Democrats to flee the country?

[David Broad]

I really upset a couple of Yanks on a band job around the time of the Frump/ Trump battle for the presidency by saying how on earth could a nation of 250 Million people come up with those two to choose between. The Yanks were really hurt. No sense of humour. Mind you with 70 million Brits ending up with Boris and the Scots ending up with Jimmy Crankie maybe the issue is world wide.

 

[J. Jericho]

Maybe it's a matter of how people view their lives. Some want to do everything for themselves, while others want everything to be done for them, and each type are looking for a government which will enable them to benefit according to their mindset. I've had friends and relatives who, when faced with unemployment, panicked, and some of them did everything they could to find another employer. On several occasions the final employer was the government itself. Personally, when I faced the same situation, I took the path of entrepreneurship. It didn't always work out, but at that point, I'd rather be unemployed than to ever work for someone else again. Fortunately I was able to come up with other businesses, in each of which the customers themselves were the employers and to whom I was happy to answer to. My wife followed suit, as she became disgusted with the limits put upon her by employers and started a business of her own. The feeling of freedom and accomplishment is incomparably gratifying. To us, a government which provides everything to its populace does so at great cost to the people. Having government as the source of all things is akin to slavery, as the government is then empowered to decide who does and who does not benefit from its policies. To be forced to ask for everything in life is demoralizing, and having other people doing everything they can to make this happen is a legitimate source of existential protest and anger.

 

[2nd tenor]

As a young man I used to like the seemingly common USA attitude of every man and woman for them selves, let them that can do and those that can’t perish. I regard myself as a do-er and the results of my hard and thought targeted labours have been good - I’m not rich but don’t have money worries and live fairly comfortably. On my life journey I’ve come across unable to work types (incapacity), unemployed want to work types, unpaid family work (responsibilities) types, won’t work types and fell on misfortune types; result is I’ve a lot of sympathy for those worse off than myself and understand why society in the U.K. benefits from the safety nets we have in place. Then there’s (our NHS) health cover, one never knows what will happen to you in life: two of my relations are in Hospital at the moment and both have taken care of their health over the years. To me the (UK’s Government based) safety nets are a form of insurance and whilst I like having some insurance I like even more not having to call upon it - I’m happy to pay for it but never want to have need of it.

In a way I’m not surprised that the USA has Trump as a President. He’s not my ‘cup of tea’ but he understood the upset of the electorate with the politics as usual candidates - drain the swamp. As for here in the U.K. the electorate had, in my personal opinion, two poor leaders to choose from. The victor’s team ran a savvy campaign and the losers believed their own misguided and out of touch propaganda - its time the losers woke up and smelt the coffee but I don’t think that they will.

Who knows what the future will bring? Personally I wouldn’t bet against Trump getting a second term: he might not be universally popular and I might prefer some Democrat but Trump knows how to win and to me it seems that others don’t.

 

[Independent Silver Band]

I really upset a couple of Yanks on a band job around the time of the Frump/ Trump battle for the presidency by saying how on earth could a nation of 250 Million people come up with those two to choose between. The Yanks were really hurt. No sense of humour. Mind you with 70 million Brits ending up with Boris and the Scots ending up with Jimmy Crankie maybe the issue is world wide.

You wouldn't have upset me !!!! I had the same feeling. I actually voted for a lesser known party, and was castigated as throwing away my vote.

 

[J. Jericho]

You wouldn't have upset me !!!! I had the same feeling. I actually voted for a lesser known party, and was castigated as throwing away my vote.

If you vote politically, i.e. cast your vote for someone you dislike in order to prevent someone you hate from winning, you still end up with someone you didn't want in the first place If you vote your conscience, you can still end up with someone you didn't want, but you sleep better at night knowing you stuck by your principles, and that is not a wasted vote.

 

[2nd tenor]

If you vote politically, i.e. cast your vote for someone you dislike in order to prevent someone you hate from winning, you still end up with someone you didn't want in the first place If you vote your conscience, you can still end up with someone you didn't want, but you sleep better at night knowing you stuck by your principles, and that is not a wasted vote.

Any political party or representatives will tell you that your vote is wasted if it isn’t cast for them, self interest is their only guide and as such they should be ignored. When I cast my vote I’m looking to see it make (by my particular values) a positive difference in some way. Tactical voting sometimes does make a difference to the outcome and, personally, my first priority is to avoid the election of someone who’s values and policies are alien to my own beliefs and my second is to elect my preferred candidate. So if, say, the local communist looked likely to win an election by a small margin I’d support the person most likely to defeat him or her. Letting your vote make a principled statement in favour of some particular party and candidate is, I believe, a good thing. However in virtually all things there is a time to consider compromise, a time when the best course of action is not to seek the perfect result but rather to help to ensure that a significantly poor result is avoided instead. Interestingly, and IMHO, large sections of UK’s electorate made that strategic voting choice in our recent election.

 

[Jack E]

Hell's teeth - I posted what I thought was just a mild Mickey take, and it turns into a discussion on politics and political philosophy.
Don't worry, people - I won't post any more jokes.

 

[2nd tenor]

Hell's teeth - I posted what I thought was just a mild Mickey take, and it turns into a discussion on politics and political philosophy.
Don't worry, people - I won't post any more jokes.

Threads sometimes drift or get a life of their own, and so long as the conversation remains good natured we all benefit from the exchange of views. New topics and posts keep the forum alive and I think that this one has been very good too in reaching out across the Atlantic. Please keep your Jokes and Posts coming. All the best, 2T.

 

[Independent Silver Band]

Hell's teeth - I posted what I thought was just a mild Mickey take, and it turns into a discussion on politics and political philosophy.
Don't worry, people - I won't post any more jokes.

Don't change a thing. Your post may have evolved, but I enjoyed a discussion on politics that didn't evolve into insults and name calling. That is pretty rare here in the U.S.

 

[2nd tenor]

Don't change a thing. Your post may have evolved, but I enjoyed a discussion on politics that didn't evolve into insults and name calling. That is pretty rare here in the U.S.

I was going to say that it’s rare here in the U.K. too but in truth I don’t really know for sure that that is the case or rather changed to be the case. In times past we used to have face to face conversations and in general they were both more civilised in nature and general in topic, if a conversation was or became disagreeable we typically either changed the topic or stopped the conversation.

In today’s World those having on-line conversations feel that they can be rude with impunity and that lack of immediate real life consequences type of conversation has, to some extent, spilled over into daily life. In the street I chat to both old friends and new faces, as I go I feel my way through the conversation and hence (virtually always) avoid any upset. However the World has many people in it who are either too wilful to accept differences of opinion or - it’s surprisingly often the case - so mentally afflicted (clinical illness) that they simply cannot cope with any other view but their own. I don’t know how things might improve but having some idea of what the problem is is a start point.

On-line the actions of moderators help a lot, some years back this forum was in difficulties but action by the owner and the moderators turned things around. In general I’d advise against using any forum where members want to and feel able to stray outside civilised ‘norms’.

 

[J. Jericho]

As a young man I used to like the seemingly common USA attitude of every man and woman for them selves, let them that can do and those that can’t perish.

Please allow me to rephrase your comment, and I do appreciate your use of the word "seemingly". Since the citizens of the United States are usually noted as the most generous people on Earth when it comes to charity, the attitude could be better stated as "Let those who can do, let those who can't be helped by those who can, and let those who won't do fend for themselves."

 

[2nd tenor]

Please allow me to rephrase your comment, and I do appreciate your use of the word "seemingly". Since the citizens of the United States are usually noted as the most generous people on Earth when it comes to charity, the attitude could be better stated as "Let those who can do, let those who can't be helped by those who can, and let those who won't do fend for themselves."

As a young man I was not really aware of charity from or within the USA but I think that your rephrasing is a good clarification and, of course, any broad brush comment is always going to lack the finesse needed to give a true picture. Just out of interest let’s explore things a little further and explain my particular perspective now, as an older person.

It would be true to say that the American people have amongst them some of the most generous of folk and the likes of Bill Gates ‘today’ confirms that benevolent tradition. On-line, on several forums, I’ve been greatly helped by the comments and information supplied by folks in the USA. Internationally the USA’s role as a peace keeper are well known and without your country’s help in the World Wars the outcomes would have been disastrous. When I’ve visited the USA I’ve found both honest helpful folk and sharp practice too, I’ve also seen folk there in some exceedingly difficult circumstances that were almost certainly not all of their own making. I’ve worked for an American company and wouldn’t rush to do so again - my (poor) experience wasn’t untypical of what other folk here have found too. The current Boeing 737 scandal, in which corporate profit was seemingly put before human life, doesn’t reflect well on the higher values that were once part of the USA’s culture. Arguably the financial crash of 2007 had its roots in unprincipled malpractice in the USA and the effect here on the U.K. economy was truly frightening. So two contrasting representations of how the USA works in practice are available for folk to see and to make their judgements on. Personally I believe that the USA, and to some extent much of western society, has moved away from the higher moral values and attitudes of the past ... but perhaps its a case of rosey tinted spectacles.

My perspective on life used to be ‘I tell it as it is’, now it is ‘I tell it as I see it’, but in doing so I also acknowledge that what I see isn’t always the whole picture or always an accurate reflection of the truth. However, if there is a better way forward then I haven’t found it.

 

[jobriant]

Some want to do everything for themselves, while others want everything to be done for them, and each type are looking for a government which will enable them to benefit ...

Methinks your universe is hollow in the middle. You've described two extremes; most people are somewhere in the middle.

 

[J. Jericho]

Methinks your universe is hollow in the middle. You've described two extremes; most people are somewhere in the middle.

Your point is well-taken. We may disagree semantically between "most" and "many", but I'll agree that there is room in the middle.

 

[2nd tenor]

Maybe it's a matter of how people view their lives.

Some want to do everything for themselves, while others want everything to be done for them, and each type are looking for a government which will enable them to benefit according to their mindset.

I've had friends and relatives who, when faced with unemployment, panicked, and some of them did everything they could to find another employer. On several occasions the final employer was the government itself. Personally, when I faced the same situation, I took the path of entrepreneurship. It didn't always work out, but at that point, I'd rather be unemployed than to ever work for someone else again. Fortunately I was able to come up with other businesses, in each of which the customers themselves were the employers and to whom I was happy to answer to. My wife followed suit, as she became disgusted with the limits put upon her by employers and started a business of her own. The feeling of freedom and accomplishment is incomparably gratifying. To us, a government which provides everything to its populace does so at great cost to the people. Having government as the source of all things is akin to slavery, as the government is then empowered to decide who does and who does not benefit from its policies. To be forced to ask for everything in life is demoralizing, and having other people doing everything they can to make this happen is a legitimate source of existential protest and anger.

I put the full quote in for context. In my own reading of the comment I had not believed that all people were simply split into two different groups but had believed that two different groups within a spread of attitudes were described. Perhaps I’m incorrect but it seemed obvious to me that some people (the remainder and I’d have thought the vast bulk) were between the two ‘ends’ of the spectrum described.