| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - dump on Trump
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


dump on Trump

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 25>
Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (3) Thanks(3)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: dump on Trump
    Posted: 23 Aug 2015 at 05:36
I subscribe to the theory that the purpose of Trump is to have Hillary win.  After all, he donated to her campaign 8 years ago.  On many issues he's left of center, on those other issues, he is obnoxious and insulting.  Just because he is a businessman, does that give him Republican credentials?  It is only in the Fairy Tales that when you kiss a frog, it turns into a prince.  His obnoxiousness leads me to a second theory, that his purpose is to poison the well by insulting Hispanics, immigrants, women, veterans and the Lord (and the media) only knows who else.  He's a "Republican" because that is, in his opinion, the most likely way for him to get what he wants.  It is all about him, and if he drags others down, well then that is fine for him.

I got admit that Trump has balls, and the brains, but only to know exactly what to say to feed into the "I am mad as hell, and am not going to take it anymore" crowd.  But Trump is a destructive force, in business he can have his way, in politics, what is going to do, have a tantrum when congress won't cooperate?  He's a nihilist, believing only in himself and infatuated by the size of his own ego.  He knows how to insult people, he doesn't know how to play nice with others.  Hell, Obama doesn't know how to play nice with others either, but Trump isn't in the White House, and already he is bullying people.  

We need a _politician_ in the White House, someone who can get things done by reaching across the aisle.  Not a prima donna.  Reagan is a good example, Tip O'Neal (D, Speaker of the House) had problems sometimes opposing Reagan, because he _genuinely_liked_ the guy.  What a wonderful problem (for you) for your opposition to have.  


Edited by franciscosan - 23 Aug 2015 at 05:39
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2015 at 03:20
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I subscribe to the theory that the purpose of Trump is to have Hillary win.  After all, he donated to her campaign 8 years ago.  On many issues he's left of center, on those other issues, he is obnoxious and insulting.  Just because he is a businessman, does that give him Republican credentials?  It is only in the Fairy Tales that when you kiss a frog, it turns into a prince.  His obnoxiousness leads me to a second theory, that his purpose is to poison the well by insulting Hispanics, immigrants, women, veterans and the Lord (and the media) only knows who else.  He's a "Republican" because that is, in his opinion, the most likely way for him to get what he wants.  It is all about him, and if he drags others down, well then that is fine for him.

I got admit that Trump has balls, and the brains, but only to know exactly what to say to feed into the "I am mad as hell, and am not going to take it anymore" crowd.  But Trump is a destructive force, in business he can have his way, in politics, what is going to do, have a tantrum when congress won't cooperate?  He's a nihilist, believing only in himself and infatuated by the size of his own ego.  He knows how to insult people, he doesn't know how to play nice with others.  Hell, Obama doesn't know how to play nice with others either, but Trump isn't in the White House, and already he is bullying people.  

We need a _politician_ in the White House, someone who can get things done by reaching across the aisle.  Not a prima donna.  Reagan is a good example, Tip O'Neal (D, Speaker of the House) had problems sometimes opposing Reagan, because he _genuinely_liked_ the guy.  What a wonderful problem (for you) for your opposition to have.  

I agree with you. The prospect of Trump winning a Presidential election should concern everyone in the world. 

But the American electorate being what it is, anything is possible.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2015 at 04:24
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I subscribe to the theory that the purpose of Trump is to have Hillary win.  After all, he donated to her campaign 8 years ago.  On many issues he's left of center, on those other issues, he is obnoxious and insulting.  Just because he is a businessman, does that give him Republican credentials?  It is only in the Fairy Tales that when you kiss a frog, it turns into a prince.  His obnoxiousness leads me to a second theory, that his purpose is to poison the well by insulting Hispanics, immigrants, women, veterans and the Lord (and the media) only knows who else.  He's a "Republican" because that is, in his opinion, the most likely way for him to get what he wants.  It is all about him, and if he drags others down, well then that is fine for him.

I got admit that Trump has balls, and the brains, but only to know exactly what to say to feed into the "I am mad as hell, and am not going to take it anymore" crowd.  But Trump is a destructive force, in business he can have his way, in politics, what is going to do, have a tantrum when congress won't cooperate?  He's a nihilist, believing only in himself and infatuated by the size of his own ego.  He knows how to insult people, he doesn't know how to play nice with others.  Hell, Obama doesn't know how to play nice with others either, but Trump isn't in the White House, and already he is bullying people.  

We need a _politician_ in the White House, someone who can get things done by reaching across the aisle.  Not a prima donna.  Reagan is a good example, Tip O'Neal (D, Speaker of the House) had problems sometimes opposing Reagan, because he _genuinely_liked_ the guy.  What a wonderful problem (for you) for your opposition to have.  

I agree with you. The prospect of Trump winning a Presidential election should concern everyone in the world. 

But the American electorate being what it is, anything is possible.



You would rather have Clinton who can't even manager her email?  If Trump were elected I'm sure the world would go on pretty much the same as it has.  Maybe even better as Obama certainly is no foreign policy genius.  He may not have created the situation in Iraq but he certainly let it get out of hand.  The Iran nuclear deal is a joke as the Iranians are already saying they will not comply with it.  Russia is still in the Ukraine and Cuba is irrelevant.   Foreign opinions of U.S. politics fall under the should of, could have, would have, category of people standing on the sidelines with no responsibility regardless of the outcome. 
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2015 at 06:07
There are 16 other Republican candidates, and you think the only alternative to Donald is Hillary?
Or that the only alternative to Hillary is Donald?  It is fairly early and a lot can happen, the democrats seem to be placing all their eggs in Hillary's basket, but the private email server is not going away.

No, I don't want Hillary, but from a Republican perspective, Hillary might be better than Donald.  Hillary might confuse party loyalty with personal loyalty, but for Donald, loyalty is something with which he has no familiarity.

Trump cannot win as a third candidate, but he could ruin it for any other Republican nominee.  Ohio has a sore loser law, that if you run as a party candidate for nomination, you cannot get electoral candidates if you loose the nomination, and then run as a third party candidate.  This is only for Ohio, but Ohio is a pretty major state.  It would be a hell of a handicap to start off with.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2015 at 19:07
Sorry I was a bit drunk last night and found the assumption of anyone other than Trump offensive. 

As it stands there isn't a single candidate I like.  Maybe that will change or I may vote for Trump in the primary because it messes with the establishment.  In my opinion the GOP needs to go away anyway.  We desperately need a party that can promote traditional values without being anti progressive.  The definition of the word conservative alone should mean that there are no conservative parties.  Who is against progress and how can you have progress without new ideas?  

Conservative = : believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism

Conservative : of or relating to the conservative party in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada

: not liking or accepting changes or new ideas

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 02:11
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

 
You would rather have Clinton who can't even manager her email?  If Trump were elected I'm sure the world would go on pretty much the same as it has.  Maybe even better as Obama certainly is no foreign policy genius.  He may not have created the situation in Iraq but he certainly let it get out of hand.  The Iran nuclear deal is a joke as the Iranians are already saying they will not comply with it.  Russia is still in the Ukraine and Cuba is irrelevant.   Foreign opinions of U.S. politics fall under the should of, could have, would have, category of people standing on the sidelines with no responsibility regardless of the outcome. 

Hmmm. I'm wondering what you find humorous in the Iran deal, and also how you would have expelled the Russians from the Ukraine. And are you really saying that those outside the US should voice no opinions on US politics?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 03:30
Captain:

Game, set and match.

Once again you're right on target. Non Americans need to watch American politics very carefully, especially countries like Australia which prizes it's friendship with America and has very strong ties with the USA.

US politics can and does very easily influence Australian political decisions.

Regarding Trump, from his rambling to date, should he ever be elected, I would fear the worst.

 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 04:04
If Trump is elected, I'm stocking up on canned food, first aid supplies, and duct tape (and beer).

I don't think he will be though. He will be expelled from the GOP, which is likely his original purpose anyway, and then offered some back room deals for his business interests if he promises not to run as a third party candidate, and hence split the vote on the right, and allow a Democrat victory. 

I wonder if future historians will write about our time as the "age of cynicism"?
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 04:35
I think you are exaggerating the significance of who holds the presidential office in the U.S.

There are severe restraints in place on what they can actually do and I think that since Iraq and George Bushes WMDs that is more true than ever.

Trump if elected would probably moderate his views considerably.  Conservative politics in the U.S. to foreign observers may seem on the verge of the insane but they do reflect the views of many American which can't just be ignored.

In any case Trump is so unlikely to be elected president I don't even know why we are discussing it.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 07:14
Consider Kasich.

Captain, I don't believe that you will be stockpiling beer, that is, any more than you are already<grin>.

I don't think that you can get kicked out of the Republican party, otherwise all those far right types would kick out what they consider rhinos (Republicans In Name Only).  Personally, I call those types morons, and no that is not a clever acronym. Maybe we need to bring back ostracism.

Conservatives look at elements of society, and if they don't know why they are there, they want to leave them alone.
Liberals look at elements of society, and if they don't know why they are there, they want to get rid of them.
But both liberals and conservatives see some things as needed, and other things something best gotten rid of.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 08:29
Wolf wrote:


"Conservative politics in the U.S. to foreign observers may seem on the verge of the insane but they do reflect the views of many American which can't just be ignored."


Where else in the democratic world do you have a president who faces a hostile House of Reps and a hostile Senate on a daily basis?

Where else does the leader have such broad and incontravertible powers?




Edited by toyomotor - 25 Aug 2015 at 08:31
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 15:55
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

I think you are exaggerating the significance of who holds the presidential office in the U.S.

There are severe restraints in place on what they can actually do and I think that since Iraq and George Bushes WMDs that is more true than ever.

Trump if elected would probably moderate his views considerably.  Conservative politics in the U.S. to foreign observers may seem on the verge of the insane but they do reflect the views of many American which can't just be ignored.

In any case Trump is so unlikely to be elected president I don't even know why we are discussing it.  

Have any laws been changed since the Bush administration?
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 16:11
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Consider Kasich.

Captain, I don't believe that you will be stockpiling beer, that is, any more than you are already<grin>.

Touche.

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I don't think that you can get kicked out of the Republican party, otherwise all those far right types would kick out what they consider rhinos (Republicans In Name Only).  Personally, I call those types morons, and no that is not a clever acronym. Maybe we need to bring back ostracism.

Conservatives look at elements of society, and if they don't know why they are there, they want to leave them alone.
Liberals look at elements of society, and if they don't know why they are there, they want to get rid of them.
But both liberals and conservatives see some things as needed, and other things something best gotten rid of.

I think both elements advocate change, but conservatives tend to invest hope in authority figures, often business leaders these days, although some ascend to the mystical, and put their faith in the General Manager on high.

Progressives tend to look outwards, to broad based opinion, and general need.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2015 at 04:44
That is interesting, Captain, because I don't think anyone could be more of, if not an authority figure, an inside player for the establishment than Hillary.  And I think nobody could be more of an anti-authority figure than Trump.  I think that you under-estimate the anti-authority streak in the Republican party, and it is not so much that they trust in business, is just that they know that business has no firepower except that which the government gives it (Kelso vs. ...., imminent domain case).  Government can kill you and say that it was your fault, business at least has to buy off the judge and the town council, and there is no guarantees with that.  But, look at Rand Paul and Ron Paul, and even back to Ross Perot for someone edging towards the conservative that is many ways an anti-establishment option, not that Ross Perot was ever a real option, but he did split the vote of the right.  Tea Party is a big anti-authority love fest also. Hmmm. "R.P." interesting....

Someday the religious right is going to realize that if you get religion into politics, you will also get politics into religion.  They want the first, but don't understand that the second follows also.  United States has a very vibrant religious scene, and no state church.  United States churches have been able to adapt to the environment, so to speak, and therefore if you don't like something in one church, just go down the street.  European countries seem to have killed off religion by saying, 'this is how it has to be.'  Also, as disenchantment with government (and other authorities) has grown, so has in these state church situations, a disenchantment with religion has grown as well.  Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, kept religion and politics (or _rather_ Church and State) separate.

If by "Progressives tend to look outward, to broad based opinion," you mean liberals often fall back on demagoguery, I would tend to agree<grin>.  If you mean by "Progressives tend to look towards general need," that they tend to teach a learned helplessness, so that they are indisposable, I would also agree with that too.
Actually, I think that most liberals have good intentions, and in general are good people, in fact, because they are generally good people they that a bright view of human nature, but don't understand why people don't meet it, and won't agree with them.  Conservatives often have a somewhat negative view of human nature as whole (but not necessarily by smaller units), and so are often pleasantly surprised when people don't meet it.
Liberals believe that people are basically good, but they want to interfere in people's lives.
Conservatives believe that people are basically bad, but they want to leave people alone.
It is wonderful paradox, and there is some truth to it.

So, have you looked at Kasich??  Look at him and see what you think, he talks about prison and drug reform, and yet everyone is focused on a demogogue like Trump.  Or you can have the cynical view of rooting for the Republican candidate least likely to win against Queen Hillary, Our Lady of the Top Secret E-mails.


Edited by franciscosan - 27 Aug 2015 at 04:45
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2015 at 05:25
Nice post fransico san and I agree that people outside the U.S. simply can't understand how the idiotic babble that comes out of conservatives represents a well thought out libertarian position on many issues.  In essence the conservatives have been tricked into libertarian positions by their adherence to the ideas of the founding fathers who were essentially radical supporters of the enlightenment.  The enlightenment of 200 years ago of course.  Things have changed but some of the underlying principles remain relevant.
 
I have a few points where I disagree.

A liberal is often a person too afraid of the nature of men to be a libertarian.  Liberals insist that every aspect of peoples lives must be controlled to prevent damage to the collective interest.  In the end they become the authoritative conservative demagogue that they hoped to replace once their ideas are in place.

Conservatives are mostly just people who fear change of any kind and it is a somewhat reasonable position as most change is not for the best.  What conservatives don't realize is that to not change is to go extinct.  Paradoxically 5 percent positive change is the formula for success not only in species but in cultures.  You simply are forced to take the bad with the good if you want to survive.

We libertarian on the other hand are fearless Wacko    We don't trust in human nature but neither do we believe that the solution is enforcement.  Regulations should be minimalistic and never prohibitionist such measures are always counter productive in the long run.  We also believe that the key to good government is a responsible population.  The way to get to that utopia is through patiently waiting for society to ostracise bad ideas and immoral behavior.  Home education that instills good manners and respect do more to ensure safety than enforcement accept in the most extreme cases.  The amorality of modern liberals or the conventional morality of conservatives will never produce a great society as we preserve our agency by the necessity of self imposed restraint.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2015 at 20:43
"Liberals" tend to define the terms of the debate, the small government anti-authoritarian, free market individuals could be called "liberal" but term is taken.  Sometimes you hear them referring to themselves as "classical liberals" like Locke or JS Mill, Adam Smith or the Federalists.  "Progressives" is also a term that has been appropriated by the left.  Most "conservatives" are "progressive" in some areas, but other areas they don't consider it beneficial.  Reagan and McCain were both divorced and remarried (but not to each other).  Lot of libertarians are culturally liberal or indifferent, "fiscal conservative" is a term one hears.  But even a lot of "cultural conservatives" understand that a lot of things are not their business.

The media is fairly biased towards the left, it is not so much that they favor the left and mistreat the right as such, it is that they see "normal people" as including anyone centerish or left of center, and then there are those wackos on the right.  No such thing as a wacko on the left as far as the media is concerned, just "spirited activists."  The American philosopher was impressed with Trotsky, never mind that Trotsky would have been as bad as Stalin if he had just had the chance.  AIDs activists did everything they could to block the use of normal disease control measures (quarantine, partner notification), and thus they placed all their hope on a cure or a vaccine.  But remember, no such thing as a wacko on the left, one AIDs activist however, wrote a book, _And the Band Played On_, criticizing his contemporaries on their failure to use all possible means to hinder the AIDs epidemic.  So it wasn't everybody who wanted to follow the pied piper right off the cliff.
You might ask, "What about all the religious right criticizing AIDs as a scourge of God?"  Well, what about them?  Do you hear much about that these days?  Well, there is a reason for that.  George W. Bush treated AIDs in Africa as a health problem as it should have been treated all along, and that stole much of the fire for fundamentalists ranting about AIDs.  It is kind of ironic that gays today seem to all be about getting married, when one considers the 1970s, and the promiscuous bathhouses, which is part of what the fundamentalists were reacting against.  Gays were against marriage as an institution in those days, they wanted to have there own revolution. their own lifestyle.  That has somewhat changed these days. One wag said, "why are Republicans afraid of gay marriage?  If gays get married, they'll move to the suburbs and become republicans.  btw, there is a gay branch of the Republicans, they are called Log Cabin Republicans (and that is about all I know about them).
Which is more conservative?  Hitler or Churchill?
Which is more progressive? Stalin or Roosevelt?
The left/right dichotomy breaks down if you make comparisons between these individuals.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 01:38
Fellows, this comes under the heading of: Be Careful What You Wish For. Because you might get it. The freak show that the politics of the far right has become may be entertaining, but there are many out there who are deadly serious about it, and intent to vote on their beliefs. Politicians today pander to the lowest common denominator, with Clinton dropping her "g's" when talkin' with the unwashed masses, and Trump promising to deport 11 million people, something that will never come about, at least not without civil unrest, and ominous divisions in the country.

The Libertarian is also pandered to, as these beliefs are productive for the ultra rich, and so supported strenuously, even though with a half hidden smirk. Many have naive beliefs in politics, but the Libertarian is perhaps the most extreme here. The philosophy is based on a projected image of an ideal citizen, and not on practical and verified demographics. We are given the steely eyed, self reliant farmer/worker/sheriff/ father figure who needs no support, makes correct and informed decisions always, and if all else fails,  never misses with his M-14 (although the bad guys always miss).

In reality we have a great mix of people in our large western societies today, some of whom are self reliant(to a degree), some are not, some make good decisions, some times, some do not, most of the time. Some are up on current issues, many are not. Expecting a spontaneous self organization of these individuals, and a productive economy, without extensive regulation, planning, and control, is great stuff for comic books and Hollywood movies, but absurd in the real world. In the US, still a functioning democracy, despite efforts of many to subdue it, barely 50% of your steely eyed fellows even bother to participate in voting, or in civics in general, even though the issues raised have great consequences for them. That gives one an inkling of the degree of social cohesion we would have with the Libertarian paradise advocated by such as the intellectually challenged Rand Paul, or the demonically self interested Koch brothers.

It's all really a scam. Every modern society today has extensive regulation and laws governing society, as long and painful historical experience has pounded the need for such into community consciousness. Even the US- land of the free- and arguably freer in no small amount of respects than most other countries, has adopted virtually all  that history has taught the western world, in terms of laws and governance. It's probably no surprise that Liberarianism has found some roots in the US, as it is there that fantasy has had a cache not quite achieved in most other jurisdictions. Libertarians want to have the metaphorical lions and tigers control the forest, but then are aghast when the forest society becomes based on the brutal acquiring of raw meat. Carrying guns everywhere sounds great to the Lib's, just like Marshall Dillon did in Dodge City. But then dismay sets in when mass shootings occur in shopping malls, schools, and anywhere and everywhere. For profit health fits nicely with the cowboy view, until less than community minded insurers cripple families with their premiums, or bankrupt those with inadequate insurance. Deregulation of the financial industry also fits with the independent rifleman, until of course one realizes society hasn't quite advanced enough to ensure proper behavior without oversight of critical areas, and by then one has lost their retirement income.

Let's face it folks, the laws we now have are here for a reason, and if they are to be dropped....then one better damned well find out why, and to who's benefit it is for.

More ranting later. Right now it's time for your captain's dinner.

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 03:26
Coercion did not work well for communism nor was prohibition terrible successful.  Now we have the war on drugs and that has failed as well.  If the IMF is even remotely right the American economy will once again out strip China over the next decade.  It would be nice to think that we could live in a utopia where the government makes us all safe and happy and productivity flows from mutual respect but the evidence suggests that such an ideology is delusional. 

All a libertarian really is is someone who believes in free will.

It's not about not regulating it's about not making regulations prohibitionist.  It may seem paradoxical to authoritarians on both the left and the right but removing agency is the surest way to producing a morally delinquent population.  If people are not free to fail they are not free to succeed.   The liberal agenda seems to be primarily driven by fear much as the conservative agenda.  In the process the ability to reasonably consider less draconian options is lost. 


Edited by wolfhnd - 28 Aug 2015 at 03:44
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 06:50
When Draco was asked why he made the penalty for so many crimes, the death penalty, he said, "I couldn't think of anything worse."

I tend to see the libertarian as a kind of anarchist on the right.  Wolfe (sp?) has a book called In Defense of Anarchism, where he shows that if you believe in Kantian deontological (duty-based) ethics, anarchy is the only possible moral system.  If ethics consists in being self-determined (autonomous) rather than compelled and determined by others (heteronomous), then compelling people to do things, even "harmless things" "for their own good," like motorcycle helmet laws (I think Colorado is the only state that doesn't have a compulsory helmet law), actually interferes with their process of making moral decisions (which includes the possibility of immoral decisions), and thus with the moral atmosphere of society in general.  The United States is a minor tax haven, in that it does not personally tax people to the extent that Europe does, it does however, have a greater percentage of contributions to charities, whereas in Europe people just expect the government to take care of everything.
Wolfe also quotes Bertrand Russell about the perfect philosophical argument, the perfect philosophical argument starts with premises that no one can reject and then rationally comes to a conclusion with premises than no one can accept;)  My point is, that one does not have to completely embrace Wolfe's argument, in order to feel that if you make someone do something, it is _morally_ a little compromised.

One difference between Europe and the US is that when Americans go crazy, they grab an assault weapon and shoot up a school, or theatre, killing 10-20 people.  And it is very sad and tragic.  When Europeans go crazy they go goosestepping through Paris or form personal fiefdoms in the Congo.  Europe likes to think that that tendency is over, but really they have just adopted the attitude of, "if we are weak and cannot hurt others, then we must be moral."  They rely on America to do much of the dirty work (which does need to be done (although to what extent is debatable)), but frankly I wonder if there are still old fascistic tendencies running under the surface, waiting to show their ugly heads in, say, Bosnia, or with perhaps LePenn.
I think a little libertarianism goes a long way.  Politically, libertarians are thinkers, they are not doers.  They want a minimal government so they can be free, but let's face it if they get tied up in making the government in their own image, they will be 1) doing a lot of damage to others (who admittedly probably have entrenched interests) and 2) their life will be tied down (and thus not free) in politics while they are doing it.  And I think that most mature libertarians know this, there is no tabula rasa (blank slate), by which they could work their message, and politics is a game of give and take.  But at the same time, they make a lot of noise thinking out loud and pondering the possibilities and scare people.  I don't really think there is much danger of a, "beware of what you wish for, you might get it."  Small things like drug legalization, or less military involvement? yes.  They can exert an influence on the others with a liberal attitude on social issues like the democrats, and fiscally conservative attitude towards, well, pork on either side of the fence.


Edited by franciscosan - 28 Aug 2015 at 07:07
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 08:51
So we now have two philosophers and me talking about things no one else will care about but I guess other people can simple ignore us.  Smile   Having no philosophical training other than having read a few philosophical works 40 years ago I will be at a disadvantage.

The key thing to take away from franciscosan's fine dissertation is the concept of a perfect philosophical argument.  As we have discussed before no one in reality is completely liberal, completely conservative or in this case perfectly libertarian.  Take my position as a libertarian to be primarily in opposition to the imperfections in the "perfect" positions of liberals and conservatives.  This is of course relative to political positions and not strictly speaking having to do with philosophy at all. 

Philosophically a libertarian is someone who believes in free will.  We have touched on this subject before but it seems to get ignored when applied to political and social issues.  There is a certain justification to ignore free will when discussing politics because experimental evidence suggests that human behavior is fairly predictable in the aggregate.  If behavior is predictable then it could be said to be deterministic.  The more extreme versions of determinism do away with free will altogether and propose that all behavior is predetermined and free will is an illusion caused by the complexity of environmental responses.  

Philosophers pride themselves on rationality and sometimes even empiricism.   Free will requires a bit of randomness which is an irrational concept.  I won't get into randomness for reasons I will not discuss but suffice it to say free will is a matter of faith or suspension of logical empiricism.  In other words it cannot be empirically demonstrated to satisfaction of people like neurologists.   Free will is therefor very difficult to discuss rationally and some people may shy away from such a topic.

Perfect logic however has it's limitation when applied to moral questions.  Almost any moral position can be made logical by simplification.  Life however is complex and resistant to simplification for reason that I again won't go into.  A libertarian will argue that free will is a requirement for agency and agency a requirement for morality and empirical justification is not required.  There is nothing anachronistic about this argument unless you totally reject tautologies.  Some people would suggest that morality can instead be based on "natural" law as nature is full of example of empathy and altruism.  In higher animals however choice remains relevant to selection.  In other words those that make socially constructive choices will be favored in reproductive success and free will and natural selection are not incompatible concepts.  All that needs to be established is that choices has consequences and choice is incompatible with compulsion.  If compulsory behavior was favored by natural selection then human behavior would be totally instinctual.  

In the end it comes down to some people being unable to live with randomness and the insecurity it implies.  What is critical to remember is that without randomness change is impossible because choice is impossible.  What you are left with is the illusion of control but that is not anarchy it is simply the nature of life.  Liberty could be said to be anarchy but liberty is naturally restrain by the environment and produces random but sometimes beneficial mutations.   Most mutations are not beneficial an that is the price we pay for evolutionary cultural advancement that would otherwise be impossible.

Libertarianism is not about an uncontrolled environment but about controlling the environment in ways that are compatible with the laws of beneficial mutations.  
   

      
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 17:10
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Coercion did not work well for communism nor was prohibition terrible successful.  Now we have the war on drugs and that has failed as well.  If the IMF is even remotely right the American economy will once again out strip China over the next decade.  It would be nice to think that we could live in a utopia where the government makes us all safe and happy and productivity flows from mutual respect but the evidence suggests that such an ideology is delusional. 

All a libertarian really is is someone who believes in free will.

It's not about not regulating it's about not making regulations prohibitionist.  It may seem paradoxical to authoritarians on both the left and the right but removing agency is the surest way to producing a morally delinquent population.  If people are not free to fail they are not free to succeed.   The liberal agenda seems to be primarily driven by fear much as the conservative agenda.  In the process the ability to reasonably consider less draconian options is lost. 

Free will huh? So if you are free, you are going to choose a health care system that siphons off profits to the most affluent, charges crippling premiums, and  leaves the poorest uninsured, a huge burden on society? You are going to choose not to have a state retirement pension, but have all and sundry cast their fate to the same financial wiz kids that brought you the 2008 melt down? Gun laws, who needs them? You can handle a six shooter just like Steve McQueen in those old dusters.

And before you say you would be coerced into having to pay taxes for those sort of programs, well guess what? You get to pay any way you do  it. If you think your lions and tigers will give you a nice time, as they like the cut of your jib, you better think again. We've already had a good taste of what life would be like in an unbridled, unregulated world in which profit is king, and policy is made in closed corporate board rooms. Deregulation of the financial sector was a disaster in 2008. Privatization of social security would be an unmitigated social calamity, as millions with limited abilities in the financial area would be fleeced by sharp operators screaming the semi-religious chant of profit, and wealth was redistributed to an even greater degree than it is now (upwards). In this instance, the "sheep" stood up and exposed Mr Bush and his handlers, lucky thing for you.

No life is without risk or problems. It is absurd to day any government is trying to eliminate all risk, to the point where people are like cattle drifting about in a haze. History has told us we can eliminate some of the worst of life experience, and there are efficient ways to do this. Not doing so suggests either selfish and contrary perceived  personal gain, or self delusion. And that's pretty much what we have today. The "one percent" backing anything that increases their gain, even if at community expense, and the easily swayed, carrying signs like "keep your government hands off my medicare", or clutching their guns and dreaming of John Wayne.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 19:57
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Coercion did not work well for communism nor was prohibition terrible successful.  Now we have the war on drugs and that has failed as well.  If the IMF is even remotely right the American economy will once again out strip China over the next decade.  It would be nice to think that we could live in a utopia where the government makes us all safe and happy and productivity flows from mutual respect but the evidence suggests that such an ideology is delusional. 

All a libertarian really is is someone who believes in free will.

It's not about not regulating it's about not making regulations prohibitionist.  It may seem paradoxical to authoritarians on both the left and the right but removing agency is the surest way to producing a morally delinquent population.  If people are not free to fail they are not free to succeed.   The liberal agenda seems to be primarily driven by fear much as the conservative agenda.  In the process the ability to reasonably consider less draconian options is lost. 

Free will huh? So if you are free, you are going to choose a health care system that siphons off profits to the most affluent, charges crippling premiums, and  leaves the poorest uninsured, a huge burden on society? You are going to choose not to have a state retirement pension, but have all and sundry cast their fate to the same financial wiz kids that brought you the 2008 melt down? Gun laws, who needs them? You can handle a six shooter just like Steve McQueen in those old dusters.

And before you say you would be coerced into having to pay taxes for those sort of programs, well guess what? You get to pay any way you do  it. If you think your lions and tigers will give you a nice time, as they like the cut of your jib, you better think again. We've already had a good taste of what life would be like in an unbridled, unregulated world in which profit is king, and policy is made in closed corporate board rooms. Deregulation of the financial sector was a disaster in 2008. Privatization of social security would be an unmitigated social calamity, as millions with limited abilities in the financial area would be fleeced by sharp operators screaming the semi-religious chant of profit, and wealth was redistributed to an even greater degree than it is now (upwards). In this instance, the "sheep" stood up and exposed Mr Bush and his handlers, lucky thing for you.

No life is without risk or problems. It is absurd to day any government is trying to eliminate all risk, to the point where people are like cattle drifting about in a haze. History has told us we can eliminate some of the worst of life experience, and there are efficient ways to do this. Not doing so suggests either selfish and contrary perceived  personal gain, or self delusion. And that's pretty much what we have today. The "one percent" backing anything that increases their gain, even if at community expense, and the easily swayed, carrying signs like "keep your government hands off my medicare", or clutching their guns and dreaming of John Wayne.

I have not discussed any particular policy issues and I'm was not inclined to do so in this thread because of the emotions that it provokes.  We got sidetracked from the original topic when I suggested that foreign observations on U.S. politics did not realistically address the sentiments Trump shares with many U.S. citizens.  What passes as moderate policies in many nations is left of center in the U.S. and this fact cannot simply be ignored because you feel that the right wing in the U.S. are all "nutters".

I tried to address the issue of liberty having a different connotation in U.S. politics than in other nations by presenting a libertarian perspective.  The fact that libertarian ideology has become associated with extreme rightwing politics is unfortunate.  The suggestion that libertarianism is associated with Anarchy for example is absurd.  Free will and agency are unavoidable associated with justifiable punishment.  From a libertarian position if people break the law they should be punished or the law changed.  For example the only justification needed for Trumps position on immigration is that illegal immigration is illegal.  This holds unless it can be shown that the immigrants were not free to avoid breaking the law.  Simply ignoring the law denies that other alternatives are in fact available to address the problem such s the normal political process for changing laws.  More importantly while Trump has focused on the illegal aliens it is the people that hire them that are certainly free to avoid breaking the law and as free agents should be punished for doing so within the libertarian perspective of agency being tied to responsibility.

I will probably move on now to something else as this topic is pretty exhausted but I will continue to read your comments for enlightenment. 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 23:08
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Coercion did not work well for communism nor was prohibition terrible successful.  Now we have the war on drugs and that has failed as well.  If the IMF is even remotely right the American economy will once again out strip China over the next decade.  It would be nice to think that we could live in a utopia where the government makes us all safe and happy and productivity flows from mutual respect but the evidence suggests that such an ideology is delusional. 

All a libertarian really is is someone who believes in free will.

It's not about not regulating it's about not making regulations prohibitionist.  It may seem paradoxical to authoritarians on both the left and the right but removing agency is the surest way to producing a morally delinquent population.  If people are not free to fail they are not free to succeed.   The liberal agenda seems to be primarily driven by fear much as the conservative agenda.  In the process the ability to reasonably consider less draconian options is lost. 

Free will huh? So if you are free, you are going to choose a health care system that siphons off profits to the most affluent, charges crippling premiums, and  leaves the poorest uninsured, a huge burden on society? You are going to choose not to have a state retirement pension, but have all and sundry cast their fate to the same financial wiz kids that brought you the 2008 melt down? Gun laws, who needs them? You can handle a six shooter just like Steve McQueen in those old dusters.

And before you say you would be coerced into having to pay taxes for those sort of programs, well guess what? You get to pay any way you do  it. If you think your lions and tigers will give you a nice time, as they like the cut of your jib, you better think again. We've already had a good taste of what life would be like in an unbridled, unregulated world in which profit is king, and policy is made in closed corporate board rooms. Deregulation of the financial sector was a disaster in 2008. Privatization of social security would be an unmitigated social calamity, as millions with limited abilities in the financial area would be fleeced by sharp operators screaming the semi-religious chant of profit, and wealth was redistributed to an even greater degree than it is now (upwards). In this instance, the "sheep" stood up and exposed Mr Bush and his handlers, lucky thing for you.

No life is without risk or problems. It is absurd to day any government is trying to eliminate all risk, to the point where people are like cattle drifting about in a haze. History has told us we can eliminate some of the worst of life experience, and there are efficient ways to do this. Not doing so suggests either selfish and contrary perceived  personal gain, or self delusion. And that's pretty much what we have today. The "one percent" backing anything that increases their gain, even if at community expense, and the easily swayed, carrying signs like "keep your government hands off my medicare", or clutching their guns and dreaming of John Wayne.

I have not discussed any particular policy issues and I'm was not inclined to do so in this thread because of the emotions that it provokes.  We got sidetracked from the original topic when I suggested that foreign observations on U.S. politics did not realistically address the sentiments Trump shares with many U.S. citizens.  What passes as moderate policies in many nations is left of center in the U.S. and this fact cannot simply be ignored because you feel that the right wing in the U.S. are all "nutters".

I tried to address the issue of liberty having a different connotation in U.S. politics than in other nations by presenting a libertarian perspective.  The fact that libertarian ideology has become associated with extreme rightwing politics is unfortunate.  The suggestion that libertarianism is associated with Anarchy for example is absurd.  Free will and agency are unavoidable associated with justifiable punishment.  From a libertarian position if people break the law they should be punished or the law changed.  For example the only justification needed for Trumps position on immigration is that illegal immigration is illegal.  This holds unless it can be shown that the immigrants were not free to avoid breaking the law.  Simply ignoring the law denies that other alternatives are in fact available to address the problem such s the normal political process for changing laws.  More importantly while Trump has focused on the illegal aliens it is the people that hire them that are certainly free to avoid breaking the law and as free agents should be punished for doing so within the libertarian perspective of agency being tied to responsibility.

I will probably move on now to something else as this topic is pretty exhausted but I will continue to read your comments for enlightenment. 

I understand- and agree with- your point that people should be held accountable for their actions. However it is far too simplistic to simply say, everyone figure it out, and do the right thing, or you're toast. Because, statistically, they will not. 

Illegal immigrants may well know they are breaking the law, but will do so anyway, if the alternatives are worse. Simply saying, they did it, so they will wear it, sets up a reactionary process, where mass arrests are make, families separated, children traumatized, walls built, international relations strained, and civil unrest and division provoked. It may feel better for some to say, well, we sure kicked their *ss, sure showed them. Wise policy however means going beyond immediate personal, feel good, quick reactions, and deciding what is best, given the reality of the situation, for the whole country. That often means compromise, not just holding all to the letter of the law. 

Telling hot shot young investment analysts on Wall St to obey the law, it's up to you, often will not. Some will think themselves too clever to get caught, some will feel employer or peer pressure to stretch the envelope, some will become addicted to the thrill of the chase, or perhaps the thrill of unlimited income, some will have egos that hold them above all such considerations. They may get caught in the end, but often not before bringing down untold damage to society.

This list could go on for pages. The point is that societies need to be proactive in creating the sort of environment they want to live in, because it won't happen by chance. The Libertarian view that all will fall into place with individuals making their wise personal decisions, and the small minority that cheat will face the consequences, may be an appealing one for those unsettled by the complexity of society today, but it is wholly insufficient to run a moderately successful, peaceful society today, as any Libertarian elected to high office would soon find out, to his or her dismay.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015 at 23:25
The libertarian tends to dislike big corporations as much as they dislike government.  The crony capitalism of "too big to fail" and "GM=government motors" is probably more of an anathema to them than big government.  The government action to cut out the investors and save the company and the Unions was an Obama effort.  Now GW Bush was a bit of a disappointment for libertarians, he was a bit of a big government conservative.
Remember what Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."  Obama used  the crisis of 2008 to remake business in his own image, as a tool of the Federal Government.  You should understand that business people are very conservative in a particular way, they want to be able to invest in a stable environment.  But when President Obama uses his position on the bully pulpit to go after the 1%, people get skittish about investing which is one reason why the economy has been lackidasical throughout the entire Obama Presidency.
The health system in the US has traditionally been through one's company.  In the 50s you had a high
unemployment, and usually a lifetime with one company, one job.  Employee healthcare was also not counted against you as a taxable benefit.  Also, people didn't live as long, when Bismarck implimented retirement, the average life expectancy in Germany was less than the retirement age, now with better healthcare and diet (but probably not exercise), it probably 10-20 years after the retirement age.  Better healthcare does not mean better health, it means longer lifespan with continued treatment (not cure) for chronic conditions.
Mandatory insurance means young people with no health problems and entry level jobs have to fund the health care of old people.  It means that 50-55- year old women have to pay for insurance for pregnancy problems.  Heaven forbid that monetary limitations be put on the size of lawsuits against doctors, that would cut into a key democratic constituency, trial lawyers.  We have a new healthcare system that fits none.  And due to the new legislation, it is in the best interest of insurance companies to consolidate, and make megacompanies with even less choice than we already have.  But of course, President Obama will be gone by that time, and it will get associated with someone else's watch.
People for some reason believe that determinism is a kinder, gentler policy.  The argument goes, this mass-murderer (Holmes?) could not help himself, and so therefore we shouldn't blame him for what he did.  But usually, it goes more like this, this mass murderer couldn't help himself, and you know I don't care, I (a prison guard) can't help myself in being mean to him.  These prisoners have fought and attacked society, and they deserve to be put down.  It takes some choice to go against the tendency
and decide that you are not going to respond in kind.
I didn't get to what I really wanted to talk about, the rural viewpoint vs. the urban viewpoint.  But, I
gotta go.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 01:17
There is a difference between the rural environment and the urban environment.

When police response time is 2 hours from the nearest small town, and that is only if someone notices something wrong, it might make sense to have firearm in case someone comes up the road meaning trouble.  You cannot count on neighbors noticing something, you cannot count on police arriving in good time, its up to you, and your family if anything is going to happen.
IT is not the rural life that is creating problems through firearms, that's more the urban and suburban life.  A lot of rural people hunt, and it is not a blood lust, it is the fact that if you bag a deer, you have enough meat for a family+ for a year.  Yes, there are still incidents with firearms, but there are incidents with cars and kitchen knives, etc.  You usually don't hear about most times when a firearm prevent a crime, someone yells, "I have a gun!" and the intruder gets out of there, no news reports, maybe even no police reports.  Some people like a pump shotgun for self-defense, the "klak-klak" of feeding a round into the chamber is a very distinct sound.  btw, people in the US have a right to defend themselves, they (you) do not have the right to defend just property.  Just because someone is in your house unwelcome does not give one the right to shoot them.  
Handguns are often the target for gun control advocates.  But the fact is a handgun is the right "tool" for the urban environment.  You want to have a bullet stop when it hits a wall, not go through several other apartments.  Gun control advocates say that rifles and shotguns are enough for hunting.  (btw, hunting helps control deer populations so they don't overbreed, overgraze and then starve).  They might be right about that, but the question is whether you want to allow people to own firearms for self-defense.
I digress:
I studied nuclear energy in a class and one thing that we discussed is the disposal of high level waste.  At the time they were down to the top ten possible sites.  The best sites in the US are back East, old granite, very stable, but also a lot of senators and congressmen, that was not really considered.  Other good sites were salt flats like Texas, and salt domes like Louisiana.  Very geologically stable. Texas has a lot of congressmen, it was on the top ten, but it wasn't going to get it.  Then there was Hanford Nuclear Reservation, WA and they _wanted_ it, but they had fractured basalt, along the Columbia River, up river from Portland, if that sounds bad, it does because it is, fortunately, they didn't get it.  Nevada got it, low population, not the best site, but very few congressmen.
What about Louisiana?  Well, the DOE sent a surveying crew, and were welcomed by the local Bayou welcoming committee with firearms.  The DOE (Dept of Energy), said "we are from the government, we are from the DOE."  The welcoming committee said, "we don't care, get out of here." and they got out of there, and did not come back, dropping Louisiana from the list because they didn't want to get into a firefight with a bunch of cajun rednecks over something as unpopular as nuclear waste.  And of course, I would have never heard about it, except that we had a speaker in our class (Walla Walla WA), that was working against the Hanford bid, and he knew it.  So what would you prefer in your local environs, cajuns with guns or nuclear waste?
gotta go again, didn't cover as much as I wanted.

Afterward:  Please note, I do not own firearms, I just think that a lot of the fear over them is unwarranted, or at least, unwarranted for the _rural_ environment.  The urban scene is somewhat different, as is the suburban scene different again.  But urban areas have the big megaphones, and are able to pretty much define the debate.  There are other elements in the rural environment besides the common interest in fire arms, and I think that from that kind of environment, conservative or libertarian views make more sense, both in themselves as coherent arguments, and in relation to more liberal arguments.  Liberal arguments seem to make more sense for urban environments, especially since they can tax rural areas to make Universities or Hospitals in urban areas.


Edited by franciscosan - 29 Aug 2015 at 02:24
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 02:16
/

Edited by es_bih - 09 Feb 2017 at 00:18
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 02:37
Trump is a fairweather republican (not even that).  It like for ships, when they sail under a flag of convenience, Trump is flying under the Republican flag of convenience, but that is not who owns his ship or mans his crew.  Trump, however, would be disastrous for Republicans, and while I doubt he could win in a general election, disastrous for the US.  
I really do not like Hillary, how corrupt she is, how she thinks of herself above the rules.  But on the other hand, she is a politician, and I think she would thus be better than Trump the bully, who wouldn't know how to play nice with anyone.
Ron Paul was flying under the Republican flag of convenience, but he wasn't personally obnoxious, his behavior showed that he respected the process, and played by the rules.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 03:23
Trump is no more flying under a flag of convenience by going republican than the religious right or the socialist Sanders flying under the flag of the democrats.  The two party system makes for strange bedfellows.  The two party system should make for clear choice between two philosophies but it doesn't always work out that way.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 06:21
Oh, I think Sanders is flying under a Democrat flag of convenience, but he still respects that flag, my objection is not to someone flying under a flag of convenience, my objection is when they promote themselves as one thing, and then do everything they can to smear kaka all over that thing they supposedly respect.  Look up DTs party affiliation on wikipedia, there are four parties there.  Trump does not believe in making his bed and sleeping it.  He is in love with only one thing, himself.  Someone who adheres to party politics joins a party and sticks with it, trying to make it better.  Trump doesn't want to do anything for the party, it is a question for him of what the party can do for him, and if he looses the
nomination he threatens to sulk and take his marbles elsewhere.  A third party candidacy couldn't win, but it would screw things for election for the Republicans.  Personally, I think if it was a choice between nominating Trump or having him ruin a campaign of sabotage as a third candidate, it would better to have Trump as a third candidate.  Loosing a couple of Presidential elections would not be very damaging compared to the damage Trump could do as a Republican candidate.  He already has insulted Hispanics, Women, other Republican candidates, and former candidates.  Wolfhound, do you actually believe that this guy could govern if he got elected, after pissing off so many people?  Maybe that is what you like about him, but the fact is, we have to live in the world after the election.  I guess you were one of the ones who voted for Cthulu, under the motto, "why settle for a lesser evil.'  But I agree with Buckley, that the best conservative candidate is one that can win.  Not only do I doubt Trump could win, I do not doubt that he would spew filth all over everything else in the process.  
In order to get the citizenship for birth on American soil changed, Krauthammer says that it would have to be an Amendment to the constitution, not something even remotely easy to do.  But, if we tried, it would be labelled as a Republican initiative and, it would probably poison the well for the Hispanic against the Republican 'brand' for a generation.  I know that you probably don't care about demographics, but maybe you should think about that, if you care about a viable Republican party in the future.  There will be a world after the election, long after an angry and hasty vote for a demagogue.  Of course, Jeb Bush's wife is Hispanic, his kids are Hispanic and I think that he speaks Spanish.  The Republican brand is multivalent.  Really, if you think about it, the moral values of traditional blacks, and traditional Hispanics are often closer to Republican values (family, religion, independence) than they are to much of Democratic values (a kind of secular humanism) 
btw, GW Bush wanted to have immigration as a centerpiece for his legacy when he was in the White House, but then came 9/11.
I know that Trump says he loves women, which is probably why he trades in the old model for the new one every so often.  He as also worked hard to insult women, which would make him the "perfect" Republican candidate to run against Hillary, whom he himself endorsed 7 years ago, when he gave her campaign money.  I mean "perfect" in a sarcastic manner.  So he has said mean things to women and Hispanics, so he is already starting with a disadvantage with those groups, I don't see why you think he would be a good representative for Republicans, when he is seems to be doing everything he can to poison the well. 
Trump is true to his name, he is trying to 'trump' everybody, but all I can see is inside Trump there is rump, reminding me of what an ass he is.  His groupies should note that his initials are DT, which also stands for Delirum Tremens.  DTs are when one is so drunk that one hallucinates, in a bad way.  One can die from DTs, it is not a desirable state, and neither is a DT presidency. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 06:55
When did I say I had a love for Trump?  He is an idiot.  As far as I'm concerned so is Obama if you listen to him carefully his intellectual capacity is highly suspect but that is not what makes a president.  As best I can tell Reagan was senile his second term but the world didn't end.  Trumps flaws are simply exaggerated because he is an unpleasant person.    

All I have said is that Trumps views represent enough of the population that they should not be labeled as idiotic in the way that foreign observers are apt to do.  There are deeper political issues involving the special view of liberty that other nations simply don't respect.  Trump while not the best example of those ideals or views they are founded to some extent in the liberalism of the enlightenment.  While liberalism has been cooped by socialism in modern politics it is not as simple as many people would like.  It's not so much that I like or dislike socialism as I view it as necessary and the natural extension of all regulation but regulation should be balanced creating the need for a non socialist point of view.  The people that follow Trump have no idea what I'm talking about but there you go.

As far as the hispanic illegal immigration goes some of my best friends have been hispanic but they arrived here legally.  It is convenient to ignore the fact that there is considerable bias in favor of hispanics simply because it is easy for them to get here.  I would call this a convenient prejudicial treatment that offends my idealism.  I also have friends in Eastern Europe that would very much like to come visit me but can't get a visa.  Is that fair?  My friends in Eastern Europe are outraged that they could simply fly to mexico and walk across the border if they were the kind of people who didn't believe in the law.

If the immigration from South of the border was political and not economic I would be somewhat more sympathetic to ignoring a moral code of legality.  Even if it was or is political unregulated immigration is immoral because it creates an environment where people run from instead of addressing issues.  Suggesting that the immigrants lack the agency to make legal decisions is dehumanizing and something I think very few people understand.

Prejudicial treatment of hispanic immigration is expedient but ignores the wider moral context of global conflicts. If we allow hispanics to immigrate at the expensive of people in the Middle East and Africa who surely must have a higher priority how can we call that moral.  In the long run I think the moral choice is to deal with problems where they exist and not rely on the expedience of migration to solve problems.  

It would be easy to change the immigration laws without a constitutional amendment.  The issue of citizenship for people born in this country is a side issue.  Ignoring the law is called civil disobedience but if there is no prosecution of violations it cheapens the concept. 

I may vote for Trump in the primaries as I said because I would like the GOP to go away especially the religious elements who should play no role in politics.  Most likely I won't vote for Trump but still conservatism is so illogical that I can't continence it.  The GOP needs to replaced with a party that represents traditional liberal values in opposition to socialism.  If you insist that it is dangerous to give the election to the democrats well I agree with that as well.  I have plenty of time to decide what I will ultimately do.            


Edited by wolfhnd - 29 Aug 2015 at 07:35
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 25>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.