TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 18 of 558 FirstFirst ... 381314151617181920212223283338434853586368118268518 ... LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 13948

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by bjack View Post
    The “race” issues in the USA seem more due to culture clash, than supposed inherent race characteristics. However, the racists on all sides will claim they are due to race alone.

    Not entirely. You need to know your history: race has been used as a political tool in America for so long that it's now ingrained into the culture. Slavery was originally a non-racial issue, and both white slaves and dark slave owners existed.

    Hell, the concept of "white" is relatively new. Prior to that Europeans would simply identify by nationality or national descent. They didn't think of themselves as "white", you were "irish" or "italian" or so on.

    This isn't the best source but it is a good summary that doesn't require you to read through multiple history journals.

    https://thoughtsandmemory.wordpress....ite-supremacy/

    Between 1680 and 1705, a series of laws were passed that sought to control the working poor/ enslaved populations of Colonial America by driving a wedge between a developing class affinity based on Race, a new construct for the time that has become the primary underpinning of Capitalism, Empire, and these forces’ violent manifestations in the United States. Again, these were laws introduced with the specific intention of dividing class unity at a time that it threatened to collapse the growing empire.

    The Slave Codes of the 1680’s legitimized chattel slavery as an institution, by designating that children born to enslaved women would also become property of the master. This created an important designation from white servants who, under the British poor laws, were required to be released after a designated time of servitude. The laws also severely restricted the rights of free Africans and equated, for the first time, the terms “slave” and “Negro” — thus codifying the world’s first institutionalized system of racialized slavery.

    In her essay, Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of While Supremacy, INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence co-founder, Andrea Smith elucidates the ways that modern white supremacy banks on the equation of Blackness with Slaveability. She explains that despite what form slavery has taken throughout history – from the formal system of slavery to sharecropping to the modern Prison Industrial Complex — this logic of Blackness being regarded as slaveable has remained a constant. This premise is a foundational assumption of modern capitalism in the United States as well. Smith writes,

    The capitalist system ultimately commodifies all workers – one’s own person becomes a commodity that one must sell in the labor market while the profits of one’s work are taken by someone else. To keep this capitalist system in place… the logic of slavery applies a racial hierarchy to this system. This racial hierarchy tells people that as long as you are not Black, you have the opportunity to escape the commodification of capitalism. This helps people who are not Black to accept their lot in life, because they can feel that at least they are not at the very bottom of the racial hierarchy – at least they are not property; at least they are not slaveable.

  2. #427
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Just because your thinking was 'formed by left wing writers' doesn't make you left wing, or even moderate. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a contradiction, if that's what you're trying to say you are. The economic systems are deeply, deeply tied to the social issues. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/here...nt-understand/

  3. #428
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Not necessarily. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal would probably be the defining traits of a modern libertarian and/or minarchist. The greatest divide between a liberal and a libertarian is the role of the state itself, with both assuming people should be free to do as they will (within reason).

    Libertarians, or minarchists if you want to get fancy, believe the government should play absolutely no roles in the market or in social situations, assuming it's too cumbersome to truly do any good, no matter how well meaning its intentions. The end result of any government involvement is an overly complicated, far too expensive bureaucracy that becomes more of a problem than a solution. In the end, they believe that the ills of society are fixed through stressors from within the society itself.

    In other words, if you want to change something, you start a group, and make that change yourself.

    While we could argue the naivete of such a stance, it is a socially liberal policy, all things considered.

  4. #429
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Libertarianism is the greatest pipe dream. That is exactly what I am saying - yes, it is naive and self-contradicting. And in practice it DOESN'T turn out to be socially liberal, because without some sort of external intervention people will always exploit and oppress each other. You can't claim to be socially liberal while refusing to regulate the groups that are creating the situations you claim to be against, because then you are actively contributing to the problems through your apathy.

  5. #430
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Exactly. If your whole notion of a perfect world is an egalitarian meritocracy (10 POINT POLITICAL BUZZWORDS FOR ME), at some point, you're going to have to step in and, gasp, regulate that egalitarianism, lest it spin out of control, and you end up with yet another bunch of haves and have-nots.

    This is the problem with any political ethos that assumes its continued existence merely upon the morality and righteousness of its beliefs. They always assume that people will act a certain way once it's implemented, while ignoring the fact that there's always more than a few who won't. Assholes and opportunists will always exist, and must always be accounted for.

    The safest bet is to always assume that the inevitable end of any political or economic system is an oligarchy, and plan accordingly. Saying "well, it won't happen because people in our society won't allow it" only serves to make it happen sooner rather than later. This is why Madisonian/Western Democracy still thrives (for the most part), while communism has all but been laid to rest in the dustbin of history.

  6. #431
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Yep. Every textbook economic philosophy is a pipe dream.

    The problem with American libertarianism, or right libertarianism in general, is the exclusive focus on negative liberty. Strict right libertarians think the concept of positive liberty is just entitlement with a false name and pretty much reject it categorically. But without some recognition of positive liberty, there will never be a meritocracy.

    Also, I've noticed there are a couple of different types of people who call themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's not just libertarians.

    Some people who call themselves fiscal conservatives are Grover Norquist types whose goal is to dismantle the entire welfare state and all regulatory functions, who are willing to bankrupt the state to get there. But there are other people who call themselves fiscal conservatives who are deficit hawks, and are mainly trying to force the government to make hard tradeoffs to prevent a debt crisis and prevent the state from taking down the economy with it, not trying to reduce the scope of government by any dramatic degree.

    I think there are also two kinds of people who call themselves social liberals. The first is typified by the Social Justice Warrior and the second is concerned with individual freedom. So you get:

    1. Grover Norquist + individual freedom = libertarian
    2. Deficit hawk + individual freedom = moderate Republican (Rockefeller, Log Cabin)
    3. Deficit hawk + SJW = rare variety of pragmatic progressive
    4. Grover Norquist + SJW = doesn't exist

    Depending on who you are talking to, a person saying they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal is usually 1 or 2, and occasionally 3.

  7. #432
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Forest
    Ok commie pukes Did the USSR come up with a Beatles rebuttal? Socialism is an infestation of banality. Do you all drive ZILs? Shut up and suck up Capitalism! The only way we will go forward. Mwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Too much? Sorry... Go team... Down with downism.

  8. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    Libertarianism is the greatest pipe dream. That is exactly what I am saying - yes, it is naive and self-contradicting. And in practice it DOESN'T turn out to be socially liberal, because without some sort of external intervention people will always exploit and oppress each other. You can't claim to be socially liberal while refusing to regulate the groups that are creating the situations you claim to be against, because then you are actively contributing to the problems through your apathy.
    Same thing could be said about the socialist beliefs you ascribe to.

    The problem with both ideological mindsets is that the followers tend towards Utopian thinking: they believe that if they implement exactly what their principles dictate, with absolutely no flexibility, then we will get a perfect world.

    In reality you need to accept that no such perfect system will exist until people are perfect. Therefore it might be more practical to start more by figuring out what the results you want to get are (if I'm asked, high levels of personal liberty and high economic mobility), and then start backwards engineering what's most likely to get you there. It's very clearly not "true" libertarianism because it never lasts, and it's definitely not socialism because Socialism always results in xenophobic dictatorship with widespread poverty and violent oppression of dissent.

    The most effective solution so far has been to achieve as much decentralization of political and economic power as possible. A strong states system as seen in the 1900s US and early Canada has been very effective. Also effective was Genoa:

    There the �Doge� (head of state) was selected each year from the head of a prominent family. The rich families ruled on a rotating basis annually. What made it work well was the short-term period. No family would ever pass something Draconian because it would apply to themselves the next year. The system was not one of rich v poor, but Genoa v Venice and Florence. The interests were furthered collectively rather than this philosophy of party politics. Therefore, each class benefited. It also lasted longer without corruption than Florence or Venice.



    Just because your thinking was 'formed by left wing writers' doesn't make you left wing, or even moderate. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a contradiction, if that's what you're trying to say you are. The economic systems are deeply, deeply tied to the social issues. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/here...nt-understand/
    Actually, yes, I'm aware of that extremely well.

    The article you linked is blatantly bullshit. Most of the problems he talks about are extremely exacerbated by having a large, activist foreign government....and some of his points come straight out of Trump's talking points.

    Here's the question: who the hell do you think is responsible for all of those problems? The worst police brutality problems come out extremely Democratic cities (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc). Economic mobility has fallen off a cliff since the 90's. The prison system? Obama has an extensive record of collusion with the for profit prison industry.



    Deregulation? You know who deregulated Wall Street? BILL CLINTON.

    Free Trade? BILL CLINTON Passed NAFTA, and TPP was pushed through by Obama with collusion from career Republican politicians.



    You've got the same break in your chain of logic that I see extremely frequently with avid Democrat party fans: They go on endlessly about all these issues, and then completely ignore WHY those issues exist and who implemented them. More frequently than not the "solution" you're asking for is exactly what caused the problems in the first place.




    Also worth noting is an article I link to frequently. It may seem a bit obtuse but I'm bringing it up because of something that people working with governments frequently encounter: people in governments don't want reform, they instead work to protect their cronies until forced to by external pressures. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...t-coup/307364/

    I also have some first hand experience management economic development and improvement programs in developing nations. I can testify that no amount of money spent will make the least bit of difference when reforms have not been implemented. Only pennies on the dollar actually makes its way to where you want it to. The overwhelming majority of that money is siphoned off by government officials, wasted on inflated contracts paid to cronies, or just plain stolen.

    That's what people miss. They're screaming about how the US can solve all it's problems by spending more money. In practice it's not true because in most areas there is no statistical correlation between spending amounts and performance (in education, spending per student is NEGATIVELY correlated with academic achievement).


    You're not in a classroom environment anymore. You're talking about real world affairs, and as a result it matters how these ideas are implemented. You can have the best idea in the world and if you are utterly capable of using your resources wisely and efficiently to make it happen(e.g. the US government) it will still fail miserably.

  9. #434
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    First I'm a socialist... and then I'm a neoliberal-loving democrat? If you're going to make erroneous assumptions about my political leanings, at least try to make them consistent... otherwise it seems like you're just taking the opportunity to direct a canned rant at the void.
    Last edited by froghawk; 19th May 2016 at 11:38.

  10. #435
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Same thing could be said about the socialist beliefs you ascribe to.
    Not really. Socialism openly recognises the need for regulation and legislation. Libertarians pretend to be against such controls yet know they are necessary and have their own set of rules waiting in the wings. Same is true for every "down wit' th' gubmint" movement. They mean "down with YOUR government to make room for mine".

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    The problem with both ideological mindsets is that the followers tend towards Utopian thinking: they believe that if they implement exactly what their principles dictate, with absolutely no flexibility, then we will get a perfect world.
    And this differs from Big C Conservatism is what way? All ...ISMs are pretty much equally at risk of intransigence, complacency and tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    It's very clearly not "true" libertarianism because it never lasts, and it's definitely not socialism because Socialism always results in xenophobic dictatorship with widespread poverty and violent oppression of dissent.
    Always? Because conservative societies NEVER descend into tyranny. You aren't helping your thesis of moderation by making such absolute statements.

  11. #436
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    The problem with American libertarianism, or right libertarianism in general, is the exclusive focus on negative liberty. Strict right libertarians think the concept of positive liberty is just entitlement with a false name and pretty much reject it categorically. But without some recognition of positive liberty, there will never be a meritocracy.
    I've never heard of negative and positive freedoms before. I've glanced at them, and they're pretty interesting concepts. I'm gonna read up more on them, thanks.

  12. #437
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Worth noting that both the Republican and Democrat parties in the US are just different degrees of Conservative from a lot of perspectives. They're good cop bad cop, but still both cops.

  13. #438
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2000
    Location: sup
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    But it is the Scots Taffer we deserve.
    I'm a silent guardian.

    A watchful protector.

  14. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Always? Because conservative societies NEVER descend into tyranny. You aren't helping your thesis of moderation by making such absolute statements.
    First: reading comprehension. Try to read the whole post in context instead of just getting pissed at the sentence that hurts your feelings. You might realize that you're tilting at windmills.

    Second: Socialism openly recognises the need for regulation and legislation, yep. They also have the same problem where they think that the problem with society is that all the resources are under the control of too few people....so they plan to fix the problem by putting all the resources into the hands of a small number of people. Genius.

  15. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Worth noting that both the Republican and Democrat parties in the US are just different degrees of Conservative from a lot of perspectives. They're good cop bad cop, but still both cops.
    Depends on how you define "conservative". They make a lot of noise on social issues that are ultimately decided by the judiciary(NOT the party system), but on all the important issues they both operate the same way: they do what the highest bidder wants.

    It's not "conservative" nor is it "liberal" because either implies an active ideology. What we have now is simple self interest and corruption. They couldn't give a shit less about those ideologies except when giving speeches to voters.

    First I'm a socialist... and then I'm a neoliberal-loving democrat? If you're going to make erroneous assumptions about my political leanings, at least try to make them consistent... otherwise it seems like you're just taking the opportunity to direct a canned rant at the void.
    Incorrect. I'm ranting at that asinine article you posted. It might look canned because the "brilliant points" that article makes are the same talking points that even sub-70 IQ types pick up on by watching TV news and only fool people about that smart.

    No, I'm not joking. I have a "special needs" acquaintance in college who has posted many of the exact same sentiments that said article made.

    Even a cursory examination reveals that all of the problems the article blames on "conservatives" are directly caused by actions either executed by or supported by Democratic administrations. They're railing against problems that they themselves caused
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 20th May 2016 at 10:31.

  16. #441
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I define Conservative as being primarily acting in the interests of the established order of the wealth-power feedback loop.
    The actual functioning of your two parties doesn't seem to differ greatly, they just seem to have different PR and maybe legislate differently on a few social issues so long as they don't touch the aforementioned loop too badly.

    I mean, you can call Obama liberal, but his pushing of the TTIP and extensive use of the highly controversial drone program are far from what most of the world would term liberal.

    It wasn't too far off in the UK either prior to Corbyn's coup of the Labour party. You mostly seemed to have a choice between cuddly psychopaths and asshole psychopaths.

  17. #442
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Second: Socialism openly recognises the need for regulation and legislation, yep. They also have the same problem where they think that the problem with society is that all the resources are under the control of too few people....so they plan to fix the problem by putting all the resources into the hands of a small number of people. Genius.
    The original intent of socialism was to give control of the means of production to the PEOPLE, NOT the government. It was only through corruption that it turned into the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Incorrect. I'm ranting at that asinine article you posted. It might look canned because the "brilliant points" that article makes are the same talking points that even sub-70 IQ types pick up on by watching TV news and only fool people about that smart.

    No, I'm not joking. I have a "special needs" acquaintance in college who has posted many of the exact same sentiments that said article made.

    Even a cursory examination reveals that all of the problems the article blames on "conservatives" are directly caused by actions either executed by or supported by Democratic administrations. They're railing against problems that they themselves caused
    What, because someone is special needs they can't be right? Glad you're ableist too.

    You're complaining about reading comprehension, and yet that article did not mention democrats even once but you keep going on against them. We ALL KNOW that democrats are also responsible for a lot of those policies. As has repeatedly been stated on this page, Democrats in the neoliberal era have a ton of economically conservative policies. They embody the contradiction of 'socially liberal, economically conservative' and are a very good example of why it doesn't work. So no, no one is railing against problems they caused, because for that to be the case, we would've had to have supported neoliberal policies in the first place.

  18. #443
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    First: reading comprehension. Try to read the whole post in context instead of just getting pissed at the sentence that hurts your feelings. You might realize that you're tilting at windmills.
    You mean the context where you rarely, if ever, criticise conservatism yet frequently misrepresent socialism? As in...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Second: Socialism openly recognises the need for regulation and legislation, yep. They also have the same problem where they think that the problem with society is that all the resources are under the control of too few people....so they plan to fix the problem by putting all the resources into the hands of a small number of people. Genius.
    Socialism does the exact opposite. It puts strategic resources and infrastructure in the hands of the people, through their duly elected governments.

    If you are going to fabricate, don't complain about context.

  19. #444
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    The original intent of socialism was to give control of the means of production to the PEOPLE, NOT the government. It was only through corruption that it turned into the latter.
    That's an academic argument. If we judged all economic theories on the way they intended things to work versus how they actually work, we wouldn't have any complaints.

    Anyway, there's more to it than corruption. Once you try to apply the collective model on a scale larger than a commune or small worker cooperative, you need a system for organizing and planning aka a bureaucracy. That's the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    You mean the context where you rarely, if ever, criticise conservatism yet frequently misrepresent socialism? As in...
    ...
    Socialism does the exact opposite. It puts strategic resources and infrastructure in the hands of the people, through their duly elected governments.

    If you are going to fabricate, don't complain about context.
    Socialism is a broad term with at least two major branches. I think Tony is referring to the branch which includes communism and similar forms of one-party state socialism. Whereas I think you're referring to the social democracy branch. I don't think either of you are misrepresenting socialism, just talking about two different varieties.

  20. #445
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Isn't Tony using one variety to criticize the other variety?

  21. #446
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Yeah, he's accused the latter of being the former.

  22. #447
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    So the Rep National Convention, huh.

    I liked the video where they asked delegates why the Republican politicians from their own state didn't bother attending, and for the most part they either didn't care or thought it was actually a good thing. I don't doubt they're more than eager to see their own Republican governors, representatives, and senators hang.

    FFS, inmates running the asylum.



    The video's comments are also quite charming.

  23. #448
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK
    I must admit that when I started this thread I was in the majority of this place and I believe the wider majority of the UK that thought Donald Trump was just chancing his arm and a large chunk of his fortune for nothing.... who'd a guessed eh!

    Question is now, can he make it all the way?

    It seems the grass root electorate is shouting loud across the world's democracies, I wonder if "conventional" career politicians are smart enough to cope with the present climate or is there a sea change going on that will profoundly alter world and local politics.

  24. #449
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    hahahhaha both our nations are fucked, wooooo
    Last edited by Vivian; 21st Jul 2016 at 07:26.

  25. #450
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Medlar View Post
    I must admit that when I started this thread I was in the majority of this place and I believe the wider majority of the UK that thought Donald Trump was just chancing his arm and a large chunk of his fortune for nothing.... who'd a guessed eh!
    I predicted last year that he would win the Republican nomination and the presidency.

    Question is now, can he make it all the way?
    Yes...He will be the next president of the United States of America.

    It seems the grass root electorate is shouting loud across the world's democracies, I wonder if "conventional" career politicians are smart enough to cope with the present climate or is there a sea change going on that will profoundly alter world and local politics.
    As the tide rises, the corrupt will drown in their own indignities...Fear not the new liberty that shines upon the land.

Page 18 of 558 FirstFirst ... 381314151617181920212223283338434853586368118268518 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •