Why Trump is Terrifying

[Pallas]

It's not Trump that I find terrifying; it's the foundation of the political system. I think Socrates explained it best:

The problem with any decision in who should vote is that the system that's deciding who votes, whatever it is, has pre-existing values. The video maker values the formally educated, and the current system values the masses (it's not really "everyone", it's the masses). And if you know the nature of those at a given time, and the rest of the circumstances, don't you already know the results? There's absolutely no way to have a neutral system. Voting is a facade no matter who's doing it.

[Pallas]

I think we'll see a revival of that God thankfully. Jung believed we could revive dead gods after all, that the archetypes could be perhaps "forgotten" or "suppressed" in some way for a time, but that they could and indeed would come back at the moments they were most needed by us all. I pray I'm right about this interpretation. For if the "gods" can be killed permanently than we are sure to follow in their footsteps as karma demands...

The gods are notoriously apathetic to what happens to mere mortals. This tends to be a defining aspect of all mythologies.

[Suz]

I'd actually say that they are the result of societal decay. Fact is everyone loves a scapegoat. Rather than face up to their own personal failings they'd rather play victim and blame some outside factor they have no control over. The worse things get the more we hate everyone who ain't like "us" as it were. If the economy was doing great nobody would give a fuck about trivial things like skin color and such. It's not though, so everyone is getting very racist and very hateful.

I mean hell, if this crap gets carried to its logical conclusion you'll get "Aryan" hardcore 1488 Nazis killing their own reflexively because some of em' spent a week in Cancun and got a nice deep tan before making the "mistake" of going home during an alt-right rally that got a wee bit violent because the Antifa types decide it was time to bash the fash with bullets and pipe bombs. Likewise, you'll get "mixed" people massacred by both sides for not being "pure" enough for their tastes. Mulattoes helped the black and native Haitians push out the French colonialists. Their reward? Genocide. Why? Because they weren't "us" enough to the other factions and were part "white devil" despite the fact they helped out the side that's lining them up against a wall! This is where all the "purity spiraling" ends, allies slaughtering each other for no good fucking reason. I forget who said it but this quote embodies the problem: "The Revolution Eats Its Own".

This has been the ultimate problem in the West since the French Revolution. Without "Christianity" to define a "baseline" of "being of upright and proper moral standing" by "not being a filthy heretic" there is no end point. The purity spiral continues without end, reason, or logic from both ends of the political spectrum. It was a fate Nietzsche foresaw. With "God" dead, the only fate we descendants of the West face is wild swings between radical Communism and radical Fascism and all the blood and horror that entails. For only the "ideal" perfect commie or fascist could ever hope to be but a pale facsimile of the "dead" Christian God... A "God" so foundational to our own soul and spirit as a people that we'll grasp at anything in its absence. ANYTHING!

I think we'll see a revival of that God thankfully. Jung believed we could revive dead gods after all, that the archetypes could be perhaps "forgotten" or "suppressed" in some way for a time, but that they could and indeed would come back at the moments they were most needed by us all. I pray I'm right about this interpretation. For if the "gods" can be killed permanently than we are sure to follow in their footsteps as karma demands...

I dont disagree.
In my mind it's a chicken-egg type of cause/effect situation.
One feeds the other feeds the other in a vicious circle. What it started with may always remain uncertain.

[Eliza Thomason]

on a smaller scale I've seen this happen every day throughout school and at work.
stupid careless people that get touted as "good" simply because they act more confident.

I've done this in the past - put the "good" label on confident people. Its one of the things that drew me to my ex - and of course Narcissists display a lot of self-confidence. Its something I am more careful about now as a result of experience.

[Eliza Thomason]

I'd actually say that they are the result of societal decay. Fact is everyone loves a scapegoat. Rather than face up to their own personal failings they'd rather play victim and blame some outside factor they have no control over. The worse things get the more we hate everyone who ain't like "us" as it were. If the economy was doing great nobody would give a fuck about trivial things like skin color and such. It's not though, so everyone is getting very racist and very hateful....".

There is a lot of truth in this, also in what else you said.

I follow politics at sort of a distance, akin to how you would hold a filthy thing at arms length so as to avoid being contaminated... so I don't have a lot to add to Trump being scary. From my distance, I find him not nearly as scary as the mainstream media, whose driving goal is to polarize Americans. Why, to weaken us? "United we stand, divided we fall"... Yes, so that transparent, driving goal of the media is what truly scares me the most. And I don't want t be a part of that.

When I hear of Trump promoting good things I am truly surprised. He seems to defend Life, which is badly needed, as Abortion Advocates have made great strides over the years legalizing and promoting abortion under any and all circumstances, especially defending hacking a live baby up in the womb in order to abort him easier, or waiting to kill the born-alive baby after its made its way through the birth journey and into the light of the world. That is the scourge of our society, what we do to our most innocent and most dependent and helpless. Also, he seems to be aiming toward ensuring that the poor and tax-paying working classes have access to school choice - not just the wealthy. Wow, I am glad and encouraged. Those two issues are at the very top for me. Especially the first. When the government runs the schools, its not a good thing.

As an aside, as a curiosity, I once watched a woman pastor on youtube describe (scourgingly!) why she thinks Trump was born a women... and darned if it did not leave a lingering question or two in the back of my mind, and lately, when I see the unavoidable pictures of Trump in those news headlines (that I try to avoid), the idea crosses my mind - more than once! - that he is aging a lot more like a woman ages than a man! I really want to get this idea out of my head...

[Tearsofaclown]

I think a huge element of what makes Trump dangerous, beyond the disaster inherent in his policies, is the nature of his rise to power and his movement. The thread's touched on this some.

This is a movement based first and foremost not around issues, but around a charismatic figure seen as strong and "like us." Actual policy issues were de-emphasized in his campaign, in favor of personal attacks and vague sloganeering. Criticisms of him were dispelled through proliferation of memes from the Infowars-Drudge-Roger Stone smear mill, whataboutist water-muddying, and an unnerving semi-postmodernist "post-fact society" outlook where you can't even have a rational discussion because there's no agreement on basic events. All of this combines to make for a pretty rabid and dangerous, though thankfully shrinking and likely to continue to absent some large terror attack, cult of personality around one individual.

It does nothing to solve real and pressing issues that legitimately do threaten people "like us," and that do exacerbate oligarchic control over our system. It's completely distracted from efforts towards a constitutional amendment ending Citizens United, which would allow us to take the kind of legal bribery Adam Strange mentioned out of politics. It's actively counterproductive to tackling climate change before atmospheric feedback mechanisms make it out of our hands, our President is a man who believes it's a myth made up by China. It's gutting protections against depredation through healthcare policies that amount to a return to the prior status quo, which will only further inflame class tensions and lead to exactly the kind of demagogic far-left movements that the right fears. It does nothing to solve security state overreach, considering Trump promised the NSA increased powers over the Apple/San Bernardino situation and has promised to execute Edward Snowden.

[trumpvoter]But nah, he's likable and says he's going to make us great again, whatever the hell that means. And look, Hillary Clinton opposes him, and she's obviously inhumanly more corrupt than every other bought and paid for politician alive. Issues don't matter, all is right with the world as long as some random unstable billionaire who makes me feel good stays in the White House. And people just stop criticizing him and let him screw me over even faster than the rest of them would, of course.[/trumpvoter]

What you are describing sounds exactly like Obama being elected. He was empty suit and charismatic figure. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for literally nothing. The cult of personality around Obama was much bigger. And that may be why he is more dangerous. The devil isn't pretty. He is seductive. Obama said he would go easy on pot but did more raids than Bush, worst pot President. Bombed so many places. Wiretapping. Went back on nearly everything.

Climate change is irrelevant. Like NATO. Honor your commitments before you criticize. Canada for example pledged by the Kyoto Treaty to lower emissions by like 6%. They went up 30% in that time. Everybody does that shit. It is for suckers. At least the US is honest and up front about it.

Putin said it best. American leaders change but America never does. You are looking at window dressing. Obama is prettier and less crude. Again about true evil being seductive.

The media wanted a war with Russia so bad they are pushing Trump towards one. Just to show they are wrong about Russian meddling. We downed a Syrian jet the other day and Russia said our planes will now be considered targets. You happy now? Trump certainly has power and is calling the shot and gets very annoyed and reacts when people think people are pulling his strings. Like that Breitbart editor was demoted or fired because the media was saying he was in charge or something. You tell Trump he aint in charge and he will do something to prove he is.

[Suz]

There is a lot of truth in this, also in what else you said.

I follow politics at sort of a distance, akin to how you would hold a filthy thing at arms length so as to avoid being contaminated... so I don't have a lot to add to Trump being scary. From my distance, I find him not nearly as scary as the mainstream media, whose driving goal is to polarize Americans. Why, to weaken us? "United we stand, divided we fall"... Yes, so that transparent, driving goal of the media is what truly scares me the most. .

That said, it is the job of a free press to voice opinions and views freely. There are different media out there catering to different audiences, who have widely diverging views. This is a natural part of a healthy democracy. When the "mainstream media" does so, I actually feel much safer, than if the "mainstream media" starts censoring itself to suck up to a leader -- this is one of the first signs of a totalitarian regime. I personally do not feel there is such a thing as "mainstream" for media, just those more widely watched versus less widely watched. "mainstream media" would be one issued by the government, imo (again, a totalitarian thing). The Constitution of the United States of America mandates a free press. This is a gift of freedom that many other places in the world do not have, and come to America to have.

The job of the President of the United States, on the other hand, IS to look out for the interests of all Americans, whether or not they share his views or voted for him. The President is supposed to be unifying. NOT the media. The President making war on "mainstream media" is actually an assault on free speech and on our democracy, and is a huge red flag. I think many people do not even realize the magnitude of what can happen to our society from this seemingly small thing. Those of us who have come from totalitarian societies, or whose parents did, or who have simply studied history well, seem to understand this better.

[Suz]

When I hear of Trump promoting good things I am truly surprised. He seems to defend Life, which is badly needed, as Abortion Advocates have made great strides over the years legalizing and promoting abortion under any and all circumstances, especially defending hacking a live baby up in the womb in order to abort him easier, or waiting to kill the born-alive baby after its made its way through the birth journey and into the light of the world. That is the scourge of our society, what we do to our most innocent and most dependent and helpless. Also, he seems to be aiming toward ensuring that the poor and tax-paying working classes have access to school choice - not just the wealthy. Wow, I am glad and encouraged. Those two issues are at the very top for me. Especially the first. When the government runs the schools, its not a good thing.

One-issue voting is part of how Trump got to the White House.
These are people who voted for something they feel is moral (anti-abortion), but meanwhile ignoring that the person who said he supports this is completely immoral & corrupt, with no guarantees he will defend this. Also, it seems that in the interest of voting in favor of anti-abortion, you have also voted for many other immoral things, like kicking people off of health insurance who desperately need it, and denying many women basic female health care (including breast cancer screenings). I am not here to argue about pro-life vs pro-choice, as i feel this is a personal thing, but one cannot lose the forest for the trees. If you are ok with a pro-life dictatorship, well then, your vote is justified. We just may end up with a dictatorship, period.

I was never and still am not a fan of Hillary Clinton's. I do not like her views on Israel and on many other things. I did not feel she is the best candidate to be President of the US. BUT. I still voted for her. why? because I see the dangers of Trump's immorality, and I see what he is truly after. He wants power. He wants more wealth. He is only going to work in his own self-interest. He has a huge potential for making our government corrupt and totalitarian, and changing our laws such that there may not be another election ever. This scared me more than 4 years of Hillary. I do not trust a thing DT says.

[Eliza Thomason]

That said, it is the job of a free press to voice opinions and views freely. There are different media out there catering to different audiences, who have widely diverging views. This is a natural part of a healthy democracy. When the "mainstream media" does so, I actually feel much safer, than if the "mainstream media" starts censoring itself to suck up to a leader -- this is one of the first signs of a totalitarian regime. I personally do not feel there is such a thing as "mainstream" for media, just those more widely watched versus less widely watched. "mainstream media" would be one issued by the government, imo (again, a totalitarian thing). The Constitution of the United States of America mandates a free press. This is a gift of freedom that many other places in the world do not have, and come to America to have.

The job of the President of the United States, on the other hand, IS to look out for the interests of all Americans, whether or not they share his views or voted for him. The President is supposed to be unifying. NOT the media. The President making war on "mainstream media" is actually an assault on free speech and on our democracy, and is a huge red flag. I think many people do not even realize the magnitude of what can happen to our society from this seemingly small thing. Those of us who have come from totalitarian societies, or whose parents did, or who have simply studied history well, seem to understand this better.

Yes, the president should be unifying, but I am curious - did you think Obama was unifying?? I mean, the Obamas were the media babies, and the media ooh'd and ahh'd over everything they did, yes, but they did not unify the American people. They stepped on the views of a huge chunk of the American people. But the Obamas did unify with the media! Many of the current president's views represent those of a lot of Americans who were stepped on and sidelined by the previous administration, but as they oppose the media's favorite views, the media is putting up a fit. The media views truly do not represent the majority of Americans. Only some of the LOUDEST ones.

My concern is not about the polarization of Trump and the Media. I think they are both at fault for making this be the issue when its not. I would like to see a press that actually reports, and makes an honest attempt at unbiased presentation of news. That is not AT ALL what we have in this country. The current press we have that interprets the news from its own slant, and promotes its own slant in all it does. Its propaganda, and it stinks. Its fake news. And Fox news is no alternative. They just press on with polarization in their own way, just as much as the others. And I realize "Fake News" is a buzzword and I am not following what is the official definition of what "fake news" - I don't know what that is:. But I do have my own definition of fake news, and its basically what the news is.

_____________
*Editing to add: Reading this definition only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news I can see my personal definition of what is fake news is in accord with the mainstream definition

--> Also, I want to add, that a unbiased reporting press is what we truly need to unify this country.

[Computer Loser]

fk ya

[Suz]

Yes, the president should be unifying, but I am curious - did you think Obama was unifying?? I mean, the Obamas were the media babies, and the media ooh'd and ahh'd over everything they did, yes, but they did not unify the American people. They stepped on the views of a huge chunk of the American people. But the Obamas did unify with the media! Many of the current president's views represent those of a lot of Americans who were stepped on and sidelined by the previous administration, but as they oppose the media's favorite views, the media is putting up a fit. The media views truly do not represent the majority of Americans. Only some of the LOUDEST ones.

My concern is not about the polarization of Trump and the Media. I think they are both at fault for making this be the issue when its not. I would like to see a press that actually reports, and makes an honest attempt at unbiased presentation of news. That is not AT ALL what we have in this country. The current press we have that interprets the news from its own slant, and promotes its own slant in all it does. Its propaganda, and it stinks. Its fake news. And Fox news is no alternative. They just press on with polarization in their own way, just as much as the others. And I realize "Fake News" is a buzzword and I am not following what is the official definition of what "fake news" - I don't know what that is:. But I do have my own definition of fake news, and its basically what the news is.

_____________
*Editing to add: Reading this definition only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news I can see my personal definition of what is fake news is in accord with the mainstream definition

--> Also, I want to add, that a unbiased reporting press is what we truly need to unify this country.

Pretty much every other president has made efforts to be more unifying than our current president has.
Much of our country is unfortunately racist, so by virtue of Obama being the first black president served to polarize a significant segment of our society.
I do understand there was some vitriol in regards to obamacare, his Iran deal, etc which added to some polarization.
Additionally, the recession that was left behind in the wake of George W. Bush's presidency also comes with polarizing sequelae. Inevitably it gets blamed on the sitting president who happened to be Obama.

In regards to the press -- there were plenty of right-leaning sources that didn't ooh and ahh at the obama's. But what was so horrible about them, anyway, that they shouldn't be oohed and ahhed at? Decent family, not corrupt, no hateful rhetoric, behaved respectably. Trump brings a lot of the criticisms on himself. What... is the media just supposed to let it slide? There is a lot to be said for the value of political correctness, as Trump is learning the hard way. I remember Obama being grilled on some of his policies -- but he handled things differently. How one handles things goes a long way in helping things run smoothly and being regarded as respectable.

The point is not that Obama's presidency was not polarizing (no presidency ever is not polarizing). Nonetheless, you cannot say that Obama's rhetoric was polarizing. The man is literally gifted in the art of diplomacy. The mere fact that you feel the press only oohed and ahhed at the Obamas speaks more to his skill with diplomacy than any particular collective media effort.

In regards to your edit -- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNBIASED REPORTING PRESS. i repeat. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNBIASED REPORTING PRESS. Like communism, it is nice sounding in theory, but non-existent and nonfeasible in reality. Every press outlet has their target audiences. if you want an unbiased view, tune in to multiple different sources and then decide for yourself how you want to see things.

"Fake news" is a meme introduced by Trump to discredit our nations free press if it criticizes him in any way or seems to jeopardize his hold onto power. the other purpose is to sow doubt and confusion into Americans' minds (as it is already starting to do in your case), which strengthens his power. It is part of his manipulations. I would suggest not falling for that.

EDITED TO ADD:
Not to lose the forest for the trees, I want to just reiterate the point that there is nothing wrong with having a polarized society. In fact, it is a great thing that our society allows for polarized views to coexist without the threat of punishment. The *media* can be as polarizing as it wants to be. It should not be faulted for such. Free press.
If the press wanted to ooh and ahh at Obama, then it is free to do so. If the press wants to criticize Trump, it is free to do so. These are obviously gross generalizations and exaggerations, of course, as many different outlets report things at different angles. But no matter how upset you get about this, you always have to remember that this is what the press is SUPPOSED to do in a free and democratic society. In this country, the president is not allowed to control what the press says or does. Rereading your initial post there, that i responded to, I disagree that being a polarized society makes us weaker. Shutting up the press would make us weaker though.

[Eliza Thomason]

...
These are people who voted for something they feel is moral (anti-abortion),

We call ourselves pro-life, because that is what we are. But because abortion kills a live human being, a life created by God that is completely unique and will never be reproduced again. It stops a beating heart. So, okay, I will claim to be anti-abortion. Even though that term is intended as a negative, derogatory label by the people who use it.

but meanwhile ignoring that the person who said he supports this is completely immoral & corrupt, with no guarantees he will defend this.

Suz, this isn't logical. I don't care how corrupt the person is who supports the true thing. I care about the true thing.

Also, it seems that in the interest of voting in favor of anti-abortion, you have also voted for many other immoral things, like kicking people off of health insurance who desperately need it, and denying many women basic female health care (including breast cancer screenings).

This is also a very illogical argument. Hmm, would you rather be alive and concerned about how you will get along without government-assisted healthcare, or dead with no choice to consider this or ANY other option? I think you would choose life over death. We all want to live. Even babies being probed in the womb in order to get a hold of a limb to rip off cringe away from the instruments of death, and scream (silently) in the womb as they are being maimed. Yes. We have the technology to see this. We all want life. Abortion steals that choice from the voiceless. Its horrendous and I don't care how immoral or stupid or clownish is the person defending life, I support anyone who works to reduce this horrendous scourge on our society.

Abortion takes away the choice of life. Its a horrible evil, perpetuated by those who know what they are doing on innocents and onto women who feel vulnerable, helpless and alone, who are then left to live with the knowledge that they had some part in the killing of their own child.

...I am not here to argue about pro-life vs pro-choice, as i feel this is a personal thing,

I think its a societal thing. Are we a decent society - or not? How do we tell? The tell is in how we treat our most vulnerable.

...but one cannot lose the forest for the trees. If you are ok with a pro-life dictatorship, well then, your vote is justified. We just may end up with a dictatorship, period.

Whatever a "prolife dictaorship" is, I don't know. It makes me want to roll my eyes, though, because it certainly cannot be nearly so horrific as what is in that video.

But if you are going into the medical field, your opinion (that you accept the killing of unborn babies and call it a choice) (when it in fact robs choice) is most welcome and most correct there, where the Hippocratic Oath is SO passe! Your opinion is not going to cost you a thing there! Very comfortable for you to hold that opinion, where you are. Great are my hero's who can stand for truth in that situation. Their choice to stand for truth is one that costs them something.

....not a fan of Hillary Clinton's. BUT. I still voted for her.

And you were in the minority. And I believe a far greater minority than was reported.

why? because I see the dangers of Trump's immorality, and I see what he is truly after. He wants power. He wants more wealth. He is only going to work in his own self-interest. He has a huge potential for making our government corrupt and totalitarian, and changing our laws such that there may not be another election ever. This scared me more than 4 years of Hillary. I do not trust a thing DT says.

How fortunate for you that your mother chose life and unlike millions of others whose choice was stolen from them against their will, you can have an opinion on this.

I just don't get it though. Don't you think Obama was immoral? Hilary? How does Trump get to be more immoral?? I'd guess they are ALL immoral. Power corrupts, you know, and none of them come off as moral to me. But God will judge their souls, because only He knows what is in their hearts, and I can only judge their actions. And I think the action of any stand against the promotion of abortion in this country is a moral stand worth admiring. And Obama and Hilary never did that, so, in fact, quite the opposite, so, they are worse, IMO. And that is logical.

Life. Its the issue that trumps all other issues. Because if you are robbed of life against your will, you are left with NO choices at all.

__________
editing to add: re: Fake News: @Suz, I can't comment on this now but I people saw the reality of fake news long, long before anyone ever called it fake news... Trump is just playing on a very real reality - either for truth, or for show. Probably the latter!

[Adam Strange]

http://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the...-donald-trump/

[Nanooka]

What you are describing sounds exactly like Obama being elected. He was empty suit and charismatic figure. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for literally nothing. The cult of personality around Obama was much bigger. And that may be why he is more dangerous. The devil isn't pretty. He is seductive. Obama said he would go easy on pot but did more raids than Bush, worst pot President. Bombed so many places. Wiretapping. Went back on nearly everything.

"Went back on nearly everything" isn't true, he actually kept about 80% of campaign promises per PolitiFact's scorecard.

His draconian marijuana policy and do-nothing stance towards calls for reform on the NSA's en masse surveillance policy were serious issues though, and the Nobel Peace Prize win was a joke. As I mentioned previously, I consider Obama's election another example of "style over substance," though one more (still dangerously) routine in its disregard for our republican principles rather than promising strong acceleration.

Jailing journalists who publish leaks and promising increased NSA powers from the near blank check Bush gave them (and Obama continued) is strong acceleration. Also it's much harder to maintain the confidence needed for authoritarianism without the image of strength, meaning a strongman type at the helm. I wouldn't fear it in this case absent a major terror attack, with that I would actually be worried.

Climate change is irrelevant.

I really couldn't disagree more. The costs involved in letting it get to the point where its feedback mechanisms become beyond our control are astronomical.

Canada for example pledged by the Kyoto Treaty to lower emissions by like 6%. They went up 30% in that time.

Yeah, Stephen Harper is also a climate change denier and represented Alberta's interests rather than Canada's as a whole. That a conservative government wanted Canada to become a Norway/Kuwait-style oil world power says nothing about Kyoto Protocol compliance globally, most countries complied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_..._and_emissions

All your argument really indicates is that it wasn't strict enough to prevent governments like Harper's from being enormously irresponsible, risking global security as a result.

The media wanted a war with Russia so bad they are pushing Trump towards one.

Based on what? Wanting containment continued is not wanting a war with Russia, it's boxing them in reacting to their own almost-certain espionage against us and open chronic illiberal defense of genocidal regimes (Milosevic, Assad). Letting them just continue to take inches shows weakness and is like giving a mouse a cookie, they'll come to expect more.

We downed a Syrian jet the other day

That was decided by the military commanders in the field. I don't know whether it was the right decision or not, it sounds like rapid and unnecessary escalation to me. I'd instead veer towards what (Aussie PM) Malcolm Turnbull has pushed for in arguing for ICC proceedings against Assad and replacement with a more boxed-in, more controllable, less likely to gas entire villages despot, thus still maintaining stability rather than total regime change. I don't know the info they have on hand that led them to that decision, though.

Like that Breitbart editor was demoted or fired because the media was saying he was in charge or something.

Steve Bannon holds the position of Chief Strategist, so Trump did actually give him pretty extensive power. Considering his extremist views, including support for the French far-right and open praise for the views of neofascist Aleksandr Dugin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_...Breitbart_News), I'm glad Jared Kushner weakened his power. That was less due to "the media" or anything vague like that, more a personal spat with Kushner, from my reading of the situation.

That you don't know whether he was demoted or fired also kinda calls how well-informed you are into question, no offense.

[Suz]

We call ourselves pro-life, because that is what we are. But because abortion kills a live human being, a life created by God that is completely unique and will never be reproduced again. It stops a beating heart. So, okay, I will claim to be anti-abortion. Even though that term is intended as a negative, derogatory label by the people who use it.


Suz, this isn't logical. I don't care how corrupt the person is who supports the true thing. I care about the true thing.




This is also a very illogical argument. Hmm, would you rather be alive and concerned about how you will get along without government-assisted healthcare, or dead with no choice to consider this or ANY other option? I think you would choose life over death. We all want to live. Even babies being probed in the womb in order to get a hold of a limb to rip off cringe away from the instruments of death, and scream (silently) in the womb as they are being maimed. Yes. We have the technology to see this. We all want life. Abortion steals that choice from the voiceless. Its horrendous and I don't care how immoral or stupid or clownish is the person defending life, I support anyone who works to reduce this horrendous scourge on our society.

Abortion takes away the choice of life. Its a horrible evil, perpetuated by those who know what they are doing on innocents and onto women who feel vulnerable, helpless and alone, who are then left to live with the knowledge that they had some part in the killing of their own child.

I think its a societal thing. Are we a decent society - or not? How do we tell? The tell is in how we treat our most vulnerable.

Whatever a "prolife dictaorship" is, I don't know. It makes me want to roll my eyes, though, because it certainly cannot be nearly so horrific as what is in that video.

But if you are going into the medical field, your opinion (that you accept the killing of unborn babies and call it a choice) (when it in fact robs choice) is most welcome and most correct there, where the Hippocratic Oath is SO passe! Your opinion is not going to cost you a thing there! Very comfortable for you to hold that opinion, where you are. Great are my hero's who can stand for truth in that situation. Their choice to stand for truth is one that costs them something.

And you were in the minority. And I believe a far greater minority than was reported.

How fortunate for you that your mother chose life and unlike millions of others whose choice was stolen from them against their will, you can have an opinion on this.

I just don't get it though. Don't you think Obama was immoral? Hilary? How does Trump get to be more immoral?? I'd guess they are ALL immoral. Power corrupts, you know, and none of them come off as moral to me. But God will judge their souls, because only He knows what is in their hearts, and I can only judge their actions. And I think the action of any stand against the promotion of abortion in this country is a moral stand worth admiring. And Obama and Hilary never did that, so, in fact, quite the opposite, so, they are worse, IMO. And that is logical.

Life. Its the issue that trumps all other issues. Because if you are robbed of life against your will, you are left with NO choices at all.

__________
editing to add: re: Fake News: @Suz, I can't comment on this now but I people saw the reality of fake news long, long before anyone ever called it fake news... Trump is just playing on a very real reality - either for truth, or for show. Probably the latter!

Eliza, look, you missed my point.
I get that you are pro-life and that you are very passionate about it. I'm not criticizing you being pro-life or your passion for it. Like I said, I'm not here to debate pro-life.
My point is, don't count on Trump upholding this one issue that you chose him for. I am fairly certain he couldn't care less about it.
He'll do whats in his own self-interest and that of his family's. He always has, and he always will.
He'll lie, cheat, and steal if that's what it takes.
Don't kid yourself that he is actually looking out for you or even supports your views.

and if I'm in the minority, then God help us all.
I don't think I am though. We likely run in different circles. Most people I know and who surround me share my views.
This is beside the point though.

[Singu]

The US has been "totalitarian" for a long time... except that it's not the kind of totalitarianism that people usually think of, where you have people like ****** and Mussolini dictating everyone.

Based on what? Wanting containment continued is not wanting a war with Russia, it's boxing them in reacting to their own almost-certain espionage against us and open chronic illiberal defense of genocidal regimes (Milosevic, Assad). Letting them just continue to take inches shows weakness and is like giving a mouse a cookie, they'll come to expect more.

I don't think there's any evidence that Russia or Putin has any invasive or imperialistic tendencies. If anything, as far as I know they've been incredibly restrained. And how you can you say "almost-certain"? There's simply no evidence that the Russian government is hacking the US elections or whatever, they are merely "allegations" without any proof. When people are pressed on these questions, they merely say that there are "allegations" or "media reports". The media of course can make up anything. You are essentially saying that someone is guilty without any proof.

As for Assad, yes he is a "bad guy", but what do you think will happen if we take him down? Either someone who is even worse will step up to power, or it will simply destabilize the whole region and descent into chaos, creating more terrorists. It will only make a bad situation even worse. Just like what the US did to Iraq when it removed Saddam Hussein: It turned a bad country into a true living hell, where people constantly have to fear for their lives due to terrorists and extremists are running amok without any law and order present.

Just listen to people who have lived or are living in Iraq, before and after Saddam Hussein:

Is Iraq a better place or worse to live since the fall of Saddam Hussein?

This is why this, and all similar questions, are misguided. Iraq was safer and much wealthier before any American intervention. It was Americans, their support for Saddam, and later their war and sanctions on him that made Iraq such a terrible place to live. It then shouldn't come as a surprise that Iraqis had grown sick of their way of life. So much so that they sat back and watched America "save" them from its own doing.

And that, my friend, is the most hypocritical move in modern history! Furthermore, the war didn't improve things much anyway; on the contrary, it worsened the whole situation. Instead of living safely in poor conditions, Iraqis became somewhat wealthy, but lost all measures of personal safety. Where once they just had one tyrant to be afraid of, now they have hundreds more

It is a horrific thing, and an appalling indictment of our actions, but it does seem that conditions now are even worse then under Hussein and his awful sons.

WHAT DO WE HAVE CURRENTLY? A country split along religious chasms,
where Christians are preyed on, Sunnis and Shias are at each other throats, with no "first amendment" freedoms to speak of, where women are forced to adhere to the Iran-type dress code, where secularism had evaporated, where personal security is on par with the Wild West of yore. The government is basically impotent, the utilities are intermittent, petrol is in short supply, and to organize the Arab League summit, the Government wastes millions of US$ and shuts down Baghdad for a week.

And all this misery was earned at the cost of some 5,000
dead American soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqi dead? Does it make any
sense?

There are car bombs going off every single day in Iraq now. Saddam had a security apparatus that kept the vast majority of people safe, and as long as you did not go against the regime one was not bothered. Today you get killed for being you. IE people getting killed for being Sunni, or Shia or any other reason that anyone thinks of because there is no law in order. ALL HELL HAS BROKEN LOOSE thank the US government for that one. This is not one sided either, the Iraq war is damaging the US currency, the war cost the Americans 2 trillion dollars. This was bad for Iraq, and bad for the United States. Anyone involved lost out.

Western countries may complain of "terrorist attacks", but they are miniscule compared to the amount of terrorisms that are happening all over the world, where in Iraq, terrorist attacks are literally a daily occurrence:

https://storymaps.esri.com/stories/t...cks/?year=2017

So, this is the incredible hypocrisy of the United States. They have created this whole mess in the first place, yet they are complaining that they are the victims of terrorism. And wow they're saying, "Screw ISIS, we're bored of that, let's look to Russia and China for more conflicts!". The US is addicted to wars.

[Pallas]

Eliza, look, you missed my point.
I get that you are pro-life and that you are very passionate about it. I'm not criticizing you being pro-life or your passion for it. Like I said, I'm not here to debate pro-life.
My point is, don't count on Trump upholding this one issue that you chose him for. I am fairly certain he couldn't care less about it.
He'll do whats in his own self-interest and that of his family's. He always has, and he always will.
He'll lie, cheat, and steal if that's what it takes.
Don't kid yourself that he is actually looking out for you or even supports your views.

and if I'm in the minority, then God help us all.
I don't think I am though. We likely run in different circles. Most people I know and who surround me share my views.
This is beside the point though.

I think everyone is in the minority. I think everyone is too splintered for there to even be a majority. I think people's reactions to Trump are just projections. There's really nothing there with Trump. There is bullshit, which is distinguished from lies because everyone knows it's fake and it isn't even intended to deceive, but there's nothing else. Trump is like white noise with people looking furiously for images. People can put up with some degree of bullshit, but with nothing else, it might as well be silence, and people want to believe at least some of it in desperation.

[Nanooka]

The US has been "totalitarian" for a long time...

I don't see any way in which it fits the definition of "totalitarianism." Certainly it's been getting steadily more authoritarian due to an out of control security state, but there is no all-encompassing totalizing ideology and we still operate under liberal democracy. Totalitarian regimes by definition have a totalizing state ideology (e.g. communism, fascism, various theocracies) and reject liberal democracy.

I don't think there's any evidence that Russia or Putin has any invasive or imperialistic tendencies.

The invasions in Georgia and Ukraine to aid Russia-aligned secession movements in violation of national sovereignty, playing chicken by flying military planes right off the coasts of Alaska (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...kan-coast.html as just one example; it's pretty routine) and San Francisco (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-...-s-west-coast/), and almost certain espionage against the West speak otherwise.

And how you can you say "almost-certain"? There's simply no evidence that the Russian government is hacking the US elections or whatever, they are merely "allegations" without any proof. When people are pressed on these questions, they merely say that there are "allegations" or "media reports".

There is no definitive smoking gun yet, so I said "almost certain" rather than "certain." In the world of intelligence, there rarely is absolute certainty.

But Reality Winner's recent leaks show that Russian intel was snooping on election-related information via hacking, meaning they clearly took a keen interest in it and aren't averse to hacking sensitive election-related American targets. We also know that Guccifer 2.0's hacks are traced to Russia, he has consistently targeted enemies of the Russian state, and Putin's response is "if we did it then we did you a service." This all seems to imply that the Clinton/Podesta email leaks being a Russian intel operation is very likely.

"Hacked the election" seems like water-muddying to me, since the information pointing to the email hacks being an operation is pretty consistent, where the only people claiming the voting machines were hacked are moonbats with a long history of just making stuff up like Louise Mensch. I think the latter is super-unlikely and amounts to crazy people and/or opportunists hopping onto a legit story, sensationalizing it and getting a lot of attention in the process, which pulls attention away from legitimate inquiry. Similar to "we need to lean harder on Saudi Arabia to stop funding terrorism" getting less attention than "9/11 was an inside job" for a while, or the real issue of "rich people can scarily easily get away with pedophilia" being laughed away because Pizzagate was a hoax.

As for Assad, yes he is a "bad guy", but what do you think will happen if we take him down? Either someone who is even worse will step up to power, or it will simply destabilize the whole region and descent into chaos, creating more terrorists.

I don't support destabilization, that's why I support criminal charges against him and a respected general replacing him from within the regime rather than total regime change. Assad is emboldened, taking him down de-emboldens the Baathist regime. A replacement will, with ICC charges against his predecessor, be more careful lest the same fate befall him. Removing the Baathist regime entirely will probs be a rehash of Iraq and I'm vehemently against that, for a number of reasons.

Just like what the US did to Iraq when it removed Saddam Hussein: It turned a bad country into a true living hell, where people constantly have to fear for their lives due to terrorists and extremists are running amok without any law and order present.

Another situation where rather than military invasion, a coup using one of the many generals he royally pissed off should have been used to breed a somewhat more restrained despotism. The biggest problem in US foreign policy is abandonment of realism in favor of "we can democratize the world" naivete applied to countries with literally no history of liberalism, IMO. I think you're right that it leads to chaos and creates an even worse living hell than what existed before.

"Screw ISIS, we're bored of that, let's look to Russia and China for more conflicts!". The US is addicted to wars.

I see a drive for containment against both, Russia because it is a regional and intel threat, China mostly because it's an economic one though it also does bully Southeast Asia to encroach on their waters for oil platforms. The idea that the American leadership wants war because reasons makes less sense than the idea that, to preserve America's superpower status and prevent even worse (from a human rights/democratic rule perspective) replacements from replacing us, we contain rival powers as states have done for centuries.

[Tearsofaclown]

"Went back on nearly everything" isn't true, he actually kept about 80% of campaign promises per PolitiFact's scorecard.

His draconian marijuana policy and do-nothing stance towards calls for reform on the NSA's en masse surveillance policy were serious issues though, and the Nobel Peace Prize win was a joke. As I mentioned previously, I consider Obama's election another example of "style over substance," though one more (still dangerously) routine in its disregard for our republican principles rather than promising strong acceleration.

Jailing journalists who publish leaks and promising increased NSA powers from the near blank check Bush gave them (and Obama continued) is strong acceleration. Also it's much harder to maintain the confidence needed for authoritarianism without the image of strength, meaning a strongman type at the helm. I wouldn't fear it in this case absent a major terror attack, with that I would actually be worried.



I really couldn't disagree more. The costs involved in letting it get to the point where its feedback mechanisms become beyond our control are astronomical.



Yeah, Stephen Harper is also a climate change denier and represented Alberta's interests rather than Canada's as a whole. That a conservative government wanted Canada to become a Norway/Kuwait-style oil world power says nothing about Kyoto Protocol compliance globally, most countries complied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_..._and_emissions

All your argument really indicates is that it wasn't strict enough to prevent governments like Harper's from being enormously irresponsible, risking global security as a result.



Based on what? Wanting containment continued is not wanting a war with Russia, it's boxing them in reacting to their own almost-certain espionage against us and open chronic illiberal defense of genocidal regimes (Milosevic, Assad). Letting them just continue to take inches shows weakness and is like giving a mouse a cookie, they'll come to expect more.



That was decided by the military commanders in the field. I don't know whether it was the right decision or not, it sounds like rapid and unnecessary escalation to me. I'd instead veer towards what (Aussie PM) Malcolm Turnbull has pushed for in arguing for ICC proceedings against Assad and replacement with a more boxed-in, more controllable, less likely to gas entire villages despot, thus still maintaining stability rather than total regime change. I don't know the info they have on hand that led them to that decision, though.



Steve Bannon holds the position of Chief Strategist, so Trump did actually give him pretty extensive power. Considering his extremist views, including support for the French far-right and open praise for the views of neofascist Aleksandr Dugin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_...Breitbart_News), I'm glad Jared Kushner weakened his power. That was less due to "the media" or anything vague like that, more a personal spat with Kushner, from my reading of the situation.

That you don't know whether he was demoted or fired also kinda calls how well-informed you are into question, no offense.

You care way too much about details. lol. What does 80% mean? Nothing. Context is relevant. You fuckin got a page that breaks it down by number, which can be done, but doesn't tell us anything as some numbers are much relevant than others. For example, his war mongering and wiretapping may count as only 2 but those are huge 2s that are not equal to others in size.

Bannon was DEMOTED as I said. The terms are irrelevant. Semantics. He was put down. He was lowered. End of story. Call it what you want. Again, irrelevant semantics that miss the larger picture that Trump demoted the fuckin guy. Can we agree that he was thrown out in some way? Does the term really fuckin matter? That you hold onto such semantics tells me a lot about your argument. All I got from your post is you can read a chart, not much else.


Washington (CNN)President Trump's decision to remove chief strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council's principals committee suggests a potentially significant change in the power balance among the four top White House advisers.


oh, and fuck Canada. Your PM is the biggest fraud walking. Talks about womens rights while praying in a mosque. An empty suit who stands for nothing. Truly empty inside. Not one atom better than Trump. Tell me how this fuckin ****** reconciles islam with feminism. lol. a joke he is. Trump is an embarrassment but fag boy is worse. This is a fuckin guy who said if you kill your enemies, they win. lol. He is western weakness personified. A fuckin bimbo.

lol:

[Nanooka]

You care way too much about details. lol. What does 80% mean? Nothing. Context is relevant. You fuckin got a page that breaks it down by number, which can be done, but doesn't tell us anything as some numbers are much relevant than others. For example, his war mongering and wiretapping may count as only 2 but those are huge 2s that are not equal to others in size.

This I actually agree with. He numerically kept 80% of his promises, this included some huge things like substantive healthcare reform. But some of the reversals were huge too, first and foremost the PATRIOT Act. Its renewal is a major black mark on his legacy.

Bannon was DEMOTED as I said. The terms are irrelevant. Semantics.

You said "demoted or fired," direct quote, as if you didn't know what happened. Don't try to spin this like you said one definitively. Not knowing the situation you were talking about calls how well-informed you are, and therefore your credibility on these subjects, into question. People who ramble on about things they're not even really familiar with usually, by definition, don't have much to say.

oh, and fuck Canada. Your PM is the biggest fraud walking. Talks about womens rights while praying in a mosque. An empty suit who stands for nothing. Truly empty inside. Not one atom better than Trump. Tell me how this fuckin ****** reconciles islam with feminism. lol. a joke he is. Trump is an embarrassment but fag boy is worse. This is a fuckin guy who said if you kill your enemies, they win. lol. He is western weakness personified. A fuckin bimbo.

Not sure if you're still talking to me here or what, but contrary to popular belief, Alaska is not in fact part of Canada.

Trudeau is a pretty bad PM though and a vapid idiot who gets by on charisma alone. Speaking as a center-left/libertarian-leaning Democrat type, I'd vote for most moderate Conservatives over him. His "post-national country," "assimilation is a bad thing," "there's no such thing as Canadian values" talk seriously risks balkanization long-term if successive governments follow it. On net I think immigration is a good thing, but over the generations they do have to accept a society's prevailing values or that society will be divided on itself.

But I wouldn't describe him as "fag boy," he seems happily married to a decently attractive wife.

[Pallas]

I don't see any way in which it fits the definition of "totalitarianism." Certainly it's been getting steadily more authoritarian due to an out of control security state, but there is no all-encompassing totalizing ideology and we still operate under liberal democracy. Totalitarian regimes by definition have a totalizing state ideology (e.g. communism, fascism, various theocracies) and reject liberal democracy.

There are some other aspects besides dictators that originally defined totalitarianism and it's pretty easy to interpret the US as having those if you really want.

Here, Arendt discusses the transformation of classes into masses, the role of propaganda in dealing with the non-totalitarian world, and the use of terror, essential to this form of government. Totalitarian movements are fundamentally different from autocratic regimes, says Arendt, insofar as autocratic regimes seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition, while totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone's life as a prelude to world domination. Arendt discusses the use of front organizations, fake governmental agencies, and esoteric doctrines as a means of concealing the radical nature of totalitarian aims from the non-totalitarian world. A final section added to the second edition of the book in 1958 suggests that individual isolation and loneliness are preconditions for totalitarian domination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Or...otalitarianism

...This also just reminds me of how I said liberal democracy was government by the masses as a group on another thread (and was judging most people's conception of democracy as incoherent in general since it means groups deciding the outcomes of votes, and the group that's going to vote has to be chosen first in some non-democratic way). If totalitarianism is based on masses, and the masses are what's voting, how is democracy incompatible with totalitarianism? It might as well be one form of totalitarianism.

[Nanooka]

There are some other aspects besides dictators that originally defined totalitarianism

The original definition was by Franz Borkenau, it's basically an illiberal regime with a totalizing ideology that encompasses all aspects of the citizenry's lives. Arendt's definition is pretty close to that, "dominate every aspect of everyone's life" from the passage you quoted and all. The US doesn't really fit that currently even despite creeping authoritarianism for decades, we don't live in a society where "everything is political." At worst we have movements on the radical left (e.g. the second-wave feminists I took that line from), radical right (the alt-right), and elements in the security services that would want it.

[Tearsofaclown]

why I hate Fe seeking/HA. it produces ******s like that. in reference to Trudeau. He cares about nothing besides being liked.

[Tearsofaclown]

This I actually agree with. He numerically kept 80% of his promises, this included some huge things like substantive healthcare reform. But some of the reversals were huge too, first and foremost the PATRIOT Act. Its renewal is a major black mark on his legacy.



You said "demoted or fired," direct quote, as if you didn't know what happened. Don't try to spin this like you said one definitively. Not knowing the situation you were talking about calls how well-informed you are, and therefore your credibility on these subjects, into question. People who ramble on about things they're not even really familiar with usually, by definition, don't have much to say.



Not sure if you're still talking to me here or what, but contrary to popular belief, Alaska is not in fact part of Canada.

Trudeau is a pretty bad PM though and a vapid idiot who gets by on charisma alone, I'd vote for most moderate Conservatives over him. His "post-national country," "assimilation is a bad thing," "there's no such thing as Canadian values" talk seriously risks balkanization long-term if successive governments follow it. On net I think immigration is a good thing, but over the generations they do have to accept a society's prevailing values or that society will be divided on itself.

But I wouldn't describe him as "fag boy," he seems happily married to a pretty attractive wife.

Yes, because it isnt relevant. Jesus. lol. He was took down a peg and it was that. I dont give a fuck the specifics because the big picture doesnt change. It is obviously something I pay little attention to because it is irrelevant.

Yeah, he thinks he is a boxer too, but can he kick my ass?



I know some black guys who will fuck him rightly. Get him in the ring. Calling himself a boxer. lol. Malcolm X would whoop his ass. Obama probably would too. He VIs as miley cyrus and that is what he is. A child. The same stupid, blank eyes. If he isn't a fag, he will be made one. I don't know or even agree with VI but this is a man who you can look at his eyes and see nobody is home. He oozes shallowness. You see that? I keep my terms loose because nothing about this can actually be known or decided. Derp. that is a given. I paint with broad strokes.

[Pallas]

The original definition was by Franz Borkenau, it's basically an illiberal regime with a totalizing ideology that encompasses all aspects of the citizenry's lives. Arendt's definition is pretty close to that, "dominate every aspect of everyone's life" from the passage you quoted and all. The US doesn't really fit that currently even despite creeping authoritarianism for decades, we don't live in a society where "everything is political." At worst we have movements on the radical left (e.g. the second-wave feminists I took that line from), radical right (the alt-right), and elements in the security services that would want it.

The first post on this thread was basically about how there's not really any politics in America since the highest elected official is apparently just some sort of clown and can't influence anything. If nothing is political and something is ruling that apolitical world, I think that's what Hannah Arendt was talking about with totalitarianism since there's no way she wouldn't know that idea even if she didn't put it like that. In the decades leading up to Nazi Germany, there was all this intellectual hype about being "apolitical", and ****** also claimed to be "apolitical" even though he wasn't in line with the normal conception of that at all. So absolute apolitical control = totalitarianism while absolute political control = authoritarianism then. And the apolitical world is really based on culture, and if you look at American culture around the world...

Her argument has too many flaws, but saying that the US is becoming totalitarian (rather than authoritarian) still has easy arguments. The US is closer to an absolute apolitical rule than an absolute political rule, although I think how close is way overblown.

[Eliza Thomason]

Eliza, look, you missed my point.
I get that you are pro-life and that you are very passionate about it. I'm not criticizing you being pro-life or your passion for it. Like I said, I'm not here to debate pro-life.
My point is, don't count on Trump upholding this one issue that you chose him for. I am fairly certain he couldn't care less about it.
He'll do whats in his own self-interest and that of his family's. He always has, and he always will.
He'll lie, cheat, and steal if that's what it takes.
Don't kid yourself that he is actually looking out for you or even supports your views.

and if I'm in the minority, then God help us all.
I don't think I am though. We likely run in different circles. Most people I know and who surround me share my views.
This is beside the point though.

Okay, I missed your point. Also you are not seeing where i am coming from - you are making assumptions likely based on the prevalent media rhetoric, which polarizes everything into two neat poles. Us vs. them. Trump is not my hero. I have no confidence in him. Unlike other moral hero's I do not have confidence that his positions (which I am not informed about) come from deep moral beliefs. Maybe? But I am not confident. I do not consider myself a Trump supporter even though he was my pick as a vote against Hilary. Like Obama and Hilary, it feels likely to me to be more about self-interests.

Very few can resist the corruption that comes with power. But when one does, people see it, and they shine out as an example that people remember it, for all time. An example is King Louis IX (1214-1270 A.D).

He comes to mind because I was reading his letter to his son this week and I was impressed and it stays with me. This is some the advice he gave him:

"Dear son, since I desire with all my heart that you be well "instructed in all things, it is in my thought to give you some advice this writing. For I have heard you say, several times, that you remember my words better than those of any one else.

Therefore, dear son, the first thing I advise is that you fix your whole heart upon God, and love Him with all your strength, for without this no one can be saved or be of any worth.

You should, with all your strength, shun everything which you believe to be displeasing to Him. And you ought especially to be resolved not to commit mortal sin, no matter what may happen and should permit

all your limbs to be hewn off, and suffer every manner of torment , rather than fall knowingly into mortal sin."


(more here from same letter: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/stlouis1.html)

Now that is inspiring. It is truly healthy food for the mind. I want to think on things that are good and right and true and beautiful. That is good advice from scripture, the living word, and when I read it long ago, it struck in my heart as truth. And as to politics, or the news of the day - oh dear. Usually its not good or right or beautiful or even true...

If I absorbed the views of the people in my circles, professionally and socially - I would share the views you just shared with me, above. But I want to form my views by thinking them through myself and seeking to know what is actually true about a thing. I particularly abhor that in our day and culture we are told what we "ought" to think about everything. Its the way of this world, and I am repelled by that.

[Pole]

B9ro8BVIgAAV-yF.jpg

[End]

I dont disagree.
In my mind it's a chicken-egg type of cause/effect situation.
One feeds the other feeds the other in a vicious circle. What it started with may always remain uncertain.

Wow. I... I thought you'd counter-signal me or something but this... you've put a point into my optimism bank Suz. That's a very rare occurrence for me.

As an aside, as a curiosity, I once watched a woman pastor on youtube describe (scourgingly!) why she thinks Trump was born a women... and darned if it did not leave a lingering question or two in the back of my mind, and lately, when I see the unavoidable pictures of Trump in those news headlines (that I try to avoid), the idea crosses my mind - more than once! - that he is aging a lot more like a woman ages than a man! I really want to get this idea out of my head...

That's because he isn't really "wearing the ring" if you catch my drift. He isn't fully under the boot of the globalists elite, and this is why they're doing everything they can to either remove him from power and/or force him to take us to war with Russia (i.e. the only truly "Christian" major geopolitical/military power existent in the modern world at this time). They're damn close to the latter with the new Syria news, but I'm sure most Fighter Pilots are wise and selfish enough to not willingly sacrifice themselves to start WWIII for no good reason beyond fun and profit for the PTB...

Also, don't fear the "corruption" of politics as it were. This world is already so corrupt that you've little to lose from voicing your opinion and taking the "wrong" side of Christ (as many liberals would like you think of taking the side of our savior). Just don't get converged on me. You're a source of optimism for me Eliza, don't you dare fall to the siren song of the SJW types and their hold on the mainstream. All the fame, money, and comfort they offer is not worth your eternal soul. Remember the martyrs. They died horribly for their faith. I myself envy their end, for I have sworn to myself that I will make my exit in only one of two ways. Either I die of old age or I die in a blaze of glory. And I must say, to die for my faith is an end I welcome with open arms...

[Skepsis]

The election of Trump is more sad than terrifying. He is the end result of the mass slaughter of reason by the public at large. We live in the Post Truth age, where "truth" is held hostage by special interest groups in their quest for power and control in our society. The rise of media networks like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC point to value systems that encourage not objective news and facts, but theatrical performances, fast paced reporting that thwart refection and evaluation, worshipping of ratings, etc. It seems all to easy to manipulate large segments of the population into their viewpoint. Networks like NPR, BBC America, PBS, are more balanced and fair, but not as "exciting".

Such a large segment of Americans have such a disdain for experts, and intellectualism in general, that it has led to an outright dismissal of objective facts, especially those that conflict with their own worldviews. Objective reality is being sacrificed for self-interested slices of reality. It is interesting that President Obama was widely ridiculed for not having enough experience to be president, then the populace went ahead and elected someone without any political experience. The lack of awareness by the general public that this occurred demonstrates their short attention spans, gullibility, short memory, hypocrisy, and a lack of good judgement.

Our nation was not designed for people like Trump. It was to not only prevent people like him from being elected president, but to place limits through a separation of powers if someone like him were to be elected. Our constitution was a product of Enlightenment thinking which valued reason over faith. In order for it to survive our government must have not only expert politicians, but expert politicians who have secular values. What we are witnessing is the denigration of secular America caused by the erosion of secular values over time. Much of this is the result of Romantic period, where subjective feelings were exalted over reason. This eventually led to polarized national visions as we transitioned into the Modern period. The current nails in the coffin of secularism derived from the Enlightenment is coming from the post-modernists, who have planted the seeds of their own destruction. Post-modernism risks us moving toward a direct democracy where everyone's viewpoint is considered equally valid. Our government cannot survive such idiocy.

[Suz]

Okay, I missed your point. Also you are not seeing where i am coming from - you are making assumptions likely based on the prevalent media rhetoric, which polarizes everything into two neat poles. Us vs. them. Trump is not my hero. I have no confidence in him. Unlike other moral hero's I do not have confidence that his positions (which I am not informed about) come from deep moral beliefs. Maybe? But I am not confident. I do not consider myself a Trump supporter even though he was my pick as a vote against Hilary. Like Obama and Hilary, it feels likely to me to be more about self-interests.

Very few can resist the corruption that comes with power. But when one does, people see it, and they shine out as an example that people remember it, for all time. An example is King Louis IX (1214-1270 A.D).

He comes to mind because I was reading his letter to his son this week and I was impressed and it stays with me. This is some the advice he gave him:

"Dear son, since I desire with all my heart that you be well "instructed in all things, it is in my thought to give you some advice this writing. For I have heard you say, several times, that you remember my words better than those of any one else.

Therefore, dear son, the first thing I advise is that you fix your whole heart upon God, and love Him with all your strength, for without this no one can be saved or be of any worth.

You should, with all your strength, shun everything which you believe to be displeasing to Him. And you ought especially to be resolved not to commit mortal sin, no matter what may happen and should permit

all your limbs to be hewn off, and suffer every manner of torment , rather than fall knowingly into mortal sin."


(more here from same letter: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/stlouis1.html)

Now that is inspiring. It is truly healthy food for the mind. I want to think on things that are good and right and true and beautiful. That is good advice from scripture, the living word, and when I read it long ago, it struck in my heart as truth. And as to politics, or the news of the day - oh dear. Usually its not good or right or beautiful or even true...

If I absorbed the views of the people in my circles, professionally and socially - I would share the views you just shared with me, above. But I want to form my views by thinking them through myself and seeking to know what is actually true about a thing. I particularly abhor that in our day and culture we are told what we "ought" to think about everything. Its the way of this world, and I am repelled by that.

LOL no, i am not relying on media rhetoric to form my opinions on DT.
I am forming my opinions based on my understanding of his mindset, from the pattern of his behavior over decades, from studying his biography, from the rhetoric that he speaks himself, from my understanding of history & totalitarianism, from my understanding of the russian/former soviet government (where my parents came from as refugees).
Some media outlets and pundits do echo my sentiments and see the same things I am recognizing, so I am not the only one who has noticed these things.
My only hope is that our country's checks and balances system works well and remains intact.
You may have pro-life and school choice as your priorities, but my priority right now is to not end up being a citizen of a totalitarian government where people are murdered for their views.
You see, you are a bit spoiled - you never were part of a society like that, and you really have no idea how frightening and how bloody that can be.
What we are seeing in our government right now, is how these things start out -- shutting up the press, sending out messages that nobody but the president can be trusted for information, nepotism, firing those who threaten their power. Next step would be jailing/murdering opponents -- cant do that right now obviously as that would be illegal, but he is chipping away slowly at what society considers unacceptable. It happens with baby steps.
Demonizing ethnic groups is also part and parcel of this process -- this is how fascism starts.

[Suz]

The first post on this thread was basically about how there's not really any politics in America since the highest elected official is apparently just some sort of clown and can't influence anything. If nothing is political and something is ruling that apolitical world, I think that's what Hannah Arendt was talking about with totalitarianism since there's no way she wouldn't know that idea even if she didn't put it like that. In the decades leading up to Nazi Germany, there was all this intellectual hype about being "apolitical", and ****** also claimed to be "apolitical" even though he wasn't in line with the normal conception of that at all. So absolute apolitical control = totalitarianism while absolute political control = authoritarianism then. And the apolitical world is really based on culture, and if you look at American culture around the world...

Her argument has too many flaws, but saying that the US is becoming totalitarian (rather than authoritarian) still has easy arguments. The US is closer to an absolute apolitical rule than an absolute political rule, although I think how close is way overblown.

Where i think things do become political though is that even though the president has no political values of his own (only self-serving ones), he's used the republican party to achieve his goal of being president. Therefore, as a figurehead of the republican party currently, the republicans are using his reliance on their support to push their political agendas. It kind of goes both ways, in that many republican members of congress also rely on his good graces (for funding, donations, to keep their careers, and to push their agendas).

I do feel that if checks and balances start falling apart, we are closer than we think to totalitarianism.
I too see a lot of parallels between ******'s rise to power and DT's rise to power.
******'s dictatorship did not happen overnight, it happened slowly over a period of a better part of a decade.
Germany had been a fairly successful democracy previous to that.

[Nanooka]

DeVos' "school choice" proposal is actually one of the absolute worst parts of the Trump agenda, IMO. It pulls funding away from public schools, into schools that can increase their success rates simply by kicking out any student who doesn't perform well. Those failing students then have no other option but public schools, which are now even more starved for money. So it increases the stark educational class divide it's sold on solving. It's been shown in practice, too: there have been plenty of experiments with local voucher systems by now, which consistently show worse net student performance than they had before the local voucher system was tried. That goes to show private isn't necessarily more efficient either despite what the disciples of Milton Friedman would have you think, structural efficiency is a lot more multi-variable than just "is there as much competition as possible."

There is one way to fix that issue, but it's even worse than the issue itself from the perspective of someone who cares about maintaining educational freedom: requiring, as part of the voucher agreements, that schools can't just toss out students who aren't performing well. This gives the government de facto control over admissions policy for every voucher-accepting private school (few would turn the money down), which near-kills their private nature. I think maintaining private schools' existence is important for ensuring a diversity of ideas in society, and as a widely-varying series of labs where we can see what education structures work well and what don't before applying them in the public system. So I think that kind of restriction would, on balance, be an awful policy.

I do support efforts at school choice within the public education system, though. I see no harm in increasing entry competition amongst public schools, which lets kids in urban areas gravitate towards better schools without the added baggage that bringing private models in causes for underperforming students. That aids in punishing bad management and bad teachers, I think some good can come of it. Really though, the big issue in those urban areas is that education funding is set based on targets for average middle-class schools, which makes it near-impossible for inner city schools to attract good teachers since you need to compensate for those neighborhoods' crime and lower student attentiveness in teacher pay. All problems that, by diverting funding, DeVos' agenda would statistically increase. A no-opportunity, no-education community will continue to be rife with crime and an educationally-disengaged culture, intensifying the vicious cycle of poverty that dooms most kids there.

[Adam Strange]

"School choice" is designed to break teacher's unions. Outcomes between public and "for-profit" schools are generally worse for the students at for profit schools. Given this, the only justification for them is to break unions, a long time and constant Republican agenda.

They won't be happy until the serfs are quiet.

https://aeon.co/essays/are-plagues-a...uce-inequality

Actually the school system in the States is the cornerstone of the class propagation system (schools are funded by local property taxes - rich for rich districts, poor for poor) and the way kids are taught suppresses revolutionaries.

"If you don't like the system, it's because you aren't smart enough to succeed in it."

[Pallas]

The election of Trump is more sad than terrifying. He is the end result of the mass slaughter of reason by the public at large. We live in the Post Truth age, where "truth" is held hostage by special interest groups in their quest for power and control in our society. The rise of media networks like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC point to value systems that encourage not objective news and facts, but theatrical performances, fast paced reporting that thwart refection and evaluation, worshipping of ratings, etc. It seems all to easy to manipulate large segments of the population into their viewpoint. Networks like NPR, BBC America, PBS, are more balanced and fair, but not as "exciting".

I would agree with this except that those networks are operated by the governments themselves. Also, BBC is way more exciting than any American news netweork, with Doctor Who and Top Gear.

Such a large segment of Americans have such a disdain for experts, and intellectualism in general, that it has led to an outright dismissal of objective facts, especially those that conflict with their own worldviews. Objective reality is being sacrificed for self-interested slices of reality. It is interesting that President Obama was widely ridiculed for not having enough experience to be president, then the populace went ahead and elected someone without any political experience. The lack of awareness by the general public that this occurred demonstrates their short attention spans, gullibility, short memory, hypocrisy, and a lack of good judgement.

Well, having a disdain for experts is part of being an intellectual. If you want to look for how things work and why things are yourself, you must immediately ignore the experts, and listening to experts means that you aren't forming your own ideas and doing work yourself. We need more people to have disdain for experts. If people have so much disdain for experts, why do they believe everything they hear on TV in order to elect Trump?

Our nation was not designed for people like Trump. It was to not only prevent people like him from being elected president, but to place limits through a separation of powers if someone like him were to be elected. Our constitution was a product of Enlightenment thinking which valued reason over faith. In order for it to survive our government must have not only expert politicians, but expert politicians who have secular values. What we are witnessing is the denigration of secular America caused by the erosion of secular values over time. Much of this is the result of Romantic period, where subjective feelings were exalted over reason. This eventually led to polarized national visions as we transitioned into the Modern period. The current nails in the coffin of secularism derived from the Enlightenment is coming from the post-modernists, who have planted the seeds of their own destruction. Post-modernism risks us moving toward a direct democracy where everyone's viewpoint is considered equally valid. Our government cannot survive such idiocy.

...Yep.

Also, actual postmodernists don't think any form of government is different from any other form of government so they don't care what kind of government the US has. It wouldn't lead to direct democracy since direct democracy is just as valid as what currently exists and as an autocratic regime. If any postmodernist favors anything, it's anarchism.

[Adam Strange]

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/07/...ire-next-time/

[Pallas]

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/07/...ire-next-time/

I hope this person wasn't being completely serious. Trump can't be ******. It's against the American character, and I don't see the American character changing any time soon.

But when fascism comes it will not be in the form of an anti-American movement or pro-****** bund, practicing disloyalty. Nor will it come in the form of a crusade against war. It will appear rather in the luminous robes of flaming patriotism; it will take some genuinely indigenous shape and color, and it will spread only because its leaders, who are not yet visible, will know how to locate the great springs of public opinion and desire and the streams of thought that flow from them and will know how to attract to their banners leaders who can command the support of the controlling minorities in American public life. The danger lies not so much in the would-be Fuhrers who may arise, but in the presence in our midst of certainly deeply running currents of hope and appetite and opinion. The war upon fascism must be begun there.

****** happened in a certain culture context, even though it did a lot to overturn that context. Most of the "Trump is ******!" arguments tend to fall flat. The only way to stop American autocracy will be to know how America works, not stuff about German Idealism and everyone banning Expressionist film and rambling about Blut und Boden. The average American couldn't care less about most of the things old Germans cared about.

The article has some points but Nazi alarmism about Trump is just a distraction and a way to confuse people because people will look for patterns that aren't there and miss the ones that are. But the "deeply running currents" are things buried so deep that most people can't see them, which is the problem. People see what's different, but not that it's a natural progression of what's the same, like fish don't see water, or don't smell the air freshener in their house after a while. It takes the exact kind of alienation and destabilization to see the currents as it does to just make them run wild while still being unseen.

[Aylen]

I hope this person wasn't being completely serious. Trump can't be ******. It's against the American character, and I don't see the American character changing any time soon.

I agree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/willia..._11308878.html

[Pallas]

I agree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/willia..._11308878.html

I wouldn't say Napoleon is particularly American either, but much closer, and this article is pointing out actual similarities and differences, which is good. Like when people say "Trump is a fascist!" I usually want to roll my eyes, but when people point out that he's proposing a fascist policy and why ("This isn't an insult. His proposed job policy is just literally fascist. Here's how...") that's a bit different. Most people don't have the knowledge to do the second thing, they just feel angry and take it out on Trump since everyone is angry at Trump in their own way.

[Suz]

I hope this person wasn't being completely serious. Trump can't be ******. It's against the American character, and I don't see the American character changing any time soon.

Are you so very sure about that? There were plenty of Nazi supporting Americans during the ****** era.

Regardless, it can also be said that what ****** became was also against the German character of the pre-****** era. Germany was just a regular democracy prior to then.
The reality is that any society can be turned into a fascist society, given the right ingredients and manipulations. Ingredients can be such things as (but not limited to) - a recession, disgruntled angry sectors of society, say from joblessness. Add someone who demonizes a scapegoat group and riles up a huge following and abuses power, and BOOM -- you have another ******.

[Pallas]

Are you so very sure about that? There were plenty of Nazi supporting Americans during the ****** era.

Regardless, it can also be said that what ****** became was also against the German character of the pre-****** era. Germany was just a regular democracy prior to then.
The reality is that any society can be turned into a fascist society, given the right ingredients and manipulations. Ingredients can be such things as (but not limited to) - a recession, disgruntled angry sectors of society, say from joblessness. Add someone who demonizes a scapegoat group and riles up a huge following and abuses power, and BOOM -- you have another ******.

The Nazi-supporting Americans were mostly the German American Bund and groups like that (which made it really easy to crush German language and culture in America, even though most German Americans weren't Nazi sympathizers. My great-grandmother burned her German language books to avoid having people think she was one, which is about as ironic as you can get). Nazism is not authoritarianism, and if you're looking for Trump to promote futurism and Blut und Boden you're going to completely miss how authoritarianism would rise in America. Germany was nothing near "a regular democracy" when ****** came to power. Have you ever heard of this thing called the Treaty of Versailles? And before WWI Germany was this huge intellectual capital of Europe, the "land of poets and philosophers" and all that, which is something ****** had to appeal to to "Make Germany Great Again". All of those conditions are missing from America, so American authoritarianism, even if it became totalitarianism and corporatism, would never look like European fascism, and anyone looking for it would miss it. It's like a gestalt. You don't notice the background unless you consciously work to make it a foreground.