| 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  <1234 25>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2015 at 17:48
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

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.



Trump winning would be a 100 times better than anything on the left, and a lot on the right. The last thing this country needs is another 8 years of Obama's failed policies continued on with Hilary or Biden, or got forbid the Socialist in Chief Sanders. 

The failed policies of:

Extracting (almost) the US from two disastrous and ill advised wars
Rescuing the economy and the corporate world from their own folly
Attempting to bring America in line with the rest of the civilized world by pushing universal medicare
Attempting to rationalize tax policy
Increasing employment
Heading off an Iranian nuclear weapon, and renewing dialogue with that country
Ending the vindictive standoff with Cuba

Instead you would prefer a coarse and duplicitous ignoramus, who would alienated former allies, initiate a trade war with China, deport 11 million people, built a billion dollar wall along the southern border, violate multiple international trade agreements, and more than likely destroy the economy due to his complete lack of understanding of macroeconomics?

Be careful what  you wish for.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Histro View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Histro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2015 at 09:40
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.




Every American election should concern everyone in the world because how much America effects everything.
Back to Top
Thorvald View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thorvald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2015 at 10:37
I read somewhere his ancestors came from Germany originally

http://germanicrealm.informe.com/forum/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2015 at 03:49
I don't know where Trump came from, but I imagine that he is not that close to his roots.  My last name, (Francisco) was originally Italian, but I don't have any sense of my genealogy.  I am American, Trump is American (unfortunately, right now).  Ancestry is not necessarily that important in America.  As FDR said to the Daughters of the Revolution, "My fellow immigrants..."

Right now, you, whomever you are, have two major choices regarding the Republicans.
You can be for Hillary, and support the worst Republican candidate (Trump, in my book) with the belief that Hillary will have the best chance against them.  Of course, if you loose, you loose big, getting the worst candidate elected.
This is actually the strategy of a group out California who support the Republicans in the primaries who are the most extreme, and the least likely to win in the general elections.  Yes, that is right, some radical republicans are supported by liberals in the primaries, so that the Democratic candidate has more of a chance in the general elections.

Or you can support the best person in each primary, and have the attitude of may the best person win in the general election.  Of course, if you prefer democrats, that may mean that you are selecting, for the primary, the person most likely to beat Hillary.  But you are also selecting the person least likely to be a prima donna, and be able to work with 'the other side.'  In other words, (if you are a democrat or liberal), you would be selecting the "lesser of evils."  Or you can do like Wolfhound, and not settle for a lesser evil, and go for the worst, just to stick your thumb in the eye of the Republican party.
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: 02 Sep 2015 at 05:41
There was a good piece in the New York Times on how people like me were dangerous and Trump had a real chance of becoming president.  Aparently making people like me the lowest form of human life imaginable.  Shocked

In my quest to destroy the viability of conservatism as a legitimate political philosophy I may actually be a terrorist.  Any amount of carnage is justified if your cause is righteous after all.

Despite the attacks on my character by almost every serious political junkie do you really think Trump could be elected?  If that is the case I would suggest that you are no student of American politics and all the gnashing of teeth and hair pulling is silly.  Of course I said the same thing about Bush junior but not with the same confidence. Wacko

The neo conservatives are fascists and the democrats socialists.  When foreign observers look at American politics they see a very different landscape.  What you have to remember is that even liberals in the U.S. have to believe in god.  If there is a god neither Clinton nor Trump will be president so let us pray someone else comes along to fill the void.     
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2015 at 22:04
I tend to think of the New York Times as "all the news printed to fit."  "Dangerous" is a weird word to use in that context.  Misguided? well maybe.  A low life?  well I don't know you that well, but I assume that you are an ordinary person, with maybe a little more brains than average, I doubt that you are inclined towards moral interpritude any more or less than other people.  "low life" and "dangerous" sound like liberal histrionics.  If you disagree with a conservative, in general they will think that you are stupid, or naive, but they don't generally think that you are a bad person for disagreeing with them.  If they are Christian, they believe in the fallenness of human nature, we all make bad decisions, but that does not necessarily mean we are malicious, or evil.  However, liberals have a positive view of human nature, but when someone goes against their beliefs, they say that the person must have bad intentions or that they have a bad soul.  They just can't imagine someone else disagreeing with them, thoughtfully coming to a perspective other than their own.
Do you bomb soft targets, schools and cafes, since hard (military) targets are too protected?  well then you are a terrorist.  But since I doubt you do that, well terrorism is a specific strategy and not just what
anyone wants to call it.  Now are you perhaps a bull in a China shop?  Maybe.
Has any political junky named you by name or moniker in their columns?  Yes, Trump could get elected.  Of course, some people might argue that it is inevitable that he will loose, but inevitability (which something that Hillary is banking on), is a poor argument for or against a candidate.

I admit, I am a little vague on the difference between conservatives and neo-conservatives.  Fascist, however, is one of those nice liberal names applied to people they don't like.  Whether it is actually applicable like in a Mussolini/Franco model is another question. 
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: 02 Sep 2015 at 23:55
If you haven't read any PNAC documents they are interesting



Edited by wolfhnd - 02 Sep 2015 at 23:56
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2015 at 02:01
Yes, neo-cons want to use military to further American style democracy.  I think that in the abstract, that it is a good idea, in reality, however, I think most cultures are a lot more complicated than the US, so best laid plans of mice and men often gang awry.  To many moving parts, too many variables, not enough of an understanding of the overall cultural understanding of another culture.
But one could argue, that it worked pretty well in Germany and Japan after WWII.  But there you had an unconditional surrender, and the carrot of the Marshall Plan.  It also probably didn't hurt that there was the stick of a communist take over looming over head.
The Greeks and the Turks are still fighting the Persian War, for that matter the Trojan War, that's their idea of history.  Americans have a problem remembering back past the last election cycle.

Of course, that lack of memory could be a benefit as well.  I mean, think about it.  If you have to take the time off to explain to some ignoramus from the other side of the world, why you are fighting, well maybe it would be easier to forget about it, and just do what he suggests, at least until he is out of range, and _then_ you could start your feud again (or maybe not).


Edited by franciscosan - 03 Sep 2015 at 02:51
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: 03 Sep 2015 at 02:46
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Yes, neo-cons want to use military to further American style democracy.

Not democracy but American interest.  It is little wonder that people outside the U.S. develop a certain paranoia about U.S. foreign policy.  The vast majority of Americans I talk to in private would prefer to return to an isolationist policy and that is what we should really be paranoid about.  The void that would be left by U.S. withdraw from international affairs could only be filled by those hostile to democracy.  The Neo Cons however poison the atmosphere by producing public policy statements that while not official policy clearly favor the use of force over fair trade and other means of securing a favorable atmosphere for democracy.

Germany and Japan are examples of how it may be better to lose to the Americans that continue fighting a war that has no benefit for the vast majority of individuals in a society.  They are however not normal cultures both being highly sophisticated authoritarian societies where collective interest tend to outweigh individual considerations.  The cultural and economic hegemony of the U.S. were never really a threat to their cultural identity because they possessed a level of competency equal to or exceeding that of the U.S. .         
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2015 at 07:12
I always got the sense that "fair trade" was gimmick meant for people buying coffee to feel good about themselves, because they "did something," for the poor indigenous coffee grower and the environment.  I have no problem with Starbucks or whomever doing that, but we should understand that it is Starbucks forming a feel-good atmosphere, in an effort to sell more coffee.  They are "doing something for the environment and the poor," because it helps them sell coffee.  Wearing their charity on their sleeve is meant to show that they are good citizens of the world (whereas they are really just capitalistic, with a new angle.)
I think that the Neo-cons originally came out of the malaise of the 1970s, particularly in reaction to the Carter White House.  Some of the "neo-cons" were democrats, like Moynihan (Reagan Democrats), if I remember right.
Part of having a large military is the tremendous pressure to use it.  That is part of the military-industrial-(congressional) complex that Eisenhower warned about.
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: 04 Sep 2015 at 09:11
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I always got the sense that "fair trade" was gimmick meant for people buying coffee to feel good about themselves, because they "did something," for the poor indigenous coffee grower and the environment.  I have no problem with Starbucks or whomever doing that, but we should understand that it is Starbucks forming a feel-good atmosphere, in an effort to sell more coffee.  They are "doing something for the environment and the poor," because it helps them sell coffee.  Wearing their charity on their sleeve is meant to show that they are good citizens of the world (whereas they are really just capitalistic, with a new angle.)
I think that the Neo-cons originally came out of the malaise of the 1970s, particularly in reaction to the Carter White House.  Some of the "neo-cons" were democrats, like Moynihan (Reagan Democrats), if I remember right.
Part of having a large military is the tremendous pressure to use it.  That is part of the military-industrial-(congressional) complex that Eisenhower warned about.

Fair trade is not a gimmick it is the rules of the game of capitalism and when they are not adhered to economic competition becomes economic war and everyone loses.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2015 at 02:41
And here I thought that capitalism involves free trade, I would suggest you look up the criticism of fair trade on the fair trade page for wikipedia.  Big on idealism.  It strikes me as trying to build a better mousetrap, and at best in reality all it is is a different one.
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: 07 Sep 2015 at 04:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

And here I thought that capitalism involves free trade, I would suggest you look up the criticism of fair trade on the fair trade page for wikipedia.  Big on idealism.  It strikes me as trying to build a better mousetrap, and at best in reality all it is is a different one.

I detect a bit of hostility?

I have no idea how Fair Trade works in practice and after a bit a reading it appears to have so many iterations that a working definition is about as deep as I want to dig.

I have pondered over the question of unfair practices in capitalism for years and can come to no conclusion.  Are monopolies inherently bad such as Microsoft for example or the old Bell Telephone system.   I suppose it depends on the circumstances as some things like utilities and operating systems do not lend themselves to alternative providers.

What I would say is that Milton Friedman and his idea of voting with your money has a bit of merit.  The problem is some people have a lot more votes than others.
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: 07 Sep 2015 at 06:24
Here is an amusing look at how government, vested interest, and consumer advocacy conspire to transform capitalism into a spectator sport.

 US-appointed egg lobby paid food blogs and targeted chef to crush vegan startup

Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2015 at 05:24
No, not hostility, its just that if you say capitalism is about fair trade, it would be good if you knew what fair trade is (and what free trade is, which is what usually is placed under the mantle of capitalism).

There was a senator Jeffers that in the 90s switched from Republican to Democrat and gave the democrats a one vote advantage in the senate.  Democrats made a big deal about how the Republican party was too radical for him, but that was not it at all.  Jeffers was from Vermont and the Republicans wanted to go after milk subsidies.  Government makes the price of milk artificially high, that helps Vermont dairy farmers, but hurts normal people buying milk for their kids.  So I am not surprised that there is an egg lobby which does everything they can to protect their turf.

Also in the 90s,  Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell defected from the Democrats to the Republicans.  I have heard liberal friends complain about his betrayal, but his defection was not about betrayal, but loyalty to a particular constituency he had.  He was the only American Indian elected to the Senate, and he had a seat on the committee of Indian Affairs.  American Indians, regardless of where they live in the United States would come to him.  The Democrats, however, lost the majority in the Senate, Democrats go on a strict seniority rule, and Campbell was going to be cut from the committee of Indian Affairs, Republicans, however, do not go by a strict seniority rule, and so Campbell made a deal with the Republicans, he switched to Republican and he got to keep his position on the committee on Indian Affairs, which is fitting because he probably is still the only American Indian to have been elected to the Senate.
Thing about Trump, you either like him or you don't.  There are not very many people who are, like, "but my second place choice is is Donald Trump."  
There was a King who decided that his kingdom had to have a religion, and so he invited envoys from the major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism.  He asked them what the best religion was, and predictably they said their own.  He asked them next what was the second best religion and the Christian and the Muslim said Judaism.  Therefore, he declared Judaism as the religion of the Kingdom.  Who would win if the Republican field gave their second choice?  Who would win if the Democratic field gave their second choice?
btw, Hillary didn't do anything wrong.  An Ambassador (in the State Department) got fired because he had a private server.  But there are the rules for everybody else, and the rules for Hillary.  We shouldnt pick on her, she's just morally handicapped.
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: 08 Sep 2015 at 05:47
Wow you are very obscure tonight have you been drinking?

I had a bit of trouble following your points but I agree that fair trade is not what it is.  Fair trade has become associated with a specific political movement but honestly I don't think that should be a problem if the term is used in a broader sense.  When I said fair trade I meant you know trade that was fair.  I would continue to argue however that a game that has no rules is not a game that is sustainable.

Your last point is excellently made if I understand you to mean that the only honest thing for a party to do is nominate someone who will represent the views of the party best not someone who can win.  If Trump is Judaism in your analogy then we would have to discuss if he represents the views of most republicans.  Then again does Hillary represent the views of most Democrats?  Maybe the second choice actually represents the views of the party better but they go with the one that can win. 

I have of course a problem with your analogy as all three of the possible religious choices are equally silly superstitions.  Perhaps that should be the point in that it really doesn't matter who he chooses they all represent a point view that is incompatible with rational government.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2015 at 03:27
Don't drink, don't smoke.  Although I used to love a good microbrew.  No recreational pharmacudicals.  Yes Caffeine, prescription meds (that don't mix well with alcohol).

Fair trade is the name of a particular movement. a capitalist would say that all free trade is fair, in that each party enters into the economic exchange willingly with knowledge of their wants and needs.  Ideally, it is a win/win situation, realistically however people are not necessarily rational, and often make poor decisions.

William F. Buckley Jr, said that the best candidate was a conservative who could win.  If the candidate couldn't win then it wasn't worthwhile.  I am not sure that honesty has much to do with politics.  No, Trump would be Satanism in my "analogy," no one's second choice, no one's first choice, including Trump's, if he was "honest."
I don't think its about "views," Candidate Obama went on about "change" and "yes we can."  He didn't have a view, nor even a track record, but he did inspire the imagination.

The story of the choice of Judaism for the religion of a Kingdom is based in history, I do not remember what the Kingdom was, but it was in the South of Russia, near the Black Sea.  The story is historical, (as much as any of those kinds of stories historical).  A similar story was told of how Russia selected Orthodoxy for its state religion.  
Sometimes what you call "silly superstition" is very useful, for example Martin Luther King's moral stance was based on "silly superstition" and expectations that the constitution should mean what it says.


Edited by franciscosan - 09 Sep 2015 at 03:32
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: 09 Sep 2015 at 05:06
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Don't drink, don't smoke.  Although I used to love a good microbrew.  No recreational pharmacudicals.  Yes Caffeine, prescription meds (that don't mix well with alcohol).

Sorry I took you ramble for indifference to the conversation but since I enjoy an alcoholic beverage most nights I'm sorry you medications prevent your indulgence. Embarrassed

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Fair trade is the name of a particular movement. a capitalist would say that all free trade is fair, in that each party enters into the economic exchange willingly with knowledge of their wants and needs.  Ideally, it is a win/win situation, realistically however people are not necessarily rational, and often make poor decisions.

I hate people that hijack ideas for their ideology. Ouch  I think I will start and organization call CAPITALISM and make it's central tenet the need for government regulation.

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

William F. Buckley Jr, said that the best candidate was a conservative who could win.  If the candidate couldn't win then it wasn't worthwhile.  I am not sure that honesty has much to do with politics.  No, Trump would be Satanism in my "analogy," no one's second choice, no one's first choice, including Trump's, if he was "honest."
I don't think its about "views," Candidate Obama went on about "change" and "yes we can."  He didn't have a view, nor even a track record, but he did inspire the imagination.

Your hatred of Trump is scaring me.  Trump is just an ordinary American not satan Wink 

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The story of the choice of Judaism for the religion of a Kingdom is based in history, I do not remember what the Kingdom was, but it was in the South of Russia, near the Black Sea.  The story is historical, (as much as any of those kinds of stories historical).  A similar story was told of how Russia selected Orthodoxy for its state religion.  
Sometimes what you call "silly superstition" is very useful, for example Martin Luther King's moral stance was based on "silly superstition" and expectations that the constitution should mean what it says.

I would argue that social mores that have evolved over many centuries and while they may not have purpose in the sense that they are cognitively consistent with the best interest of society they have been selected by the survival of said society.  The silly superstitions on the other hand may or may not be the cause of the mores just correlated with the necessity for group cohesion.  In other words the tenets of the superstitions must be consistent with the preexisting mores or they would not survive.  Common sense may be as silly a superstition as Martin Luther King's but I suspect that it has much to do with the expectation that the constitution says what it means as the superstitions.  Tongue


P.S. Ignore the following if your not interested in my opinions Dead

Below is a conversation on sexual orientation from another forum you can read if you are bored. It  concerns my views on free will which were dismissed as unsophisticated in another thread.  



Poster A>  Bringing free will into an argument about whether all sexual orientations should be treated equally is a bit more philosophical and far reaching than I was picturing. When you add morality into the mix, it becomes even more highly subjective, and far removed from scientific objectivity.

Me> Ok but honestly I don't think that stereotypical responses from either side are very intellectually stimulating.

I agree that when I said homosexuality just as well be considered a fetish I was trying to make a broader point in which heterosexuality could be seen in the same way.  In the article I linked there is a well made argument that it is best to not consider fetishes as existing at all.  The same is true of sexual orientation.  People may have sexual predispositions but the evidence suggest they may change over time, are primarily a imprinting process, cannot be defined with having a purpose only reasons,  and sufficiently devoid of the attribute of choice to the extent that they have no moral context.

You can't really address this topic without a bit of philosophy.  The extreme views of Skinner and others of environmental histories of reinforcement as an explanation for all behavior is a bad idea that has not been properly put behind us.  You cannot reprogram people like formatting a hard drive and putting a new program in.  Pinker and others are slowly deconstructing the "blank slate" philosophy that was popular with Liberal thinkers throughout the 20th century. Neurologist and evolutionary psychologist however are not abandoning the equally bad idea of determinism as an explanation for behavior.  This point of view has a long history going back at least as far as the Stoic philosophers of Greece and their "free will is like a dog tied to a cart, it can either choose to go along with the cart or it will be dragged along with the cart, unwilling".

You can discard the philosophical idea of free will as some sort of absolute because frankly modern science has sufficiently deconstruct absolutes.  Absolutes may seem like they are the providence of the common sense thinkers who love to throw out truism like nothing is certain but death and taxes or vague references to the laws of physics.  In most cases however common sense is insufficient to deal with the complexities of behavior at the level need to judge morality.  When discussing behavior absolutes are the providence of the religious and other delusional absolutist.  What is necessary is a "common" sense approach to free will in which it is understood that while absolute free will does not exist there remains a necessity for the practical kind of free will.

Philosophers like most of us like to make things black and white.  It is a process of clarification that is hard to do without as how can you explain how grey something is with any kind of clarity.  When discussing free will they divide the world into compatibilists and incompatibilists in regard to determinism.  I don't want to make this a long discussion of these concepts but we can stick most scientist in the incompatibilist camp.  What is ironic is that in rejecting a compromised position of compatibilism on free will proposed by most philosophers scientist have made themselves absolutist in the same sense as religious thinkers they hold in contempt.  We don't have absolute free will just the ability to make choices just as many scientist choose absolute determinism.  I hope you see the problem here.

You can argue an absolutist deterministic view that sexual orientation is not a choice but what you cannot demonstrate is that the behavior associated with sexual orientation is not a choice.  Put in a proper perspective sexual orientation is irrelevant what is important is choice in sexual behavior.

We don't choose are sexual orientation any more than we choose the religion we are indoctrinated in from childhood.  But we can choose to modify that indoctrination.  Just like we choose not to stone adulterers because the Bible or Koran suggest we should we can choose not to engage in sexual behavior that is self or socially destructive.  We can choose not to  adopt the black and white conformist view that anything is fine as long as it doesn't hurt someone else liberal view nor the it's a sin view or religious fundamentalist.  What we need to consider is how we express our sexual orientation and how it effects others within the limits of our agency.            




Edited by wolfhnd - 09 Sep 2015 at 05:37
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2015 at 06:59
You misunderstand me, I had a friend who was a self-proclaimed satanist in High School, still know him, but now he is into Dawkins instead.  Satanism, a la Anton LaVey "Satanic Bible" is a belief in "enlightened" selfishness.  A perfect fit for Trump.  But, no, Trump is not Satan, I am saying that he is self-centered, well, you fill in the blank_______.  Believing in enlightened selfishness, I don't think that even Satanists would trust other Satanists.
My friend never got into any weird cult activities, just burning Bibles on the steps of a Church.  Stupid High School stuff.  Whereas now he is an atheist, his wife is a Pagan or Wiccan or something like that.  I kind of would like to see their night ritual some time.  People say that Americans are less religious these days, I kind of doubt that is true.  It is just that instead of mainstream religion, people sometimes get into alternative religion.  Also a lot of people who are involved in Christianity have some background in other religions or Gnosticism or whatever else.  Technically, you can even be a Buddhist _and_ something else (Christian or Jewish).  Also, some people are involved in Christianity not so much for the theological message, but for the social message.
I don't dislike Trump or Obama or some of these other politicians.  I don't know them, and I don't fool myself in thinking I know them.  I don't like Hillary, but we've had corrupt politicians in the past, and will probably have them in the future.  btw, Hillary is a Methodist, but I still think she is bad news.  There are good people and bad people (and so-so people) in every religion.
I'll read your sex thing later.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Sep 2015 at 03:29
Sex is such a sticky subject, I think I will avoid it for now, here.
But, yes, I did read what you wrote, wolfhound.
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: 10 Sep 2015 at 03:47
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Sex is such a sticky subject, I think I will avoid it for now, here.
But, yes, I did read what you wrote, wolfhound.

lol
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Dec 2015 at 18:49
My mother has a block on Trump's name, she wants to call him Trout (she knows she's getting it wrong), I correct her and tell her it's Trump and in order to spell "Trump" you have to remember "rump" as in ass.  That seems like a good way to remember him.

He has had, what? three bankrupcies, he's on his third marriage.  _If_ he gets elected, does he think he will get free do-overs, when he screws up the nation?  He's like a kindergartener who won't play nice with others.  His parents think he's a darling, but everybody else finds him a bit bitey.
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: 12 Dec 2015 at 01:40
I actually thought he would get better but you are right three marriages tends to paint him as a person who doesn't care to change to meet the expectations of others.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Dec 2015 at 00:10
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has a commentary in today's paper about Trump and the mob.  It says that he dealt with the mob in construction contracts for Trump tower and Casinos in Atlantic City.  Trump says he didn't know, and anyways, he had no choice.  WSJ says that if he didn't know, then why was he warning people that if they got into the Casino business, they would have to deal with the mob?  Trump claims he was just trying to discourage any potential competition.  The commentary is on p. A12 Saturday/Sunday, Dec 12-13, 2015, 'Review & Outlook,' "Trump and the Goodfellas."  Nobody is saying (yet?) that Trump did anything illegal, just that he has no scruples about dealing with some pretty shady characters, just to make a buck.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3219
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Dec 2015 at 00:34
I haven't got a really good handle on US politics, but, is there even the slightest chance that this buffoon could be elected?

I have to say that I'm also not that impressed with Clinton either.


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
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: 13 Dec 2015 at 06:45
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has a commentary in today's paper about Trump and the mob.  It says that he dealt with the mob in construction contracts for Trump tower and Casinos in Atlantic City.  Trump says he didn't know, and anyways, he had no choice.  WSJ says that if he didn't know, then why was he warning people that if they got into the Casino business, they would have to deal with the mob?  Trump claims he was just trying to discourage any potential competition.  The commentary is on p. A12 Saturday/Sunday, Dec 12-13, 2015, 'Review & Outlook,' "Trump and the Goodfellas."  Nobody is saying (yet?) that Trump did anything illegal, just that he has no scruples about dealing with some pretty shady characters, just to make a buck.

The funny thing is that it is that sort of thing that made me Leary of Trump from the beginning not the immigration comments that people are so focused on.  On immigration he is right because it is true that a country without borders is not a country.  Illegal migrants are breaking the law and very few are political refugees in the traditional sense.  If borders were meaningless there would be no laws against transportation across state lines.

What Trump and Hillary are doing for us is forcing people to see the ugly side of both conservatism and liberalism.  I usually vote for independents because it expresses dissatisfaction with both parties.  

The irony is in this case that the WSJ doesn't see associating with the too big to fail bankers and their ponzi schemes as the moral equivalent of working with the Mob.  In another thread we were talking about Roman piety and that is the kind of morality that is missing from U.S. politics.  Patriotism is not just about believing in your country but it is about devotion to the greater good.  In a country where the ruling class is pious it doesn't matter if the government is liberal or conservative the poor will be taken care of and unethical business practices shunned.  

The failings of neo-conservatism in the U.S. is that it is fascist and the failing of liberalism is that it supports no moral standard for the masses.  We need a political system where the politicians can point out the failings of themselves and their followers not just the opposition.  Honesty and integrity are no longer highly praised virtues even in the abstract.    
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Dec 2015 at 00:30
I think Trump can make outrageous statements, because he has no intention of doing them.  But either he is a man of his word, and his word is pretty frightening as far as civil liberties are concerned, or he is not a man of his word, who will say anything just to get a splash.
I don't see Trump as liberal or conservative, he is definitely not a social conservative, and with three bankruptcies and his pie in the sky economics, I don't think that you can count him as a fiscal conservative.
I always thought that critics believed that individualism was a conservative excess.  Individualism seems to be the opposite of fascism.  No?  Fascism is all about submitting to the supposed 'greater good' of the masses.  A "fasces" is a bundle of sticks, which together are hard to break.  Individual sticks do not matter for fascism, but they do matter for conservatism.  Of course, one can always call what one does not like "fascism" as postmodernism does for capitalism.
There is a difference between too-big-to-fail-banks and the mob, one is crony capitalism, the other is criminal capitalism.

Again, you might look at Kasich, former Governor of Ohio, I believe.  He strongly believes in a social net, maybe a "liveable wage," etc.  When debating other Republicans, he said that when he dies, he will have to justify what he did, to his maker, and so he believes that the state has a role in welfare, etc.  This means that in some people's view, he is not a conservative, but hey, I don't think the masses _should_ judge politicians based on some litmus test, even though they will.  He is a smart guy, and a good guy, and that is enough for me.   
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: 14 Dec 2015 at 06:50
"Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism". Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: " the rebirth myth,  populist ultra-nationalism and the myth of decadence".Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Sounds like the Reagan revolution to me.  Of course opinions may vary but keep in mind that Reagan supported FDR and Unions in his younger days or a kind of socialism.  I'm not sure that people actually are consistent enough to be labeled accurately nor do I think they know themselves who their beliefs put them in bed with.

When comparing neo-conservatism to fascism what is perhaps more important than any other aspect is the way that corporations and capitalist are embedded in the government and the government in them.  Despite the rhetoric of deregulation the back scratching is amazing.  This is essentially the Military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of. 



Edited by wolfhnd - 14 Dec 2015 at 06:56
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Dec 2015 at 01:37
Fascism, according to Mussolini (and wikipedia), is also anti-conservative.  Fascism/national socialism (they're not exactly the same, but I am a little vague on the differences), was thought to be a third path, not Anglo-American Capitalism, nor Soviet Communism.  The left-right distinction doesn't really work.  Is Hitler's Germany more conservative than Churchill's Britain?  Is Stalin's Soviet Union more socialist than Hilter's National Socialism?

Of course, Reagan was a fascist, _if_ you are either "liberal" media, or "liberal" academia.  I put "liberal" in quotes because the media and academia are quite far away from true liberalism, the heir to classical liberalism being libertarianism.  Reagan _has_ to be a fascist, after all, he advocated small government, he believed in the common man, and in God, how fascist can you get?

I haven't read about neo-conservatives attitude toward the economy, but I do believe that when you have big government, it pays for business to cater to government, rather than to the market or to the people.  If you don't like crony capitalism, then don't bloat the government.


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: 15 Dec 2015 at 07:51
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:


Of course, Reagan was a fascist, _if_ you are either "liberal" media, or "liberal" academia.  I put "liberal" in quotes because the media and academia are quite far away from true liberalism, the heir to classical liberalism being libertarianism.  Reagan _has_ to be a fascist, after all, he advocated small government, he believed in the common man, and in God, how fascist can you get?

Reagan was not really at the wheel Wink  You have to look at the people that were actually running things.  Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Lehman, Gingrich and the Randroid Greenspan to name a few.  

While you may be right in theory about how fascism is defined, in practice it means the use of military power to improve economic position and the close cooperation between government and private financial forces.  Reagan as the public face of neo-conservatism was of course all mom, baseball, and apply pie.   








  CheneyRumsfeldWolfowitz
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 25>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.