Polarization of the two parties

[Pat Hartman]

1) They have to get re-elected

That's why we need term limits. All we get when politicians become entrenched is "go along to get along" and "but we've always done business this way". No wonder they all hated Trump. Just elect me again and NEXT time, I'll work on the problem I promised to fix 12 years ago. I'm done.

The Republicans are lying low and have stopped even trying to stand in the way. Look at wat Mitch did last week by getting 11 Republicans to vote with the Democrats who were not themselves united, the bill was soo bad for the country. Didn't stop o'll Mitch though.

 

[Isaac]

All Mitch did is the debt ceiling though, right? Neither of the big awful things went anywhere, unless I missed it?

You make a good point on the term limits. We should go back to that. That would definitely reduce the whole getting entrenched and losing the ideals of the platform.

I think R's still have that on their committees only, D's don't.
A little vestige or memory of the way it was supposed to be

 

[Pat Hartman]

There are several organizations lobbying for a Convention of States and the proposals have passed a number of State legislatures. One o the items on the agenda will be term limits including for the Supremes. I lost all respect for them a few years ago so they may as well be a singing group.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Wow

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461078295374618629

 

[NauticalGent]

Y"all going make me lose my mind...

 

[Pat Hartman]

And there goes Queen Nancy stifling disclosures of malfeasance committed by HER people. The "right" people can do anything they want. The "wrong" people get crucified for anything the Queen determines is unacceptable. She was the one who impeached Trump TWICE without any evidence and she's in the process of doing it again with the Jan 6 commission witch hunt.

 

[Isaac]

Wow

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461078295374618629

I can't quite tell what the "wow" was for, but depending, I might agree ...

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[conception_native_0123]

way to go AB. that's good. =)

 

[Isaac]

Elon Musk believes 'civilization will crumble' if people don't have more babies

According to the Tesla CEO, there's not enough people.

fortune.com

I'm not on either extreme of that debate, but I kind of like where it's going.

I mean if you connect the dots between liberals, conservatives, secularists and Christians along with a basic understanding of how democracy and elections work, all we really need to do is keep having families!

Not only is it already obvious after 50 years of available data that the breakdown of the family is the root cause and the strongest predictor of most of society's ills including poverty and crime, but they also end up voting.

Maybe this is all a little bit easier than we think.
Hang around the city council meetings at Gilbert Arizona or anywhere in Utah and you'll realize the Mormons have kind of already figured that one out.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding Elon's statement about making more babies...

The environment people claim we have too many people because those pesky greenhouse gases are a by-product of what we do to survive. More people = more carbon footprint, more energy demands, more food demands, thus leading to more starvation and bad stuff.

But I believe if we really DO crumble our civilization, the loss of technology will include the loss of birth control methods and we will also be without entertainment. If folks can't watch the tube, can't go play golf, can't go to a concert, what is left to do but that thing that singular activity that makes more babies? So this will become a self-correcting problem in the long term.

 

[Pat Hartman]

all we really need to do is keep having families!

But that is exactly what the liberals are trying to destroy. They need to make women wards of the state so that the state can take over raising the next children to complete their indoctrination. That can never happen when we have a strong family structure. We have somehow boxed ourselves into a structure where in most parts of the country, it is almost impossible to survive without two incomes. Of course, married couples could at least try to live on a single income to free themselves from this cycle as my husband and I did. Given that we were both employed in IT, that was much easier for us than for most. But it never ceased to amaze me how our friends always leased their cars or traded them in every other year. We always kept ours for 8-10 years. We lived in a nice house in a safe neighborhood but if we wanted to be house-poor, we could have lived in a McMansion like many of our friends. I'm pretty sure we were the last house on the block to get a second TV and that only happened by accident because my husband won one in a golf tournament. We have been trained to be conspicuous consumers and that interferes with how we should be living. It's a bunch of little things that set us on this path. I remember the woman's movement of the 60's and 70's very clearly. It disturbed me then and I understand now why it bothered me. Being a woman, I can tell you that I have been discriminated against because of my sex so at some level, I benefited from the movement but it turned out to be a zero-sum game although it didn't need to be and it shouldn't have. It wasn't necessary to elevate woman at the expense of men and that is coming back to haunt us. That's how the left thinks. You can only gain at the expense of some other party. It's the Robyn Hood syndrome. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Our whole political system has devolved to this.

 

[Steve R.]

@Isaac, @The_Doc_Man, and @Pat Hartman. On the road again. My response will be short as I'm slow and lousy with Android tablets. May follow-up after getting back home.

Musk may be confusing "civilization" and "culture". But that is me making a speculative interpretation of his remarks that may be unjustified and unfair. I don't think that "civilization" is in danger from low population, but a "culture" can die out.

On having a lot of kids. It's part of the human survival instinct. Until about 1900, having a lot of kids was good and a necessity. Now that having kids is not as necessary for a family and/or tribe's survival, it's difficult changing that societal construct.

We have somehow boxed ourselves into a structure where in most parts of the country, it is almost impossible to survive without two incomes.

Correct. Also as you point out, we are into endless consumption.

But I did run across an interesting article, which will never be accepted as a legitimate theory as it is politically unacceptable even if true. That is that women entering the workforce, en-mass, lowered the wages of men as an unintended negative consequence. Of course woman should be able to work, but it also leads to speculation concerning the evolving demise of the nuclear family as another unintended negative consequence.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I've watched a lot of documentaries that have examined the entry of women into the workforce en masse as part of the war effort. They all mention that women were paid substantially less than were the men they replaced. I always thought that was wrong. I'm sure the women did also but they were doing their patriotic duty and so "took one for the team" in their effort to contribute to the cause, never realizing the negative impact of accepting the lower wages.

Running a household efficiently is a lot less work than it was even when I was a kid helping my mother. I haven't seen clothes hanging outside in years even though they smell so wonderful when you take them in. It is just too much work when we have a dryer to save us that labor. It takes me about a half hour of actual work (the rest is done by the machines) to do laundry every week for a family of 5 and the vast majority of that is the folding at the end. It would have taken at least half a day when I was young using my grandmothers old manual wring washer. My mother had a fancy "automatic" that spun the clothes dry. First, canned goods filled the shelves at the dry goods store. Then in the 50's we made the switch to frozen food. Now the fresh food section is exploding with pre chopped lettuce and various vegetables and fruits. The convenience is nice in some cases because if you want a mix of various types of lettuce, you can choose from at least half a dozen different "mixes" whereas in the past, you would have had to buy all of them separately. So for me, I'm willing to pay a premium for the mix but walk on past the chopped "single" variety sections. I can chop my own carrots and onions So, even when I was young and newly married and living in an apartment. There really wasn't enough work to fill my day so working outside the home was necessary to keep my sanity. I guess the rich have lots of things to fill their days but not the working class. When my daughter was born, my intention was to stay home for at least a year and then take it from there. But after six months when the highlight of my day was watching "Search For Tomorrow", I knew I needed to go back to work. Part time would have been enough but things were much less flexible back in the 60's so full time it was. Luckily, I had a neighbor who wanted to stay home. We had become friends during my time at home during the day. It was a match made in heaven

 

[Isaac]

Excellent points all - @The_Doc_Man that's something I hadn't thought of, but it's true ... if the creature comforts of civilization disappeared, we can all agree on what would be one of the most enduring activities. (Albeit probably not a very polite scenario).

I definitely don't necessarily think Elon is right, but at least his comments are a tiny bit more along the lines of promoting families than not. I guess that's something.

The various things poking and prodding at the previously-strong protective bubble of the family unit is a major tragedy, but hopefully we can do whatever we can to get it back stronger. Certainly things weren't perfect in the past (and indeed, I'm glad things have been done in the areas that were harsher-and wrong-about it), but (as I always say), the pendelum simply swung too far in one direction. It must either swing back or drag us through harsh consequences, hopefully minimal until people turn back to it for its absolutely intrinsic value.

And believe me, I don't say this from some sort of self righteous pretentious perspective. Simply that I can see in hindsight that my worst decisions were those which weakened the strength/purity of my family unit .... and the best thing I have going for me, after God himself, is that family structure. I've worked with SO many people that realized this too late, or at least, later than they wished.