Jump to content
270soft Forum
Harris/Ernst 2020

Purple Texas?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

A segway about military service if I may, at least regarding all-volunteer vs. the draft era (here in Canada, we have been all-volunteer since the 1920's, and were one of only a tiny few significant belligerents in WW2 with an all-volunteer army on either side, as a note). I remember reading an article by Oliver Stone on his Vietnam experiences that inspired his movie "Platoon," among other things. And he spoke of many soldiers being effectively "Hippies strapped down, given a buzz cut, stuffed into a uniform, Shangaied to Saigon, given a rifle and told "shoot or you'll be shot." Would you agree that an all-volunteer army makes a big difference in morale in effectiveness over a draft or conscription, even if the huge numbers can't be racked up realistically, from a pragmatic point of view.

I couldn't really say.  I joined in 2004, long after Vietnam and the draft.

I was a radio DJ (think "Good Morning Vietnam"), and television news broadcaster in the military, so definitely a different perspective than those who had to kick in doors or turn a wrench.  I did deploy voluntarily to Iraq, but was never in direct combat.  Our base was regularly under mortar fire, but that's one of those strange things that you quickly adjust to.  "So I was on the phone with my family the other day and they...INCOMING!  Pause, two, three...and they said it's been raining back home lately."

I think the military in general...especially on the enlisted side...attracts the poor.  I was certainly in this category at the time -- I'd been literally living in my car and stealing food for four months when I enlisted.  There are poor people who are Republicans and poor people who are Democrats.

But from my perspective at least...coming into the military as a poor Republican, it moved me to the Left.  I met a lot of other people that I otherwise would never have met...not just in the States, but also the total of five years that I spent deployed to Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East.  Meeting that many people from different backgrounds, with different perspectives, opened my eyes to a new way of thinking.  I entered the military as a strong W Bush supporter, and by the time I left, I was backing Obama.  

But as far as draft vs. volunteer -- I don't have the experience to compare the two, but I definitely feel the military has to be something you wanted to do.  There are times that it sucks even as a volunteer.  I can only imagine what those years would have been like if I'd been literally forced to join in the first place.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestAbe said:

Except the constitution doesn't say one person one vote, nor does it even imply that the people elect the president.  We say that for shorthand.  The "states" of the "United States" determine the president.  

Well, this isn't the late 18th Century. A lot has changed since then. And remember, too, that the Founding Fathers, were just as elitist and aristocratic and many peers and squires in England in attitude, and their views of "liberty" and "freedom," were NOT EVEN what most modern Libertarians in the U.S. have in mind today. Plus, Alexander Hamilton, the principal architect of the Electoral College, had a great contempt and derision for the contribution of the "common man" to politics, and the wanted the EC to STOP a firebrand populist from ever entering the ironic - which is very ironic considering what happened in 2016. When the U.S. Constitution was first written in 1787 is it was a stellar document of governance that was light years ahead of everything in the world at the time. But now, having "rested on it's laurels," mostly, for almost 250 years, it's noticeably and strongly lagged behind many other First World in terms of tackling the needs of governance in the modern world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I couldn't really say.  I joined in 2004, long after Vietnam and the draft.

I was a radio DJ (think "Good Morning Vietnam"), and television news broadcaster in the military, so definitely a different perspective than those who had to kick in doors or turn a wrench.  I did deploy voluntarily to Iraq, but was never in direct combat.  Our base was regularly under mortar fire, but that's one of those strange things that you quickly adjust to.  "So I was on the phone with my family the other day and they...INCOMING!  Pause, two, three...and they said it's been raining back home lately."

I think the military in general...especially on the enlisted side...attracts the poor.  I was certainly in this category at the time -- I'd been literally living in my car and stealing food for four months when I enlisted.  There are poor people who are Republicans and poor people who are Democrats.

But from my perspective at least...coming into the military as a poor Republican, it moved me to the Left.  I met a lot of other people that I otherwise would never have met...not just in the States, but also the total of five years that I spent deployed to Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East.  Meeting that many people from different backgrounds, with different perspectives, opened my eyes to a new way of thinking.  I entered the military as a strong W Bush supporter, and by the time I left, I was backing Obama.  

But as far as draft vs. volunteer -- I don't have the experience to compare the two, but I definitely feel the military has to be something you wanted to do.  There are times that it sucks even as a volunteer.  I can only imagine what those years would have been like if I'd been literally forced to join in the first place.



 

Speaking of people being met, how much contact did you have with personnel from Coalition allied armies - like the British Army, Australian Defense Force, and others, directly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, this isn't the late 18th Century. A lot has changed since then. And remember, too, that the Founding Fathers, were just as elitist and aristocratic and many peers and squires in England in attitude, and their views of "liberty" and "freedom," were NOT EVEN what most modern Libertarians in the U.S. have in mind today. Plus, Alexander Hamilton, the principal architect of the Electoral College, had a great contempt and derision for the contribution of the "common man" to politics, and the wanted the EC to STOP a firebrand populist from ever entering the ironic - which is very ironic considering what happened in 2016. When the U.S. Constitution was first written in 1787 is it was a stellar document of governance that was light years ahead of everything in the world at the time. But now, having "rested on it's laurels," mostly, for almost 250 years, it's noticeably and strongly lagged behind many other First World in terms of tackling the needs of governance in the modern world.

I agree, unfortunately a lot of the people in the United States sees the founding fathers in Rose Colored Glasses. They were far from perfect men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr. Insano said:

Once upon a time both California and Texas were purple states 

Once upon a time Ross Perot was leading in both. Bring him back to reunite the two superstates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Using the people in the 1700s had views unacceptable today approach for changing is a slippery slope in two ways.  1)  it requires the belief in self superiority of our views which is exactly what you critique them for and 2) this allows the next generation to remove all improvements of this era using the same standard...and requires you to support it regardless of your political leanings. 

Honestly it’s a poor philosophical stance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HonestAbe said:

Using the people in the 1700s had views unacceptable today approach for changing is a slippery slope in two ways.  1)  it requires the belief in self superiority of our views which is exactly what you critique them for and 2) this allows the next generation to remove all improvements of this era using the same standard...and requires you to support it regardless of your political leanings. 

Honestly it’s a poor philosophical stance. 

That post is barely comprehensible. It's like you posted it right after Google translating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

They were far from perfect men

As are we, as are we.  What gives us moral authority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Just now, Patine said:

That post is barely comprehensible. It's like you posted it right after Google translating it.

Should’ve taken philosophy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HonestAbe said:

As are we, as are we.  What gives us moral authority?

The people in the present should logically have the authority to govern themselves by their mores, as their ancestors did what was best in their day, d their descendants will do what is best in theirs. Each time period of people (which is several generations stacked) should have the right to decide their own needs and priorities of governance, not beholden to long-dead ideologues who couldn't have possibly understood their times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

The people in the present should logically have the authority to govern themselves by their mores, as their ancestors did what was best in their day, d their descendants will do what is best in theirs. Each time period of people (which is several generations stacked) should have the right to decide their own needs and priorities of governance, not beholden to long-dead ideologues who couldn't have possibly understood their times.

If only our FFs had left us such a mechanism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

As are we, as are we.  What gives us moral authority?

That was my point none of us are perfect neither were any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Patine said:

Speaking of people being met, how much contact did you have with personnel from Coalition allied armies - like the British Army, Australian Defense Force, and others, directly?

Not much while in Iraq.  But I spent two years in South Korea, working very closely with members of the Korean Army (who do have a mandatory military service).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
16 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

That was my point none of us are perfect neither were any of them.

You’ve lost me then. If your argument is that their imperfections invalidate keeping the status quo, how do our imperfections allow us to change it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

If only our FFs had left us such a mechanism. 

Although, even though the process isn't explicitly mentioned or detailed, there is also no forbiddance or lack of recognition of the ability to call a WHOLE NEW CONTITUTIONAL CONVENTION outright, like the Philadelphia Convention, or like more than half-of-U.S. States and the majority of other sovereign nations have effectively called plural numbers of in their to adopt whole new Constitutions to adapt to modern times. The U.S. Constitution only details how to amend itself, true, but makes no claim of itself being perpetual or irreplaceable by nature or declaring a complete lack of possible legality of being replaced by a whole new Constitution. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, did not envision the U.S. Constitution as being perpetual, but he saw it as likely - and for the best - that a whole new Constitution be written and promulgated every generation. "A young man should not wear an old man's jacket," as he was quoted on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Although, even though the process isn't explicitly mentioned or detailed, there is also no forbiddance or lack of recognition of the ability to call a WHOLE NEW CONTITUTIONAL CONVENTION outright, like the Philadelphia Convention, or like more than half-of-U.S. States and the majority of other sovereign nations have effectively called plural numbers of in their to adopt whole new Constitutions to adapt to modern times. The U.S. Constitution only details how to amend itself, true, but makes no claim of itself being perpetual or irreplaceable by nature or declaring a complete lack of possible legality of being replaced by a whole new Constitution. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, did not envision the U.S. Constitution as being perpetual, but he saw it as likely - and for the best - that a whole new Constitution be written and promulgated every generation. "A young man should not wear an old man's jacket," as he was quoted on the issue.

I don’t disagree. But sans said convention working within the parameters of the current must be preserved. I wouldn’t be quick to support removal of a document that has helped originate unheard of prosperity in the history of mankind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HonestAbe said:

I wouldn’t be quick to support a document that has helped originate unheard of prosperity in the history of mankind. 

That is the "resting on the laurels" attitude I'm referring to. First, I must point out that raw fiscal stats are deceiving - the United States has one of the biggest wealth gaps in the First World, and one of the highest percentages of it's populations suffering and dying from highly preventable causes or lack of the basics of life in the First World. On that level, the "unheard of prosperity in the history of mankind" is effectively and realistically out of the reach of an unacceptably high percentage of actual American citizens, which casts a dubious shadow on the touting of the claim by fiscal statistics alone. Also, even just using that claim, for the sake of the next argument, the majority of that prosperity, in a realistic sense, at the end of the day, was only made POSSIBLE in spite of strict U.S. Constitutional originalist viewpoints and because of Administrations who de facto operated outside those strict limits in times of need - certainly not by strictly ADHERING to the document as written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hmmm.... while the wealth gap grows, the wealth of the lowest 1/5 of Americans is at an all-time high. (And if your remove part-time by choice employees the number is even more impressive)  And movement between classes is easier in America than any other developed nation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

And movement between classes is easier in America than any other developed nation. 

This is an on-paper, theoretical statistic touted by Libertarians and anti-Civil Rights/Affirmative Action/Feminist/LGBTQ groups. It's not nearly as true, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Pete Buttigieg!

Haha, more realistically, I think the closest our nation has to offer is Joe Biden.  I'm personally a Pete supporter, but the Joe argument is that he's the guy that brings rural West Virginia to the table.

Idk what it is, but regardless of party I will never, ever vote for a LGBT person for President. I would vote them for Rep. Senator, or Gov, but I would never, ever vote for one for President (or want one on SCOTUS). I say this as a supporter of LGB (no T) rights, and someone in support of gay marriage and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Idk what it is, but regardless of party I will never, ever vote for a LGBT person for President. I would vote them for Rep. Senator, or Gov, but I would never, ever vote for one for President (or want one on SCOTUS). I say this as a supporter of LGB (no T) rights, and someone in support of gay marriage and all that.

Well, this Buttigieg seems to have far more conviction, ideological belief, pride and caring for his nation, and sense that he knows what he's doing and takes it serious, and as a civic duty than the hollow, empty, pitiful sack of flesh with no seeming personal beliefs, convictions, loyalties, or ideals other than stroking his own ego and throwing it in everyone's face, and whatever he can "say for pay," or "claim for gain," to push his current scheme of self-promotion and who was just lucky enough to be born rich and be a successful blowhard and loudmouth to get into the public eye for over 30 years, mostly impressing the stupidest and most impressionable people in society that you, yourself, so idolize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Idk what it is, but regardless of party I will never, ever vote for a LGBT person for President. I would vote them for Rep. Senator, or Gov, but I would never, ever vote for one for President (or want one on SCOTUS). I say this as a supporter of LGB (no T) rights, and someone in support of gay marriage and all that.

Well...I mean...I think I could tell you exactly what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Idk what it is, but regardless of party I will never, ever vote for a LGBT person for President. I would vote them for Rep. Senator, or Gov, but I would never, ever vote for one for President (or want one on SCOTUS). I say this as a supporter of LGB (no T) rights, and someone in support of gay marriage and all that.

 

15 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Well...I mean...I think I could tell you exactly what it is.

Hey, Alexander the Great's empire being chopped up into petty successor kingdoms by his generals because of he had no "heir of his body", whose constant fighting over his legacy made them easy pickings for the Roman Republic Generals of the two Triumvirates was over 2000 years ago. Get with the times, here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Patine said:

This is an on-paper, theoretical statistic touted by Libertarians and anti-Civil Rights/Affirmative Action/Feminist/LGBTQ groups. It's not nearly as true, in fact.

Enlighten me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Enlighten me

To truly achieve social mobility in the U.S., and benefit from it (barring becoming rich through organized crime and other illegal venture), you must kiss the rings - and asses - of the powerful Plutocratic Oligarchy that effectively runs the country - the 1%, if you will. Thus, barring pure luck, or a start-up business in a very, very niche area, they decide who gets rich from the ranks of the hoipoloi, and can and will squash up-and-coming people who do not kowtow to one or another faction among the already entrenched ultra-rich. Because most other First World Nations (except maybe the UK, France, Italy, Japan, and Germany) do not have AS POWERFUL or AS MANY resident powerful Plutocrats, social mobility and self-made wealth slip by easier on one's own merits and without having to sell one's soul to the High Priesthood of Mammon, first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...