SOMETHING TO PONDER

SOMETHING TO PONDER:

When we take off our partisan hats, and stop demonizing the other side as "all evil" and our side as "all good", what would the difference be in our thought patterns?

After all this Forum invites us to look at politics a bit differently:
Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics.

So is it time for a multiple party system in the U.S. of A ?

What to YOUR mind would that look like?

Well, for me, it looks like this: we have a multiple party system, except they get drowned out by the two big ones.

AND if you split your vote, you might end up not getting the government you want.

Example: in 2016, I voted Green (Jill Stein), much to my disgust, because my vote might have been one of those that put Trump in the White House.

SO QUESTIONS ABOUND:

Do we vote our conscience or do we vote pragmatically? Do we hold our noses and ONLY vote Progressive because we are tired of the Middle, or do we vote Democrats no matter who the candidate is just so we can defeat Trump?

HOW do we get to a place, where there will be viable alternative to the two party system? OR are we stuck with what we have? AND IF SO, what do we do about it so OUR voices get heard.

I have a theory: we as a nation are NOT ready yet to go full Progressive, we need to find a way to get the Progressives to support Moderate Democrats to win back the White House, after which we can start thinking about taking the Dems further left.

WE SIMPLY CAN NOT AFFORD THE LUXURY of voting third party, like I did last time, or of splitting the Left, if we want to have a civil nation again, but the question remains:

What, IF anything, can we as a people do, to change the system we have for the future, so more voices can be heard?
SAME question can be asked of Rightwingers: is it time for a separate party that advocates for Conservative ideals but will stop appealing to only the Far Right?

Any radical ideas out there??

Queering Politics Part 1: Social Factionalization

Any time we create stricture around behavior there must be people who subvert it. 

This is necessary both so we can define the boundaries for the behavior in the first place (what it means to be a "citizen" of the group or society), but also so those boundaries can change over time in response to changing circumstance.

This is true of queerness but also of madness and of criminality.

Without social stricture around sexuality we could not have queerness. Queerness would serve no purpose. We might still have same sex attraction and sexual behavior but we'd have no boundaries around it, no way to define it, and there would be no subversion - no taboo - to it. Therefore it becomes socially neutral.

Without legal criminal codes we could not have criminals. Criminals would serve no purpose. We might still have things like theft and murder, but we'd have no boundaries around it, no way to define it and there would be no social subversion to it. It becomes socially neutral. The crime of homosexuality begat the legalization of it - the crime helped change the law.

Without the concept of sanity we could not have madness. The mad would serve no purpose. We might still have things like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder but we'd have no boundaries around it, no way to define it, and there would be no social subversion to it. It becomes socially neutral. The madness of homosexuality begat the normalization of it.

We create these groups not only for the purpose of sorting and categorization, but also to influence behavior. Membership to a group comes with a social contract. However, outgroups can and sometimes will alter the behavior of an ingroup over time by whittling away at the edges of it. This force is stronger the larger or dominant the outgroup is. Consider the Christians in early Greece and Rome, and the adoption of pagan holidays, but even minority outgroups can agitate to change ingroup parameters over time. Consider queer rights movements and other civil rights movements did in the US.

Trump defends abandoning the Kurds by saying they didn't help the US in WWII

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-defends-abandoning-the-kurds-by-saying-they-didnt-help-the-us-in-wwii/ar-AAIxwW2?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

President Donald Trump on Wednesday defended his decision to abandon the Kurds to a Turkish military incursion in Syria by saying they didn't help the US during World War II.

This came amid reports Turkish ground troops were crossing the border into Syria following airstrikes that began earlier in the day.

"They didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with Normandy," Trump said of the Kurds. He added, "With all of that being said, we like the Kurds."

Earlier in the day, Trump in a statement released by the White House said he did not endorse the Turkish military operation and thought it was a "bad idea." But he did not reference the Kurds once, nor did he signal any immediate response from the US to thwart Turkey's actions.

The Trump administration on Sunday abruptly announced the US was withdrawing troops stationed in northeast Syria ahead of a Turkish operation. The move has been broadly condemned in Washington, including by top congressional Republicans and former Trump administration officials, as many feel Trump paved the way for Turkey to go after key US allies.

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces bore the brunt of the US-led campaign against ISIS, losing roughly 11,000 fighters in the process.

On Wednesday, when asked by reporters whether he felt the Syria retreat and treatment of the Kurds sent a poor message to other potential US allies, Trump said, "Alliances are very easy." The president said it "won't be" hard for the US to form new partnerships.

As an adult and knowing what you know now…

-Was there ever really any hope for humanity’s continued future existence?

-As a species, were we / are we destined to fail?

LET’S IMAGINE

Imagine these things, for example:

• A “model planet” that environmentally thrives, utilizing the virtually free resources that nature provides (wind, solar, hydro, bio) to yield a relatively pristine and beautifully balanced ecosystem, with no waste.

• A species that joins together, across the globe, to work in harmony, advancing itself ever upward through continuous free higher education, healthy living, positive role models, and promoting universally constructive rather than destructive value systems.

• Reasonable population control mechanisms, encouraged for, and based on, planetary resource sustainability

• A sharing of and distributing of planetary resources, fairly, so there are no more hungry bellies or people living in squalor.

Off the top of my head, these would be some positive forces, IMO.   

So, what’s the problem?  Why can’t this be our modus operandi?  Where did we go wrong?  Give me your list of reasons.

“Some men see things as they are and ask why.  I dream of things that never were and ask ‘why not’?” –Robert F. Kennedy

Thanks for posting and recommending.