A taste of Prager U

[_honorentheos]

Honor,

You're unaware of the Gore campaign getting veteran absentee ballots thrown out? Weird that you don't know that. It's weird because you're so good at knowing stuff. Stuff like:

How many polling stations have been closed across Georgia?

Where are they all located?

How many have been opened?

How many are there in total?

- Doc

This was your claim -

I recall Democrats getting hundreds of thousands of military votes tossed in a past Presidential election, so don't come at me with that victim routine, brah.

The absentee ballot issues in Florida in 2000 weren't anywhere near hundreds of thousands of votes. The only claims I've ever seen close to that number were from a debunked email that circulated in 2012 saying bags of vet votes were held by the government to prevent them from being counted and that they would have swung the election to Romney.

That said, where were these hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots in Florida that were tossed coming from? Maybe the Russians were stuffing ballots back in 2000 if there were hundreds of thousands of military absentee ballots being rejects on top of the ones accepted from registered Florida service members. Hmmm.

[_EAllusion]

Though, now that this is the what you are going with, and totally isn't a dishonest hedge against you buying into more recent conspiracies about Democratic suppression of military voters, it's pretty darn funny. You think a person complaining about shutting down polling locations in predominantly black areas in Georgia - a story that is relevant this month - shows unacceptable bias because they aren't also complaining about the plight of minority military veterans given Al Gore's campaign efforts to not count a few hundred (not hundreds of thousands) military ballots in the year 2000 due to a correct, albeit BS legal technicality.

Neat. If I complain about the Trump admin's corruption, must I also bring up corruption in the Andrew Jackson administration lest I show my bias?

[_honorentheos]

20 years ago, the Gore campaign in the election recount of Florida tried get some military absentee ballots thrown out on a correct legal technicality concerning postmark legibility that normally was overlooked, right? Kinda shady. Of course, the context is that the Gore and Bush campaigns were fighting over every last vote on strict legal technicalities because the presidential election hung in the balance. [Insert hanging chad joke]

This is the basis for your "what about Democrats' of suppression military ballots?" claim? Cool cool. That certainly balances out nationwide efforts of Republicans over the past decade or so to burden and/or disenfranchise millions of voters because they belong to Democratic demographics. Totally the same thing. Anywho, it turns out that even if Democrats were trying to prevent every last military member from voting, that wouldn't mean squat for whether there is also racial discrimination in voting access. And if there is, whites not being subject to such racial discrimination constitutes white privilege. Of course, you still can't get over the idea that white privilege is an on average concept that doesn't require every white person to be absolutely advantaged over every non-white person.

We're such hypocrites, not caring about the Black vet vote but hulking out over the Republican Secretary of State's crony consultant going around Georgia with a mandate to identify polling stations that could be closed. It's only coincidence that he focused on Black majority areas, and that the ADA challenge turned out to be this consultant's recommendation for justifying closing the polls.

Man oh man, if only the world knew how many polling stations there were in Georgia and where they were, justice would finally descend upon us and the scales would fall from our hypocritical eyes...

[_Some Schmo]

I think it's funny that DickCam thinks he's fooling people (other than himself). That aneurysm has really taken its toll.

*shaking head, chuckling*

[_Ceeboo]

Cam

I have been thinking about this post of yours and I have a few more questions that I would really appreciate your opinions on - If you would oblige. (for what it's worth, I also read the link you shared about Horner - And the 2016 election......Wowzers!)

I would be interested in hearing your opinion/opinions (should you want to offer it) about this political divide that we are seeing manifest across this country - Do you personally think it can be bridged? And if yes, can you give a few examples of what you believe it might take to bridge it?

It absolutely cannot be bridged. This board is a looking mirror into the soul of this country's politics. We have a reality television star President who just fired a reality television star White House whatever-she-was waging reality television across multiple media platforms. The very reason why he was able to get into office in the first place is the very reason why the divide can't be bridged.

Our country's electorate is itself a real life parody of an uninformed electorate.

We can't bridge the divide because we don't want to do it. The idea itself is unattainable and mostly intolerable. It's absurd. Congress is us, and we hate ourselves. We don't trust our judges. We don't understand our own institutions. We're emotional, not pragmatic, and our values aren't uniform enough to give us a national identity any more.

Your suggestion concerning national identity (or lack there of) resonates with me. Can you drill down a bit on this specifically? In other words, in your opinion, when did america begin to loose its national identity and what are a few of the factors in play that brought about this loss?

So, the best smart people can do is wage realpolitik and hope the idealists don't get too much power. Basically you hope for a competent deep state.

- Doc

Finally, when you say the above, what exactly do you mean when you say "basically you hope for a competent deep state?"

[Guest]

Your suggestion concerning national identity (or lack there of) resonates with me. Can you drill down a bit on this specifically? In other words, in your opinion, when did america begin to loose its national identity and what are a few of the factors in play that brought about this loss?

Well. I think Jordan Peterson is onto something when he states that there's been a huge shift of ideologues getting into academia and spreading their Marxism. For example, when I was a child in the 80's I remember very clearly we were taught nationalism was evil and that it, in of itself, led to the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. They weren't totally off and you can see nationalism reasserting itself within the Russian and Chinese hegemonies in addition to smaller movements within established democracies throughout the West. But let's be honest, if we can identify the dangers of nationalism then we need to be honest about the dangers of any ideology that threatens our constitutional rights, and right now we have a very serious problem of Marxist ideology within our own sphere that undermines the institutions that have done more to change the world for the better than not.

This extends to American identity where people on the Left routinely claim they're disaffected and don't relate to being citizens of this country. They view the flag as a symbol of repression, they've been pretty effective at demonizing anyone who doesn't swallow their victim narrative, and they've created a dystopian view of our country where disaffection with our system, our way of life, runs so deep that the only answer to take control in order to rectify what they view as the historic wrongs done against them or whoever they assigned victim status to. This will lead to inevitable collapses of virtually every functioning private and public sector because they're ill equipped to run anything.

How can someone who is constantly wronged, a victim of reality itself, and hates the very thing that gives them the freedoms they enjoy ever identify with it? They can't. They reject it and that will lead to chaos and poverty. They, of course, will never see it that way nor would they ever admit to being wrong when crap goes sideways, always looking to displace blame and accountability onto vast undefinable things that change to suit their need to be right and to be wronged.

That's the extreme Left and they're in control of the Leftist narrative right now. It'll lead to further 'gulf widening' as they continue to accrue numbers to their cause. This leaves no room for nationalism since their own nation is to be rejected as the cause of everything that is wrong in the world. It's a very scary direction they're headed dragging us along with it.

Finally, when you say the above, what exactly do you mean when you say "basically you hope for a competent deep state?"

Well, swinging back to the Right, the autocrat that is currently in power is attempting to purge various departments that literally exist to uphold our laws, our governance, and our security to secure his own aims. A competent deep state means that we can wait out a dictator who fires, say, the top 8 people of any given department, or emplaces a crony in a department who is effectively neutered because the people under him are smart enough, and competent enough to abide the laws and policies that are on the books. A deep state can weather the storms brought about by politics and continue to function in everyone's interests despite a political party's attempts to destabilize or shut it down. All these departments, working at 2nd, 3rd, and 4th echelons can continue to do their jobs even if the people at the top are incompetent.

The way to effectively destroy the deep state is to generationally de-fund it, staff it with ideologues, or to create new policies that can stand up to legal challeges (hence the long game of getting a President to select and put into places the judges who share his point of view). They'll have to work within the system to undermine it. That requires real commitment, which I don't think the GOP has under this current administration.

- Doc

eta: This is an object lesson of the sort of pervasive undermining of someone's achievements because Marxism has infected the thinking of those who embrace:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... d/e4go8mm/

Notice the man is immediately devalued, his efforts and achievements assigned to privilege, and therefore the "system" continues its oppression of whomever is feeling oppressed in the moment. It's just a damned stupid and daft way to interact with the world and brings only conflict and sadness.

eta2: Oh, god. Even the OP prostrates himself and feels guilty. I mean, it ain't going to stop him from moving forward, but there you go.

[_Maksutov]

The "deep state" is a feature, not a bug. Continuity of operations is assured, otherwise you'll have destructive and suicidal coups wiping out government functions with every new chief executive. An anarchist's dream but utterly unrealistic in modern times. The right wing dorks who follow Grover Norquist have not thought things through. At all.

I was 33 years a fed. Proud to be "deep state". The deep state will help save our collective ass from the surges of incompetence that come with political appointees. And they always come.

My oath was to defend the Constitution, not promote the whims of the president and his stooges. YMMV.

[_Ceeboo]

Your suggestion concerning national identity (or lack there of) resonates with me. Can you drill down a bit on this specifically? In other words, in your opinion, when did america begin to loose its national identity and what are a few of the factors in play that brought about this loss?

Well. I think Jordan Peterson is onto something when he states that there's been a huge shift of ideologues getting into academia and spreading their Marxism. For example, when I was a child in the 80's I remember very clearly we were taught nationalism was evil and that it, in of itself, led to the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. They weren't totally off and you can see nationalism reasserting itself within the Russian and Chinese hegemonies in addition to smaller movements within established democracies throughout the West. But let's be honest, if we can identify the dangers of nationalism then we need to be honest about the dangers of any ideology that threatens our constitutional rights, and right now we have a very serious problem of Marxist ideology within our own sphere that undermines the institutions that have done more to change the world for the better than not.

This extends to American identity where people on the Left routinely claim they're disaffected and don't relate to being citizens of this country. They view the flag as a symbol of repression, they've been pretty effective at demonizing anyone who doesn't swallow their victim narrative, and they've created a dystopian view of our country where disaffection with our system, our way of life, runs so deep that the only answer to take control in order to rectify what they view as the historic wrongs done against them or whoever they assigned victim status to. This will lead to inevitable collapses of virtually every functioning private and public sector because they're ill equipped to run anything.

How can someone who is constantly wronged, a victim of reality itself, and hates the very thing that gives them the freedoms they enjoy ever identify with it? They can't. They reject it and that will lead to chaos and poverty. They, of course, will never see it that way nor would they ever admit to being wrong when ____ goes sideways, always looking to displace blame and accountability onto vast undefinable things that change to suit their need to be right and to be wronged.

That's the extreme Left and they're in control of the Leftist narrative right now. It'll lead to further 'gulf widening' as they continue to accrue numbers to their cause. This leaves no room for nationalism since their own nation is to be rejected as the cause of everything that is wrong in the world. It's a very scary direction they're headed dragging us along with it.

Finally, when you say the above, what exactly do you mean when you say "basically you hope for a competent deep state?"

Well, swinging back to the Right, the autocrat that is currently in power is attempting to purge various departments that literally exist to uphold our laws, our governance, and our security to secure his own aims. A competent deep state means that we can wait out a dictator who fires, say, the top 8 people of any given department, or emplaces a crony in a department who is effectively neutered because the people under him are smart enough, and competent enough to abide the laws and policies that are on the books. A deep state can weather the storms brought about by politics and continue to function in everyone's interests despite a political party's attempts to destabilize or shut it down. All these departments, working at 2nd, 3rd, and 4th echelons can continue to do their jobs even if the people at the top are incompetent.

The way to effectively destroy the deep state is to generationally de-fund it, staff it with ideologues, or to create new policies that can stand up to legal challeges (hence the long game of getting a President to select and put into places the judges who share his point of view). They'll have to work within the system to undermine it. That requires real commitment, which I don't think the GOP has under this current administration.

- Doc

Again, thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it.

for what it's worth, although politically speaking, I lean fairly hard to the right and I am a God/Creator believer - while you are politically left leaning and an atheist - I find many of your board contributions to be loaded with extremely deep wisdom and profound insight. in my opinion, these traits are becoming fairly rare to find these day (especially when the topic is something that is as divisive and complex as American politics.)

I asked you for your opinions (2 times on this thread now) for a reason - You certainly didn't disappoint. in my opinion, your board participation brings significant value to the table we all share at MDB. I am grateful to be among those who receive great personal benefit from reading, digesting, considering and evaluating your board contributions.

[_Ceeboo]

The "deep state" is a feature, not a bug. Continuity of operations is assured, otherwise you'll have destructive and suicidal coups wiping out government functions with every new chief executive. An anarchist's dream but utterly unrealistic in modern times. The right wing dorks who follow Grover Norquist have not thought things through. At all.

I was 33 years a fed. Proud to be "deep state". The deep state will help save our collective ass from the surges of incompetence that come with political appointees. And they always come.

My oath was to defend the Constitution, not promote the whims of the president and his stooges. YMMV.

Until relatively recently, I had always thought of a "deep state" in very negative terms - I am almost certain that my narrow thinking on the matter was cemented in personal ignorance, but perhaps there are other factors that I still don't recognize?

Anyway, your above post - along with a few others - has caused me to do a 180. Thanks for the post, it was very thought provoking, to say the least.

[Guest]

Your suggestion concerning national identity (or lack there of) resonates with me. Can you drill down a bit on this specifically? In other words, in your opinion, when did america begin to loose its national identity and what are a few of the factors in play that brought about this loss?

Well. I think Jordan Peterson is onto something when he states that there's been a huge shift of ideologues getting into academia and spreading their Marxism. For example, when I was a child in the 80's I remember very clearly we were taught nationalism was evil and that it, in of itself, led to the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. They weren't totally off and you can see nationalism reasserting itself within the Russian and Chinese hegemonies in addition to smaller movements within established democracies throughout the West. But let's be honest, if we can identify the dangers of nationalism then we need to be honest about the dangers of any ideology that threatens our constitutional rights, and right now we have a very serious problem of Marxist ideology within our own sphere that undermines the institutions that have done more to change the world for the better than not.

…

How can someone who is constantly wronged, a victim of reality itself, and hates the very thing that gives them the freedoms they enjoy ever identify with it? They can't. They reject it and that will lead to chaos and poverty. They, of course, will never see it that way nor would they ever admit to being wrong when ____ goes sideways, always looking to displace blame and accountability onto vast undefinable things that change to suit their need to be right and to be wronged.

That's the extreme Left and they're in control of the Leftist narrative right now. It'll lead to further 'gulf widening' as they continue to accrue numbers to their cause. This leaves no room for nationalism since their own nation is to be rejected as the cause of everything that is wrong in the world. It's a very scary direction they're headed dragging us along with it.

I think the problem you describe is the result of people on both sides deleting values from the concept of what the American ideal stood for and reducing it to patriotism with not very subtle assumptions about this being synonymous with the identity of white european protestants.

I made mention to ajax in another thread that for all their differences the Founding Fathers did have common views among them about a few things, which make sense given the filter they went through put those in favor of European aristocracies on the losing side of our war for independance. From that thread -
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 3#p1124273

I would be interested in your thoughts on the opening post, though.

I don't understand what the difference is between populism and democracy. Democracy means rule by the people or the majority. It doesn't mean that when you find yourself in the minority and disagree with the majority opinion that democracy is now defined as authoritarianism.

I actually really appreciate this comment, ajax, because it gets at the heart of the question in the opening post. If democracy can be reduced to merely saying that whomever wins the latest election is free to enact whatever laws or actions they choose however they choose to do so, then what was the purpose of establishing a Constitution that framed the powers of government as requiring checks and balances? That sought to organize the powers among competing parties whose very self-interest were recognized as being both a threat if left unchecked but as a tool if pitted against other branches of government or between populous and rural states? As Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." Why would the founders have envisioned such a volatile and chaotic system?

I'd like to offer up a different definition for democracy, ajax. One that isn't about how we govern, but why. It is of course cliché to point out we aren't actually a democracy in terms of governing, but rather a Republic with elected representatives. But that doesn't really get at much as far as discussion goes.

Going back to the contrast between the aristocracies of Europe prevalent at the founding of the nation, Tocqueville noted that it was the general equality of the citizens of the US with much more available access to the means of self-improvement that seemed to make the American experiment possible. Think about that for a moment. In the aristocratic societies of Europe, evolved from the feudalism of the middle ages, where and to whom one was born was the single most important influence on ones life. Access to education was an accident of ones birth. Whether one would spend ones days laboring or have time for other pursuits had little to do with ones talents or interests, and everything to do with which social class one inherited by birth. The roads one traveled on that made commerce possible were the King's roads; the ships, the Queen's ships. The land was the King's land, the grace of God always bestowed first upon the head of the sovereign. And there was little on could do about ones fate once it was established at birth.

It's against this backdrop that we need to define democracy, or what it means for something or someone to be small "d" democratic. Democracy in this sense refers to a commitment to universal rights, such as those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It demands that the democratic society is one built on merits and effort rather than inheritance and birthright. It protects and manages public lands, roads, schools, libraries, infrastructure, and the other tools necessary to facilitate the exercise of those rights and recognizes value in doing so comes from the opportunities it creates. The forward march of liberal western democracy over the last few centuries has been one of fighting to be more and more true to the claim we DO believe these rights are universal and should be treated as such. We've struggled with our own failings in this regard as a nation and continue to do so today.

Economic nationalism is a stark contrast to just being citizens of the world. It means that in a small way the USA actually belongs to its citizens not just all human beings around the world. These citizens can in fact vote for laws that are in their best intertest regardless of what the will of the elite establishment aristocrats of Washington might be. This power of the people had been lost until the anti establishment campaign of DJT retook first the Republican party and then the presidency as well in 2016. Populism is the soul of democracy, not what is destroying it.

To have meaning, populism requires elites or some upper-class for contrast. And in a certain sense I'd also agree that the concept at it's heart is vital to democracy. But the term also generally includes reference to another form of tyranny, that of the majority. And popular vote, popular views can be a threat to the values and commitment to universal rights as described above. Tocqueville used the story of a Baltimore printing press that reported negatively on the the War of 1812 that was destroyed by an angry mob, who stormed a jail and killed at least one journalist as an example of how dangerous this tyranny can be lest we get rosy eyed about the wisdom of the crowd. I'd guess you're not a Lincoln fan, but in his great quote there is acknowledgment that all the people can be fooled some of the time, and some of the people can be fooled all of the time. It's optimism in the institutions of democracy that makes the fact one can't fool all of the people all of the time have any meaning.

But the will of the people may be short lived. The deep state (Dept. of Justice and other people loyal to Obama and the establishment) still seeks to find a way to overturn the results of the democratically elected presidential candidate. That's not the soul of democracy. That's the soul of a ruling elite trying to hang on to power against the will of the people.

This idea of there being a "deep state" is just a euphemism for trying to murder the mechanisms of democracy that serve as the checks and balances specifically created to protect the governed from the whim and tyranny possible by a bad leader or overheated emotions overriding the Nation's better judgment. It's not too strong of a statement to call it an attack on America by an insidious and manipulative elite who want to erode the kind of democracy that is concerned with universal rights, protection and management of public goods and services necessary to hold back the forces that compel human beings into class systems, and would love nothing more than to make all the roads their roads, all the ships their ships once again.

When I think of extremists on both sides, I think they are people who don't believe this or don't care to think about it. I found it interesting that I completely agreed with Jordan Peterson's point about what he described as an unholy trinity that support the left, but I think both sides have corrupted those pillars in different ways. Here's the timestamped link:
https://youtu.be/LquIQisaZFU?t=97

I think he's spot on in identifying the three pillars that are corrupted: Diversity of Opinion, Equality of Opportunity, and Inclusion. But we can see it isn't just the left that has issues with these.

If the criticism of the left is that they shout down opinions they disagree with in order to demand identity diversity based on race, gender, and sexual-orientation, the criticism of the right is it shuts down diversity of opinion through exclusion to minimize interactions with other opinions or people, taking their information from selective silos that reinforce what they already believe, and being fronted by just as aggressive opinion police.

If criticism of the left is they have corrupted the ideal of equality of opportunity with seeking equal outcomes, the criticism of the right is that they do not value equality of opportunity. It's the new aristocratic view that mainly seeks to protect those who have, not invest in capitalising on all of the potential in America, and louding decrying the idea that the system is NOT providing for equality of opportunity. In fact, this thread has been mainly about this issue.

As to inclusion, Peterson points to it as the mechanism for achieving the other two and only speaks of it in the negative. Yet it's been foundational to the American ideal for generations. You want to meet someone who practically gushes about the United States? It isn't your granola college student whose privileged upbringing allows them to take for granted how much they have or the opportunities in front of them others lack. Nor is it the gun-toting 4 wheeling YEE-HAW yelling guy with confederate flags on everything he owns who shouts USA! all the time while having no love to give for a single enlightenment principle that made the Constitution possible. It's the newly minted immigrant. Their love comes from being able to contrast what we have with the other alternatives, and appreciating it for those three pillars of diversity of opinion, equality of opportunity, and the inclusiveness that opened the door that made theirs and their families futures possible.

So I tend to think the problem is people on both sides don't actually believe in America as a light on a hill. We aren't striving for anything anymore, we don't have pluralistic values. Any attempt to talk about them turns into people wanting to make identity values national values, whether those are the identity values of conservative Christians or socialist vegen antimaterialists.

Diversity of Opinion, Equality of Opportunity, and Inclusion. They were at the core of the debate, and the debate included how best to achieve them and protect them. The founders got a lot of things wrong when it came to implementation, and their views about people of color or women, or whathaveyou were of their time. But I don't think it's hard to imagine Thomas Jefferson or James Madison being transported into a 21st Century version of the Constitutional Convention and, once up to speed, having the debate be about who to best achieve and protect individual liberties, make opportunity available to all, and strengthen the national identity around inclusiveness rather than exclusion.