Can you spot the racist xenophobic politician in this quiz?
Link here. Here’s the first question:
“Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented (and) unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
A) Adolf Hitler
B) Donald Trump
C) Barack Obama
Answer: Then-Sen. Obama, news conference, 2005
The quiz continues, each time providing a quote that sounds remarkably like Trump or numerous conservative Republican politicians in discussing the problems of illegal immigration, with the answer instead being almost always Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
The point here is not that Democratic politicians were once against illegal immigration. No, what this quiz illustrates is how completely insane the left has become since Trump became president. Their hatred of Trump has caused them to accuse him and Republicans of the most ridiculous slanders, based on nothing. Thus, this quiz illustrates how completely unqualified any Democratic politician is that spouts accusations of racism and xenophobia against Trump and the Republicans. Such politicians don’t know what they are talking about, have only a single goal of blocking any actions by Republicans, no matter how sensible, and cannot be trusted with legislative power.
The sad thing is that the voters who put such Democrats into power are not likely to change their votes, as they are as much consumed by a bigoted hatred of Trump and Republicans as the Democratic Party.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Link here. Here’s the first question:
“Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented (and) unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
A) Adolf Hitler
B) Donald Trump
C) Barack Obama
Answer: Then-Sen. Obama, news conference, 2005
The quiz continues, each time providing a quote that sounds remarkably like Trump or numerous conservative Republican politicians in discussing the problems of illegal immigration, with the answer instead being almost always Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
The point here is not that Democratic politicians were once against illegal immigration. No, what this quiz illustrates is how completely insane the left has become since Trump became president. Their hatred of Trump has caused them to accuse him and Republicans of the most ridiculous slanders, based on nothing. Thus, this quiz illustrates how completely unqualified any Democratic politician is that spouts accusations of racism and xenophobia against Trump and the Republicans. Such politicians don’t know what they are talking about, have only a single goal of blocking any actions by Republicans, no matter how sensible, and cannot be trusted with legislative power.
The sad thing is that the voters who put such Democrats into power are not likely to change their votes, as they are as much consumed by a bigoted hatred of Trump and Republicans as the Democratic Party.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Adolf imported many millions of foreign workers to Germany during the war, while he sent millions of Germans to the death at the front line. This was vehemently criticized at the time by what would today be called “extremist right anti-Hitler people” or something like that. Goebbels actually wrote at the end of his diary that more “German blood” enters from the west than from the east. In the shape of Germans having emigrated to America to become soldiers invading from the west, as opposed to the eternal wild hoards fleeing helplessly from the socialist massacre invading from the east.
Can anyone spot the racist part of that? As a homework task.
Here’s a video from a Jonathan Haidt talk in which he discusses the psychology and governance issues that create the US political divide, which he describes as recently becoming “hyper-partisan” as I mention in the comments there, I think he’s wrong in attributing the greater unity in the past to the experiences of youth of the WW2 generation, rather I think the recent trend in the growth in left-right animosity has more to do with the demise of the USSR which was recognized by all Americans as a threat, and thus serving to unite them.
It is over an hour long. (1:08:34)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvD47dMvH8Y
A much shorter presentation about 8 minutes, in which he does mention the end of the Cold War as one of the factors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhoGx7bTzko
Sorry, about 15 minutes long not 8.
I think its a bit of a mistake to make a broad statement like “Congress is polarized”, what I think the more accurate statement is: “The Leadership of the two party’s have been invested in moving the country generally to the Left because neither of them has had a verifiable America centric agenda”.
Specifically the Republicans have softened their stance because of the pandering that has been so successful for the Liberals, essentially creating the well known RINO. When a Republican abandons his / her foundation philosophy in order to gain a short term win and essentially becomes a faux Republican I.E. Democrat, that is the road to hell.
For real political success, either Left or Right their must be political warfare and one party and their ideas must win the fight over the other and the losing party must acquiesce (Or be forced to acquiesce) to the winner.
What we are going to soon witness, hopefully, is the forced acquiescing in a political warfare battle of the Left to the Right, specifically on the issue of 1. The wall and 2. A reformulated immigration policy / law. The Democrats will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to change the immigration law because they understand that a real change in this law literally spells death to their party.
What does the Democrat party stand for? 1. Mandated forced illegal immigration, 2, The culture of dependency (welfare) and 3. Sanctuary cities. Thats what the Democrat party stands for, nothing about being or reinforcing being an American. Jut those three things.
Trump, who is not supposed to be the president, is screwing the entire setup up. What is the set up? Both party’s agreeing to “win” (This is where the term Bi Partisan comes from, it means everyone loses, but the left always wins a little bit more because their philosophy epitomizes weakness.) Especially when the real and true strong ideology lays down and loses, “The strong horse”. This “Bi Partisan” / weak thinking always leans to favor the Left and is what we are all witnessing right now being played out in the resultant and blatant corruption,collusion and treason to effect the last presidential election where someone like Trump, “a strong horse”, was not supposed to win.
Anything in the pursuit of the acquisition of or the retention of power. Weak is weak and must in time result in defeat and destruction if bowed to.
Cotour, you’re doing exactly what Haidt describes as the hyper-partisan approach, even down to attacking people within the Republican party who the hype-partisans smear as not Republican enough.
I draw lines, I attempt to discover facts, I weigh evidence, I make decisions, I come to conclusions, I live in the world. I attempt to draw reasonable lines that IMO reasonably describe what people do, what I do, and why they or I do it. Don’t you?
While Mr. Haidt may endeavor to as objectively as possible describe what people do and why they do it as a Social Psychologist does he suggest that what people do to come to reasonable conclusions is incorrect? (I have not heard of him before nor have I watched his entire video)
Partisan? Hyper partisan? (I am not sure whether Mr. Haidt, or you, are challenging me or insulting me or not :)
Choose a side and lets get on with it, this is political warfare.
Cotour–
-It’s an insult.
“Joe Rogan & Jordan Peterson on Modern Tribalism”
JRE episode #1070
https://youtu.be/nxdvA4dit-o
12:08
‘Do the Marxists have sympathy for the working class? To answer this dilemma, Jordan Peterson relates this to George Orwell’s book, “the Road to Wigan Pier.””
(spoiler alert: they don’t love the poor, they just hate the rich.)
“Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege”
Jordan Peterson
University of British Columbia, November 13, 2017
(2:31:42)
“I wanted to delve more deeply into the ideology on the radical side of the leftist spectrum, and to specifically address the idea of white privilege. Hopefully that’s what I did.”
The above referenced JBP lecture is here:
https://youtu.be/PfH8IG7Awk0
Wayne, In your Joe Rogan & Jordan Peterson link Peterson is giving exactly the same message as Haidt, – left and right need each other and have to talk reasonably, so thanks for the video.
Neither Haidt nor I are throwing insults, Haidt describes hyperpartisan as being so polarized that reasonable discussion between parties of different ideologies isn’t possible, I think Contour’s statements qualify as hyperpartisan, they sure don’t sound tp me like he believes reasonable discussion across the divide is possible, rather it sounds to me like he thinks the solution is the end of the Democrat party:
“. . . Democrat, that is the road to hell.”
“a real change in this law literally spells death to their party.”
“What does the Democrat party stand for? 1. Mandated forced illegal immigration, 2, The culture of dependency (welfare) and 3. Sanctuary cities. Thats what the Democrat party stands for, nothing about being or reinforcing being an American. Just those three things.”
“blatant corruption,collusion and treason”
“Anything in the pursuit of the acquisition of or the retention of power. Weak is weak and must in time result in defeat and destruction if bowed to.”
Wayne, I don’t understand the relevance of your second link to the discussion we’re having (though I haven’t watched the whole thing yet), Jordan is not labeling the Democrats as Marxist, and the problems that exist with the illiberalism displayed by “Post Modernists” still does not constitute an argument for not trying to persuade them with reasoned arguments.
Wayne, I’ve just finished watching Peterson in your second link, go check out his reply to the questioner at 2:20:10. Peterson’s reply is exactly the argument I’ve been making here.
Andrew_W:
I’ll get back to you when I have more time today. (tangentially-what is the time-difference between NZ and the USA? and is it Winter or Summer?
Good deal on actually watching the whole thing, I ended up re-watching it myself.
In Brief: I would put forth the proposition the utopian statist left is terminally over the edge. Actually “discussing anything” with them is less than fruitless, and they must be completely destroyed and left on the ash heap on History.
If that makes me hyper-partisan, sign me up. If we’re playing the Tribal Game, my Tribe will play to win, all the way.
(more later)
“Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?”
VAAS Far Cry 3; Kinetic Typography
https://youtu.be/uDoSy1WiYfU
1:39
” I think Contour’s statements qualify as hyperpartisan, they sure don’t sound tp me like he believes reasonable discussion across the divide is possible, rather it sounds to me like he thinks the solution is the end of the Democrat party:”
Andrew W: These are just my observations about where the Democrat party has driven itself, please feel free to counter me with other facts not known to me. The Democrat party can chose to drive itself where ever it pleases, their party which is now controlled by the Left and those three listed un American goals are exactly what they now stand for. They choose the solution, not me.
I also point out that at some point their party will die or transform as a result of the soon to be changed immigration law and policy that they will be dragged to by the strong horse (True leadership). Leadership is the key, without true leadership based in some belief of good or bad, I prefer my interpretation of good if you want to define that as “partisan” than so be it, determines whether the lower forms of power usurpers gain in power and drive the agenda.
Partisan, Hyper partisan, tribal, Bi partisan, all terms that can be fashioned into weapons of politically correct warfare, lets see them for what they are. Classify me how ever you like, but be accurate please. Right now you need to adjust how you are interpreting me.
Wayne said:
“….If that makes me hyper-partisan, sign me up. If we’re playing the Tribal Game, my Tribe will play to win, all the way….”
Exactly. And Cotour is right as well: Choose a side! The Culture Wars have begun and it’s time to decide where you stand.
One of my favorite movie quotes (but I forget which movie…):
“If it’s Us or Them, I vote Us!”
Steve Earl, you further expose how the Left attempts to disarms their opponents. First they attempt to redefine or label what is either good or bad, for their own purposes and then they point their finger. (Pure Alynski / Obama technique)
Partisan? Hyper partisan? Good or bad? Bi partisan good?
If I can reasonably identify the things that someone is doing is not in my best interests (Leftist doctrine or defacto Leftist doctrine in the form of weak RINO actions) and I work against it and someone chooses to call me a name like “Hyper partisan” then so be it. But that is their definition, Not mine.
Choosing a side has been vilified by the operatives of the Left, but not when they choose a side.
I say, be aware of it but ignore it for the most part and move without hesitation or lack of confidence positively into the future. We understand that all is fare in love and war, and this is political warfare. I have no apologies for anyone. I encourage anyone to challenge my thinking, especially the righteous Left zealot. (And I wish them good luck with that)
“….If that makes me hyper-partisan, sign me up. If we’re playing the Tribal Game, my Tribe will play to win, all the way….”
As Peterson and I point out, your tribe is the USA, Democrats and Republicans are two factions within the same tribe, as Peterson also say, they’re like man and wife. You have to live with them, on that you don’t get to choose.
Cotour, you respect Peterson? Maybe he explains it better than I can in reply to the questioner at 2:20:10 in Wayne’s video.
https://youtu.be/PfH8IG7Awk0
These are but two of the “Men” that aspire to lead the world:
http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/news/business/latest-trudeau-meets-california-top-leaders-article-1.3810525
These are offensive people to me and are not leaders but posing “Progressive” Leftist enslavers and usurpers of individuals rights. So choose.
Andrew W: If your overall point is that there are but two viable political party’s in America, point taken. That is the current power dynamic in America.
This is where you are wrong Andrew,
your tribe is the USA, Democrats and Republicans are two factions within the same tribe
In whispers the left will tell you they hate America. I first noticed this forty years ago living in NY. Their agenda is to rule globally where nations don’t matter and citizens are serfs (property of the govt.)
When they pat you on the back they are just looking for a good place to stick the knife.
They aren’t looking for a consensus. They only want capitulation. Common good is of no interest to them.
This is why they have no problem insisting the right play by the rules yet no problem breaking those same rules.
You don’t negotiate with evil. Because they are not negotiating in good faith at all.
“In whispers the left will tell you they hate America.”
Who’s “they”? Is this the many tens of millions of people who vote Democrat? Is this people in the Democrat Party leadership?
There are certainly incidents of American people saying they hate America, but if you think it’s reasonable to claim that is representative of Democrats you’re not being reasonable. There are also sentiments in the Democrats that the US should be more dovish and internationalist or somesuch, but that doesn’t constitute “hating America” but rather not hating foreigners.
When they pat you on the back they are just looking for a good place to stick the knife.
That’s a silly cliché.
They aren’t looking for a consensus. They only want capitulation. Common good is of no interest to them.
That’s the hyperpartisans amongst them, the hyperpartisans amongst the Republicans are saying the same thing.
This is why they have no problem insisting the right play by the rules yet no problem breaking those same rules.
You don’t negotiate with evil. Because they are not negotiating in good faith at all.
It’s as if you haven’t been listening – to me or Haidt or Peterson, in one ear and out the other.
Andrew W:
I will make this one modification after watching that short part of Petersen’s talk on Winning to better explain my position so you can better understand me. I will place the word “Winning” in brackets and make it specific to politics. When I talk of “Winning” related to the political warfare that humans engage in, specifically related to what is going on in America today I mean “Winning” in the political context and what ever goes along with that, good bad or otherwise.
Two opposing philosophical sides in both thought and actions related to who and how our government does what it does face off with each other and the public through observing and participating in the erupting contentious conversation weighs and evaluates who and what is best for them and the country as a whole. These battles happen in all of the place that it happens, Local State and Federal, in the media, in schools and in pubs, where ever.
Let us not be limited or terrified by Petersen’s observation that there are in fact extreme factions, although a small fraction IMO, within both party’s that would happily bring things mindlessly to a physical violence point. I do not in any way encourage violence but I do understand that there are these people exist on both sides.
The extension of what I believe you are attempting to say is that because there is the real potential for some level of violence or civil disruption that we should all just surrender and compromise even though we also understand that that compromise pushes us further along to the slippery slope of Socialism. I reject that conclusion (If that is what you in deed propose. I do not think that that is what Petersen means either).
The world is in fact a dangerous place, compromise with Socialism, essentially leading to the Globalization of the planet and the mandatory surrendering of the Constitution and our sovereignty is a non starter for me.
I hope I have clarified my position related to what I believe your position is.
The battle rages and the “Winner” will take the political spoils, and thats the way that it should be. These struggles are structured and codified within the Constitution and they are there for a reason which I will further explain if you need or would like.
(If that is what you in deed propose. I do not think that that is what Petersen means either).
Well that’s not my position, which can be summed up with: Debate is healthy, demonizing each other, with labels like “evil” and “traitors” is not helpful and is in fact destructive as they cause greater division over pretend differences. Ken really thinks that tens of millions of Democrats are “evil”?
It’s not a question of “compromise” it’s a question of putting your case convincingly to win them (or as many of them as you can) over.
Foremost I blame the US electoral system, as does Haidt, it pushes people into electing politicians with more extreme left-right positions. A system in which the greater diversity of views that do exist amongst the public were represented more proportionately would I’m sure actually lead to better negotiations between the politicians. It would free the Libertarians from the conservatives.
Andrew_W:
just real briefly– I understand exactly what Peterson is saying, and I realize my brief comment proves-your-point via “hyper-partisan,” and the apparent contradiction therein from me.
Steve Earle- good stuff.
Cotour- interesting take.
ken- good stuff.
(rushed for time but good input from all)
“Ken really thinks that tens of millions of Democrats are “evil”?”
Tens of millions of Democrats in America are not “evil”, they are lead for the moment by Leftists and I would define Leftist / Socialist philosophy as ultimately “Evil” given the ultimate known end results. Wouldn’t you agree? Especially given the specific local we are discussing, America and its Constitution.
“Foremost I blame the US electoral system, as does Haidt, it pushes people into electing politicians with more extreme left-right positions. ”
Incendiary name calling? Get over it, It goes with the territory, in the end calmer heads usually prevail.
The US electorial system has proven that over time it is superior to all others, for AMERICANS. It is a testament to the brilliance of the Founders and their ability to understand history and the nature of man related to power and to manifest in a codified document / road map the proper rules of operation for AMERICANS. Messy? Counter intuitive? Frustrating? Dangerous? Yes, very, but it works in the long term and provides the potential to engage the Wave form instead of the Oval form of civilization.
It might not be right for you, but to each his own.
I would define Leftist / Socialist philosophy as ultimately “Evil” given the ultimate known end results.
I avoid the term “evil” because it has a supernatural overtone, so, depending on the application I stick with words like misguided, inefficient, destructive, insane, corrupt and counterproductive.
I would define Leftist / Socialist philosophy as ultimately “Evil” given the ultimate known end results. Wouldn’t you agree?
No, Communism and it’s supporters are misguided because communism is inefficient, destructive, insane, corrupt and counterproductive, but Social Democracy (the Democrats) and Democratic Socialism are just inefficient and wasteful – which does cause hardship – but as long as that democracy bit exists and is functioning, well, people will get what they vote for.
Incendiary name calling?
Not at all, as I said, Libertarians are horribly under represented in the US system (and in other FPP systems around the world), that’s undemocratic.
The US electorial system has proven that over time it is superior to all others, for AMERICANS.
Now that’s just illogical, how can you or anyone else possibly reasonably claim that the current system is better for Americans when Americans have NEVER used any other system, that’s equivalent to Cubans claiming that their form of socialism is proven better for Cubans than any other system when all they’re willing to compare it to is other systems of government that have existed in Cuba in the past – none of which have been as efficient at creating and distributing wealth amongst the population as market democracies.
A while ago over on Rand’s site there was a discussion about whether or not the US is now in a state of civil war, I argued not – but if things keep going the way they have been it would not surprise me at all if we start seeing a surge in partisan political violence – which could come from both extremes, because when you start dehumanizing and demonizing people, when you deny that they are part of your tribe, the societal inhibitions towards committing violent acts against them go down. They become the enemy, equivalent to the enemy that it’s morally OK or even praiseworthy to kill, like German and Japanese combatants and leaders in WW2.
Supernatural overtones? Do you deny that evil exits in the world?
If you recognize that evil does exist in the world do you also recognize that any system that tends to subugate its people is evil?
Words, semantics, symbolism they can all be powerful and incendiary but we are mostly all adults and we get over things like them when we understand how they are being used to control us.
“The US electorial system has proven that over time it is superior to all others, for AMERICANS.”
Our American system is what has emerged from the Constitution and it is the best for us. When the Cubans can throw up a 20 Trillion dollar economy and field what some believe is the most powerful military that has ever existed on the planet, the most wealth that has ever existed on the planet and be the reserve currency of most of the planet Etc, etc, etc, (its a long list if you have not noticed) then they can claim anything that they please about their system. Until then, they can not and if they did THAT would be “Illogical”.
And as far as a civil war potential in America, our political system is designed for conflict there in lies its ability to constantly cleans itself. I really do not believe that America is anywhere near actual physical civil war.
Do you know what a nation containing 400 million fire arms in the hands of the people creates? A nervous government. (Keep in mind, that is by specific design. Think about that for a moment.)
Wait until Hillary is indicted in the coming months, that will be the test. And even then any violence should their be any will be short lived. And make no mistake about it, as the immigration system is changed against the advantage of the Democrat party AND the Hillary and the various people who surround her are indicted that will be the Democrats most desperate point in the cycle and the ultimate test. But nothing much will come of it.
Supernatural overtones? Do you deny that evil exits in the world?
That would depend on your definition, if you mean there’s a supernatural being about some people call the devil acting to cause harm then no, I don’t buy into that superstition and therefore that definition of evil. If you want to define it as badness created by humans, then I have to ask created deliberately by someone sane with all the facts simply to inflict harm for harms sake and with no motivation born of revenge, or survival or their own prosperity then it gets tricky. In several of his videos Peterson mentions the warlike nature of chimpanzees, if a group of chimps find a chimp from another tribe they’ll corner it and rip it to pieces, brutally and without mercy. Is that evil? How about if a soldier ignores a white flag because taking prisoners would be inconvenient, so kills those trying to surrender, is that evil? How about a person with a serious mental disorder like schizophrenia who kills several people, is that evil? At some point the atrocities get so disgusting that we all and motivated to label them as evil, but that’s an emotional response, and if the victim is a mortal enemy we still might not use the “evil” label, rationalizing their suffering as karma or their just deserts.
That’s why I don’t like using the word, it’s subjective and highly so.
Our American system is what has emerged from the Constitution and it is the best for us.
So say you, but that’s your opinion, and other Americans do have other opinions.
most powerful military that has ever existed on the planet, . . .
Those are a few measures but there are plenty of other metrics that other people might find more important: per capita income, crime rates, wealth distribution, cultural and interpersonal characteristics of the culture, religious influences, child mortality rates and many others. There are several organization that rank issues like personal freedom, economic freedom, and press freedom in countries around the world, the US is usually in the top 20 – but very rarely is the US #1.
Do you know what a nation containing 400 million fire arms in the hands of the people creates? A nervous government. (Keep in mind, that is by specific design. Think about that for a moment.)
I said “it would not surprise me at all if we start seeing a surge in partisan political violence” so civil war is not what I’m talking, but all those guns make partisan political violence – domestic terrorism if you prefer – easier.
Andrew_W;
I’m not really big on the “metaphysical” (nor ‘supernatural’) but Evil with a capital E, definitely exists in the world, and it manifests as malevolent psychopathy.
Evil Bloody Well Exists
Prof. Jordan Peterson
[from 2017 Personality 04/05: Heroic and Shamanic Initiations]
https://youtu.be/zPfFqFl31ZI
6:32
You’re going to have to excuse me for not addressing your specific comments on some of my stuff. This is a (broadly) DEEP discussion & we have multiple Concepts going on all at once.
I’ll have to pick this up in a future thread.
C: “Our American system is what has emerged from the Constitution and it is the best for us.”
A: “So say you, but that’s your opinion, and other Americans do have other opinions.”
What we have right now in America is what has emerged from the Constitution, its not only my opinion it is a fact. Communism did not emerge from the Constitution a Democratic Republic emerged that embraces capitalism. Other American can have what ever opinion that they please, but the facts is the facts.
“Those are a few measures but there are plenty of other metrics that other people might find more important: ”
Economy and military are THEE metrics, in the Macro big picture. All of those other life style /subjective life quality metrics are incidental and secondary, without in fact possessing the power this is just a theoretical discussion. “Several Organizations” can come up with what ever metrics they like. “US is usually in the top 20 – but very rarely is the US #1.” Tell that to China when they come calling.
Q: George Washington, freedom fighter or domestic terrorist?
You miss the point about a founding document that purposefully by design puts the power of possessing fire arms in the hands of the public. Dangerous? Yes. So what?
If you’re arguing that you have the current Constitution and therefore it’s the best possible Constitution, that’s a non sequitur.
Economy and military are THEE metrics,
China has passed the US in GDP PPP and later this century China will likely pass the US in GDP nominal and in military capability, by your logic China can then claim to be superior to the US in THEE metrics.
. . . a founding document that purposefully by design puts the power of possessing fire arms in the hands of the public. Dangerous? Yes. So what?
Indeed so what?
“China has passed the US in GDP PPP and later this century China will likely pass the US in GDP nominal and in military capability, by your logic China can then claim to be superior to the US in THEE metrics.”
China can certainly claim some level of success in this area, and they certainly do seem to have world domination plans on the front burner, but they are still communist, the government owns the people. Not the ideal model IMO.
Obviously not the ideal model, my point was only that your important metrics are not so wonderful if China could meet them.
I’ll just post a few of those freedom rankings,
CATO human freedom index:
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index
Heritage Foundation index of economic freedom:
https://www.heritage.org/index/
World Bank Ease of doing Business index:
https://www.heritage.org/index/
Reporters without boarders press freedom index:
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
The Democracy Index is an index by the UK-based company the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Wrong link to World Bank Ease of doing Business index, correct link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index
The US ranks:
Cato 17
Heritage 18
Press freedom 43
Ease of business 6
Democracy index 21
There are about a dozen countries that rank higher than the US in almost all of those categories. Mainly the Scandinavian countries and the other developed Anglophone countries. While total GDP and military capability is most important to you these are the types of metrics I look to.
I just had a look at the World Happiness Index 2016 which has the US at 13 with most of those same Scandinavian and Anglophone countries above it.
I know that many on the US right see the Scandinavian form of Social Democracy as little different to socialism, and my understanding is that many US Democrats see the Scandinavian form of Social Democracy as something to aspire to. If that is so, why are the Democrat party policies such an anathema to the US right? (there’s a touch of devils advocate in me asking that one).
Based on nothing, Bob? Hell, Trump opened his campaign calling most undocumented aliens Mexico’s “rapists and murderers,” he soft-pedaled the freakin’ Klan and Nazis at Charlottesville, and he called for a total ban on Muslims entering the country. And if you want more examples, here’s a fairly comprehensive list with incidents dating back to the ’80’s: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html.
Stick with science, Bob, and leave the hackery and offense-taking to Breitbart and Stormfront.
>>Holy cow Morgan!
(Tangentially, how many times DID you vote, for Obama?)
The NY Times? … you do realize? They refused to cover the holocaust during WW-2.
>>That’s one distorted presentation of reality the past year.
[“calling most undocumented aliens Mexico’s “rapists and murderers,””]
-You obviously never watched a complete Trump rally presentation.
[“he soft-pedaled the freakin’ Klan and Nazis at Charlottesville”]
Really? is that what he DID? Or is that what you were TOLD he did?
[“and he called for a total ban on Muslims entering the country.”]
That’s just straight-up, Fake, made up “news.”
“Release The LocalFluff and The Cotour!”
Andrew W:
You rely heavily on other peoples opinions, specifically very large, big money Liberal / Leftist think tank type operations that tell you what is good and what is not.
If you notice I as a general rule write about 1. The foundation from which America springs and 2. The corrupt nature that infects those who strive to acquire and retain political power. Everything that happens in between those two ends of the spectrum represents the individual American citizens battle to properly understand and make choices. It can be chaotic and very messy but in the long term it works for most. I as a rule do not rely on “others” to tell me what is good and what is bad. If someone else has to tell you what is what IMO you have a fundamental problem, a primary weakness of the Socialist model and the thinking that attaches itself to it. That is not an insult and not meant as an insult, its just a fact.
For instance you site Sweden as being a “preferred” place to live, its on a “list”. Have you ever asked a Swedish woman what its like to live in modern Sweden? How about Germany? Both are considered the rape capitols of Europe due to political activity of those wonderful EU Socialists that you so willingly and mindlessly embrace.
Both “Utopian” Socialist governments are seen to have sacrificed their own female population on the alter of “Whats best for everyone”. Go to #120decibels , its a new German woman’s organization that attempts to deal with German women’s # 1 problem, their government importing Islam into THEIR country as per the EU / Globalist agenda.
Lists, lists, lists, are like opinions……………………………….everyone or anyone can make one to fulfill pretty much what ever picture you want to paint. Not that there is anything wrong with lists.
Back to America. America is an ongoing social experiment that has through its chaotic and different model has in fact created much of the wealth that is in the modern world today and has in fact build the most powerful military that has ever existed on the planet and between those two ends of the spectrum we exist and battle to move positively into the future, warts and all.
Morgan Latte:
You site another List! Wonderful.
(Liberals just love lists, why is that? They believe that it makes their work easier? Lazy thinkers?)
(See my last response to Andrew W related to “Lists”)
Gaze upon what you have wrought Liberals / Leftists / Socialists / Globalists / American Liberal / Leftist sympathizers / Andrew W / Morgan Latte. This is your dream world, to me and reasonable humans it is a coming nightmare.
https://youtu.be/Rdtc7uRyLw0
Be ashamed of yourself that the women of the EU who have become so desperate must organize in such a way to counter your attack upon them. You all promote the neutering and feminizing of the male and the sexual abuse of the female all in order to further destroy the family structure that stands in the way of your “Globalist” agenda. Sick and sickening, its one of the things on one of your lists.
How dare you mindlessly participate in and do such a thing in the name of “Whats best for all”. A true perversion of thought and action.
You rely heavily on other peoples opinions, specifically very large, big money Liberal / Leftist think tank type operations that tell you what is good and what is not.
That’s your first factual error: CATO and the Heritage Foundation are both very much right not left, CATO is libertarian, Heritage conservative. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is part of the Economist Group which publishes the Economist Magazine, are any of those “Liberal / Leftist think tanks” not by any sane measure. The other two sources I linked to, Reporters Without Boarders and the World Bank I don’t think have any strong ideological flavor. So your implication that I seek out “Liberal / Leftist think tank” for guidance is nonsense.
If you notice I as a general rule write about 1. The foundation from which America springs and 2. The corrupt nature that infects those who strive to acquire and retain political power. Everything that happens in between those two ends of the spectrum represents the individual American citizens battle to properly understand and make choices. It can be chaotic and very messy but in the long term it works for most.
I see your approach as shallow and narrow, we each walk around with a model of the world in our heads, it’s a very imperfect and simplified model but we can choose to work to improve it, to broaden its foundation. What I do in life is seek out sources that challenge that model, to test it so that I can alter and refine it as I grow and learn, I want my model of the world to be complete and accurate as it can be, hence as I illustrate above, I look at all sources and listen and discuss issues with a wide range of people.
I as a rule do not rely on “others” to tell me what is good and what is bad.
Do you really think I rely on “others” to tell me what is good and what is bad? If so you haven’t been paying attention, the one group of people that spring to mind as relying on others to tell them what is good and what is bad are church goers, and other religious people, people like yourself.
If someone else has to tell you what is what IMO you have a fundamental problem, a primary weakness of the Socialist model and the thinking that attaches itself to it. That is not an insult and not meant as an insult, its just a fact.
I’ll assume from that that you’re labeling me a socialist. I suspect that the reason you’ve jumped to this very wrong conclusion is that you foolishly – and I do mean foolishly – (1) Think that people who disagree with you in the way I do, who point out that the hyperpartisan views you hold are not good for the stability of your country must be on the other side of the spectrum from you. You fail to comprehend that my position against hyperpartisanship is ideologically neutral, and (2).
You think those Anglophone and Scandinavian countries are more socialist than the US, they are not, many on the US right hold an illusion that Capitalism = small government. Socialism = big government. Firstly those aren’t definitions of capitalism and socialism (look them up if you need to) secondly, government spending (local through to central) levels aren’t much different between those Anglophone and Scandinavian countries and the US.
I said “(there’s a touch of devils advocate in me asking that one)”. Do you not understand why I said that? It’s because I’m NOT a socialist or social democrat, quite the opposite in fact, the difference between you and I is that I look at the evidence – which is that these Social Democracies ARE doing well in terms of the metrics that I (and most people) think important, so I have to ask why. You on the other hand blindly and stupidly just dismiss the evidence because it’s not what you want to hear – another trait of a hyperpartisan.
For instance you site Sweden as being a ”preferred” place to live, its on a “list”.
No I haven’t, you’ve just made that up, I’ve made no claims about which are “preferred” places to live.
Have you ever asked a Swedish woman what its like to live in modern Sweden? How about Germany? Both are considered the rape capitols of Europe due to political activity of those wonderful EU Socialists that you so willingly and mindlessly embrace.
Again you’re making things up, Swedish women, despite the propaganda you’ve bought into, are far safer than women in most western countries and they know it, your claims of “rape capitols of Europe” is also a fiction perpetrated by the limited misinformation sources you rely upon.
. . . their government importing Islam into THEIR country as per the EU / Globalist agenda.
I also question the wisdom of Europe accepting the flood of immigrants that they have, I don’t think it was an undertaking that they’ve handled well at all. In countries that have accepted large numbers of culturally different immigrants and been successful – not created an alienated minority – there have been substantial investments in preparing those immigrants to live in a very different society to that which they’d been raised in. In Europe they’re creating an underclass with high rates of unemployment, which is leading to high rates of crime amongst those unemployed – a situation very much like that which has existed in the US since the importation of slaves.
Cotour, you do realize that they were talking about 3 girls (not the ones in the propaganda video)? Isn’t 3 rapes a day about average in a large US city (the answer is yes).
This article I believe gives a balanced perspective:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445169/swedens-rape-problem-truth-more-complicated-narrative
But still, you rely on others to do your thinking for you.
I am “Shallow and Narrow”, just like Trump. I get Trump, I understand Trump, I suppose you prefer the intellectual likes of Obama, no thank you.
Yes, I do think you rely on others for your opinion. Religious? Me? An incorrect assumption.
If you promote the EU model (Of the raping of European women) then yes, I will classify you as a Socialist.
I have never defined Capitalism as being small government, I certainly will classify Socialism as being for and promoting big government. Capitalism does not indicate big nor small government it indicates an economic model.
The models that you have sited have wittingly or unwittingly, I am not sure which evil to embrace there, created a rape culture by applying their chosen “Superior” by the “evidence” socialist models, do you dispute that fact?
I make none of this up. https://youtu.be/xBewxQUHwvo Have a bit of an education, she is very pretty, and well spoken.
The “Happiness Index”, another list. How foolish and self deceiving. “Scandinavian”, you sited it, Sweden is Scandinavian. Its on the list.
From the things that you have written my takeaway is that you support philosophies such as the Globalisation of the world and the EU model of it in practice and the “superiority” of the Socialist model. NO? Maybe you should reread what you have written? Trying to hide behind “Objectivity” is a bit transparent, no? If you live your life by those many study’s that you have listed (Another list) then what kind of life do you live? What if you come across a list that tells you to find the highest building and jump off of it? JERONIMOOOOOOOO! LOOK OUT BELOWWWW!
I say that if you indeed support what I have reasonably concluded by your writings that you support that a more useful application of you time would to first realize your miscalculation and misunderstanding of human nature, be embarrassed and ashamed and mend your thinking before its too late.
If your above comment was written using standard English grammar I’m sure it would be more comprehensible.
Religious? Me? An incorrect assumption.
:-) I was fishing.
If you promote the EU model (Of the raping of European women) then yes, I will classify you as a Socialist.
There’s an EU model of raping European women? I’ve no idea what that’s supposed to mean, is it some sort of EU quality standard for rape?
I certainly will classify Socialism as being for and promoting big government.
In the rest of the world socialism is public (government or cooperative) ownership of the means of production. Nothing there about big government or small government.
The models that you have sited have wittingly or unwittingly, I am not sure which evil to embrace there, created a rape culture by applying their chosen “Superior” by the “evidence” socialist models, do you dispute that fact?
How could I possibly dispute it when your comment is so poorly written as to be incomprehensible? What “models” that I have sited? “have wittingly or unwittingly” what??
I make none of this up. https://youtu.be/xBewxQUHwvo Have a bit of an education, she is very pretty, and well spoken.
Oh, I see, you judge people not on the merits of what they say but on how pretty they are.
I use a different approach, I go see if I can verify her claims. The result? Her graphs are FAKE, there are no statistics supporting her claim of such a rapid rise in rape in Sweden, despite the Swedes broadening the definition of rape in 2004, a change that did impact the stats – slightly. (Now their definition is basically the US university feminists definition).
Get this. There are people out there who will put up claims on sites like youtube for suckers like you to go to, there is no quality control, and naive fools, looking for evidence to support the narrative they’re married to just suck it up without even considering that they should question its validity.
Ohh, but she’s pretty and well spoken! FFS.
From the things that you have written my takeaway is that you support philosophies such as the Globalisation of the world and the EU model of it in practice and the “superiority” of the Socialist model.
That simply demonstrates that you base your beliefs not on evidence but rather on whatever it is you want to believe.
Maybe you should reread what you have written?
I don’t need to, nothing I have written is evidence that I believe that the best economic/political systems of today are as good as classical liberalism could be. I can say well done to the Scandinavians without signing on as a supporter of their system. and that’s the big difference between you and I, I’m able to give credit where it’s due because I’m not a hyperpartisan, only able to fairly consider the argument of those holding my beliefs.
What if you come across a list that tells you to find the highest building and jump off of it? JERONIMOOOOOOOO! LOOK OUT BELOWWWW!
Given the lack of rationality in your above comment . . . have you been drinking?
Go read something about human nature and psychology and when I say something I mean sh!t loads. I’ve been working on understanding human nature for decades, from Dawkins through to Desmond Morris to todays thinkers, I arrived at “human social morality is based on evolution a decade ago and today people like Peterson and Haidt are saying exactly that. I know why socialism doesn’t work and why the free market does and, unlike you, I actually know what socialism is. I have a model for why government spending, in Western countries, as a percentage of GDP has risen from 10 -15% to 40 – 50% over the last 120 years. Are you even aware of how marked that trend has been? I’m betting your explanation for that trend can be summed up as “socialists bad”, if I’m wrong, if you’ve got a better understanding of how and WHY we’re moving in the direction we are than “socialists bad” give it to me. Amaze me with your wisdom..
Jordan Peterson –
“Developing Your Inner Psychopath”
[from; Maps of Meaning 11: The Flood and the Tower 2017]
https://youtu.be/WgJ1n9DF1WE
5:37
I am bullet point responding to save time, I am trying not to write a book.
* Fishing? Catch anything?
* The women in the EU country’s that have been forced by the Globalist agenda to accept those who are “different” from what I can gather do not feel safe in their own country’s because of it.
* Owning the means of production is Communism, not quite Socialism, yet.
* You have sited lists contained within think tank research that attempt to classify and rate societies as being Good, Better, Best, where America related to these metrics is only 18th. Wittingly or unwittingly. I guess it is unwittingly.
* No, I am certainly judging what the young lady is saying or I would not have posted it. And, yes, a pretty face can sway me, for a few minutes anyway. This particular young lady has something to say and she sounds very credible.
* And if Sweden breaks out in violence or civil war, will I still have been a fool? We will wait and see what happens there. Although the government appears to control what the news can report on such matters.
* FFS? (If this represents a foul word or term please do not write or approximate it here)
* In siting all of those lists are you not promoting their research as being superior? If not then why site them? If you throw out information without also bringing to them some conclusion about whether they were either good or bad then all I can do assume that the information that you site is characterized by you as being “Good”. That is not unreasonable. If you have not shared your conclusion to this point feel free to do so.
* A little bit of just about anything other than Plutonium is usually OK, even Socialism. But, when Socialism is pumped with steroids and transforms into “Globalism” and the “New World Order” or related animals like the EU then that is too much. (Do you believe that there is a Globalist agenda? Or is that just a rumor or propaganda too?) I pointed out that the Constitution and what emerges from it is the best “For Americans”, and I stand strongly by that statement.
* The problem with Socialism, from this Americans point of view anyway, is that those who embrace it, specifically politicians, soon come to believe that only more and more will do. I point out what the democrats have transformed themselves into regarding it. Tell me the three main things that the Democrat party now stands for? If you have have been reading my previous posts you will have the answer at the tip of your fingers.
(I will give you the answer if you have not read my relevant post: The modern American Democrat party now stands for just three main things. 1. Forced illegal immigration. 2. The culture of dependency the welfare state. and 3. Sanctuary cities where both of these things converge.
The Democrat party which is now lead by Leftists is sooo invested in these three things because these are the only things in which they can sustain and grow their party because they have soooo embraced Socialism that they have become un American. They have long ago left reasonable Liberal Socialism. Their party is in a death spiral and they understand that with the change in the immigration law that is coming via the Trump presidency they have big problems.
ken anthony wrote: “They aren’t looking for a consensus. They only want capitulation.”
For the (American) left, they consider capitulation to be consensus. Anything less than capitulation is unacceptable to them.
Andrew_W wrote: “That’s the hyperpartisans amongst them, the hyperpartisans amongst the Republicans are saying the same thing.”
Which just goes to show how little New Zealander Andrew_W knows of the American Republicans.
Andrew_W wrote: “Debate is healthy, demonizing each other, with labels like “evil” and “traitors” is not helpful and is in fact destructive as they cause greater division over pretend differences.”
It is just like a leftist (in America) to think like this. Evil and treason exist. To refuse to acknowledge them is to stick your head in the sand.
The Democratic Party in America and some officials in the government have demonstrated both concepts in their attempt to destroy the US principles of liberty in order to throw at least one election and to violate the will of the people after that election. Notice that neither the Republican Party in America nor government officials attempted to do the same after Democrats won elections; there were not many Republicans who advocated for drastic actions such as impeachment — mostly just Democrats declaring that Republicans couldn’t get an impeachment if they wanted one.
How is such one-sidedness not evil or even treasonous, in America? Such one-sidedness is definitely more like the Soviet system, not the American system. Attempting to destroy the American system is most definitely treasonous, by definition, even if it is done from within the government.
Evil is not supernatural, it is human action, just as good is not and is, respectively. Once again, Andrew_W redefines words in order to … what? Spark a reaction? Divert the discussion? Avoid having to admit being wrong?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil
If only he would stick to the actual definitions of words, then we could get on with discussing the issues at hand rather than arguing over what words mean to each of us and whose definition is more correct than the dictionary. Most of the rest of this thread has devolved into meaningless drivel about the meaning of words, about what was meant by some phrase or sentence, to assume that someone else has made an incorrect assumption about oneself, about assumptions of the living conditions in America, to clarify a poorly stated point, or to make snide comments about drinking habits. It has deviated from racism, xenophobia, and politicians who use these words as tools to shut up their foes.
What a waste of reading time.
how can you or anyone else possibly reasonably claim that the current system is better for Americans when Americans have NEVER used any other system”
Actually, the first system Americans used was in the first colonies, such as Plymouth Colony, and it would be described as socialist, but that word was not in existence at that time. Like socialism, it failed, but unlike most socialist societies it did not have any “other people’s money” (previous productivity) to keep it going for any length of time, and it failed rapidly, causing unrest among the colonists and the death of half the Plymouth Colony in the first year. In the second year those colonists turned to free market capitalism — a phrase that also was not in existence at the time — and were so prosperous that they had enough excess food to invite their neighbors (Indians) to a three-day banquet to celebrate and to thank God for the advantageous free market capitalism. We Americans celebrate this rescue from socialism with an annual holiday we call Thanksgiving — though most people are incorrectly taught that it was to thank the Indians for saving them.
The Indians did little to help, but would have been more than happy to help if only the colonists had requested it. It was a tragedy of contradictory cultures; the Indians not wishing overstep, and the Pilgrims not having a culture that asks for charity. The result was a loss of half the colony and a lesson that self support under free market capitalism works far, far better than charity under socialism, which is also why the Indians had had enough prosperity to help out the Pilgrims. Funny how we lost that lesson, ever since the progressives took over the American education system, driving many American opinions to the side that has proved to fail time and again, even here in America. If socialism has failed because the wrong people have run it, then it is not a socialist government that works but the right people that work the governance.
“that’s equivalent to Cubans claiming that their form of socialism is proven better for Cubans than any other system when all they’re willing to compare it to is other systems of government that have existed in Cuba in the past”
I would agree, except that Cubans are risking their lives every day in an attempt to get to America from Cuba, and no Americans risk their lives to go the other way. Cubans did not risk their lives under any other form of government, either, so there is absolutely no equivalence here.
Morgan Latte wrote: “Based on nothing, Bob? Hell, Trump opened his campaign calling most undocumented aliens Mexico’s ‘rapists and murderers,’ he soft-pedaled the freakin’ Klan and Nazis at Charlottesville, and he called for a total ban on Muslims entering the country.”
Actually, Trump did none of those things. All of Morgan’s claims are from lies that the left (in America, Andrew_W) created and made seem real by basing them on things that Trump did say. So in that way, they were not based on nothing but lies, invented to mislead those, such as Morgan, who do not pay close enough attention and neither question nor research what they hear or read from the progressive news and from their progressive friends.
The problem is, of course, that lying works for the progressives. Thus they use that strategy constantly, and their victims — er — audiences still have no clue.
As for the list of Trump dating back to the 1980s, that would be the last three decades that Trump was a lifelong liberal Democrat, so those would have agreed with the Democratic philosophy, not the Republican one. Trump did not turn Republican or even pretend to be conservative (which he still cannot define) until he decided to run for president. He and the rest of his family are still locked firmly in the progressive mindset.
Trump is a progressive, just like every US president since Reagan.
1. Not that time, wrong bait.
2. As I said, I agree that Europe should not have brought in those numbers of immigrants without the system in place to integrate them, and it’s not surprising that the perception that Europe is far less safe in not surprising as a result of the greater publicity that crimes committed by immigrants is receiving (in that way it’s a lot like the impression we get from the media that blacks are often treated unfairly by the police). European crime statistics however don’t support the media beat-up, that doesn’t mean that some immigrants aren’t committing a disproportionate amount of crime, they are, but that’s more likely due to unemployment and alienation, as is the case with minorities in the US.
3.
Owning the means of production is Communism, not quite Socialism, yet.
A couple of definitions:
socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
communism
ˈkɒmjʊnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
I admit that the definition of communism I use places more emphasis on the lack of a working democratic system. In other words: Democratic Socialism is socialism in a democracy, Communism is socialism without democracy.
4. that attempt to classify and rate societies as being Good, Better, Best, . I’ve no problem rating people, countries etc using various metrics: students, athletes, sports teams, countries, whatever, and given your claims that America is the best on military capability and total nominal GDP isn’t it a bit late for you to take the leftist position that people or countries etc shouldn’t be judged, or ranked, we all should be considered equal?
5. she sounds very credible I’ve a bridge for sale . . .
6. And if Sweden breaks out in violence or civil war, will I still have been a fool? Heh, maybe we should place bets on which country, the US or Sweden, descends into mass civil strike first.althoug the government appears to control what the news can report on such matters. Sweden is second in the world after Denmark in press freedom (though I doubt you’ll accept what Reporters Without Boarders has to say on such things.
After all, what would they know /sarc.
7. If this represents a foul word or term please do not write or approximate it here It signifies frustration and annoyance, in that context you can interpret it as meaning whatever innocuous term it suits you.
8. In siting all of those lists are you not promoting their research as being superior? Superior to what? To nothing at all? There’s actually a lot that goes into such rankings, if you’re inclined to, you can go check out the methodology yourself. In the absence of better information I’m happy to accept they have some validity (as does, for example, IQ tests, but yes, always you have to understand the data needs interpreting and its validity will be subject to methodology and inputs.
9.Do you believe that there is a Globalist agenda? If you mean there is more to the globalist movement than is public, that there’s a secret society plotting to take over the world, no. I don’t buy vast conspiracy theories and have little respect for those who do. If you’re just saying their are politicians around who like to build empires. Obviously, that’s what the EU is all about.
10. Politicians of the left will always try to push their policies around greater government control, believing that they know better than the markets and everyone else. But that’s what democracy’s for, and if people have democracy and choose to be foolish in their voting, that’s on them. For politicians to follow their beliefs doesn’t make them “evil” people should follow their beliefs, what counts is having the structures on governance in place to control them in their ambitions. I have my doubts about the US system of governance for that reason.
If you think the US system is wonderful, consider this: Pork. The cost of the SLS and other government rockets vs SpaceX rockets. This is an area where the US system fails, This country has nothing like the issues of politicians manipulating the taxpayers money to win votes that the US has, and remember, a hell of a lot of those pork barrel politicians are Republicans.
The modern American Democrat party now stands for just three main things. etc.
They put it differently and I’ve no doubt they see their motivations differently to the way you see them.
they have soooo embraced Socialism
They espouse a form of Social Democracy, though I doubt they could implement that system as successfully as the Scandinavian countries, because the US system is too good at facilitating – Pork.
Their party is in a death spiral . . .
I very much doubt that that’s a realistic conclusion, they will win some of the next few elections, if they move too far left for the voting public their popularity will drop and they’ll shift right, that’s how democracy works, even US democracy, it has a negative-feed-back that other forms of governance do not have, which is why it’s relatively stable.
Actually, the first system Americans used was in the first colonies, such as Plymouth Colony,
They weren’t Americans. You also should familiarize yourself more with the history of the Plymouth Colony with regard to it’s relations with the natives before opining.
I probably won’t bother with addressing the rest of your comment because it is also nonsense.
3. “Communism is socialism without democracy.” Thats quaint, a very civilized interpretation. Then they shoot you in the head.
4. So I was correct, you were using those sited think tank studies as a positive support for your argument. (I am not crazy!)
5. Enjoy your new bridge, now you have something to jump off when you come upon a study that tells you its time to jump.
6. “Sweden is second in the world after Denmark in press freedom” I don’t know, when you actually listen to actual Swedes they seem to say that not all that goes on is told of. They are saying it not me. Listen to a actual Swede https://youtu.be/3Xogpnu1-oE
8. America at its foundation is not based on data or “Inputs”.
9. You keep watching American politics and learn about “Conspiracies”, 2018 will be a very interesting year for you. Then we will talk about these silly Globalist conspiracies.
10. “They put it differently and I’ve no doubt they see their motivations differently to the way you see them.” Pay attention to what I write about. The Democrats have destroyed their party with allowing the Leftist control of their party, but they can not help it it is their natural trajectory. The Democrats are about to receive some “Negative” feed back. Your going to witness something special in America.
Here is a conspiracy for you, real or imagined? : Do you believe that the leadership of several law enforcement agencies of the American government would conspire with a political party to spy on a political candidate? Do you believe that they would also conspire to remove a duly elected president with a slander and blackmail operation? John Lacare? Tom Clancy? Fantasy? Delusion? Keep watching.
I suspect that next week will be significant, enjoy.
3. Not an argument against my points.
4. Doesn’t affect the validity of my point.
5. Ha Ha
6. Anecdotal.
8. Not relevant to my point.
9. Not an argument against my points.
10. Your first paragraph, “something special”? I’m expecting the usual.
Do you believe that the leadership of several law enforcement agencies of the American government would conspire with a political party to spy on a political candidate?
After scandalous affairs like J Edgar Hoover’s abuse of the FBI, McCarthy’s persecution of hundreds of people in a way that should never have happened in a civilized country espousing individuals right to political liberty, (it wan’t the beliefs of those accused that was un-American, it was the witch hunt), the persistence of apartheid in the US into the second half of the 20th century, lies around the Vietnam war and also Watergate, frankly, a little political conspiracy doesn’t sound all that exciting.
Thinking about it, the US seems to beat the other Anglophone countries and most other developed countries by a good distance when it comes to scandals and political injustices, I’ll put that all down to your political system as well, which in fact is not that different to the systems in some European countries that also have such scandals.
Andrew_W:
I just don’t have time to address everything and will leave that to others.
(Q: Have you ever been to this Country? Just wondering’.)
“Rules for Radicals: What Constitutional Conservatives Should Know About Saul Alinsky”
David Horowitz
Hillsdale College Event
July 9, 2010
https://youtu.be/gRUP5yEm1WE
(1:20:30)
“Sound of Social Justice” –
Simon & Garfunkel Parody Cover
[Free Press of Kekistan May, 2017]
https://youtu.be/cruRyoo2xiE
3:34
I didn’t get far into the Horowitz video before boredom set in, the points he was making, which amounted to “the only thing that can be better than America today is Heaven, and because radicals obviously can’t make an American utopia as good as Heaven they’re deluded. He does sum up the knee-jerk conservative position quite well with that, but it’s obviously a false premise.
I hope I don’t need to point out why it’s a false premise.
Jordan Peterson explained why society has and needs both conservatives and progressives in one of the earlier videos we looked at. Horowitz is shallow.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this, I’ve probably posted it here before, but if you have perhaps others haven’t:
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf
Andrew_W;
yes, you’ve referenced that cato/Hayek essay before. (it sways me not)
While I do highly enjoy Peterson, quite a bit, I have infinitely less angst than he does about categorically disregarding ‘progressive’ [pseudo-scientific-totalitarian-statism] thought.
Louder with Crowder
Quint Indianapolis speech parody
https://youtu.be/ZRLaO9GngTE?t=474
Watyne.
If American “progressive” thought is intended to lead to societies like Scandinavia, they at least have a real life representation of a successful society to aim for, which puts them ahead of me, and what society can the American conservative point to as his utopia? America today? Well America today is largely a product of changes brought about by the progressives, Is the goal of todays American Conservatives the America of 50 or 100 years ago? The America before womens suffrage or the America before civil rights? The America that still enforced laws prohibiting homosexual activity? Where’s your present day example of what America should be aiming for? If American progressives were to all drop dead tonight and conservatives ruled supreme, without the progressives would America progress in technology with the rest of the world (those Silicon Valley people are almost all progressives) or would it be left behind with the rest of the world having all the Elon Musk’s while America would be stuck with the Richard Nixon’s?
As I said, us Classical Liberal/Libertarian types don’t have a good example of an existing society to aim to copy either, but if we could stick a working model together at least it wouldn’t be socially stagnant (though it’d probably disintegrate from being pulled in too many directions).
Oops! (Watyne??)
This thread has been alternately entertaining and tedious to read. Some observations, in random order.
-The Plymouth colonists were not technically American, but they are our origin, including the evolution of their philosophy.
-Classic liberals/libertarians are most often a subset of the Republican Party in the US, not Democrats
-Andrew is partially right, in that our system as it has evolved is not all that it should be, which is why people like me, Wayne, and Edward get so frustrated. I was going to add Cotour, but he’s so optimistic these days (I hope he’s right) that “frustrated” may not be a good description for him at the moment. I feel that we were right on the brink of the point of no return, and am not sure that we have escaped it.
-Specifically, as Andrew indicates, government has become too bloated (although I’m not sure that government spending is as high as 50% yet). Trump is trying to fix some aspects of that (regulations, and growing the pie), but he shows signs of wanting to grow government as a whole.
-Government dependence, as pointed out by Cotour, is one of the main culprits.
-Having lived in a very different culture (Japan) for 4+ years, I don’t think it’s practical to hold another country as a model for one’s own; there are too many cultural differences. For example, Japan certainly has some points to admire, but in many cases, we can’t get there from here, even if we wanted to. The people have a certain attitude towards work that few others have. They are 100 percent devoted to their work; for example, you’ll never see an employee of a Japanese store on his/her cellphone, and he/she will unfailingly be polite and helpful. On the other hand, workers tend to be robotic and, although innovative on the small points, they are not very innovative on the larger points; they are too hesitant to show individuality. We say, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” they say “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”
-Japan has its good points and I enjoyed my time there, but as an American, my utopia is not a place where 99 percent are middle class, and individuality (in all things, not just work) is discouraged. I find that the people are very isolated emotionally, even spouses.
-Similar differences apply to Scandanavia as well. I have never been there, but the people I know who hold up Scandanavia as utopia haven’t traveled much, nevermind lived in a different culture. When my father goes to Ikea, he sees it as a glimpse of paradise. I see it as a good place to furnish a college dorm, and buy a few things for any home, but overall as a warehouse for a dystopia, where everyone buys from a limited collection of cheap furniture; every home furnished from Ikea would make for a good set for a science fiction movie of a creepy futuristic society.
-My utopia would be a society governed by the ideals of the Constitution, without the addition of the Interstate Commerce clause, with state legislatures still picking senators, with states funding their own highways and making their own laws, etc. If there was one thing I would change, it would be a much weaker, much smaller federal government, and having 50 states again, rather than 50 regions under a strong federal government.
-This doesn’t mean that we should repeal every amendment of the Constitution after the Bill of Rights; I certainly think that eradicating slavery was a great thing (done by a Republican, by the way), as was giving women the right to vote. If you want to call those innovations Progressive, then I guess I support some Progressive policies.
-However, in this country Progressive has come to mean bloated government, with the dependence that Cotour writes of often.
-I always try to remember that the US is not a momolithic culture, which is good and bad. What disturbs me is how much the inner city culture is cut off from our ideals and opportunities.
-I see this more now, as I have returned to teaching in the city. It really is a whole different culture (or cultures), and I find that the bad aspects are best dealt with indirectly. A lot of my kids have very nonconstructive attitudes that will sabotage their chances in society as we know it, and many of them will undoubtedly attribute the resultant failure to white society.
-I find that one of the biggest issue is trust. They have had incompetent teachers, or no teachers, for a long time and probably see me as just another white social justice warrior who thinks he knows all the answers.
-New classes always test me. I choose my battles carefully, letting some things go for a while and fighting other things adamantly. It takes a week or two to get buy-in, which only comes when they see that I’m competent, fair, and am coming up with a plan with their input.
-As with everyone, they seem to place a lot of importance on respect, but their definition of respect seems very different from mine. By picking my battles and communicating clear expectations, many of them come around to what I mean by respect.
-No system is perfect, and lists seem silly, except for very basic things (such as access to clean water, GDP, and a few other hard numbers). One thing to keep in mind is that in many countries, different subsets of society rank differently in individual aspects. As I said, there’s something good about a society where 99% of people are middle class, but it doesn’t lead to innovation, which is one of the overlooked criteria of the value of a nation.
-Our basic principles of government and society as outlines in (most of) the Constitution are great, but we have failed to live up to them. I share Cotour’s optimism that the Constitution has equipped us with the means for periodic correction, but even the founding fathers (I accidentally typed “fondling fathers,” but let’s leave Bill Clinton out of this) thought of our form of government as an experiment that would require a revolution every few decades. We have a long way to go to approximate what we could be. At the same time, we clearly shouldn’t try to be Scandanavia or other countries that have gone to what I see as a dead end.
Garry–
Good stuff.
I would just add; there is no utopia in the making (here or anywhere) and the Marxist-statists aren’t going to bring it about. We had that experiment, and they killed 100 million people in the process. No way do they get the car keys, a second time. (over my dead body….)
Pivoting– Japanese girl-metal band translation for you:
BAND-MAID®
「Thrill」(スリル) Lyric video
(Japanese + romaji + english)
https://youtu.be/BZdmWbxNstk
4:02
Andrew_W;
we have massive definitional problems and are just talking past each other in many respects.
Jordan Peterson –
“Why Utopia is Impossible”
(excerpt from: Maps of Meaning 7: Images of Story & MetaStory (2017 version)]
https://youtu.be/POQKzwztw7U
(8:18)
Last one from me….
Jordan Peterson:
“Delusions of Leftist Political Activism”
(excerpt from the RSA Presentation January 16, 2018]
https://youtu.be/8x3hFZx1_VU
10:46
Garry, thanks for your thoughts. As always you’ve made good points.
Wayne, thanks for the latest Peterson video, interesting, makes you wonder just how much thought goes into writing a best seller.
Interesting that He uses the societal/electoral transformation process as an argument against moral relativism, though I don’t think in themselves those brief comments are much of an argument against it. As I’ve said before technology and wealth levels change and affect social morality, and if much of morality is a product in changes to our society wrought by changes in technology and wealth, does that make societies with less technology and wealth less moral in an objective sense?
Wayne, the Japanese girl metal band speaks of the pressure to fit in Japanese society (and the music isn’t bad!). If they’re like the Japanese “rebel” bands I saw 20 years ago, they probably have an army of fans who joined the “rebellion” by all dressing exactly alike, getting the same haircut, and dancing in unison. In Japan it’s ok to rebel, as long as you conform to all the other “rebels.”
Andrew, you pose a good question. I think in some respects, countries that are wrestling with poverty and health can’t devote much to some aspects of morality. A good example is pollution; it takes a certain level of health and wealth before a country can afford to clean up their air and water. I’d like to link to Hans Rosling’s short, inspiring video that goes over 200 years of world history in a few minutes (perhaps the best evening pause ever, and a video I show to many of my students), but with Mr. Z away I fear that trying to post a link will send my post to limbo until Mr. Z returns.
The trouble comes when wealthy countries in effect make up moral issues. First among these is the manmade catastrophic global warming issue, which may be real but has been so distorted and hijacked that I tend to doubt it. Under the guise of a moral issue, it’s become a vehicle to distribute money from the middle class in rich countries, to the rich in poor countries. Not to mention a vehicle for the whole New World Order garbage.
Another example is the dubious record of wars started by rich countries, presumably for moral causes. I won’t go down that rabbit hole at this point; the issues are too murky for me to really make up my mind on the morality of the intentions and practical outcomes of, for example, the Iraq War that started in 2003.
I want countries to be moral, but am convinced more and more that true morality is at the level of the individual and the family, yet another reason to reject the whole New World Order garbage.
Andrew W:
“Thinking about it, the US seems to beat the other Anglophone countries and most other developed countries by a good distance when it comes to scandals and political injustices, I’ll put that all down to your political system as well, which in fact is not that different to the systems in some European countries that also have such scandals.”
So you can understand that the primary thing that government and governance wed to power produces is corruption and abuse of power, very good. But it is beyond you to imagine that those same humans would not aspire to world wide “Globalist” control of the planet? (Are you not paying attention?) Your thinking goes in the correct direction but for some reason it becomes stunted, probably because you limit yourself, but believe me others are not limiting themselves or their aspirations.
In retail: “Don’t sell with your pocket book in mind”. Meaning, if you limit what you are willing to offer someone based on the balance in your bank account you are selling yourself short because you have no idea about what a potential customer is willing to pay based on their bank account. If you are willing to limit your thinking based on your own personal limitations and morality then you may well be underestimating someone else’s potential based on their own personal or developed limitations and their definition of what morality might be depending on their agenda or need or mental illness.
And, what we are discussing here is real power and American power on most all fronts in the world is the highest. So what might your assumption about America, power and the potential to abuse be? (Hint, its very big)
You may have a very nice and civilized life living as you do in the beautiful New Zealand, thousands of miles from most all others at the end of the world, I would love to visit there some day. But the real power in the world is not living there it lives 1st in Washington, then Bejing and then Moscow which are toss ups for the #2 spot. The discussion about degrees of “fairness” and “sharing” and “equality” are but issues that keep people busy in the minutia arguing about whats “right” and “wrong” and “moral”, just busy work for the most part in the big scheme of things. Which is not to say that in a Democracy the people do not have their influences and do not to some degree steer the ship of state, they do and I offer in America as proof one D.J. Trump as president. Although it has taken 30 years before the people of America actually had someone who could be considered a true choice. The wheels of progress and reconciliation sometimes turn slowly.
Its S.O.M. all day long in those cities, the foundation of abuse of power and I point out once again, “Don’t sell with your pocket book in mind” and if you do sell like that understand what you are doing it because there are others that oppose you that understand these concepts perfectly.
Ignorance is no excuse for failure, especially since you have now been put on notice that your understanding and thinking is incomplete.
Garry, I was thinking more along the lines of the technology of contraception and it’s effect on moral codes around things like premarital sexual activity, and how greater wealth (almost entirely a product of technological progress) means that families, and society as a whole, can afford to rear out of wedlock babies, making their conception and birth far less of an immorality to most people.
Cotour But it is beyond you to imagine that those same humans would not aspire to world wide “Globalist” control of the planet? (Are you not paying attention?)
Yes, but have you? I thought I’d addressed that earlier: If you’re just saying their are politicians around who like to build empires. Obviously, that’s what the EU is all about.
Cotour: But the real power in the world is not living there it lives 1st in Washington, then Bejing and then Moscow which are toss ups for the #2 spot
No, I think you’ve missed it, Edmund Burke: “There are three estates in Parliament but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder there sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”
Globalisation of the media and now social media has crippled America and other countries ability to use their military power as they might have decades ago, start waging an unjust war and the world, including your own citizenship, soon know it. It’s why there’s so much peace today compared to even the recent past (there being less conflict today is a fact, the media just makes that which there is more visible).
I’m familiar with S.O.M. and globalization of the media and social media is also crippling that as a tenable course of action as well, such conspiracies are brought into the open more quickly, killing them off.
Trade is another reason why wars, between the major powers at least, is inhibited, it’s too important to throw away without a damn good reason, wars are rarely started for good reasons, a notable exception being this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War
Tell that to George Soros.
Are you aware of his real world agendas and actions and how he spends his money? Another silly conspiracy? Ever wonder why Obama spoke and did all of those counter intuitive and un American things? Ever listen to Hillary? More importantly are you aware of the things that Hillary did and said when she thought no one was listening and would never know what she did and said?
And what happens when the Fourth Estate becomes allied (Read owned by) and enablers of a particular political goal and agenda? Most “Journalists” are full blood Left leaning agents of agenda. More silly conspiracy thinking? Have you watched any American media reporting on politics and Washignton at all?
Yeah, the Fourth Estate, the internet is the double edged sword that has equalized all and that is one of the main reasons that the Left, specifically in America, has been revealed and is hopefully now in decline and in a death spiral. Because if it isn’t everyone in the world is threatened with the “wonderfulness” of Globalism and Socialist Utopian “Equality”. This even includes you who live at the end of the earth.
You had better begin to hope that Washington and the coming political earthquake and cleansing tsunami of justice arrives and is thorough in its creative destruction. Because if it does not arrive in its required full measure we are all in long term peril.
Listen for the rumbling this week in Washington, it should be significant. Let us not be naive.
-I can’t resist…. we can’t overlook the introduction of birth-control pills
“Modern people like to think that there is nothing dangerous about sex”
Jordan Peterson
https://youtu.be/qvdHIowgLRs
(4:02)
[excerpt from Maps of Meaning #9, 2017 iteration. ]
It is perverted ideology that is the enemy, the trade will continue because it is beneficial to all party’s self interest. That is the advantage of “Global Trade”, not to be confused with “Globalisation”, to very different but confused concepts.
However the slow and insidious cancer that is the Leftist doctrine that has been inculcated into the minds of the population over the past 50 years that is the concern, specifically within the Fourth Estate.
I’d love to link to The B-52’s – “Rock Lobster,” but I’ll just go with RUSH:
(….there is unrest in the Forest…)
Rush
The Trees
https://youtu.be/JnC88xBPkkc
4:56
Andrew, you pick just one aspect of sexual morality; Wayne hits upon others. Wayne, thanks for the video, which says a lot in 4 minutes (although I’d have to fact check his assertion than hundreds of millions died of AIDS). If I ever have more leisure time when my brain isn’t mostly fried from overwork, I’d like to watch more of Jordan Peterson;s videos. Which would you recommend I watch at first opportunity?
I’d like to address what you mentioned, Andrew.
From what I’ve seen secondhand, out of wedlock birth is definitely an important moral issue, and has been one of the biggest factors that has led to the culture of dependency. Lack of fathers and other male role models has led to gangs, which are essentially surrogate families. Young men who grow up with fathers have very distorted senses of responsibility, morality, and what it means to be a man, to name but a few.
Just because society can afford illegitimate children doesn’t mean there aren’t other costs to pay.
I would submit that children of lesbian couples and widowed mothers also suffer from lack of male role models, if the parents don’t make efforts to ensure the presence of male role models in their children’s lives. I’m convinced that every child needs both a mother figure and a father figure to grow up feeling secure and to reach maturity in all respects, especially emotionally.
If I were to pick one thing that many students at inner city schools lack, it would be emotional maturity, as manifested in the inability to de-escalate conflict and tolerate frustration, and in my opinion those are things that are generally best taught/modeled by fathers.
I have seen children of single mothers and lesbians shunned, from a distorted sense of morality, and that’s oh so wrong.
By the way, Wayne, in relation to your video, I’ve observed that many Japanese men are very effeminate, and I’ve always wondered if it were partially related to their very soy-rich diet (soy is related to estrogen). The lack of masculinity plays a big role in their low birth rate, which of course is the major factor in their demographic catastrophe.
And the cracks begin to develop allowing the rats to slither through and seek shelter and safety by confessing to their misdeeds. From top to bottom the Democrat conspiracy and sedition to pervert the Constitution will be revealed.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/9/john-kerry-associate-played-middleman-hillary-agen/
Some more evidence for Andrew W to consider related to the potential for real corruption and treachery. This may be part of what will develop in Washington this week (?). John Kerry should have been tried for treason long ago, another BS ideological poser.
A little more reveal of the illustrious “Fourth estate”.
https://youtu.be/T8l51nFuwRA
Andrew W, pay attention.
Cotour, that’s why it’s better to have the fourth estate in private rather than government hands with lots of owners. In the US the media has become more polarized, with outlets aligning themselves and cozying up to the two political factions, I’m not aware of that degree of media partisanship in other Western countries, and . . . yep, I’m gonna say it: Is it just the media responding to consumer pressure which in turn is a product of the degree of political division which itself is a product of your electoral system – especially the primaries system?
Wayne, that Peterson video is fascinating, he doesn’t use the word “morality” but that’s effectively what he’s saying – that morality changes in response to changes in technology and wealth. Now does that constitute evidence of Relative Morality?
I’ve been pushing the “morality changes in response to changes in technology and wealth” argument, I arrived at it independently, this is the first time I’ve seen anyone else argue it, that makes a big impact. Thanks.
Media is in private hands, corporate but private. Big multi national corporate ownership for the most part. Big, big money that panders to and back doors government agencies that can throttle it if they get on its wrong side. I will posit that because of the known “fact” that Hillary was going to be the next president that that is why things have gotten soooo perverted and partisan. No one in big media would have dared to have stood against her because they understood well the consequences of doing so. You will soon understand the pervasive and systemic effects this woman has had. Sounds fantastical? Keep watching.
The media in the U.S. is not “polarized” (Such a neat and non threatening innocuous term) it has plainly been and is skewed Left and supports a Liberal narrative agenda, journalism is a long ago forgotten profession in much of the U.S. big media concerns. Its the people in the media having grown up in or having developed a Liberal, even Leftist personal philosophy that they push that is the issue.
“Just media responding to consumer pressure”
You just keep watching the news, your thinking on the benign nature of the to and fro of “media markets” and consumer pressures is about to be challenged. You have a real education coming your way.
Garry-
for all matters related to soy, you want–
Owen Benjamin [http://www.hugepianist.com/]
Ballad Of the Soy Boy
Owen Benjamin
https://youtu.be/tG_z6HdfS50
3:06
Garry–
Ref Peterson:
Go to his YouTube home-page, for complete versions of his lectures. (His personal website as well, has a wealth of material, including all his Research.) Everyone is cutting up his clips, so best to get the originals, from his site.
If you are pressed for time, I’d suggest his long-form appearances on Joe Rogan, Rubin Report, Ben Shapiro, and Louder with Crowder, among others.
That will give you a large overview of his positions, and then you can pick-n-choose what longer form material suits you.
His “Maps of Meaning” lectures are great, but lengthy and deep. Same with his Bible series. (For those I’d start with his latest iterations. 2016/2017)
-He also has a number of lengthy presentations specifically concerning his political opposition to mandated gender pronouns in Canada.
-And, for ultra-compact material presentation; he did a 12 part series on TV-Ontario awhile ago.
As a practical person who Teaches, you also might highly enjoy his new book “12 rules for Life.”
tangentially–
This is what ‘Band Maid’ looks like (these girls are quite attractive!)
“Thrill” official music-video
https://youtu.be/Uds7g3M-4lQ
4:10
Andrew W:
From one of your beloved think tanks.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-trump-media-three-times-more-negative-than-for-obama-just-5-percent-positive/article/2644448
Its no longer journalism at this point, its political warfare and survival or the destruction of a belief system and trump threatens that belief system, which is Liberal / Leftist.
New Year’s Eve 2017 Patreon Q & A
January 1, 2018
Jordan Peterson responds to viewer questions
https://youtu.be/1pNn91Ewzbc
1:35:17
Cotour, the bit I find interesting is that Clinton and Bush were so similar, Obama’s coverage was more positive and then Trump when Trump gets in it’s suddenly very negative, just spit balling here but have you considered the possibility that it all might have more to do with Trump because he’s Trump, than Trump because he’s Republican?
Incorrect, you are making a Subjective personal judgment based in some moral model that you and other have in their heads about what a president should be and act like. Exactly the wrong way to understand Trump and what threatens the powers that be.
If you have followed my other posts you will understand that from my point of view and analysis from G.H.W. Bush on and through Obama they are all essentially the same and have been on the “New World Order” / “One World Government” G.H.W. Bush plainly stated agenda.
Trump, a full blood AMERICAN MEATBALL (Just like me), has become president because of the 1. Brilliance of the Founders and how they structured the Constitution (Electorial College) and 2. And the people of America being tired of the same old same old political BS and double speak and showing up and voting. And 3. BALLS to tell the truth.
Hillary was the next president to further that 30 year long agenda and would have certainly fulfilled it, then we are all Sweden. The world follows America, sound arrogant but it is the solid gold truth. Trump totally disrupts these big money Globalist plans. Very dangerous.
Try to step back and understand the picture that has been painted in front or you. Conspiracy? Really? Know your history and understand the real potential of human aspirations for power and control. Acquisition and retention of power at any cost. ANY COST.
It looks like you agree with me, the media are anti-Trump because he acts so differently to previous Presidents, not because he’s Republican.
Lets take that thought a bit further and refine it.
Trump is not just “acting differently”, his agenda is 180 degrees from the past 30 years of presidents, starting with G.H.W. Bush, former CIA head, and that agenda was a Globalist / New World Order / One World /
U.N. Government agenda. Totally anathema to the founding document of America.
Think about that for a few moments and understand the treat that Trump truly represents to 30 years of world power investment in an ideology of control. It is the difference between a government that empowers individuals and a government that must have more and more control over each individuals lives.
As goes America so goes the world, bank on it.
Then we have to ask: Would a different person, someone not so prone to shooting his/her mouth from the hip, someone who avoided the less bigoted comments we’ve heard from Trump, someone who didn’t literally declared the media the enemy but rather endeavored to work to get the media on side, someone who hadn’t alienated so many of his/her own people, someone who worked to build a positive relationship with all sides in congress despite political differences – someone more like Reagan whom even most of those who disagreed with in terms of policy still loved, would such a person have gotten far more positive media coverage than Trump?
Of that I have no doubt.
So Trump’s media problems have far more to do with personality and style than policy. His narcissism is so out there – the exact opposite of Reagan, that a lot of people get turned off of him really, really quickly. Reagan never had a bad word to say of other Americans (or most non-Americans) Trump can’t get through a day without bad-mouthing someone.
You are dancing around the edges here, you are subjectively (You personally) are judging Trump morally and placing on him how YOU think he should act. You do not get it. You say that you are interested in human behavior, but you are unable to understand Trump? I get Trump.
If actions and results rather than political rhetoric (BS like Obama and the rest) and doing nothing are in the end what really count then Trump is correct and you are not.
Trump was able to beat 16 other highly placed political candidates, destroyed them all, and was able to run a campaign using half of the funding that his major opponent used, and he beat her.
Trump and this Congress has gotten more American concerned agenda’s accomplished in 1 year than the last 3 presidents accomplished in the last 20 or so years. Why is that in your mind? How do you understand that to be?
Trump even won as we are learning even having the CIA, FBI and DOJ running game on him, both before and after he won, and the rest of the American population. He won despite there massive clandestine operations.
Yeah, Trump has the problem, its Trump, not you and how you think.
PS: Trump controls the press / media, he has been front page every day since he came down that golden escalator.
His is egomaniacle, he is arrogant, he is a gutter talker, he likes large breasts and the “P” word (just like me), he is a full blood American Meatball, he has built a multi billion dollar business, has international holdings, has been married a couple of times but has some very fine children, has been a work horse for the last 40 years, gets to work hours before anyone else, empowers women by making them executives in his organization and not for political window dressing but because he has high expectations of them to perform, and on and on it goes. And he has never had a drink of alcohol or a hit of drugs to boot.
Yeah, Trump has the problem.
you are subjectively (You personally) are judging Trump morally and placing on him how YOU think he should act.
There’s a lot of truth in that, but the issue isn’t my judgment, the issue is the medias judgment on how to sell TV coverage and newspapers, the media evidently think that giving him negative coverage works to that end, and I think they’re right. Why is the negative coverage effective at selling papers? Because Trump is so good at providing the media with material that can so easily be presented in a negative light, and the majority of the US public just love seeing it.
If you’re going to be a supporter of a free press, as I am and I assume you are (from his comments Trump appears to be when it suits him) you probably shouldn’t whine about the nature of that coverage (unless doing so is a strategy in itself).
Andrew_W,
You wrote: “They weren’t Americans. You also should familiarize yourself more with the history of the Plymouth Colony with regard to it’s relations with the natives before opining. I probably won’t bother with addressing the rest of your comment because it is also nonsense.”
Once again, your definitions are wrong. They were Americans (I hate to disagree with you Garry, but they were not going back to Europe, having come here explicitly to get away from it). America was their home. They were American colonists but not native Americans. It is the lessons from that colony that shaped America, its phylosophies, and its values. I have familiarized myself with the history of the Plymouth Colony; obviously you haven’t but think you have. Their story is not important to you, but you pretend to know something about it even though you cannot speak to it.
As for your definition of nonsense, well … you won’t bother addressing the rest of my comment because you lost those arguments. Instead, you declare it to be nonsense and pretend to win. Talk about calling the kettle black …
“If American ‘progressive’ thought is intended to lead to societies like Scandinavia …”
There is no if about it. Obama actually said that America should look more like Europe. The progressives in Congress and elsewhere agreed.
“what society can the American conservative point to as his utopia?”
American conservatives do not pretend that there is a utopia to strive for. This is why there are such phrases from conservatives as “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
“Is the goal of todays American Conservatives the America of 50 or 100 years ago?”
I have pointed you to this playlist before, Andrew_W, but you have yet to pay attention to it, and that is why you don’t understand America or its conservatives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE&list=PL5_z6DAA07VQz_5GECnD3Ep0L_Bp0mxy3 (seven parts, about 70 minutes)
This should answer your questions about which year was the perfect (utopian) year for America. This is why everyone knows that you are progressive, maybe even Marxist; you assume that conservatives believe as you do, that there is a utopia to be had. America has never been perfect and it never will be, but it strives to improve. No country is perfect or perfectible, even America. It just happens to be so much better than others that people flock to it, even if they have to come by breaking the law and risking deportation.
Right now, too many Americans have been convinced to retry the always-failed philosophy of socialism, and that makes America less perfect than it has been in the past, even to the point of reverting to racism, although more subtle than in the past.
“those Silicon Valley people are almost all progressives”
Another poor assumption. They are not progressives, but they learned to support the corrupt politicians, mostly Democrats, because it is in their best interest to have the corrupt ones on their side, because the corrupt know to reward their supporters and to punish the others until they become supporters. It is California, after all.
“As I’ve said before technology and wealth levels change and affect social morality, and if much of morality is a product in changes to our society wrought by changes in technology and wealth, does that make societies with less technology and wealth less moral in an objective sense?”
I guess this depends upon what you consider to be moral, your definition. Some poor countries are more religious than the United States, so doesn’t that make those poor countries more moral than the US? Your example, in a later comment, suggests that you believe poorer countries to be more moral, since you said that a lack of contraceptive technology requires more moral behavior, the opposite of your assertion in your question.
You asked: “Is it just the media responding to consumer pressure which in turn is a product of the degree of political division which itself is a product of your electoral system – especially the primaries system?”
No. The polarized news media have been losing more and more audience the more it has become polarized.
Take this as an example:
https://www.voanews.com/a/donald-trump-attack-on-media-enemy-of-people-historic-echoes/3729946.html
What’s a news editor to do with such a juicy gem? Ignore it? Not if he thinks he’s running a business.
So you propose that if giving Trump positive coverage and it resulted in selling more papers or media the media would give him positive coverage. Correct? I wonder why they have not tried that marketing approach since from what you propose its really all about just marketing and not the pushing of a particular political agenda.
I have not “Whined’ about any coverage, I could careless it is the results that I am ultimately interested in. My observation and the observation of many others is that by the numbers Trump receives much more negative coverage than positive.
Is it all the sheep? Or is it growing up upside down on the other side of the world?
And are you comfortable with the esteemed Fourth Estate operating in such a manner given the weighty responsibility that it bears in informing the public about what is going on in the world and in politics?
Oh, yeah, and Hillary Clinton is a cookie baking grand ma.
So you propose that if giving Trump positive coverage and it resulted in selling more papers or media the media would give him positive coverage. Correct?
Yep, but those editors have to make judgments based on what’s in front of them and their wider experience, Trump’s the best there’s been at supplying them with negative tidbits that sell papers.
I expect humans to act in ways that they see as being in their own interests, in a media business that means selling papers.
And are you comfortable with the esteemed Fourth Estate operating in such a manner given the weighty responsibility that it bears in informing the public about what is going on in the world and in politics?
Are you not? Do you see a need for state intervention to correct the wayward media?
This is actually an area in which Libertarians and Conservatives are poles apart, Libertarianism is much more an ideology, Conservatism are far more willing to use the state to enforce their “morality”.
Hillary Clinton would, I think, not have been as popular with the media as Obama, she doesn’t have that open friendliness that is so appealing to the public.
I think America got two really bad candidates. Guess why I think the better candidates were eliminated early in the contest or didn’t even bother standing (rhetorical).
This graph doesn’t surprise me, I see it as a reflection of a good chunk of the publics low opinion of the two main party candidates.
And here’s the graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#/media/File:Libertarian_party_1972_2016.png
State “intervention”? This is America.
If you understand the Constitution the Media via the First Amendment is not to be “Interveined” with. Which does not mean that the government can not regulate medias mergers and acquisitions and the like.
Libertarianism is just a personal philosophy, Conservatism is a political movement, really two different things. Related but different.
And there were no “Better” candidates, again you look for YOUR higher moral standard which really means nothing and fail to understand what in fact has happened in America. Our Constitution basically structure a “civilized” bloodless coup, that is how power is transferred from one to the other. Whom ever came out the other end of the battle, the test, was the BEST.
And it is their fiduciary responsibility upon being empowered to rise to the occasion and become more than instead of less. And it is all counter balanced to attempt to counter what all power results in, abuse. So our system may appear chaotic and brutal to many it serves its designed purpose.
Edward, don’t be sorry about disagreeing with me; my point is that whether or not we can call the Plymouth colonists “Americans” according to some arbitrary criterion (e.g., they were there before the Revolutionary War), they are our earliest forebears, especially in terms of political philosophy. I wasn’t so much conceding a point as calling it irrelevant.
Andrew, the press and many others came hard after Reagan; it was only decades after he was gone that he was praised (and usually to contrast him with the current “big meany” Republican). The difference from Trump, as you point out, was how Reagan carried himself.
The last 2 US presidents are by far the most thin-skinned certainly in my lifetime, probably ever, although it was manifested in different ways. The liberal side of the press (the vast majority) loved Obama; on the rare occasions he was publicly criticized by the press, or by anybody, he reacted similarly to Trump. As somebody pointed out upthread, Trump has never said anything like “Elections have consequences” and “I said Democrats can be along for the ride, but not in the driver’s seat.” Trump has reached out across the aisle more than Obama ever did.
That said, there’s truth in what you say about Trump, but, being a parent of teenagers and having been a supervisor and teacher, mostly of young (immature) people, my tendency is to evaluate one’s actions more than one’s speech, and so far I’ve been surprised that despite his immaturity in some aspects, I have agreed with Trump’s actions more often that I had anticipated (but I still have serious disagreements with him and am not convinced he should be re-elected).
Perhaps he’d be more effective if he were more Reagan-like in his speech, but then again I’d spend less time walking if I had wings (it’s not in my nature, and speaking like Reagan is not in his nature). We can’t pick and choose traits between people; we have to choose one person and are stuck with his/her traits.
I would encourage you to, instead of reading press accounts, watch Trump’s speeches in full context; what he says is far different than what’s portrayed in soundbites.
After all, that’s more or less the point of the post that started this long thread.
Garry: Heh. Why am I not surprised that you finally remind people of the original point, which is that Trump is not the devil portrayed by the Democratic Party and mainstream media (but I repeat myself). In fact, Morgan Latte illustrated this point quite vividly in his post, as has Andrew_W. They apparently depend on that media portrayal, and thus don’t really see the man for what he is.
I myself have many problems with Trump, but like you, I have generally been satisfied with the things he has so far done. And I think the mindless and brain-dead opposition to him has actually served to drive him further and further to the right, as time has passed.
Andrew W:
Trump ultimately will go down in history as one of the best and most consequential and productive, probably in the top 5 presidents.
More graphs? The Libertarian turn out was driven by the public’s frustration and disgust mainly with IMO between the abuses of power and un American actions of Bush Jr. and Obama and the force feeding of Hillary as being the next in line president. The public had had enough. Graphs, opinions, prognostication, talking heads, and still trump won the presidency. What does that tell you about List and Graphs?
Trump filled the gap and won in a states / electorial election, which all presidential races are. Because thats how its designed to operate. The Founders cared not about Lists and Graphs.
Mr. Z wrote,
“And I think the mindless and brain-dead opposition to him has actually served to drive him further and further to the right, as time has passed.”
I couldn’t agree more, and am happy about that.
I was skeptical of Cotour’s assertion that Trump would become more than he is, but this may be an unintended form of that; in some cases I get the idea he goes further and further right out of petulance, rather than out of personal growth. So long as he gets there, I don’t care about his motivations for doing so.
Petulance Gary?
Petulance: The condition or quality of being irritable, peevish, or impatient.
This is the conclusion that you have come to the prime driver that drives Trump? Have I wasted all of my time and words here Gary? Maybe its me and I am unable to comprehensively and properly communicate? Gary, Gary, Gary.
Trump aside, to become the president, whom ever you are, you must strive to become more than you are, some can do it and some are unable to. Trump is a whole different animal when it comes to focus and vision and forward movement. He IMO is the right man at the right time in history, he has trained his entire life for this role, whether he realized it or not.
Think about his unique skill set coming out of New York real estate, dealing with the most corrupt politicians, corrupt unions, the mob, suppliers, brokers etc. Then he goes into TV and is very successful builds his brand into a monster. Then he takes all of that 40 years of down and dirty winning and loosing billions and then goes into the dirtiest and most corrupt business that there is, POLITICS. And he wins the highest office on the planet because he is “Petulant”? :) I laughith.
Sometimes the universe appears to have plans and through a convergence of want, need and opportunity and someones own unique ego, personality, focus and determination it all comes together. It takes all kinds of people and Trump is just a unique person in certain ways that suit perfectly what he is now doing.
Petulance? The only part of that definition that would apply is impatience, because everything that he is focused on doing takes 5 times longer in the political world than in the real world.
Maybe if you used two “r”s in his name?
You raise good points Cotour, politics and real estate are two very corrupt professions, There should have been little difficulty for Trump in making the transition.
Jordan Peterson on President Trump “He’s a very smart man.”
(excerpt from the Rubin Report November 1, 2017)
https://youtu.be/u5Rrjg9T9Cw
(13:45)
Jordan Peterson never actually says “He’s a very smart man” during the video discussion. Says “He’s a smart man”, but then where is he drawing the line? I’d happily describe a few of the commenters here as “smart”.
Andrew_W:
I just started re-watching the Star Trek: Voyager, series. The Federation Penal Colony of the Future, is located in NZ.
anyway….
“How Hitler was Even More Evil Than You Think”
Prof. Jordan Peterson
[excerpt from “Maps of Meaning Lecture 11: The Flood and the Tower” 2017 iteration]
https://youtu.be/jMqQBLZwRIE
(4:22)
I just started re-watching the Star Trek: Voyager, series. The Federation Penal Colony of the Future, is located in NZ.
Yes, Tom Paris, but the back story is that that’s the “West Island of New Zealand”, after being returned to its proper historical use. (Google?)
In my opinion war is almost always about despots trying to increase their power, they’ll rationalize whatever they need to rationalize to justify the actions they take to increase their power. Usually the rationalizing is along the lines of: righting fake or overblown slights, reclaiming stolen territory, an effort to try to use that external conflict boost their domestic popularity to re-establish their waining power at home, a messiah complex, or to retain power over the lands and people they consider their domain.
These are all strategies about hanging onto or expanding their power.
I don’t accept Peterson’s reasoning about Hitler sacrificing military success to murder Jews and other minorities, when he started the murders he believed victory would come easily, I doubt the cost to the war effort was so great by the time Germany started to lose and when he finally worked out that defeat was inevitable stopping the murders wouldn’t make a difference to the final military outcome.
War is all about the power of the rulers and how they can manipulate the people and the situation to enhance that power, and that has a lot to do with evolution, status, and those lobsters. The people of their country fighting to defeat a foe is just a proxy for alphas doing the same thing in the rutting season.
Cotour, I read this blog mostly to get news on topics I’m interested in, secondarily to read and participate in interesting discussion. In writing posts, my main motivation is organizing my thoughts. Your sputtering post directed at me suggests that you write primarily to enlighten others, including me. If that is the primary reason why you write, then you are greatly overestimating your influence, and the most honest answer to your question is yes, you have indeed been wasting your time and words.
This is one of the few places on the Internet I’ve found where reading the comments doesn’t make one dumber, but even here I prefer Mr. Z’s journalism to the comments.
Like all others I’ve encountered who are overenthusiastic about getting their point of view across, you are often a poor reader/listener. I wrote “in some cases I get the idea he goes further and further right out of petulance.” Note that I don’t say “primarily” anywhere in there. Your defensiveness suggests that maybe I’ve struck a raw nerve.
To address Andrew’s point, with one exception, I don’t mind people misspelling my name; it can reflect any number of things: poor attention to detail, a small mistake everyone makes now and then, and on the extreme side, a passive-aggressive, petulant attempt to project the thought “I don’t care enough about you to even get your name right.” I always try to get people’s names right, but I consider misspelling my own name a small matter and I don’t care which of these, or other reasons, applies. The exception comes when there’s another poster in the conversation who spells his name with one r, because in that case it’s easy to mix up my posts with his (I haven’t noticed any Gary post here in quite a while).
I fully acknowledge that President Trump has some admirable qualities, and so far I am pleasantly surprised that I have agreed with his actions as often and to the extent I have. I hope he continues to have that kind of success, and am grateful that Hillary was not elected. However, I think a lot of his success is due to overreaction from the other side, and in some cases dumb luck has played a role.
I don’t for a second think that everything has gone exactly as Trump planned it; perhaps he has a talent as an opportunist who can adjust when things don’t go as he planned, but he’s certainly no mastermind (there is no shame in this; I don’t believe in masterminds; even people who have very forcefully bent millions to their will, such as Stalin, owe much of their “success” to circumstances and probably made lots of adjustments along the way).
If you want to drink the kool-aid, have at it. I am pleasantly surprised by what Trump has done so far, and see signs that he has learned some things on the job, but in some ways he’s the same immature, petulant man he’s always been. Given him and Hillary, I’ll take him every time, but he’s still a very flawed man.
My ideal scenario is that Trump’s succeeds in starting the Herculean task of draining the swamp, which sets the stage for someone else to come in and carry the baton further. If he runs for re-election and gets the nomination, I may have to break out the hazmat suit again before I go in the voting booth.
Andrew_W;
Yowza….one thing I do like about you– you have an opinion on everything. You’re often incorrect but at least you try.
(tangentially- my wife spent a year in Australia, one thing she didn’t talk about out loud, was that everyone’s ancestors were criminal’s, at least in the eyes of the Crown.)
REF:
“I doubt the cost to the war effort was so great by the time Germany started to lose and when he finally worked out that defeat was inevitable stopping the murders wouldn’t make a difference to the final military outcome.”
–that is just factually wrong. Watch that Peterson clip again.
The Will to Destroy anything/everyone, at the expense of their own existence, was a defining character of the Nazi’s.
Aside from the huge factoid that Nazi Germany’s fate was completely sealed the minute hitler declared war on the USA, whenever the Nazi’s had a logistical choice of whether to supply the Eastern Front or kill jews, they always chose to use their resources, to kill Jews (and gypsies & slavs.) In addition, the population of Germany was never fully mobilized for war-production until it was too late to make any difference at all. (We instituted Rationing in the USA in 1942/43. While we did scrap-drives and mobilized our entire population, Consumer goods were widely available in Germany.)
Highly recommend:
Victor Davis Hanson
“The Second World Wars”- How a Border War in Europe Led to WWII
Hillsdale College Event 9-12-2017
https://youtu.be/tQq-ORA4fHw?t=514
and a fictional account I highly recommend:
“Generation War” (2013)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_War]
Garry–
You write very well!
(Personally, I just play here. I’ve spent the last 3 years doing nothing but reading & correcting Tragedy & Malevolence, in the form of case-notes on broken-people.)
Garry: I’ve lazily misspelled your name in the past, and you corrected me. I did it again here, and quickly corrected it when I was made aware. Sorry about that.
Jordan Peterson:
“If You Were In Nazi Germany….. You Would Be A Nazi”
https://youtu.be/XQqUWa3G1XQ
(32:48)
and with that, I’m outa this thread.
” Your defensiveness suggests that maybe I’ve struck a raw nerve.”
Gary, lighten up, defensive? (And pay attention to what I write)
Andrew W: “You raise good points Cotour, politics and real estate are two very corrupt professions, There should have been little difficulty for Trump in making the transition.”
Still rabidly Subjective? Your inability to be Objective (If your statement was in fact sarcasm) related to understanding Trump, or understanding anyone for that matter, is very, lets say Hyper partisan and narrow.
Mr. Z, no need to be sorry; typos / oversights happen. The only time I bothered to correct your spelling of my name was in a thread where someone named Gary participated and I wanted to prevent confusion.
I still tell my mom that the next time she has a kid, please pick a name that she can spell correctly.
“Gary, lighten up, defensive? (And pay attention to what I write)”
Classic
Wayne, thanks for the Victor Davis Hanson video, there’s nothing there that surprises me or that I disagree with, he certainly knows his way around WW2, very impressive.
Garry-
highly enjoy your writing.
(total tangent, is that Band-Maid tune, anywhere near translated word for word? I was reading the description and that translation might include ‘artistic license.’ And google’s auto-translate renders hilarious captions.)
Andrew_W
(total tangent- whaddayathink of the new Star Trek: Discovery? I hate it and refuse to pay for it, although I’ve seen them all so far.)
I’ve seen VDH live at Hillsdale, (Michigan campus) he’s even more impressive in person.
That discussion was before he released his book, so if you catch a later discussion, he’s refined his points & expanded somewhat.
An Absolutely Killer Combo, would be 3 hours of Jordan Peterson & VDH discussing historical archetypes.
whaddayathink of the new Star Trek: Discovery? Haven’t seen it, I don’t follow Star Trek as closely as I used to.
An Absolutely Killer Combo, would be 3 hours of Jordan Peterson & VDH discussing historical archetypes.
I think a study of the evolutionary psychology connecting the murderous chimpanzees to Fascists would be interesting, and I’m not being facetious. I think there’s a lot in common there in the territoriality and the us vs them motivations, like the chimps fascists obviously draw a very sharp line between who’s in their tribe and the enemy outsiders – killing even (especially?) recent defectors to another tribe.
Despite claims that the US left is tending fascist, I think they’re the opposite, too keen to get everyone else into the tribe.
I just did a quick Google “are chimpanzees evil”, and found this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/does-chimp-warfare-explain-our-sense-of-good-and-evil/58643/
So Dr. Peterson, are chimpanzees “evil”?
“Despite claims that the US left is tending fascist, I think they’re the opposite, too keen to get everyone else into the tribe.”
The U.S. Left, formerly Liberal Democrat party are now Leftist and aspire to flood the country with illegals, what they call “Undocumented Americans” or “Out of compliance Americans”.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/394140/keith-ellison-attended-private-dinner-with-irans-president-and-louis-farrak/
Do you know who Keith Ellison is and what position he occupies? The Second in command at the DNC, made #2 by the man that he ran against, another Leftist Tom Perez.
“Their KEEN to get everyone else into the tribe”, yes, they are very keen to do so, any which way that they can because they understand that their party as formulated today, Leftist, is going away.
Again, your interpretation is just happy talk, does not connect with what is and has been going on in America.
Cotour, I assume you’re even more shocked that Pence is proposing talks with North Korea.
Nothing shocks me.
Wayne, this ones interesting, Peterson thinks Hitlers murderous campaign was driven by the biological drive of disgust, which is obviously very different to the rivalry instincts of more run of the mill authoritarians I’d been speculating about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZnqLvLbLV0
Wayne, I’m glad you enjoy my writing; that means we have a mutual admiration society thing going on. Not knowing it was a book by Jordan Peterson, I googled your reference to Tragedy and Malevolence, which led me to listen to 3 videos of lectures that serenaded me as I worked. His book will be my next purchase; he articulated what has been my approach to raising children, teaching kids from the ‘hood, and other worthwhile endeavors I’ve pursued the past 2 decades, and even made some connections I hadn’t seen.
My Japanese was never good enough to even confirm a good translation of that song, but being a song, I’d bet there were liberties taken with syllabary, word choice, etc. to avoid excess awkwardness. I certainly recognized the voices of Japanese who are frustrated with their society.
I’m always careful to distinguish between transliteration (translating words) and translation (translating concepts/possibly tapping into rough equivalents in the target language when there are no direct equivalents). Transliteration is often what you get from google translate, which is why I still have my job, because what people want is translation.
Andrew_W: I would like you to stop double posting comments. Pick the most appropriate thread, and put it there.
I apologize, my intent was to post those comments in this thread.
Andrew_W-
-that gets into the 5 factors of personality. (In part that’s why I wanted you to re-watch the “why hitler is more evil…” clip, again. Or better, the whole lecture in context. The light bulb will go off in your head, abstract it out 1-2 more steps from where you are.)
Generalizing broadly with personality-factors; you mix high trait disgust with high conscientiousness, + authoritarian political structures, and people start dying very fast.
Peterson is quite versed in Personality Theories, he has on on-line Test you can take (buy). As an alternative– watch his appearance on Louder with Crowder, Steven took the ‘test,’ and Peterson went over his scores with him.
(I have my issues with JBP, but he gets so much stuff absolutely correct, I’m not even going to try and quibble on the edges, and he’s truly entertaining, with a powerful message.)
brief bio blub on JBP: “He has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stunt plane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe.”
Ref: The chimps; sorry I’m not getting the question clearly. (I can’t tell if you’re joking.)
Garry–
Yow– that Tragedy & Malevolence reference was totally unconscious on my part! (har, and I’m not even really into the ‘unconscious stuff.’ ha!) It just sums up my life’s work very well; tragedy is one thing I can deal with, (make things less tragic) it’s the malevolence that sometimes makes me wake up in the middle of the night and wonder…
–Which lectures did you stumble upon?
Most excellent point, ref translations.
I just always wonder if those foreign-tunes, actually rhyme in their own language?
Andrew W:
Can I interpret these actions by CNN to indicate that they are about to swing their slanted reporting to now support Trump as per your suggested revenue theory of why media supports or does not support a candidate or politician?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/cnn-prepares-for-dozens-of-layoffs
Robert Zimmerman wrote: “I myself have many problems with Trump, but like you [Garry], I have generally been satisfied with the things he has so far done. And I think the mindless and brain-dead opposition to him has actually served to drive him further and further to the right, as time has passed.”
Isn’t that an irony, though. Two years ago, the lifelong liberal Democrat Trump could not explain conservatism, but now he behaves more and more like one. Those who would want him to continue being a Democrat are driving him away.
Although, not with that last overspending package/budget/continuing resolution. That shows us that the Republicans have finally caught up with the Democrats in their move to the far, far left. The past few years, the Republican Party has been acting closer to Democrats and seemed to want to be just like them, and now they are.
We have two major political parties but it is really a one party system where that one party has two different membership lists under two different names. Two parties but one faction, and Trump eagerly went along with that faction’s overspending package.
Wayne, I’ve watched it “How Hitler was Even More Evil Than You Think” again, no light bulb. So I’m watching to whole 2 1/2 hour lecture. Which will shut me up for a while. .
I still don’t get the claim of huge NAZI resources were expended in continuing the Holocaust that would otherwise have won the war for Germany, VDH makes it VERY clear that the defeat of Germany was a certainty after Barbarossa and the US declaration of war on Germany, it may have taken a while for Hitler to work that out but eventually he did.
Perhaps we’re on different frequencies because I do agree with “you mix high trait disgust with high conscientiousness, + authoritarian political structures, and people start dying very fast.” That’s basically what I’m saying in my February 12, 2018 at 1:04 pm comment, and I can agree that with a strong enough disgust trait Hitler could very well have continued the Holocaust despite knowing defeat was inevitable. The urge to “cleanse” Germany before the inevitable defeat could well have become even stronger in a perverse mind that saw people as a contamination. But that’s not what Peterson is arguing in “How Hitler was Even More Evil Than You Think”.
So: Hitler started the war aiming to win, when he realized that with the expansion of the war to including the USSR and the USA against him he eventually worked out that winning was out, at that point “cleansing” Germany became the priority.
….
While typing the above I had youtube still running, it went on to this video, which wraps up a lot of the arguments I’ve made from the start of this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jIixHZVs4w
The source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA