[Ibon]

Ibon,

Somehow we are talking past one another. I don't know how to fix it.

I would suggest we just drop the whole Clinton/Trump thing completly. It's too loaded and inflammatory.

There are tons of other examples we can use.

Newfie, Considering your comment here and the example you took in India to illustrate irrational aggression and violence and divisiveness I think you are making the general point that we humans are capable of some pretty ugly shit. No doubt. Furthermore in times of constraints in an overcrowded world these divisions that normally are tolerated start to rip different groups apart. So there is a force of In Group / Out Group that gets aggravated in times when our species is over crowded, when constraints start to squeeze, when ecological overshoot advances. So far we probably have broad agreement on this.

I think Evilgenius brings up a very good point regarding patterns of behavior. There is no doubt that the Las Vegas shooter was probably mentally ill. No one here can say whether this shooter would have still committed these acts if there wasn't a charged atmosphere already of divisiveness and pent up anger and rage in the collective. He may have been influenced by this. He could by a wacko on the right or left politically, it doesn't matter, there does remain Evilgenius's valid point that perhaps he was influenced by divisiveness already in the collective.

I was thinking of a funny analogy about hurricanes. Are they caused by climate change or not. Would have they been category 4 or 5 with or without climate change. Again, we see a certain volatility that perhaps can never be isolated and be predictive.

This is where I do bring this back to Trump. He is encouraging a spirit of divisiveness and conflict. This is not a democratic talking point. This is a clear plain fact. I think it really is his supporters who are in denial about this more than his opponents are attempting to demonize him. He is toxic and dangerous.

More and more member of the Republican party are recognizing this.

I do see all of this under the lens of ecological overshoot, this elevated volatility and agitation in a collective that senses limits and instabilities, loss of jobs, etc. This does start to accelerate racial, religious, ethnic tensions, nationalism on the rise, intolerance of immigrants.

I am reminded of a position Dohboi often takes on the climate change threads where he tends to defend social justice and the plight of the poor and targets culpability more on the privileged and wealthy. I often argued with him on this but I do have high respect that Dohboi considers the plight of the disadvantaged.

All of this brings to the forefront a huge question going forward. Ecological overshoot as it advances will heighten the sacred and the profane that is within our species. We will see the most primitive acts of self interest and we will also witness some selfless acts of noble humanity. They will coexist side by side.

At the moment The United States of America has as a president somebody who encourages and defends our most primitive and base instincts regarding this topic. He is a dangerous and toxic force. On the otherhand I am encouraged that his very presence has the opportunity to allow the emergence of some of our most noble capabilities as a species. In this way I find the current dynamics somehow strangely optimistic.

Volatility releases the long stagnant inertia and gets things moving, the most sacred and profane. Trump is about as profane as you can get but at least his very presence has the potential to galvanize an apposing force.

[KaiserJeep]

It astonishes me that educated and intelligent people know so little of American history. If you think Trump is an arogant and offensive Washington outsider, then read up on the presidencies of these men:

George Washington - fought insanely intense battles with Congress, who disagreed with him over relations with England (they favored France).
John Adams - fought a secret, months long war with France (the Quasi-War), exploited by both the Federalists and the Whigs in Congress.
Thomas Jefferson - arrested and tried his VP Aaron Burr for treason, after he tried to carve another country out of the USA.
James Madison - conducted an unnecessary war (War of 1812) while managing the aftermath of Aaron Burr's treasonous attempted rebellion.
James Monroe - the Monroe Doctrine, arguably the root cause of the US Civil War.
John Quincy Adams - had the misfortune to lose the popular vote to Andrew Jackson, while winning the Electoral College - enough said?
Andrew Jackson - founded the Democrats on a platform of pro-slavery and Native American genocides.
Martin Van Buren - did nothing when the governor of Missourii issued an extermination order against Mormons.
William Henry Harrison - did nothing, partied too hard at the inaugeration and died the first day of his presidency.
John Tyler - succeeded Harrison and fought with Congress his entire term.
James K. Polk - fought the Mexican-American war over the S border and negotiated the N border between Canada and Oregon.
Zachary Taylor - the first anti-slavery president, died in office after 16 months during a corruption scandal.
Millard Fillmore - reversed Taylor's anti-slavery stance, allowed Texas/Utah/New Mexico to vote as pro-slavery states.
Franklin Pierce - Had his Spanish ambassadors draft the Ostend Manifesto, saying if Spain did not sell Cuba, we would declare war and annex it.
James Buchanon - illegally influenced a Supreme Court Justice to uphold the Dredd Scott Decision, preventing the Federal intervention in slavery.
Abraham Lincoln - "the Great Emancipator" and founder of the Republicans, declared war on the Confederacy.
Andrew Johnson - after succeeding Lincoln, was impeached by Congress, failing of being removed from office by one vote.
Ulysseys S. Grant - the Whiskey Ring scandal (diversion of $90 Million 1875 US dollars in Federal liquor taxes).
.......
I could go on and on, right up to the Obama scandals. The point being, for all your angst about him, Trump is (so far) an uninspiring rich jerk and dilettante in politics. Also, nowhere near as controversial as his predecessors.

[Newfie]

Again Ibon I think you are focusing on a tiny point missing the larger issue.

I've been thinking along these lines for a day or two. Still pretty raw thoughts so bear with me. I'm gonna skip citations for simplicity, just make some assertions that we can discuss later.

Humans as a species tend to live in tribal communities. These communities tend to have a great deal of low level conflict resulting in high death rates. The conflicts are both internal and external. To compensate for this the tribes develop a system of governance. Essentially the right to inflict violence passes to the government. The government mediates conflicts and meads out punishment (or not). Tribe member agree to abide by the laws. Vendettas are stopped, the laws feed people's need for fairness. It works within the tribe and also between tribes. The elders negotiate instead of fighting.

So by giving government the violence franchise the population enjoys a more peaceful and longer life. The individual gives up the right for vengeance and receives the promise of peace.

The larger and more organized the governments the lower the overal death rate through tribal bickering. That's the basic social contract. I give you power, you make my life better. It relies on a premis of fairness. Fairness is an instinctual trait, even chimps will rebel if they see they are not being treated fairly. It is a very basic human concept, genetically programmed.

Now when the basic social contract breaks down, when folks surrender their right of vengeance and the government does nothing for them, or oppressed them even further, then the instinctual need for fairness kicks in. It is VERY powerful.

This is what underlies terrorism. The terrorist attack says to the population "We can do you harm and your government can not protect you." Suicide missions are particularly powerful because you can not seek vengeance upon the perpetrator. The NEED for vengeance is aroused but unsaited.

This seething anger does not dissipate, it may be suppressed but it remains. It becomes a MEME within the society.

"The government has broken the social contract, it has not protected me, it is unfair."

So the terrorist wins twice. First by killing folks, they get their revenge. It then by denying a sacrifice, a kicking boy, revenge, that hatered is turned toward the government.

This crap has been going on for a long time, a very long time. What are the inner city gangs but tribal units who have become disaffected with the government? Government has failed them, they set up their own organizations with rules and laws. Violence abounds. Can you read this scenario in BLM? A disaffected group who feels the government has not been fair. LGBT whatever? Illegal immigrants? And.....fat old white guys!

The country is disolving into a plethora of special interest groups who each feel, often times legitimately, that they have been unfairly treated, that government has failed to honor the social contract. This is where Cog and Dohboi become one, anger, frustration, helpless. (Cog and Dohboi, my apologies for dragging you in).

AND you now have the situation where entire cities are defying federal law through sanctuary laws. Where contractors in Texas openly flaunt the law hiring illegals. The various bits and pieces of the government are attempting to hold the social contract FOR THEIR CONSTITUANTS because the Federal government is failing. Whether you agree with it or not is moot, the point is that we are looking at the gradual dissolution of our Federal government.

And that will entail yet more violence as the various bits fight by the same mechanisms that cause high death rates when gangs compete.

And the bloody media thinks it's all great fun and hypes every sorid detail in the quest for eyeballs. Jacks us all up, reminds us of every wound, every slight. They are priding both sides to pick up arms.

It's no wonder we have various folks crack and go nuts. The more fragile among us feel these pressures accutly and many react badly.

PS. Unrelated to my above, but I just gotta say this.
I need to comment on the folks pondering the shooters sanity, was he mentally ill? Did he have an undiagnosed mental illness?

Well, duh, YEAH! He shoot hundreds killing 58 strangers. OF COURSE HE WAS NUTS. If that's not mentally ill then what the hell is? What drivel of analysis have we sunk to that we need to ask the question?

[Ibon]

The country is disolving into a plethora of special interest groups who each feel, often times legitimately, that they have been unfairly treated, that government has failed to honor the social contract. This is where Cog and Dohboi become one, anger, frustration, helpless. (Cog and Dohboi, my apologies for dragging you in).

AND you now have the situation where entire cities are defying federal law through sanctuary laws. Where contractors in Texas openly flaunt the law hiring illegals. The various bits and pieces of the government are attempting to hold the social contract FOR THEIR CONSTITUANTS because the Federal government is failing. Whether you agree with it or not is moot, the point is that we are looking at the gradual dissolution of our Federal government.

This was a good post and very little to disagree with here. I actually think we are discussing two separate topics. My emphasis on Trump stands on its own as a separate issue to everything you posted. It is hard to separate this though as I understand how you thought I am just caught up in the partisan divisiveness or as Tanada mentioned that I am fixed on the democratic talking points when I focus on Trump as a demagogue or toxic etc.

Even though we have a division of powers the president has enormous powers both tangibly and intangibly. Tangible in that he alone can decide to use a nuclear weapon. Intangibly in how he can set the tone, be a role model, inflame or calm, etc.

When you consider everything you wrote Newfiie and then consider the leader at the helm of these disintegrating forces and to what degree this leader acts as a force to heal or inflame these forces then
I think I make my point. Trump is an unhinged individual.

Give me more credit than pegging me simply as being partisan here. Trump is a dangerous individual who has enormous influence in his ability to inflame exactly the disenfranchisement you posted about. . I have little interest in getting much on a soap box over this. I would rather disengage as I mentioned in my previous post.

[Cog]

Its going to be a very long seven years for some people here.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

Frankly I thought Obama was as bad or worse than Trump. For many reasons but to keep it short and high level....

His whole theme of HOPE. It was BS from day one, he could not deliver on the promise. He jacked people up, gave them the idea they were going to get something. Some folks wanted cash, or a job, or respect. Some folks wanted their time on top, some waned revenge.

These unfulfilled vague promises are coming home to roost. Folks felt lied too, so they didn't turn out to vote. They felt disenfranchised so they became militant. It organized other folks to elect the polar opposite.

Trump is not the disease, he is the symptom. Trump is Obamas legacy.

[Newfie]

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.

Its going to be a very long seven years for some people here.

[Cog]

Oh and you don't think Ibon is trolling with his constant attacks on Trump by calling him deranged and his supporters racists and Nazi's? Funny how blinders work Newfie.

[Cog]

Oh and you don't think Ibon is trolling with his constant attacks on Trump by calling him deranged and his supporters racists and Nazi's? Funny how blinders work Newfie.


LOL deserved to be posted twice. Even the software knows I'm right. Progressives have lost their mind over this election. I see their angst and drama played out every day in the media. What they could not win in an election, they seek to get by other means. Even if it involves inventing Russian interference or speculating on removing Trump by reason of mental instability. Like I said, its going to be a long seven years for them.

[Newfie]

No I don't think Ibon is trolling. His was a thoughtful post aimed at communicating an idea. And I think both sides have lost their minds.

Which is my point. Why are we at such odds with one another? What is the mechanism behind the vitriol?

Understaning the process may, or may not, allow you to do something about it. More likely if you understand it you have a better chance of surviving.

Otherwise I may as well buy two TVs so I can listen to CNN in my Left ear and Fox in my Right. Lots of noise, no content.

[Cog]

There can be no unity with leftist and communists, who seek to destroy American exceptionalism and replace it with their version of a socialist utopia. You might as well suggest unity between a rapist and a rape victim.

[KaiserJeep]

What a silly thing to say, Cog. We just finished two terms of a leftist president who enjoyed widespread popular support, and Trump was yet another POTUS who did not win the majority of the popular vote. Plenty of leftists in this country who vote as a block.

Just as there is an approximate equal number on the right. The approximately 10% of unalighned voters decide everything.

[Cog]

In three years and one month the voters can decide differently .Like Obama said "Elections have consequences."

Democrats/socialists, and communists will have to sit in the back until the ride is over. Or if they want to overthrow a duly elected president, let the games begin.

[evilgenius]

Its going to be a very long seven years for some people here.

And what makes you think that Trump is on your side? So far, he hasn't really exhibited any behavior that would demonstrate he is acting out of any sort of inner determination. He hasn't shown that his own principles align with any of his actions. He has only been trying to please his base, as far as I can see. But that isn't necessarily an indication that he agrees with his base.

In regards to rhetoric; the attitudes toward both presidents Trump and Obama are highly dependent upon inflammatory language. There isn't a lot of meaning within that language either, except the intention to use it to herd. I was in the locker room at the gym the other day, tying my shoes, when I overheard these two guys laying into this woman they worked with. I considered saying something, but instead decided to see if there was a lesson I could draw from what they were doing. By listening I was able to follow how the criticism began as a slight run upon the woman's workplace circumstances. The first guy said something about how she hasn't gotten the help from the big boss. The big boss appeared to have given up on her. In defense of the big boss he said that he believed that if the woman hadn't been there a year, but only a few months, that he would have helped her. Then, the second guy said he had always thought she was like, and he gave some cultural reference to a character that I didn't know anything about but was probably akin to what my generation would call a shrew. Then the first guy affirmed that with a yes and some vague example that was not really very telling. Right away the second guy said, "You see. I knew I was right." Then, they both spoke about her in vague generalizations that defamed her. At no point did either of them give any hard examples of her character. She could have just been a woman who got where she was because she didn't take sh*t from anyone. The big boss could have been a bastard. She could have been a shrew. There wasn't a thing spoken between those two guys that hinted of proof, whichever way.

Look what happened to Obama. People did place hope upon him. It was the great recession. No way was he going to wave a magic wand over the thing and make it go away. As people began to face their own faults concerning their own roles in the situation, they, largely, decided to take the easy way out. They sought a scapegoat. Obama was handy. Trump is handy too, for the Democrats. But he is also handy for you. You aren't facing whether you go too far. If you aren't careful, you will find that he was your yes man president.

As far as this relates to guns, I think that it reflects upon the position of the gun lobby in that it refuses to listen to reason when it comes to gun control. Listen, I like to target shoot. I understand that people can feel weak and afraid and there may be legitimate reasons to own a weapon which they can use to defend themselves. I hope they can address their fears some other way, but, if it comes down to it, I don't want them to die because they couldn't have a gun. That being said, not many of those reasons for being afraid rise to the level of threat such that guns need to always be within reach, for instance. Not many of them require others, such as children, to have to be continually exposed to the increased threat level that exists inherently because of the presence of a gun. Not many of them require other people that gun owners don't know to be exposed to that either, in that gun owners don't really need to carry everywhere. You can rise up on your hackles and declare all kinds of scenarios by which you are in danger in all places, but you probably can't do so using reason. Emotion is playing too big a role in this argument. In the same way, you can't defend assault rifles, or bump stocks, or silencers, or high capacity magazines as necessary over all cases where people want to declare a danger that they say justifies them. Other people shouldn't have to be exposed to those things. You don't realize it, but you are being just like one of those union leaders from the middle of the Twentieth Century who went too far in seeking concessions from management on behalf of the workers they represented. They didn't listen to reason, and sought benefits for their workers that ran the risk of destroying the companies they worked for. Really, until that kind of thinking was introduced to the situation by those union leaders management didn't use to think of themselves in relation to the stockholders the way they do now. And it is that attitude by management that has, largely, led to the disproportionate distribution of wealth towards the one percent that we see now within society. Everybody wants to be a winner. There is such a thing called simply living life.

In terms of living, I suggested a registry. I suggested that because it isn't about banning. It takes into account the Second Amendment. A registry doesn't infringe upon anybody's ability to either possess or sell the kinds of weapons that make non gun owners afraid. What it does is introduce transparency into the situation. And transparency exposes owners of those types of guns and gun accessories that would put a person on the registry to how non gun owners would react to them when they have knowledge. If it developed according to my suggestion, where most pistols, hunting rifles and other reasonable use items for which there are considerable examples of use within society, don't place a person on the list, then those people would not come under the scrutiny of the non gun loving public. That's what compromise looks like, not that you get something in return, but that you listen. If you listen that means when you hear the other side considers a thing to be very important you make concessions.

[vtsnowedin]

In terms of living, I suggested a registry. I suggested that because it isn't about banning. It takes into account the Second Amendment. A registry doesn't infringe upon anybody's ability to either possess or sell the kinds of weapons that make non gun owners afraid.

Non gun owners are afraid of all guns to the point of keeping their children from playing with toy guns.
A gun registry has only two uses. The first allows law enforcement to trace a gun used in a crime back to it's source. The second is the preparation necessary before banning and confiscation can take place.
The present rules which record sales at the retail level is as far as I want to go.

[evilgenius]

In terms of living, I suggested a registry. I suggested that because it isn't about banning. It takes into account the Second Amendment. A registry doesn't infringe upon anybody's ability to either possess or sell the kinds of weapons that make non gun owners afraid.

Non gun owners are afraid of all guns to the point of keeping their children from playing with toy guns.
A gun registry has only two uses. The first allows law enforcement to trace a gun used in a crime back to it's source. The second is the preparation necessary before banning and confiscation can take place.
The present rules which record sales at the retail level is as far as I want to go.

And I think that if God Himself came down from heaven and told you not to be afraid, you would be afraid.

Speaking of God, how is it that when I browse some Christian forums I see as much gun talk, or more, than on conservative forums? People who've read anything I've said on this site may know that I criticize the Church. I don't lay into it because I think it is preposterous, but because I believe that those in it are responsible for thinking according to the kingdom. Are Christians doing that when they back all sorts of attitudes which put other people down, and keep them down? Are they doing it when they show they have so little faith as to allow their fears to arrange the way they think? Is that loving thy neighbor? Perfect love should cast out fear, shouldn't it?

[careinke]

In terms of living, I suggested a registry. I suggested that because it isn't about banning. It takes into account the Second Amendment. A registry doesn't infringe upon anybody's ability to either possess or sell the kinds of weapons that make non gun owners afraid. What it does is introduce transparency into the situation. And transparency exposes owners of those types of guns and gun accessories that would put a person on the registry to how non gun owners would react to them when they have knowledge. If it developed according to my suggestion, where most pistols, hunting rifles and other reasonable use items for which there are considerable examples of use within society, don't place a person on the list, then those people would not come under the scrutiny of the non gun loving public. That's what compromise looks like, not that you get something in return, but that you listen. If you listen that means when you hear the other side considers a thing to be very important you make concessions.

Interesting, maybe we should expand your idea. How about making anyone who buys a scary looking knife register it? If you wanted to own a scary looking knife, you could, but with a registry it would become transparent to the general non scary knife owning public.

Maybe everyone who goes to a psychiatrist should also be forced to register the type of mental health treatment they receive. That way the general non mentally disturbed public would know what ailments those crazy people are being treated for and can base the way we treat them because of the transparency. After all crazy people, statistically are a greater danger to the public.

The list could go on and on, in some cases you would not even need a registry to inform the public. Maybe make people with bad driving records paint their cars florescent orange so we can immediately identify the bad drivers while on the road?

Think of how safer we will all be if these ideas catch on!!!

/sarcasm

[Cog]

@evilgenius

Can I compile a list of all your valuables so a thief can steal them at some point in time? That is what your gun registry accomplishes.

[vtsnowedin]

Speaking of God, how is it that when I browse some Christian forums I see as much gun talk, or more, than on conservative forums? People who've read anything I've said on this site may know that I criticize the Church. I don't lay into it because I think it is preposterous, but because I believe that those in it are responsible for thinking according to the kingdom. Are Christians doing that when they back all sorts of attitudes which put other people down, and keep them down? Are they doing it when they show they have so little faith as to allow their fears to arrange the way they think? Is that loving thy neighbor? Perfect love should cast out fear, shouldn't it?

Many conservatives are also Christians (I'm agnostic). Christians gave up turning the other cheek back in the second century and follow the adage that "The Lord protects those that protect themselves".

[Ibon]

Which is my point. Why are we at such odds with one another? What is the mechanism behind the vitriol?

Some of us travel and go back and forth between the US and other countries. You notice this vitriol in the US and you feel it in the society at large when you just arrive. Give yourself a week and you find yourself quickly integrated into this caustic vitriol. You leave the US and suddenly the anger and rage and vitriol dissipates as you merge with a society of different cultural patterns.

Many of you who have a singular diet of American culture and who cannot stand outside periodically have lost perhaps the sense of how far we have drifted into nastiness.

You are not able to take any distance when all that are exposed to is this constant vitriol.

The pendulum should swing more toward consensus somewhere up ahead when Americans slowly wake up to the fact that their leader is a sociopath and lives and breaths contention and divisiveness.