Excellent. Thank you for taking the time to clearly express those thoughts.

 

The Ukraine.

 

I'm not sure you are correct with that comment.
I understand Putin's fear of Ukraine joining NATO, as has been done recently for Sweden and Finland.
Until then, until he invaded Ukraine (No longer The Ukraine since its independence from USSR), Ukraine was a "no man's land' between Russia and the West. Soon, he will have NATO countries all along the Russia border with no buffer.
I have read that that is what 'upsets' him, and I have not heard anything about any new bases in Ukraine. I shall read up more in case I missed that.

Afterthought: I'm not sure new bases are needed. Russia is fully with range of existing NATO bases so I'm not sure the strategic merits of new ones in Ukraine.
However, that said, I'm not a military strategist. lol

 

I was inferring that the Ukraine joining nato would entail, as it does with other members, the stationing of us forces and at least missile defence systems if not offensive capabilities. Reasoning further, given its striking distance to Russia’s cities and strategic targets, the us would be foolish not to put such offensive missiles there if we had the opportunity.

 

Yes, perhaps but they won't want to provoke Russia which such stationing of weapons would do, especially if all of Russia is already within range of existing US assets. I'm not into speculation so I'll look up to see if there is any stated intent to plonk US in Ukraine.

 

Sure, but given the distribution, in advanced countries, of anti-missile defense systems, minimizing time to target and maximizing the number of inbound missiles would increase the probabilities of successful hits.

 

I'm not into speculation and not a military strategist.
I'm not sure that what's been done before is a good measure for what will be done in the future.
Change happens.

 

I’m inclined to believe that governments, and especially ours, prefers war over the alternative. Expansion of nato to Russia’s doorstep, and then provoking an attack, would trigger the nato pact to action.

 

When considering Russia, I think it pays to remember that after WW2, they occupied and controlled in their inimitable way--many countries that did not want to be occupied and controlled by --what was then the soviet union.

Albania,Bulgaria,Czechoslovakia,Hungary,East Germany,Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia. Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania were made into republics. Even Finland was partially controlled by the soviets. One can begin to understand why NATO was formed.

We, of course have our own "problems "---Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan---blood and treasure lost for---??? . Not to mention the inequities of our capitalist system.

 

...