Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

[majormerrick]

In order to not derail another thread --





I hope you're not suggesting you're so naive as to be unaware of how "I hope you're not..." is a passive-aggressive gambit...?

Firstly, it helps to do research, even the teensiest little bit. Of course, many Wingnuts might make the case that The American Conservative is a Pinko LibRuhl Lying Mainstream Media rag, but here's an op/ed on "White Plight" & some similar articles:
"The Invisible Poverty of 'Poor White Trash'"

Anyway, what would Righty Utopia look like? A free gun for every citizen? (No free food, of course, because THAT is Socialism!!) Evangelical preachers at "advisory" positions running every court & public office, approving all films & TV shows?

Yes, polyamory is biased toward Lefty liberal Commie Socialism. In part because modern Rightist "individualism" is actually authoritarian & even dictatorial, which don't align at all well with the ACTUAL individualist. The Leftward fit is not great, but veryVERY few people are able to embrace anarchism or voluntary communalism so that's where they run out of steam.

To put it another way, it's not that Leftist sentiments are better soil for polyamory, so much as that it's somewhat less bad than the self-delusion required by today's Rightism.

People who find authoritarianism sexy ought to stick with closed threesomes or polyfidelity or communalism. My bias is that those who don't LOVE obeying commands from Big Mommy/Daddy or the Supreme Council will actively dislike such control as they are forced to notice -- there's really not any "take it or leave it" fence-sitting.

My experience since 1986 is that Lefties can work well with people possessing a wide range of beliefs with which they don't personally agree. On the other hand, mention casually to a Trumpanista that I voted for Bernie in the primaries, & within two minutes they're getting in my face (literally), waving a finger at me, telling me I'm unpatriotic & probably have black friends, & more than once shouting at me.

Once again, the GOP has control of the White House AND the House of Representatives AND the Senate AND the Supreme Court AND 34 of the Governor seats... & once again THEY CAN"T DO SHIT ABOUT SHIT.

And the Wingnut peons blame "Democrats" for this gross ineptitude. Why? Because that's what Fox News & Facebook tell them to believe.

Rightists have had the brains bred right out of 'em, like turkeys, which Ben Franklin once admired for their wiliness & cunning.

Polyamory (as a practice) is NOT friendly to the stupid, the self-blinded, the gullible. QED.

Yes, you correctly identified a passive-aggressive gambit. It's my style.

For me, I tend to reject the Left-Right paradigm as something conceived by the wealthy powers behind the throne. I look at both the Democrats and the Republicans as being wealthy control freaks cut from the same cloth. I tend to scare people with a conflicting set of views. I am pro-gun and carry one every day. I'm also a lesbian (mostly), and very pro-choice. For whatever reason, you usually don't see those things in the same camp. I dislike socialism and I hate paying any sort of taxes. I also dislike war, poverty, and starving children. I disliked every single candidate running for president in the last election.

I'm not sure how any of these things makes a coherent system of views, nor am I sure that I particularly need to avoid cognitive dissonance. For most of my life, I've done what I had to do to survive. Not really sure what camp that puts me in. Mostly, I just don't want some kind of authority to control me.

One clarifying question, though... are you saying that polyamory isn't supposed to be a "closed" relationship? Is "polyfidelity" actually what I'm looking for instead?

 

[FallenAngelina]

For me, I tend to reject the Left-Right paradigm as something conceived by the wealthy powers behind the throne.

That throne must have conceived it over 300 years ago because the US has never had such an entity. The only powers I see that have a stake in perpetuating this false dichotomy are the producers over at MSNBC and FoxNews and their corporate sponsors that attempt to sell us all crap we don't need as we watch TV shows constructed to mimic the thrill of Coliseum spectating. Those carefully scripted red-team/blue-team "news" shows are the only throne that has any real power in the Western World. Even so, their power is fading, as interest in network TV is dwindling to within the purview of only the aged and the infirmed. The Lefties have just as much interest in perpetuating the perception of a Great Political Divide as the Righties do. The political agenda is just a front. The only real concern is that the crowds keep coming to watch the gladiators.

 

[ref2018]

The real concern

The real concern is to keep the poor people divided and in fear of each other (through racism, sexism, politics, sports, drugs, etc.), so that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep paying their taxes. Every once in a while, throw everyone an extra few hundred dollars back of their own money and make the government look generous, meanwhile give rich people tax break on their capital gains. But so what? Do you realize how much beer $300 can buy? Let's all celebrate! And both major political "parties" (pun intended) do this sort of "please the poor to keep them from realizing they're getting screwed", so it doesn't even matter how you vote in major elections. Blah, blah, etc., this is nothing new. It's always been about rich vs poor.

I'm reading "A People's History Of The United States" right now so thanks for bearing with me, lol.

 

[FallenAngelina]

I'm reading "A People's History Of The United States" right now

It shows.

 

[vinsanity0]

That throne must have conceived it over 300 years ago because the US has never had such an entity. The only powers I see that have a stake in perpetuating this false dichotomy are the producers over at MSNBC and FoxNews and their corporate sponsors that attempt to sell us all crap we don't need as we watch TV shows constructed to mimic the thrill of Coliseum spectating. Those carefully scripted red-team/blue-team "news" shows are the only throne that has any real power in the Western World. Even so, their power is fading, as interest in network TV is dwindling to within the purview of only the aged and the infirmed. The Lefties have just as much interest in perpetuating the perception of a Great Political Divide as the Righties do. The political agenda is just a front. The only real concern is that the crowds keep coming to watch the gladiators.

While I agree that network news is fading, how do you explain the blatant propaganda sites that are replacing it?

I also see modern politics as a spectator sport. Everyone is yelling "go team!" without really looking at the issues. If one side comes up with an idea, the other side works to bring it down. Our guy is a sexual predator? No problem. Your guy groped women? Crucify him!

All this fits in with the concept that this is all done by the rich to keep us preoccupied.

I'm another one of those people who do not fit neatly into the mold of liberal or conservative.

 

[majormerrick]

That throne must have conceived it over 300 years ago because the US has never had such an entity. The only powers I see that have a stake in perpetuating this false dichotomy are the producers over at MSNBC and FoxNews and their corporate sponsors that attempt to sell us all crap we don't need as we watch TV shows constructed to mimic the thrill of Coliseum spectating. Those carefully scripted red-team/blue-team "news" shows are the only throne that has any real power in the Western World. Even so, their power is fading, as interest in network TV is dwindling to within the purview of only the aged and the infirmed. The Lefties have just as much interest in perpetuating the perception of a Great Political Divide as the Righties do. The political agenda is just a front. The only real concern is that the crowds keep coming to watch the gladiators.

Actually, it is over 300 years old. Just an example, but the super-wealthy Rothschild family has been influencing international affairs since the 1700's. They made a fortune betting on the Napoleonic Wars. Another example, the Bush family, has been around since colonial times. These people just keep coming back, sometimes overtly in power, sometimes covertly. Many of the super-wealthy families are centuries-old, if not millennia old. My fiance's family, for example, has history going back almost a thousand years. If they hadn't lost a war in the late 1600's, they would still be extraordinarily wealthy. The media are companies that are owned by the wealthy, and ultimately controlled by people with an inter-generational agenda. They keep the masses satisfied with "bread and circuses" just like in Roman times, and deluded with political theater to give the illusion that there is some choice in government. Have you ever noticed that the country stays on the same path, whether Democrats or Republicans are in control?

 

[FallenAngelina]

Have you ever noticed that the country stays on the same path, whether Democrats or Republicans are in control?

Um, yeah. That's the point of the two party system and the three branches of our government. No one person or cabal can ever take over control. We like to call it gridlock, but our government is slow to change by design. You're parroting the same Howard Zinn defeatism as all of my fellow Liberal faithful. Yawn. We've got to get a new narrative going by this next election cycle or we're in for another tidal wave of votes that are fed up with hearing our paranoid bullshit. Old money families are in control of America? Puleeze. 1995 is calling and wants your conspiracies back. Since the proliferation of the internet, there are no "bread and circuses" for "the masses" anymore. Broadcast mind shaping is dying medium and nobody has control over "the masses" anymore, despite the derisive comments about Trump voters. Everyone I know who voted for Trump can state sound reasons for doing so and is far from the idiot caricature we Liberals like to imagine them to be. Even "government" isn't in control of our lives anymore. Haven't you noticed the cultural and economic revolution that is the internet?

 

[FallenAngelina]

I also see modern politics as a spectator sport. Everyone is yelling "go team!" without really looking at the issues. If one side comes up with an idea, the other side works to bring it down. Our guy is a sexual predator? No problem. Your guy groped women? Crucify him!

Agree

All this fits in with the concept that this is all done by the rich to keep us preoccupied.

Disagree. Nobody is perpetrating team mentality on anyone. Nobody has to. This all happens because people enjoy a good fight. Always have, always will.

I don't know which "propaganda sites" you're referring to, but I suspect that they're largely ignored by the vast majority. There is just no powerful media entity anymore. My teenagers don't even understand the concept of a "movie star." All of this hand wringing that some group of "insiders" has control over everyone else just makes us all look old and out of touch with the times. "The rich?" Please! Are you aware how much wealth is generated via the internet and all attendant industries? "The rich" are everywhere and don't look anything like the cartoony, old money figures that people like Howard Zinn are so fond of pointing at. Many of "the rich" are the biggest Liberals of all.

 

[vinsanity0]

Everyone I know who voted for Trump can state sound reasons for doing so and is far from the idiot caricature we Liberals like to imagine them to be.

Really? I haven't been able to find one. Most I've talked to only voted for him because he was the GOP candidate. A couple voted for him because they though it would be funny if he was president. Almost all of them said Hillary was a Socialist, which is kind of insane if you think about it, but they probably say that about any Democrat. I have yet to find a single Trump voter who could give me a sound reason for voting for the buffoon based on his own merits.

 

[Spork]

Really? I haven't been able to find one. Most I've talked to only voted for him because he was the GOP candidate. A couple voted for him because they though it would be funny if he was president. Almost all of them said Hillary was a Socialist, which is kind of insane if you think about it, but they probably say that about any Democrat. I have yet to find a single Trump voter who could give me a sound reason for voting for the buffoon based on his own merits.

My ex voted for Trump, because he believed all the talk about "Killary" letting some soldiers die for no reason or something and her "corrupt" email blahblah talk and because libruls want to take his guns.

He sees it as the Republicans being on the side of the military and patriotism, and the Democrats being a bunch of liars who pretend to care about minorities in order to simply trick people into paying more taxes, taking the money of the common everyman and hoarding it for themselves, getting us all on the dole instead of earning an honest living.

In fact I'd say that's pretty much what most of the right-leaning friends and acquaintances I've had, have thought.

Really I see a lot of, "Your party of choice is just tricking you by saying they represent your values. I'm smarter than that, and I think you are really stupid for falling for it." The right folks figure that all of the compassion for middle and lower classes, is a sham (and they might be right!) and that the Democrats are pretending to be all sweet and compassionate and appealing to the liberals' soft delicate snowflake hearts, while secretly selling out our nation to our enemies, weakening our military, and destroying the middle class by stealing all of their money to get more people as slaves to welfare, making more (colored) babies who will of course vote Democrat. Also they want to take everybody's guns away, rendering us powerless to ever stand up to them (as though the civilian populace with their privately owned guns could do so anyhow.)

The left folks see conservatives as a bunch of delusional traditionalists, stuck in the social habits of the 1950s or earlier, full of dreams about white supremacy and the South rising again, preaching their superiority from beneath their mullet haircuts in their trailer parks...or the laughing old white (rapists) men who hold great wealth and power, and happily pull their strings from on high. Ruling with hate, fear, and divisiveness behind a thin curtain of wholesome family values. The Dems can't imagine how ignorant you would have to be, to support a party that doesn't keep religion out of politics, one that will demolish women's reproductive freedom and power to stand up to sexual abuse, one that only cares about you if you're a white guy, one that really only cares about you as a consumer cog in the machine that fattens them. Warmongering, planet wrecking pigs. And gun rights? When gun violence in the US is so staggeringly high compared to other developed nations? Are you even kidding me?

Personally I do believe that there have been wealthy and powerful families that have had great social control over humanity, crossing multiple continents, wars, the formation and dissolution of nations, guiding policy and providing distractions, and using human society in general as a great farm to keep them fat. This whole "get with the times" talk...wow, like there is such a huge difference between now and the 1990's when you're talking about families that have held power and wealth for literally hundreds of years...how different was 1995 to 1700? Or 1500? The fact that those families are still unassailably wealthy and nothing threatens them, their prosperity and security are absolute...means that they still hold power. Power and wealth go hand in hand, and feed one another exponentially over time. It will take more than a shift from network TV news, to the internet, to shake those foundations.

We think that we're so enlightened, though, sitting here questioning things. But each of us has our own set of ideas we've chosen to sign on to and accept, and we are skeptical of others. And our own chosen beliefs are just as likely to have been hand-fed to us, as any other person's, for the benefit of the few.

As for the talk of rich people being everywhere... I guess it depends on where you personally stand, that you can look around you and see them. Most of the people I see around me every day, have about as much chance of ever having a million dollars to their name, as they have of doing a tango on the moon next Thursday. Please be aware of the personal bias that informs you that what you see around you is the way it is everywhere...I've lived enough places (and in enough different socioeconomic classes) to know just how very false that is.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Please be aware of the personal bias that informs you that what you see around you is [not] the way it is everywhere.

My point is not that "rich people" live in every single community, but that "the rich" is not the cartoony bunch of old money fat cat conservatives that many Liberals like to pin all of our social problems upon. The panoply of "the rich" is vast and varied, with many being big time Liberals, themselves. "Rich families" are an easy target, but there is no such evil entity at the root of society's ills anymore. Many, many, many people are "rich" who do not fit the stereotype at all and actually contribute a tremendous amount toward making the world better. That a cabal of "rich people" controls the perceptions and aspirations of "the masses" is an old, sad, tired Liberal trope leftover from the days before every teenager had access to every single bit of information in the world, for better or worse. Nobody controls the distribution of information anymore. Nobody.

 

[Spork]

My point is not that "rich people" live in every single community, but that "the rich" is not the cartoony bunch of old money fat cat conservatives that many Liberals like to pin all of our social problems upon. The panoply of "the rich" is vast and varied, with many being big time Liberals, themselves. "Rich families" are an easy target, but there is no such evil entity at the root of society's ills anymore. Many, many, many people are "rich" who do not fit the stereotype at all and actually contribute a tremendous amount toward making the world better. That a cabal of "rich people" controls the perceptions and aspirations of "the masses" is an old, sad, tired Liberal trope leftover from the days before every teenager had access to every single bit of information in the world, for better or worse. Nobody controls the distribution of information anymore. Nobody.

I don't agree.

And I am not talking about wicked old white people here, I'm talking about generations of families, and not merely the comfortably wealthy, but the extreme end of that spectrum of wealth and power. Those who can direct countries to go to war to protect their business interests. And of course some of the rich are Liberals. Are we not talking about how those in extreme positions of silent power pull strings on both sides? I don't trust most people who are in well established positions of wealth and power, who inherited it, as did their ancestors. Even if the things they claim to stand for align more closely with my own beliefs, I remain skeptical of them.

But there's the rub... In a world of unlimited "information" including a surfeit of lies and propaganda and yes, *cringe* "fake news"...increasingly the truth is a matter of subjective choice in what one wishes to believe. And even if much of the "news" is real...now that the notion of it being fake is planted, now anyone who hears something they don't wish to believe, can very simply deny it and call it fake.

So to some extent, in order to control perception, all a powerful entity needs to do, is to recognize a few prevalent classes of thought, and put out a propaganda set to each one to nudge them in whatever direction, get it circulating on social media. And when our trusted friends share articles telling us what we already believe, then we nod our heads and pass it along. I was fascinated with the differences in what showed up in my Facebook feed during last year's election, as compared to a conservative friend of mine. I would actually ask her if I could look at her Facebook occasionally. It was completely different from mine, in terms of the overwhelming amount of opposite perspective presented as fact. Big data is very, very interesting.

 

[vinsanity0]

Spork, he voted for Trump because that is his team. He/they will vilify whoever the Dem is. I suppose we do that too, but I don't have to lie about Trump to do it.

I have an uncle that knew Trump was an idiot. In fact, he claimed that Trump was being paid by Clinton to ruin the Republican primaries. He would never vote for him...oh wait, he is our nominee. He is the best. There is none better...lol. When I bring up his previous feelings he ignores it.

I saw a Bill Clinton give a speech in 2004. He said Democrats have to fall in love with a candidate (Kerry wasn't doing well), Republicans just fall in line.

My ex-stepfather is one of those fall in line people. He knows nothing about issues. He votes republican because he says all retired cops vote republican. He doesn't know anything about issues, but he can repeat every stupid lie.

When I first got the internet I thought "This is pretty awesome! I have the world's knowledge at my fingertips." HA! The internet just makes it much easier to control people. Way easier than television or conventional print media.

 

[vinsanity0]

My point is not that "rich people" live in every single community, but that "the rich" is not the cartoony bunch of old money fat cat conservatives that many Liberals like to pin all of our social problems upon. The panoply of "the rich" is vast and varied, with many being big time Liberals, themselves. "Rich families" are an easy target, but there is no such evil entity at the root of society's ills anymore. Many, many, many people are "rich" who do not fit the stereotype at all and actually contribute a tremendous amount toward making the world better. That a cabal of "rich people" controls the perceptions and aspirations of "the masses" is an old, sad, tired Liberal trope leftover from the days before every teenager had access to every single bit of information in the world, for better or worse. Nobody controls the distribution of information anymore. Nobody.

That is a very naive view.

 

[Ravenscroft]

IME, I do not presently know a single Trumpanista who is capable of uttering a continuous twenty words without mindlessly parroting a meme. They have given over their thinking capability to slogans they can't defend.

I'm talking about generations of families, and not merely the comfortably wealthy, but the extreme end of that spectrum of wealth and power. Those who can direct countries to go to war to protect their business interests. And of course some of the rich are Liberals. ... I don't trust most people who are in well established positions of wealth and power, who inherited it, as did their ancestors.

G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? First published 1967, it's been entirely reworked a few times & has just come out in a new edition. (Domhoff is prolific, with other books such as The Myth Of Liberal Ascendancy: Corporate Dominance From The Great Depression To the Great Recession (Routledge, 2013).)

I've always found Domhoff to be both an easy read & devastatingly well-documented. He's happy to share his stuff for free, & curates an extensive website he's named WhoRulesAmerica.net (actually hosted on UCSC.edu). You might begin with an article about wealth distribution in the United States -- scroll about 1/4 of the way in (section "Do Americans know their country's wealth distribution?") for the summary of a study of how ignorant most people actually are; the question's answer would be, "Oh, hell, no."

People cite "new blood" -- e.g., Jobs, Bezos, Gates, Musk, Cuban, Walton -- as proof that the power elite is nonsense. That's like saying that polyamory is invalid because Grammy & Grampy have been happily married for 70 years, so I call bullshit. The Kennedys & Bushes, & robber barons before them, were "new blood" at some point, & only the verifiably insane (or criminally stupid) can float the notion that this proves those dynasties have no significant power.

 

[Ravenscroft]

However, the question hangs: so what?

Though I think there have been many potentially valuable seeds brought up, I'd like to add another eddy here.

PROBLEM: Nowadays, people go online & whine endlessly about how unfair it all is, no matter their political leanings. I mean, there's individuals out there who crank out reams of repetitious crap on a MONTHLY (if not weekly!) basis, screeds the length of this thread or even longer.

...because it beats actually WORKING.

Back in 2002, I read Daniel Quinn's books beginning with Ishmael.

It examines the mythological thinking at the heart of modern civilization, its effect on ethics, and how this relates to sustainability and societal collapse on the global scale.

Actually, these years gone, I don't remember much of it (aside from quite enjoying it all & finding it thought-provoking as well), but for two points:

1. "No new programs!!" Politics is a self-perpetuating dead end. Avoid people obsessed with "organizing." (This is where my dislike of "activists" probably crystallized.)
2. Stay local. Few people have the resources to even think seriously about "changing the world." Following any such delusion is a GREAT way to avoid getting ANYTHINg done, EVER. However, pretty much anyone CAN make significant strides to improve their village -- their community, neighborhood, household, family, circle of friends. (To put it another way, a bottom-up approach rather than top-down.)

 

[FallenAngelina]

That is a very naive view.

The old money, mind-control puppeteers caricature is what's naive. It's outdated, old fashioned and if the forefront of the Democratic narrative, will only further entrench those who don't trust the Liberals with the business of running our country. Y'all keep up with this sad old hackneyed theme about the Evil Rich controlling the minds of the ignorant sheeple and you'll serve nothing but earn us all a big fat Trump re-election.

 

[vinsanity0]

The old money, mind-control puppeteers caricature is what's naive. It's outdated, old fashioned and if the forefront of the Democratic narrative, will only further entrench those who don't trust the Liberals with the business of running our country. Y'all keep up with this sad old hackneyed theme about the Evil Rich controlling the minds of the ignorant sheeple and you'll serve nothing but earn us all a big fat Trump re-election.

If you think there is a way to deprogram a conservative you are more naive than I thought. We are talking about people who believe Obama was a foreign born Muslim who was going to put us all in cattle cars and bury us in a field in Georgia. That's not just a few vocal crackpots. And that's not even the strangest things they've come up with. Try googling "conspiracy theories about Clinton".

They don't just come up with this stuff out of thin air. They are spoon fed this garbage by people who want to use their mass hysteria to manipulate them. So I am supposed to worry about how conservatives view liberals? LOL...no.

BTW, that caricature is all in your head. I don't think there is a room full of cigar smoking fat guys in three piece suits and wearing top hats running things. It's more like what Spork says.

Why do you think we sent troops into Kuwait? Do you really think we sent troops to Afghanistan because women were being treated poorly there? Supplying both sides of the Iran-Iraq War? I could go on and on, but the bottom line is it is all about the $.

 

[Spork]

Spork, he voted for Trump because that is his team. He/they will vilify whoever the Dem is. I suppose we do that too, but I don't have to lie about Trump to do it.

I have an uncle that knew Trump was an idiot. In fact, he claimed that Trump was being paid by Clinton to ruin the Republican primaries. He would never vote for him...oh wait, he is our nominee. He is the best. There is none better...lol. When I bring up his previous feelings he ignores it.

I saw a Bill Clinton give a speech in 2004. He said Democrats have to fall in love with a candidate (Kerry wasn't doing well), Republicans just fall in line.

My ex-stepfather is one of those fall in line people. He knows nothing about issues. He votes republican because he says all retired cops vote republican. He doesn't know anything about issues, but he can repeat every stupid lie.

When I first got the internet I thought "This is pretty awesome! I have the world's knowledge at my fingertips." HA! The internet just makes it much easier to control people. Way easier than television or conventional print media.

Yes and no. Mostly my ex voted for Trump and aligns with "his team" as such, because his friend does. And they are veterans and gun nuts, and that is their issue of choice, more important than anything else. Everything else can be brushed aside, just so long as men like my ex can keep their guns. I had a conversation with him at one point, I was trying, in the few weeks following the huge news blitz of the "grab 'em by the p-word" recording being played over, and over, and over... I was trying to explain to my ex why that mattered. How I felt about it. He said it was just the way men talk. I said, well, if you and your man friends talk like that, then you're ok with rape and don't think it's a big deal. That's fine, I don't hang out with you anymore. My friends do not, to the best of my knowledge, talk that way. If I found out they did, I probably wouldn't want to be friends with them anymore. He looked at me in nothing short of stunned and kind of hurt disbelief. He had, after all, told me the story about how he maimed a guy who raped a friend of his decades ago. How could I think that he would support rape, or think it's ok? Well...the fact that you got a nice excuse to play knight in shining armor for your pretty lady friend, mostly to glorify your own name and indulge in some righteous violence, does not mean that you are in all ways then given a pass and assumed to be on the side of "right." When you go on and support a guy who flat out brags about violating women's consent, you shouldn't be surprised when some of us judge you for that, even though you figure it's nothing compared to things you believe the opponent did.

That wasn't an easy conversation. But then...what would I expect, trying to talk politics with my nutty ex husband? *shrug*

What is interesting though? Is that I see far, far more voting driven by hate of the other guy, than actual support of one's candidate of choice. And it's been that way a long time, even when the candidates were nowhere near so repugnant. Bernie had a lot of love...and I wonder if that, in addition to Clinton's connections and power, had a lot to do with him being shoved aside by the DNC. And yeah, Angelina, I believe that we discussed this and you don't think that Bernie's loss in the primaries was unfair at all, but I believe otherwise. I've seen articles backing that up, but that doesn't matter, since you can find articles to back up anything. We believe what we want, and I believe Bernie got screwed. And I think part of it, is that they didn't want a guy people actually LIKED, to jump in there and disrupt the "lesser of two evils" game. I know you liked Hillary but many, many people did not.

Ravenscroft, I agree. I look at all this stuff, from the first tinfoil hat books I read years ago, to the somewhat less paranoid, but still suspicious views I hold today, and regardless, I also ask, "So what?" What will any of us be doing about any of this? Whole lotta nothin'. I like to think and read and talk about it to while away the time, but I don't expect that it will ever matter. And meanwhile I try to support things and people that I want to see succeed, and I am involved in a community of sorts (granted, it's the kink community, and before that the GWAR community, but still) and we do help each other. And speaking of which? So the guitarist in GWAR has this rare bone cancer, and he's going to need a marrow donation. If anyone doesn't know, getting that done is very difficult and the odds are against it. You need someone who is just right as far as DNA matching goes. So there is this registry where they keep DNA samples on file in case you (a voluntary donor) might be a match for anyone needing it. And there is an org that goes around with touring musicians, they've gone out with Ozzy for instance, and they register people. GWAR, at this point, not even done with their tour, has signed up more new donors than any band in the history of the program ever. Over 3,000 people.

So even if a community isn't local, but is scattered all over the place, just the business of being connected to other human beings and doing good for one another...rather than simply being an activist for a cause in general or donating to some charity that may or may not use the funds to help anyone but their CEO... It's worth thinking about.

 

[vinsanity0]

Well if you really want to blow your ex's mind you can tell him you know a liberal gun nut (me)...lol. The banning of guns is not possible without an amendment to the Constitution. His illogical fear is being used to manipulate him.

He kind of sounds like one of those racists who say, "But I have black friends."

Not sure why you think it had anything to do with Bernie being loved. Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama were all loved. Their opponents weren't particularly hated. Bernie lost the nomination because he wasn't a Democrat and he was way too far left for the average Democrat. The Republicans would have tore him to shreds for being a Socialist. I doubt if his campaign could have handled that. FWIW, I probably would have voted for him in the primary, but, being NPA, I can't vote in primaries here.

I do agree with being active locally. I've always been active in everything from our homeowner's association to state government. I can't say "so what" to what happens at a higher level though. That stuff affects me too.