quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The program is likely to raise the retirement age by a couple years or so. People are living longer.

SS contributions may have to rise...unless we're just going to run up the debt, which Republicans prefer to do.

You do know that both employee and employer pay that same amount into SS, right? That is to say, what comes out of one's paycheck is also matched by the employer. something a bit over 15% of the worker's total wages, until a ceiling (which is raising) and doesn't even come CLOSE to a payback of the investment, based on actuary tables? i think it's 168k this year, but i could be wrong - Common retirement advice is to invest at least 10% of your pretax income into a retirement fund, and leave it - which could and does result in many 401 millionaires (and forced withdrawals and further taxes, but let's let that be)

I am unaware of anyone working and then retiring on SS ALONE considering themselves to be well to do -

Agism is real - Over 50 yo, it's WAY harder to find a "working stiffs" job, as there is also associated attitudes and costs (perceived drains on healthcare) making it really hard for "gramps" to find a decent job in their 60s and 70s -

there is, in fact, a whole "industry" associated with helping "silver haired foxes" market themselves to find a job


and then the staggering inflation of the biden years - it's going to really hurt late career people and their retirement planning -- one might remember the media talking about seniors eating cat/dog food because it was cheap .. well, nothing's cheap anymore -- Having 3 dogs, we are spending roughly 170bucks a month on decent but not premium dry dog food

https://youtube.com/shorts/bV3...?si=Xh99C1bVCXPzvgBe

Trump Is Lying About Not Knowing the Details of Project 2025

https://youtu.be/TfRmFExDbEw?si=nj-vkh11Y6sGaCrE

‘A scam’: Historian Timothy Snyder on Trump’s disingenuous distancing from Project 2025

https://youtu.be/sd6p8mGTXH0?si=Hb6llgKO3e48SoF6

Pete Buttigieg On Former President Trump Abandoning Project 2025 Platform

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...5aedf5689ae60f&ei=24

Russell Vought, a Project 2025 architect, is ready to shock Washington if Trump wins second term
Story by RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press • 9h • 7 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1cbd4c881abc5&ei=112

Trump Brags About MAGA Takeover of Georgia Election Board
Story by Peter Wade • 20h • 4 min read

Remember Peter Thiel?

He's the broligarch sugar daddy of JD Vance.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...3b3727e7fcc724&ei=54

Peter Thiel's Pre-Nazi Germany Comparison to US Resurfaces
Story by Flynn Nicholls • 8h • 3 min read

A clip has resurfaced of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, a major Republican donor, suggesting that a prominent unrepentant Nazi's critique of liberalism applies to modern-day America, where he said, "...democracy, whatever that means, is exhausted."

Thiel, who is the most prominent backer of Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, made the comments in an episode of the podcast Conversations with Tyler on February 21, 2024.

https://wapo.st/46H0SAI

Inside the powerful Peter Thiel network that anointed JD Vance
A small influential network of right-wing techies orchestrated Vance’s rise in Silicon Valley — and then the GOP. Now the industry stands to gain if he wins the White House.

Here's an example of making stuff up, lies, and repeating them as facts.

I'm talking about the part in this video where he's making stat claims about violent crime.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...D5t?ocid=socialshare

Now here's some truth:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-s...g/story?id=108042096

US stats show violent crime dramatically falling, so why is there a rising clash with perception?
"I don't believe the statistics," said Auriol Sonia Morris, a Trump supporter.

They do not believe bc Trump feeds into their bias of ethnicity and crime.

I heard an important but fading Republican in the Senate speak today about the GOP bring the party of the rural. The Dems bring the party of the Urban.

That Urban values are wrong. Well, when votes are votes. If the GOP is going to treat over half the voters as the enemy, the GOP are going to be bred out on this echo chamber.

quote:

I am unaware of anyone working and then retiring on SS ALONE considering themselves to be well to do -

I understand how SS is funded. But SS was never intended to provide a well-to-do retirement. It was intended to allow seniors to survive with a bit of comfort and dignity. To provide a safety net for retirees who would otherwise live in poverty.

Socialism at work.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

I am unaware of anyone working and then retiring on SS ALONE considering themselves to be well to do -

I understand how SS is funded. But SS was never intended to provide a well-to-do retirement. It was intended to allow seniors to survive with a bit of comfort and dignity. To provide a safety net for retirees who would otherwise live in poverty.

Socialism at work.

fair enough, you are correct -

SS would barely pay my home insurance+ property tax --

heck, until next week, i have a flat in Dallas, it's 800 ish sq feet, in a Desi neighborhood, and max SSI for my wife and I wouldn't pay the rent, electric, and internet bill ...

but that's due to mu quirky job

the rent and power have both gone up about 30% in the last 2 years, and the internet (pretty basic) went up 50% .. i have no TV/streaming services other than amazon prime

Yeah, we couldn't live in our relative comfort on SS payments alone. We didn't have company pensions either, so made up the difference by saving.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
There has been numerous discussions herein delving into the premise of the OP title.

I generally participate in that because I am very interested in it - the understanding.

We are all familiar with the policy (for whatever it's worth) economics, lesser of evils and other superficial stuff.

I really want to go deeper into the psychology of the Trump phenomenon.

So, here's some starter videos:

They are not short. But this needs to be understood, and with something as significant as a Trump second or third term, what's time to a hog, as they say in Texas.

https://youtu.be/WLh6vvQB9tE?si=0qnxXDI0cojTPhqv

The Mass Psychology of Trumpism

=============================================

This one is really in-depth. There is a scroll bar with titles to the sections if that helps.

https://youtu.be/t3jqALQgBzw?si=hD0mO0AgRU5k1SCi&t=1

Investigating Trump, Project 2025 and the future of the United States

ME, I like you find the whole concept of Trumpism interesting. I try to not take sides on this because it does no good. I find the whole thought process of cults interesting studying. Cults come in many forms, but the one main driving force is BELIEVE! Cult followers really truly believe in what they are following. They also have to have a leader either spiritual or a real person, it does not matter what and once they have that total devotion to their leader then nothing will change their minds. Logic, proof, it really makes no difference to them. What it comes down to is human psychology, humans need (actually have to have) something to believe in, it really does not matter what just something, it can be a person, religion, family, spouse etc. just something so when people have lost what they believe in they start to look for something and you get a charismatic, over the top personality and people will start following them and soon it turns into a cult. It has happened many times in history and it will continue to happen. It is kind of fun looking at it from an outside and watching it happen.

Hunter,
ME doesn't believe his humanism / rationalism could be a religion, much less a cult - we've been through this before, but if you don't mind, I'll be interested in watching you try

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Hunter,
ME doesn't believe his humanism / rationalism could be a religion, much less a cult - we've been through this before, but if you don't mind, I'll be interested in watching you try

Knowing full well you are keen on syntax, because you said so, I'll just read your post literally.

Since you addressed a premise to Hunter, I think it's best for me to just stand by and watch.

You apparently are asking Hunter, if he doesn't mind wasting his time, to delve into a belief that you claim to be mine.

I too am interested in watching him try.

I don't know who you include in the "we've been through this before". Logically, "through" means discussed divergent views and reached some conclusion(s). Also, logically, such conclusions included agreement or disagreement with regard to the starting premises of the parties. One would think that perhaps one side or the other or both would learn something from the other, assuming all parties are being honest.

As I recall I have been "through" discussions on humanism herein more than once, but I don't remember if you were involved. But if you were included, based on your post quoted above, it seems that you were not honest and didn't change your opinion(s) "through" the discussions. It seems as though you were merely entertained "watching" me "try" and had intention of being closed-minded all along.

Now you want to be entertained by watching Hunter "try" to explain my worldview, implying it's a waste of time. At least now you're honest about it. After all, you did politely say "if you don't mind". You might as well have said "if you don't have a mind". Surly , you are honest with that, rather than baiting like a troll.

Just to get back to social security for a moment, those who are supported by social security have earned it. If they have worked and contributed for forty-five years, they will never get their contributions back. Those who denigrate the people who have, quite literally, built the nation, because they didn't invest properly, can blow it out their ass. These men and women have supported themselves, along with an ever-increasing parasitic class, for generations.
As far as the following of a person like Trump, with its cult-like appearance, is concerned, I wonder if it is much different than the blind following of a label or ideology. It doesn't appear to be much different. Certainly, the behaviour of the respective followers is much the same. Regards, Bill

quote:

As far as the following of a person like Trump, with its cult-like appearance, is concerned, I wonder if it is much different than the blind following of a label or ideology. It doesn't appear to be much different. Certainly, the behaviour of the respective followers is much the same. Regards, Bill

"different"

Here's how, using an analogy:

Lemmings follow one another over a cliff. Same for Trumpsters. In the lemming example, it's just them. In Trumpsters' case, they drag the rest of us with them.

Now a metaphor:

Is there such a thing as barking, snarling lemmings? Look at Trumpsters and think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

I am unaware of anyone working and then retiring on SS ALONE considering themselves to be well to do -

I understand how SS is funded. But SS was never intended to provide a well-to-do retirement. It was intended to allow seniors to survive with a bit of comfort and dignity. To provide a safety net for retirees who would otherwise live in poverty.

Socialism at work.

We live in a mixed economy, with features from both ends of the ideological spectrum.
The results are imperfect. There was a time when I thought Social Security should be abolished as a scam. The math in theory says yes it is, the practical results say people often don't reach their dotage with enough saved. For decades the surplus taxes were invested in government debt (which lately can not be sold for face value since its returns are lower than current interest rates), but what else is there?

I have not been able to construct an alternative plan for it. Doesn't matter now since there is no surplus...

quote:

Socialism at work.

To the hard core rightist idealogues SS, being socialism, is like an invasive weed in the nation yard. Kill it before it spreads, or at least mow the tops off before it goes to seed.

The "seed" to rightists is like a grafted pear tree seed gone feral sprouting Callery pear, an invasive plant. The "seed" of socialism, SS, etc., is like that - the sprouts in their imagination are the dreadful Marxism, communism and full out socialism.

It's the same with Obamacare.

But for the idealogues, any form of socialism, in the bud or already pervasive, must be dealt with like an invasive plant and herbicide.

To continue the extremist analogy and trajectory - the word monoculture comes to mind.

mon·o·cul·ture
/ˈmänəˌkəlCHər/
noun
the cultivation of a single crop in a given area.
"the replacement of natural forest with pine monoculture"

There's another analogy that may be inferred:

Since the rightist idealogues haven't offfered a plan for what happens after SS and Obamacare, etc., it's appropriate to assume the "plan" is to let nature take its course. That is human nature in a society breakdown, by design. That's chaos, let the market and culture and society take its course, and whatever emerges will presumably be better than now, apparently in their opinion.

How is that different than the primal survival of the fittest?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

As far as the following of a person like Trump, with its cult-like appearance, is concerned, I wonder if it is much different than the blind following of a label or ideology. It doesn't appear to be much different. Certainly, the behaviour of the respective followers is much the same. Regards, Bill

"different"

Here's how, using an analogy:

Lemmings follow one another over a cliff. Same for Trumpsters. In the lemming example, it's just them. In Trumpsters' case, they drag the rest of us with them.

Now a metaphor:

Is there such a thing as barking, snarling lemmings? Look at Trumpsters and think about it.

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying the Trumpster lemmings follow Trump over the cliff, while dragging the rest with them. The leftists send their fellow lemmings over the cliff, marching the march of the true believer, and sink the island so the others will have no choice. That about right? Regards, Bill.

quote:

That about right? Regards, Bill.

Good one, Bill.

In my view leftists are all about bolstering the island, safeguarding against the oncoming red tide tsunami.

Let's go back to Jefferson, who was influenced by philosophers of the time and recent past.

It's all about the "Social Contract".

It's exactly why we have any civility at all.

Rightists want to re-define the social contract from an extreme libertarian POV.

Leftists want it to be Jeffersonian; not necessarily the whole package but especially the social contract segment. In part, abidance with the social contract involves laws, which restrict a libertarian. It also involves morals and ethics and sense of ownership, agency, and responsibilities accordingly. Rightists want none of that laid on them. They want to lay it on the nation on their terms, and it ain't a social contract according to Locke who influenced Jefferson.

That's why the rule of law is being attacked by rightists. The social contract the Founders envisioned is incompatible with the social contract rightists' want, which is authoritarianism.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
:

Lemmings follow one another over a cliff.

Except they don't do the behavior without being forced to do so by a filming company.

Just like "alpha wolves"

It's myths of entertainment not educational films

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Hunter,
ME doesn't believe his humanism / rationalism could be a religion, much less a cult - we've been through this before, but if you don't mind, I'll be interested in watching you try

Knowing full well you are keen on syntax, because you said so, I'll just read your post literally.

Since you addressed a premise to Hunter, I think it's best for me to just stand by and watch.

You apparently are asking Hunter, if he doesn't mind wasting his time, to delve into a belief that you claim to be mine.

I too am interested in watching him try.

I don't know who you include in the "we've been through this before". Logically, "through" means discussed divergent views and reached some conclusion(s). Also, logically, such conclusions included agreement or disagreement with regard to the starting premises of the parties. One would think that perhaps one side or the other or both would learn something from the other, assuming all parties are being honest.

As I recall I have been "through" discussions on humanism herein more than once, but I don't remember if you were involved. But if you were included, based on your post quoted above, it seems that you were not honest and didn't change your opinion(s) "through" the discussions. It seems as though you were merely entertained "watching" me "try" and had intention of being closed-minded all along.

Now you want to be entertained by watching Hunter "try" to explain my worldview, implying it's a waste of time. At least now you're honest about it. After all, you did politely say "if you don't mind". You might as well have said "if you don't have a mind". Surly , you are honest with that, rather than baiting like a troll.

ME and Jeff

Cults are like human beings they come in all sizes, shapes and colors from harmless benign actually good cults to big, hasty deadly cults. Examples of benign just look around, kids that are out skateboarding or BMX bike riding, rodeos, football, baseball etc. Any of these if the person really gets into it they are part of a cult. They follow the same rules. If you are really into baseball you have your baseball hero's that you look up to in almost a worshiping way, the same thing for all of them. I am not taking about the casual viewer I am talking about the person who eats, sleeps and dreams of baseball or anything else. That is the definition of a cult member. There is nothing wrong with that because it is not harmful. On this forum I would venture to say we are a cult of our own. Most if not all of us are hunters and hunting and the hunting people are probably a cult.

One the other side of that is the real bad cults like Jim Jones. They practice total control over their members to the point of death. I will not go any farther with that because everyone agrees that is a cult.

The ones in the middle are the most interesting. Politics and religion bred a lot of cults and cult followers. You can watch republican (Trump) members attack Democrats and then the Democrats turn around and attack Republicans. It is actually amusing and fun to watch in a warped way! Each are their own cult. It all comes down to the person really believing in their cause. So yes humamism/rationism can be a cult if really truly believe that, again there is nothing wrong with that.

My point as in the first sentence is that cults are everywhere by definition and anyone who says they are not part of a cult in some form or fashion is not being realistic about it.

Well, MtElkHunter, I'm sure you are well-intended in your definition of cult.

But, IMO you went too far [liberal ] with it. your definition basically renders the term useless in describing something. It's too broad, too diluted.

I'll just be blunt. Humanism is not a cult, nor a religion. That's especially so as I relate to it. I see no need or use in defending my POV on it.

Anyone claiming it's cult or religion is ignorant or intentionally making the term and definition of humanism pejorative.

In either case such a claim is not worth arguing about. It is what it is. The consensus definitions are easily looked up.

In my estimation jeffso making the claim is intentionally disrespectful, and I'm not going to take the bait and give credence to it.

And it's his favorite ploy when he has nothing to contribute. Make it personal.

It really has little relationship with what I believe, humanism, religion or cult.

The only thing it might have relating to this thread is helping in some way, a window, to understand the mind of a Rightist.

Here's a link explaining Cult of Personality, and correspondingly Trumpism:

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

The article is rather long, but it definitely explains practically everything about Trump and Trumpism very well for understanding.

I think Trumpism is a cult, in addition to other descriptive terms. If it is a cult, it's like none we have ever seen before. Trumpism has all the depth and scope and characteristics of cult, as I understand it, and a lot more. In this case, holding several ideas in mind and concluding they are all equally true, is realistic.

Here's another central thing about Trumpism. I think it really is something to worry about.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/g...TJVHQHGMMADOKGQ3UPU/

Georgia Election Board approves new ‘inquiry’ for certifying election results
Voting rights groups oppose giving discretion over election results

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...2uk?ocid=socialshare

Trump praises Georgia State Election Board officials

Former president Donald Trump directly praised three Georgia State Election Board members, characterizing their work as a fight for “transparency, honesty, and victory” during an Aug. 3 campaign rally.

===============================================

The "problem" is that people who believed Trump's Big Lie are now election board officials in many states, not just Georgia. And if Trump approves it's certainly not about integrity. He's already proven that many times.

ME I agree my definition is very broad. I did that for a reason, the whole point of my post was to say that using the term cult is based on what your definition of cult is. The old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sums up the definition of cult. I like you think Trumpish is a cult but most people who follow Trump vehemently say it's not a cult. So anything can be called a cult, it all depends on what your definition of cult is.

I think the underlying basis for Trumpism is simply anger. You have people that are angry because they perceive white people are disfavored relative to minorities. You have people that are angry that they are not as educated, not has prosperous, not as well off, not as [fill in the blank], as they want to be. You have people angry that the world is changing around them and they struggle with change. It is the politics of anger, let me appear to relate to all those people that feel disenfranchised, forgotten, trodden down, victimized, and tell them I am ticket to a better life . . . forget that I don't really give a shit, it is all about impressions. Listen to conservative talk radio sometime, all they talk about is this is bad, this sucks, that sucks, etc. All about anger.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think the underlying basis for Trumpism is simply anger. You have people that are angry because they perceive white people are disfavored relative to minorities. You have people that are angry that they are not as educated, not has prosperous, not as well off, not as [fill in the blank], as they want to be. You have people angry that the world is changing around them and they struggle with change. It is the politics of anger, let me appear to relate to all those people that feel disenfranchised, forgotten, trodden down, victimized, and tell them I am ticket to a better life . . . forget that I don't really give a shit, it is all about impressions. Listen to conservative talk radio sometime, all they talk about is this is bad, this sucks, that sucks, etc. All about anger.

Yep I agree then all that anger is channeled into believe that the "leader" has all the answers and if I follow him and do anything he says I will be way better off. This is nothing new, it has been happening as long as humans have been around. The unfortunate thing is that way too many of the "leaders" in history have been corrupted by the power and end up being bad for the people who believe in them.

Not to sound like Yoda about it. However, I think it is fear.

I had an older lady who was a dinner guest in my home tell us she was “afraid.”

When I asked her if what, she actually said she “did not know.”

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

Cult: Other political groups

Several former leaders of the Groyper movement – an alt-right faction that infuses white supremacy, Christian nationalism, and Incel ideology – have accused Nick Fuentes of leading it like a cult, describing him as abusing and demanding absolute loyalty from his followers.[134][135] Fuentes praised having a "cult-like... mentality" and admitted to "ironically" describing his own movement as a cult.[136]

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

Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right[5] political pundit and live streamer who is known for his white supremacist, misogynistic, homophobic, and antisemitic views. A former YouTuber, his channel was permanently terminated in February 2020 for violating YouTube's hate speech policy.[6] Fuentes has promoted conspiracy theories against Jewish people,[7] denied the Holocaust,[8][9] and called for a "holy war" against Jews.[10] He has been described as a neo-Nazi by various sources.[11][12] Fuentes identifies as a member of the incel movement, a supporter of authoritarianism, and as a Catholic integralist and Christian nationalist.[4][13][14]

Collaborating with Patrick Casey, a former leader of the neo-Nazi organization Identity Evropa in 2019,[15] Fuentes's followers, known as Groypers, began to heckle Turning Point USA's Culture War Tour, including a speaking event for Donald Trump Jr.[16] In 2020, seeking to establish a white supremacist conference to rival CPAC, Fuentes began holding the annual America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC).[17][18] Fuentes attended the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville,[19] and was also an attendee and speaker at events preceding the January 6 United States Capitol attack.[20] He has encouraged the use of jokes and irony among white nationalist groups, stating that it "is so important for giving a lot of cover and plausible deniability for our views".[15][21]

In November 2022, Fuentes, along with Kanye West, met with former U.S. President Donald Trump for a private dinner. The meeting received widespread condemnation and was considered unprecedented due to their antisemitic views, with The New York Times describing it as "what may be the most discomfiting moment in U.S. history in a half-century or more" for American Jews.[5]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/25...k-fuentes-mar-a-lago

Trump hosted Holocaust denier at Mar-a-Lago estate during visit with Kanye West, a week after announcing 2024 run
Maeve Reston
By Maeve Reston and Kristen Holmes, CNN
4 minute read
Updated 8:53 AM EST, Sat November 26, 2022

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Not to sound like Yoda about it. However, I think it is fear.

I had an older lady who was a dinner guest in my home tell us she was “afraid.”

When I asked her if what, she actually said she “did not know.”

so, there's this phrase that has been used about trump for 9 years now ..

existential threat

quote:

An existential threat is a threat to something's existence, or when something's continued existence is in danger. It can be used to describe threats to living things, nonliving things, countries, or ideologies.

but the threat is undefined - though it's being used to say "there so many small things, that they all add up to BAD" ...

so, if asked what threat(s) trump presents that are An existential threat, what are those ..

it's an honest question

(slings and arrows inbound with great emotion)

I did some lite research and thought to form a reasoned response to your questions.

I saw many articles, recent and past, on the issue of Trump(ism) "existential threat". They ranged from NATO to freedom of religion to toenail polish and much more.

Of course, the concept is somewhat subjective, speculative as to future, and arguable from perspective, and bias influenced. Trumpsters will see it much differently than never-Trumpers.

Instead of posting links to articles, which would invariably be opinion loaded, with varying factual basis, I thought in terms of what's the top of the heap? What's in writing or actual quotes, that may answer your question? A summary would be best.

The answer I can think of is project 2025. From the perspective of practically everyone who isn't far-right, everything in that manifesto is an existential threat to the principles of the founding. It's Trumpism institutionalized.

Plus, the BIG LIE, which will result in another attempt if the results of the next election aren't in his favor.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Not to sound like Yoda about it. However, I think it is fear.

I had an older lady who was a dinner guest in my home tell us she was “afraid.”

When I asked her if what, she actually said she “did not know.”

so, there's this phrase that has been used about trump for 9 years now ..

existential threat

quote:

An existential threat is a threat to something's existence, or when something's continued existence is in danger. It can be used to describe threats to living things, nonliving things, countries, or ideologies.

but the threat is undefined - though it's being used to say "there so many small things, that they all add up to BAD" ...

so, if asked what threat(s) trump presents that are An existential threat, what are those ..

it's an honest question

(slings and arrows inbound with great emotion)

She was not referring to Trump. She was voicing this fear that some have that Trump speaks to.

The threat of Trump is his attempt to destroy the legitimacy of his election loss by refusing to publicly acknowledge the loss was legitimate exercise of our constitutional system. The direct instigation of Jan 6. The attempt to use the certification process and the DOJ to overturn the election, and his refusal to defend the Capital, Congress, and our Constitution on Jan 6 from mob violence.

The threat of Trump is his call to suspend the Constitution so that he may be immediately restored to power.

He is playing the same game w the judicial system that he used to destroy our national election as an institution.

Maybe I am weird (that is probably not a maybe) but I have no fear of Trump or Harris becoming POTUS. Both are probably not good for the country but our county has been in way worse situations and have always make it thought it. The country is strong and we will survive the next 4 years no matter what Harris or Trump does. Sure we may take some bumps and bruises along the way but that is part of life anywhere. I think a lot of people get their panties in a wad over who is going to be the POTUS for no good reason. All I can say is chill out, sit back and watch the circus and enjoy it that is what I do.

quote:

All I can say is chill out, sit back and watch the circus and enjoy it that is what I do.

Chill is perhaps a good way.

Yet, the perceived "existential threat" kinda stomps on chill.

You know - the sound of jack boots and brown shirts marching high-step in unison, imagined or real, messes with chill, yugely, especially for those awake. (woke is a derivative)

Perceived is the key word here. I think that the odds of that happening are very small and it is more of a subconscious fear, kind of like the fear of getting eaten by a bear or shark. Yes it can and does happen but if you worry about it all that happens all that will happen is you sit home and do nothing. I for one am going to continue swimming in the ocean and hiking and hunting in the mountains, bears and sharks be damned, if I get eaten then I will have contributed to a shark or bear having a full belly!

quote:

subconscious fear

I think maybe in context that's like a dual lane highway. When Trump and his accolades use the irrational emotion of fear in promoting their goals and ideas and support, it's a two-way street.

The reaction is fear too, but somewhat more rational. We can see the effect on the targeted fearful. So, we fear the promoter, the evidence it works, those stirred, and the consequences.

A famous saying is: "Believe them when they tell you who they are".

Those of us who are from the South have another saying, something like this: When Bubba tells you "I'm gonna whup your ass, boy", believe him, not that he will win but he's gonna try. And whatever he has in mind as to what "whup your ass" means to him is also something to worry about and take seriously.

I don't worry much or fear bears or sharks. I worry about ticks, snakes and snapping turtles and alligators. It's more about what they will do to my dogs rather than me personally but it's both to some degree.

It's like canoeing in a swamp, full of those critters, who have been fed red meat. They are conditioned and will eat your canoe, dogs and then you.

Allegorically, that's project 2025, the 900 page manifesto which as the leader says is a plan for the second American Revolution, which will succeed without bloodshed IF the left allows it. That's the same as in the above paragraphs. When they tell you who they are and what they will do, believe them. They may or may not be successful, but they will try.

I agree they may very well try but I also think the odds of them succeeding is very low. It's like everyone fears that the Democrats are going to take away our guns. Well yes that could happen but with all the current laws and SC decisions, I think the odds of that are also pretty low. Absolutely they are going to try but I really don't think they will succeed. They may get a few feel-good laws through like better background checks etc. but overall nothing that will really impact us.

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
I agree they may very well try but I also think the odds of them succeeding is very low. It's like everyone fears that the Democrats are going to take away our guns. Well yes that could happen but with all the current laws and SC decisions, I think the odds of that are also pretty low. Absolutely they are going to try but I really don't think they will succeed. They may get a few feel-good laws through like better background checks etc. but overall nothing that will really impact us.

And yet 198 dems voted AGAINST a clean bill stating that only American citizens can vote in elections

quote:

And yet 198 dems voted AGAINST a clean bill stating that inky American citizens can vote in elections

Are you talking about:

"Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote."

If so, you made a gross false equivalence. Democrats today are not the same ideologically as they were in 1869.

You are not that ignorant, are you?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

And yet 198 dems voted AGAINST a clean bill stating that inky American citizens can vote in elections

Are you talking about:

...
You are not that ignorant, are you?

I am certain google works for you too..
Not like it's an snl skit

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

And yet 198 dems voted AGAINST a clean bill stating that inky American citizens can vote in elections

I am certain google works for you too..
Not like it's an snl skit

I haven't been able to unravel your post.

But to the extent that google works for me and to the extent that I want to follow your crumb trail:


https://www.loc.gov/classroom-...r-african-americans/

Library of Congress Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress Elections The Right to Vote Voting Rights for African Americans

Voting Rights for African Americans

A terrible and bloody Civil War freed enslaved Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1868) granted African Americans the rights of citizenship. However, this did not always translate into the ability to vote. Black voters were systematically turned away from state polling places. To combat this problem, Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. It says:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Yet states still found ways to circumvent the Constitution and prevent blacks from voting. Poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud and intimidation all turned African Americans away from the polls. Until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1915, many states used the "grandfather clause " to keep descendents of slaves out of elections. The clause said you could not vote unless your grandfather had voted -- an impossibility for most people whose ancestors were slaves.

This unfair treatment was debated on the street, in the Congress and in the press. A full fifty years after the Fifteenth Amendment passed, black Americans still found it difficult to vote, especially in the South." What a Colored Man Should Do to Vote", lists many of the barriers African American voters faced.

The fight for African American suffrage raged on for decades. In the 1930s one Georgia man described the situation this way: "Do you know I've never voted in my life, never been able to exercise my right as a citizen because of the poll tax? ... I can't pay a poll tax, can't have a voice in my own government."


Demonstrators marching in the street holding signs during the March on Washington, 1963
Many brave and impassioned Americans protested, marched, were arrested and even died working toward voting equality. In 1963 and 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. brought hundreds of black people to the courthouse in Selma, Alabama to register. When they were turned away, Dr. King organized and led protests that finally turned the tide of American political opinion. In 1964 the Twenty-fourth Amendment prohibited the use of poll taxes. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act directed the Attorney General to enforce the right to vote for African Americans.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act created a significant change in the status of African Americans throughout the South. The Voting Rights Act prohibited the states from using literacy tests and other methods of excluding African Americans from voting. Prior to this, only an estimated twenty-three percent of voting-age blacks were registered nationally, but by 1969 the number had jumped to sixty-one percent.

======================================

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ameri...res/grant-fifteenth/

Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...mocrats%20in%20favor.