Sane Discussion about insanity

[tallslenderguy]

Power, wealth and strength can be used to promote peace, goodness, kindness, inclusion, and promote prosperity for all. It can also be used to promote war, destruction, greed, self centeredness, hate, and robbing others of freedom. The world does not need more Putins, Xi Jinping's, Kim Jong Un's or Trumps. Bullies are not "strong men." They are weak and immature and we the people can either enable them or speak out and vote against them. We cannot afford to be exhausted by the onslaught of evil.

 

[Olderkinkybiguy]

Evil, the unseen power, is the true enemy. The puppets of evil give it a face, the representatives,  that evil needs to manifest. Puppets come and go. The true power hides and recruits its representatives/replacements. Unity and commitment is our only light. 

[tallslenderguy]

53 minutes ago, Olderkinkybiguy said:

Evil, the unseen power, is the true enemy. The puppets of evil give it a face, the representatives,  that evil needs to manifest. Puppets come and go. The true power hides and recruits its representatives/replacements. Unity and commitment is our only light. 

i agree that much of evil power and influence flies below the radar, but all of these "puppets" have volition, they are not simple wooden marionettes with no will of their own... they are complicit participants. 

[Olderkinkybiguy]

31 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

i agree that much of evil power and influence flies below the radar, but all of these "puppets" have volition, they are not simple wooden marionettes with no will of their own... they are complicit participants. 

Yes, but simply defeating the puppets will not bring change in and of itself. It’s like having a water leak and focusing solely on removing the water without also determining the cause and to eliminate the entire problem. But absolutely, those who trade humanity for wealth/power are guilty all the same. 

[tallslenderguy]

15 minutes ago, Olderkinkybiguy said:

Yes, but simply defeating the puppets will not bring change in and of itself. It’s like having a water leak and focusing solely on removing the water without also determining the cause and to eliminate the entire problem. But absolutely, those who trade humanity for wealth/power are guilty all the same. 

It seems to me you are making the same point,  just using a different analogy.   Senators, judges, congresspeople,  etc., are not "puppets" or "water," they are human beings that can choose at any given moment to do the right or wrong thing.  Much can be done, and needs to be done, with election reform, but people can decide to change at any given moment.  i do think there are honest people who want to do the right thing (i'm not talking party affiliation here). i do think it's possible to have honest and sincere representation.  

Of course, all people are flawed, and we can always find the flaws. i think MTG is a good example. Many of those who do not agree with her politics, still applauded her speaking up against trump and what he's doing... and she could easily be identified as one of his former "puppets."  But she really was never a puppet, she was complicit and then decided (for whatever reasons) to not be complicit anymore.   

One think i am hopeful about the current mess is that 'we the people' will be more awake and engaged in our government. At the end of the day,  i believe it is we the people who will decide on whether our government represents us or the would be puppeteers. 

[tobetrained]

4 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Power, wealth and strength can be used to promote peace, goodness, kindness, inclusion, and promote prosperity for all. It can also be used to promote war, destruction, greed, self centeredness, hate, and robbing others of freedom.

I understand the argument. I just don't think it's as simple as this. Consider two modern examples:

Iraq. The Iraq war (start 2003) is considered a failure. Yet, the end result removed a dictator -- one of the "strong men" you reference above -- and delivered a to-date lasting democracy to the country.

Egypt. The Arab Spring, wrongly simplified in the West as pro-democracy, brought democracy to Egypt by ending military rule. Yet, the popular will was to bring a religiously oppressive party to power -- the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi. Short of it, the military reclaimed leadership, executed Morsi, are still in power today, and the average Egyptian is much more free than in the short-lived democracy.

Democracy is as fragile as any form of government. Democracy has regularly failed to extremes of populism.

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

 

I understand the argument. I just don't think it's as simple as this.

Democracy is as fragile as any form of government. Democracy has regularly failed to extremes of populism.

Not "simple"... or easy.  my comment was not intended to suggest simplicity, rather a set of ideals and goals to work towards achieving, standards to apply when making decisions, ways to measure success, or failure. 

i don't think i used the word "democracy?" 

As for fragility? i think the current US condition is as good as an example of fragile as any. 

[hntnhole]

7 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

vote against them.

Hopefully, we'll still have *real* elections in another 10 months ...... 

If we have real elections in November, what will we do with these wannabe "tough guys" - the "icicles"?   Are there any really loooong deeeeep ditches waiting to be dug somewhere?  

[tobetrained]

48 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

i don't think i used the word "democracy?" 

I implied that from "we the people" statement as well as the statements on representation. All of those are statements about democracy.

But this is where I was going relative to the overall comments you summarized here:

50 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

Not "simple"... or easy.  my comment was not intended to suggest simplicity, rather a set of ideals and goals to work towards achieving, standards to apply when making decisions, ways to measure success, or failure. 

The word "ideals" are highly subjective as well as standards. For instance, the way you started the convo:

7 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

Power, wealth and strength can be used to promote peace, goodness, kindness, inclusion, and promote prosperity for all.

The term "inclusion" is a modern leftist ideological term. Social conservatives would replace that with "god-fearing" or some such thing. Both imply "those that are like me or think like me" -- and I'm 100% sure that's not your intent, given past convos.

The term that's gotten lost is "pluralistic society" as that -- dare I say -- is inclusive, in this case of people "who do not think like me."

This is not semantics. You talk about standards and measuring success. If your finger is on the ideologically scale then the measured outcome is different.

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

 But she really was never a puppet, she was complicit and then decided (for whatever reasons) to not be complicit anymore.   

I think that's exactly correct.  This version of "bottle-blondie" that has surfaced recently isn't worth one shred of trust, since whichever way the wind is blowing, she's being blown right along with it.  

[tallslenderguy]

41 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

I implied that from "we the people" statement as well as the statements on representation. All of those are statements about democracy.

But this is where I was going relative to the overall comments you summarized here:

The word "ideals" are highly subjective as well as standards. For instance, the way you started the convo:

The term "inclusion" is a modern leftist ideological term. Social conservatives would replace that with "god-fearing" or some such thing. Both imply "those that are like me or think like me" -- and I'm 100% sure that's not your intent, given past convos.

The term that's gotten lost is "pluralistic society" as that -- dare I say -- is inclusive, in this case of people "who do not think like me."

This is not semantics. You talk about standards and measuring success. If your finger is on the ideologically scale then the measured outcome is different.

i  do understand and was aware of all of your points prior to your listing them.  There are indeed flaws in everything, and you make valid points. 

i'd be interested to know how you think society and government should be done?   Or you may wish to correct that and rephrase it, but your posts often leave me wondering what you consider to be a right (righter?) approach to governance and why?  And, as you see it,  how can you or one work towards that?