The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

[MarsCydonia]

For more on this issue, take a look at this video from Dave Rubin. I have never seen a better video explaining why the left is regressive so if this [sarcasm]well-reasoned and well-argued[/sarcasm] video does not convince you, then...

 

[Gnug215]

For more on this issue, take a look at this video from Dave Rubin. I have never seen a better video explaining why the left is regressive so if this [sarcasm]well-reasoned and well-argued[/sarcasm] video does not convince you, then...

Ah, so that type of text denotes sarcasm.

Actually didn't know that.

 

[Tree]

I agree a lot with what Prole said so I'll just summarize what I think of the "regressive left" issue.

I think the term is overused. I think it has become so overused that it has reached pejorative level to apply to anyone considering a liberal position on any topic. Not only is that unfair, but generally leads to the conversation/argument being usurped towards the perceived "conservative persecution" in media and reality.

I have real concerns when people say that criticizing Islam is off limits when I would level similar criticisms toward Christianity or Judaism. I have real concerns when there is talk of censoring others because you find them too offensive. If we find something offensive or we wish to criticize something, we should be allowed to voice that opinion and others are free to ignore it or engage it. This is the essence of free speech.

What I find alarming is the tendency for my fellow Americans to draw the dividing line on whatever side they have picked and then shut themselves off to any other opinion once they have done so. We should be able to identify when the whole truth isn't being spoken and we should be able to reasonably discern if something is true or false. Unfortunately, due to the state of media and education in the country and literally the amount of time it takes to unpack a single false statement uttered by anyone in power it's becoming increasingly difficult to have a nuanced conversation with anyone ESPECIALLY regarding politics.

As I said, I don't think every leftist position deserves to be called "regressive" and I think I've avoided that and explained what parts of the left I merely disagree with and which parts I find damaging.

The alt-right (see: Nazis) and so-called SJWs are two sides of the same idiot coin. Perpetually offended crybabies, whining because the world doesn't conform to the myopic parameters they believe it should. Extremes of any ideology are to be soundly mocked.

"X white celeb wore dreadlocks! Cultural appropriation! Waaaah! Outrage!!"

"X fictional character was cast as a POC instead of the original white guy! White genocide! Snowflakes! Waaaaah!"

"Non-native American said "spirit animal"! Waaaaah! Offended!!"

"Transgender people can use toilets! Waaaah! Collapse of society!!! Waaaaaaaaah!!!"

Christ, our species has jumped the shark.

It's not just the alt-right saying it.

I don't actually have that big of a problem although I do think it's silly to just re-write the same story with a different race.

The implication being:

1. you're either lazy or you lack the talent to do a new story
2. that society is so racist that we need to actively promote minority protagonists until they stop it, I'm not buying it, if people like aliens (fictional races and species as protagonists, often with completely outlandish appearances) why would they hate a black character? makes no sense

 

[Laurens]

Re: The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

It's not just the alt-right saying it.

I don't actually have that big of a problem although I do think it's silly to just re-write the same story with a different race.

The implication being:

1. you're either lazy or you lack the talent to do a new story
2. that society is so racist that we need to actively promote minority protagonists until they stop it, I'm not buying it, if people like aliens (fictional races and species as protagonists, often with completely outlandish appearances) why would they hate a black character? makes no sense

Its not just rewriting existing characters though. People shat a brick when there was a black stormtrooper in Star Wars, an entirely new character.

When it comes to these instances it would seem that a section of society IS too racist to accept even entirely new minority characters in movies.

 

[Akamia]

Re: The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

Its not just rewriting existing characters though. People shat a brick when there was a black stormtrooper in Star Wars, an entirely new character.

When it comes to these instances it would seem that a section of society IS too racist to accept even entirely new minority characters in movies.

From what I recall of what I noticed at the time, it wasn't because Finn was black per se.

At the time people were freaking out (from what I saw) it was because of a misconception that the Imperial Stormtrooper Corps. was made of Jango Fett clones. You know, the same clones that made up the Republic's clone army during the Clone Wars.

This is of course not true; the Stormtrooper Corps. was recruiting ordinary humans after the Clone Wars ended because they couldn't produce Jango clones anymore due to Kaminoan resistance. The 501st Legion, Darth Vader's personal stormtrooper legion, were the last remaining group of stormtroopers that were made mostly of Fett clones.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Tree]

The Force Awakens is almost a remake of A New Hope. Literally every major plot point is an adaptation of the other movie with some characters being different and some brought back 30 years older.

Here's the thing, if significant segments of the population only wanted works of fiction that deal with people very similar to them, let's say their own gender and white, then shouldn't we expect to see movies, books or video games with alien/fictional races be some of the most disliked works of fiction? So actually no Star Wars movie should be as popular as it is.

I didn't mind Finn by the way, and Rey being a female Jedi isn't the problem either, the problem is she's female Luke v2.0 only insanely overpowered at literally everything she does, almost no flaw whatsoever. Luke had to TRAIN to master his talents and it took time, Rey kinda figured it out on the spot and was able to best someone with years of training and experience. She also had a bit of an attitude problem with the whole "let go, Finn!" when Finn was just trying to help her get away from the bad guys. That plays into the feminist theme of "oh women need men like fish need bicycles". Well I hate to tell you this but when an army capable of destroying planets is after you, being a "strong independent woman" (or man for that matter) is no longer an option and you're going to need ALL the help you can get even if you don't like it. Not just from one man, but more like from many men and many other women if possible.

I suppose she does accept the help from that many people so it's not what you would call "overtly" SJWish (they could have made it far more obvious if they wanted it so I'll at least grant them that they didn't go "Full McIntosh"), but I think it's pretty obvious the character was written from a feminist perspective with power fantasies.

Look, female leads? Perfectly fine, and it's nothing new by the way we've had them for ages and nobody complained, but try to be a bit more believable about it. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean there are no constraints.

For more overtly SJW films, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzggK5DRBA

I don't think the agenda of this author is in any doubt.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: The

Its not just rewriting existing characters though. People shat a brick when there was a black stormtrooper in Star Wars, an entirely new character.

When it comes to these instances it would seem that a section of society IS too racist to accept even entirely new minority characters in movies.

From what I recall of what I noticed at the time, it wasn't because Finn was black per se.

At the time people were freaking out (from what I saw) it was because of a misconception that the Imperial Stormtrooper Corps. was made of Jango Fett clones. You know, the same clones that made up the Republic's clone army during the Clone Wars.

This is of course not true; the Stormtrooper Corps. was recruiting ordinary humans after the Clone Wars ended because they couldn't produce Jango clones anymore due to Kaminoan resistance. The 501st Legion, Darth Vader's personal stormtrooper legion, were the last remaining group of stormtroopers that were made mostly of Fett clones.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Everything about that freak out was ridiculous. The original trailer showed Finn taking off a Stormtrooper helmet on a desert planet. I remember watching that and not thinking he was a Stormtrooper, but dressed like one for some reason like in A New Hope where Luke and Solo dressed up as Stormtroopers to rescue Leia. I honestly do not know how people made the leap to seeing him in a Stormtrooper outfit, to him being a Stormtrooper from just watching the trailer. Anyone that has a little bit of knowledge about Star Wars should have realized that just because someone is wearing a Stormtrooper outfit does not make them a Stormtrooper. However, in the end, I thought the movie did a great job explaining how Finn became a Stormtrooper.

 

[Prolescum]

I've just read this thread, and I can't be bothered to put in any effort to talk about these meritless, insignificant issues. Tree, that you think any of this risible drama has any value depresses me. It's fucking pathetic. You have a government that doesn't share a reality with its populace (or its civil employees, international partners, even in some cases itself...), and you're bitching about some pointless bullshitt about a random girl noting the lack of diversity in video games as if it has greater significance outside of YouTube?

Get a fucking grip.

 

[Tree]

I've just read this thread, and I can't be bothered to put in any effort to talk about these meritless, insignificant issues. Tree, that you think any of this risible drama has any value depresses me. It's fucking pathetic. You have a government that doesn't share a reality with its populace (or its civil employees, international partners, even in some cases itself...), and you're bitching about some pointless bullshitt about a random girl noting the lack of diversity in video games as if it has greater significance outside of YouTube?

Get a fucking grip.

It wasn't just a random girl on YouTube, you get a grip.

Looks like you haven chosen to ignore every other issue I wrote about in a deliberate attempt to minimize this problem, typical gaslighting. If you think this is just trivial drama in a small corner of YouTube you haven't been paying attention at all.

You have a government that doesn't share a reality with its populace (or its civil employees, international partners, even in some cases itself...),

It's funny you should say that because these international partners are often just as divorced from reality if NOT MORE. Most NATO allies won't even spend the required 2% of GDP on military but they love having American support, often while bitching America spends too much, maybe less American dollars could be spent on military if these reliable international partners spent more to compensate.

The EU doesn't share a reality with much of its population either and perhaps in a way it's worse, no wonder Brexit won and others are thinking of splitting too. Nobody in the European Commission is elected or accountable to the public. Nobody in the European Commission seems to realize that a one-size-fits-all doesn't work for 20+ regions each with their particular problems and cultural aspects. I'm willing to bet the super majority of Americans know who Trump and Obama are, but a good chunk of Europeans have no idea who Juncker is or what he stands for. The only democratic aspect of the EU is the Parliament and it can't even propose legislation like a normal parliament can, merely vote yes or no on proposals from the commission. To get around this, all they would need to do is repeatedly attempt the same proposal until it goes through, until the get "lucky".

Is Merkel sharing a reality with the German population?

How about western Europe compared to the east? Virtually all eastern countries opposed refugee quotas and the numbers were like what? 80% in Hungary opposed because of security risks, cultural issues and taxpayer issues (i.e. they can't afford it), all ignored by the EU elites even as their countries become increasingly less safe (we're talking provable tourism revenue losses in the hundreds of millions in France alone) and more militarized because of mass immigration and mass refugee exodus (many of which aren't even real refugees but economic migrants who burned their passports) which no little guy wanted and gets no benefit from.

Or should we talk about other partners?

Is South Korea reliable? There's an enemy at the door and America is practically paying for its defense. Without that support, Kim Jong Un would be the dictator of two countries today. SK needs to spend more too.

Is China in tune with reality? The country that tried a failed system called communism, murdered 80 millions of its people, impoverished China and now pretends to be capitalistic while doing serious damage to the income of working Americans by taking their jobs. That partnership will need some renegotiation too because it's a fucking joke masquerading as free market. I would really like the libertarians to explain to me how you can have a free market with China when dictatorial levels of coercion upon 1 billion people are involved. Maybe Trump failed to articulate it right but it truly is the DUMB market.

 

[Gnug215]

Tree, I doubt anyone today is looking at the world and thinking it's all just swell.

While I probably belong somewhere on the Left, and as such recognize some of "their" solutions to various problems (plus the recognition and prioritization of problems) as being better than those from the Right, I've never really had the... insanity to think that the Left has all the answers. In my view, any ideology, given free reins and taken to its extreme, would fail miserably. I think a balance is needed.

And a balance is mostly what we have. The pendulum swings, and right now it's on the Right. Fair enough.

But in my eyes, Trump isn't really a part of the pendulum. He's more like... crazy string, with a bouncing ball attached, being chased by a hyperactive kitten... on ice... in a storm...
You get the idea.

I truly, honestly believe that plenty of people on the Right have some good ideas, and good insight into the complexities of the world. There doesn't have to be one single solution to every problem, and sometimes I guess the Right get it right. Maybe...

But Trump? I honestly think he's a bewildered buffoon who not only doesn't realize what the shit end of a stick is, but he's picked up an actual shit and now he's calling it a gold bar. A tremendous gold bar!!
He's clearly too stupid to understand ANY of the complexities of the world. It's not that I think he has Gump levels of IQ, but they're probably not above average. No, his problem is that he THINKS he's really smart, and so doesn't have the openness, patience and humility to actually learn stuff.

His comments on China may be accurate, but that's definitely a broken clock kind of deal.

So in the end, any good that may come from Trump's time in office will in my view be entirely accidental, or be entirely the work of someone else in the administrations with brains far, far superior to his.



Now, regarding your comments on NATO.
Yes, most NATO members aren't spending what they're supposed to, and that's a valid reason to berate them. If they really wanted to pay less, perhaps they should come to an agreement on that, instead of just not spending the right amount.
That said, you're kinda making it sound as if the USA is spending the "proper" amount on military that they should. Yes, many are bitching about the US spending too much, and that may not be fair or reasonable in the context of them not paying their due in an agreed upon alliance, but that doesn't really invalidate the point of the US spending a LOT.
I'm not some kind of mindless hippie who thinks we could all achieve world peace by more holding hands, but as has been evident in the past half century or so, it is clear that there are other ways to achieve peace than just brute force.
Ideally, we should be striving for less military spending, but that should reflect a reality of increased peace and international cooperation in the world. Of course, when that's not possible, more spending might be prudent, but while today's international climate may seem tense, I'm really not seeing that WWIII couldn't be avoided by means other than a constant military spending race.
The former Soviet Union pretty much military-spent themselves to death (not saying that was their only problem, but damn, their % of BNP spent at times was insane.), so maybe the US could learn a bit from that and spend a bit less on military, and more on fixing internal problems.



As to the EU, I agree that the EU has become a bureaucratic hulk of a problem, but that doesn't mean I think it should be dissolved entirely. Nor do I think the solution is to leave it.
I think Brexit was a total overreaction. The UK could easily have stayed in the EU, and just negotiatced special deals from within, like it had already done for a long time. I think that's what we'll see in the future, which will be a - in my mind - proper reaction to a project run amok, with some overeager ideologues at the wheel.
I don't think the proper reaction is to go totally nation-state-bonkers and leave, and then just look ever inwards. I'm pretty sure that kind of thing has been tried before.
And as for the fugitives problem, that's always going to be a tough one. But the thing is, we can't just close all our borders and ignore the problem - a problem which by the looks of it will only be growing in the future (climate refugees for one). If we do that, entire regions will implode, and if you think that kind of event will just be contained in its own region, then I think you're kidding yourself.
I do think that there's such a thing as too many refugees being let into a country. We should be discussing how many refugees countries can handle.
I think letting in refugees is the moral thing to do (many others may disagree there), but that's not the discussion we should be having. I think it's the reasonable and sensible thing to do, but it has its limits, and so let's have that debate in society, instead of one side wanting to open the doors, and the other side wanting to shut it. I don't get why it so often devolves into an either/or kind of deal.



As for South Korea (or other partners in general), it kinda sounds as if you're talking about military spending in a vacuum here. The US may be paying more, but I am pretty sure that the US is getting a lot of the "deal".
It's a bit like the Marshall Plan from post-WWII. That may have looked like a handout, but as far as I know, it worked out pretty favorable for the US - and not just in economic terms.



P.S. Trump really is a moron.
(Facetious as this may look, I'm really serious here. You may agree with the policies coming out of the White House, and enjoy the ramifications of his presidency, but... you gotta agree that there's something seriously wrong with the guy, right?)

 

[Tree]

P.S. Trump really is a moron.
(Facetious as this may look, I'm really serious here. You may agree with the policies coming out of the White House, and enjoy the ramifications of his presidency, but... you gotta agree that there's something seriously wrong with the guy, right?)

I don't agree with that, I think people severely underestimate Trump just because of the way he talks and his outlandish showman personality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxf1XmVZ9qY - wasn't always the case

Sure he speaks at a "4th grade level", but that also means the common man understands you. No wonder Hillary lost and the media has underestimated him every single step of the way to the White House. Literally every step, they kept saying, he's not really going to become a candidate, he's not going to lead in the polls, he's not going to win the debates, he's not going to win the primaries, oh he called for a Muslim immigration ban so it's over for him yadda yadda...

The Huffington Post even gave him a 1.7% chance of winning a day before the election. Totally flawed (probably deliberately flawed) methodology was obviously used, maybe if he won by 1-2 electoral votes with 200 popular votes being very decisive in a state nobody expected or something like that you could have credibly claimed "well we did say there's a 1.7% chance, our methodology was correct", but he won by a lot more than that.

Trump saying stuff like China is doing the dumb market and it's stealing your jobs is a lot easier to understand than going into the details why you really can't have a free market in the true sense with China.

For a "moron", he made billions of out assets worth 60 million which is the absolute maximum he could have possibly inherited considering his father had an estimated net worth of 300 million, that's best estimate, and 5 children.

While I probably belong somewhere on the Left, and as such recognize some of "their" solutions to various problems (plus the recognition and prioritization of problems) as being better than those from the Right, I've never really had the... insanity to think that the Left has all the answers. In my view, any ideology, given free reins and taken to its extreme, would fail miserably. I think a balance is needed.

This is exactly why those on the left who consider themselves moderates or "normal" need to viciously oppose the regressive left. Not only is it over-the-top stupid but it's usually hypocritical too and goes against many stated principles.

Here's another one: You cannot have both a welfare state and open borders because that will quickly drain your system, you'll have to choose one or the other. If you want a welfare state, you can only allow consistent medium to high income earners to emigrate who have no criminal record and no health issues.

Think about the two rather incompatible positions that the left holds. On one hand they want universal healthcare in the USA, at least the Bernie Sanders left wants it, on the other they want to give amnesty to 11 million illegals... most of which are usually low skilled workers at best and some don't even have legitimate incomes at all. That is not a population that is going to be able to contribute to a universal healthcare plan, you need high earners with as few medical problems as possible to fund such a system.

I do think that there's such a thing as too many refugees being let into a country. We should be discussing how many refugees countries can handle.
I think letting in refugees is the moral thing to do (many others may disagree there), but that's not the discussion we should be having. I think it's the reasonable and sensible thing to do, but it has its limits, and so let's have that debate in society, instead of one side wanting to open the doors, and the other side wanting to shut it. I don't get why it so often devolves into an either/or kind of deal.

As a general rule I don't like one-sided deals.

When World War 2 happened, how many European refugees did Syria take in? Any at all? Even if that happened would they retain their rights? Hard to believe considering how Palestinian refugees are treated in Middle Eastern countries. They're a lot closer culturally and they still treat them like shit.

When it comes to refugees I think all these international treaties need to be renegotiated from scratch and only between two countries.

First, I don't believe in a right of asylum for millions of people, that's silly. Maybe a few thousands at most, but millions? Sorry. Millions of people have no excuse to not try to change their country.

Second, I believe security concerns trump the right of asylum. No pun intended.

Third, this should be negotiated between countries, i.e. if disaster hits my country you take my people in and preserve their rights, if disaster hits your country, I take your people in and preserve their rights. I see no reason why the EU or the US should allow millions of Syrians when they wouldn't be welcome in Syria themselves or wouldn't be treated with dignity.


But more importantly, you're forgetting the fact that it's way cheaper to just help them in their own country in safe zones or even resettle them in similar countries and then just send aid to those countries to deal with it. Living costs in the EU or the US are far higher and you also have to deal with the risks. For every person you can resettle in the US you could be helping 12 in their own country.

Really you could brainstorm many different ways to help them with none of them having to set foot in your country. Insisting that Merkel's way is the only way suggests a hidden agenda.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just a couple of comments...

Trump may have made billions but he's gone bankrupt at least four times - and almost went bankrupt at least once more, as shown by the tax returns revealed during the campaign.

This shows that he doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes.

One sees a similar pattern in his tendency to repeat falsehoods - despite any number of people correcting him on them.

Re the free market...

You can't have a free market. Period,

The free market is amoral - that's why you need government(s) to intervene if only to set minimum standards to ensure health and safety of people.

Universal healthcare...

You're forgetting - or ignoring - that the largest "pool" are taxpayers: that's how the rest of the developed world funds their public healthcare systems.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Tree]

He's never gone bankrupt personally, it's some of his companies that have gone bankrupt out of his conglomerate of hundreds of businesses.

That comes with the territory. You need to look at the positive trend of overall growth of his organization.

The free market is amoral - that's why you need government(s) to intervene if only to set minimum standards to ensure health and safety of people.

Regulations are fine with me if they as long as they're intended to combat coercion and fraud and they're not too restrictive. Also unless it's something serious like nuclear security, I expect regular people to be able to both understand and have the time to understand the rules without needing to hire a bus full of lawyers. Small businesses cannot be expected to comply with an insanely complex and incomprehensible body of regulations made up for tens of thousands of pages as well as big businesses can.

Coercion - that would include health and safety but not always, you wouldn't want to put the speed limit at 15mph in every area. That would save lives, it would also mess up the economy and kill other people that way since the food and medication stops arriving on time and standards of living drop. For that matter so would insisting on not using fossil fuels, that's unrealistic, the entire western civilization would collapse and drag everyone with it like a black hole.

I have no issue with regulating foreign trade as well since often the questionable immoral practices in other countries have devastating effects on the countries they trade with. Let's take China - China as it current functions would never exist in a free market or anything even remotely close it. In order to have a free market, you must have free individuals capable of making voluntary choices. Since China doesn't even guarantee free speech in any meaningful sense to its citizens and has despotic control over their lives - just how voluntary is their choice to work in these multinationals that ship jobs from America or Europe to China? Without free speech you can't even negotiate a work contract or ask for a raise and we know what the government does if Chinese workers choose to protest or strike. This severely impacts honest working people, they can't compete with something that's skin to slave labor almost.

I argue a distinction should also be made between informed risk taking and subjecting third parties to risks that they probably didn't even consent to so no I don't want people hauling barrels of nuclear waste in residential areas (even if nothing bad happens, they stay off my property and nobody gets irradiated), but something like smoking on the other hand needs to be way less regulated than it is and it shouldn't be taxed differently than other things. People should have figured it out by now that smoking is bad, if they continue that's on them. Nobody forced them to smoke and there are countless programs to quit smoking.

I can think of so many other things that really shouldn't be regulated or should be regulated far less than they are. Entertainment generally needs no regulation unless you're gathering large crowds I guess. Crappy entertainment can easily be penalized by the free market since they start losing fans. Gambling needs no regulation, learn probabilities if you haven't figured out why house always wins yet. Rental properties don't need much regulation and rent control is immoral since it limits the owner's ability to make full use of his property, the solution to expensive rents is for people to either buy/build their own home or move to a different city or neighborhood that's more within their price range. Taxis don't to be regulated much either (not any more than your friend driving you over to the cinema for free) and the idea that you need a "license" to operate a taxi is stupid, it's nothing but collectively enforced monopoly and scarcity. The only license you should ever need is a driver's license. If you can drive people for free, you can drive people for money. And apps like Uber are really revolutionizing the way this works as well as allowing more people to be their own boss which obviously make them less likely to be dependent on the government.

For that matter prostitution, at least the kind that isn't done on a large scale with a large establishment, needs no regulation either just like dating for free needs no regulation (can you imagine Tinder dates being regulated by the government?) The Internet makes it easier to sort out good services from bad ones since people leave reviews and ultimately if you don't like the risks involved, you don't need to go there.

I don't consider myself libertarian by the way, I just like a lot of what they say because it makes sense and it's pro-freedom. Don't initiate force sounds like a good principle to me, a shame libertarians are also extremely naive about other stuff like foreign policy or free trade with China else maybe I could identify as one.

 

[Gnug215]

P.S. Trump really is a moron.
(Facetious as this may look, I'm really serious here. You may agree with the policies coming out of the White House, and enjoy the ramifications of his presidency, but... you gotta agree that there's something seriously wrong with the guy, right?)

I don't agree with that, I think people severely underestimate Trump just because of the way he talks and his outlandish showman personality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxf1XmVZ9qY - wasn't always the case

He talks like a moron and acts like a moron, that makes him a moron in my eyes.

Yes, I acknowledge that he's not a "complete" moron. Such a person would have problems even tying their shoelace. What I mean is... if you took specific metrics, different areas of mental skills (we could even use the psychological theory of the "many kinds (usually 10 main ones) of intelligences") and emotional abilities, and measured them, Trump would score well below average on many areas.
I'd rate him as being well below averege on the following areas:

General intelligence. (What is usually measured with standard IQ tests.)
Language.
Critical thinking.
Empathy.
Intra- and extrapersonal intelligence.
Logic.
Deeper contemplation.

And others...

If I were to offer one area where he would be above average... I'd struggle. I guess I could put down "showmanship", as you mention, but I'd actually put that down as an emergent property of his lack of humility, arrogance and delusions of grandeur.

Sure he speaks at a "4th grade level", but that also means the common man understands you. No wonder Hillary lost and the media has underestimated him every single step of the way to the White House. Literally every step, they kept saying, he's not really going to become a candidate, he's not going to lead in the polls, he's not going to win the debates, he's not going to win the primaries, oh he called for a Muslim immigration ban so it's over for him yadda yadda...

I would say his speech is well below that of the "common man". I know this is going to sound like a wildly arrogant attack from me, but... If that is the level of the "common man" on the Right, then that's a huge problem. If that means in your eyes that I'm just another "ivory tower liberal" or whatever, then I can't blame you for making that assessment based on what I just said, but I gotta say, I though Bush Jr. was already quite common man, who in my eyes sounded lower than average, but Trump came in and dropped the bar even lower. Heck, I just watched an interview with Bush (recent and short one, mainly about Trump), and he came off as being way above Trump.

Yes, he was underestimated, and yes, he said things that would usually spell doom for other candidates, and yes, he still managed to win, but I think his win had more to do with the issues he talked about, and not so much how he worded them.

The Huffington Post even gave him a 1.7% chance of winning a day before the election. Totally flawed (probably deliberately flawed) methodology was obviously used, maybe if he won by 1-2 electoral votes with 200 popular votes being very decisive in a state nobody expected or something like that you could have credibly claimed "well we did say there's a 1.7% chance, our methodology was correct", but he won by a lot more than that.

Yes, something went completely wrong with all the polls and analyses, and that should definitely be looked into. I doubt it was only a matter of "wishful thinking" on the part of Left Wing media. I'm sure there were other factors involved.
What I don't get is that there didn't seem to be more in depth polls and analyses of the states that really mattered. If there was an issue with some people not wanting to say they were going to vote for Trump, or if there was an inordinate amount of undecided or undisclosed voters, then huge alarm bells should have gone off, and the margins of error should have been widened massively.

Trump saying stuff like China is doing the dumb market and it's stealing your jobs is a lot easier to understand than going into the details why you really can't have a free market in the true sense with China.

Yes, it is easier to understand, but saying is "dumb" explains very little. I think it's the duty of elected politicians to explain complex legal issues and international issues to the public in a way that they can understand.
Certainly, if previous, more elitist politicians have failed to do this, either out of incompetence, lack of ability to speak "commonly", or even out of a malignant interest in keeping the public in the dark, then that is a massive, massive problem (partly one that seems to have helped Trump along), but there's GOT to be some middle ground between that and just "Dumb".

For a "moron", he made billions of out assets worth 60 million which is the absolute maximum he could have possibly inherited considering his father had an estimated net worth of 300 million, that's best estimate, and 5 children.

First off, Trump was never just his supposed "small million dollar loan" and his inheritence. He was also his name, the network and connections that followed, and having had every introduction and opportunity to learn a trade (property dealing) that in all fairness is quite old.

Second, while not wanting to belittle what effort he may have put into his accumulation of wealth, I seriously don't feel compelled to in any way admire anyone and everyone who managed to make money - particularly not someone who started out with it. That's like saying you should admire me for winning the 100meter dash, even though I had a 50m head start, and had exoskeletal legs helping me.

While I probably belong somewhere on the Left, and as such recognize some of "their" solutions to various problems (plus the recognition and prioritization of problems) as being better than those from the Right, I've never really had the... insanity to think that the Left has all the answers. In my view, any ideology, given free reins and taken to its extreme, would fail miserably. I think a balance is needed.

This is exactly why those on the left who consider themselves moderates or "normal" need to viciously oppose the regressive left. Not only is it over-the-top stupid but it's usually hypocritical too and goes against many stated principles.

I agree and like to think there is opposition to it. But probably not as much as either you or I would like. I'm honestly not sure what's going on at the grassroots level... or any other level for that matter, but I get the sense that the Reg. Left seems to have become more quite lately.
Perhaps they got power-mad after 8 years under Obama, and the rest of the Left didn't bother to do anything about it, not thinking it did any real damage to anything?
(I don't really know. I'm not politically active. Never have been.)

Here's another one: You cannot have both a welfare state and open borders because that will quickly drain your system, you'll have to choose one or the other. If you want a welfare state, you can only allow consistent medium to high income earners to emigrate who have no criminal record and no health issues.

Think about the two rather incompatible positions that the left holds. On one hand they want universal healthcare in the USA, at least the Bernie Sanders left wants it, on the other they want to give amnesty to 11 million illegals... most of which are usually low skilled workers at best and some don't even have legitimate incomes at all. That is not a population that is going to be able to contribute to a universal healthcare plan, you need high earners with as few medical problems as possible to fund such a system.

I agree, but you're talking in absolutes again. The welfare state wouldn't collapse if more people came in (unless it was billions just doing nothing, I guess?), but it would become less effective. And the borders aren't just wide open at any point, and nor are they ever totally shut.

What I'm saying is that these things should be regulated frequently in order to suit the reality of what is happening. And I think politicians should maybe listen to political/economical/sociological scientists on what kind of load the welfare state can take, and what amount of incoming people it can handle.
Deciding those two things purely on ideology is incredibly stupid.

I do think that there's such a thing as too many refugees being let into a country. We should be discussing how many refugees countries can handle.
I think letting in refugees is the moral thing to do (many others may disagree there), but that's not the discussion we should be having. I think it's the reasonable and sensible thing to do, but it has its limits, and so let's have that debate in society, instead of one side wanting to open the doors, and the other side wanting to shut it. I don't get why it so often devolves into an either/or kind of deal.

As a general rule I don't like one-sided deals.

When World War 2 happened, how many European refugees did Syria take in? Any at all? Even if that happened would they retain their rights? Hard to believe considering how Palestinian refugees are treated in Middle Eastern countries. They're a lot closer culturally and they still treat them like shit.

So are you saying that we should deny Syrians based on their lack of taking any Europeans in during WWII? And based on the fact that if they had, the Europeans might not have been able to retain their rights?
So our behavior should be dictated by the lowest common denominator? And we should never try to treat anyone better than they might treat us?

Again, I'm not saying that we should let them in because our hearts are bleeding, and it's the right thing to do, and it's so sad for them, and we won't get to heaven if we don't, and it's the proper thing to do, and yadda yadda.
The main argument for me is that it is the reasonable thing to do. If we want to improve the world, if we want positive development, prosperity and, yes, to make the world a better place - something that would benefit us all - then taking in some fugitives is the right thing to do. But no, we can't take them all.

When it comes to refugees I think all these international treaties need to be renegotiated from scratch and only between two countries.

I'm not sure if starting from scratch and having EVERY country negotiate deals (that would result in a LOT of deals) is the best answer, but individual countries should certainly have a say in what they do.
But if a country closes the door, then it should also expect a negative response from others. If someone denies helping, then the rest are stuck with a bigger problem.

First, I don't believe in a right of asylum for millions of people, that's silly. Maybe a few thousands at most, but millions? Sorry. Millions of people have no excuse to not try to change their country.

I'm not sure if there should be a "right" of asylum, but again, not helping somehow is a bad idea.

And are you saying that most of those people from war-torn Syria are just using the war as some lame excuse for leaving their country? Are you questioning the legitimacy of the reason that so many people have for actually uprooting their lives and moving far away to an unknown future?

I'm having a very hard time finding that in any way reasonable.

Second, I believe security concerns trump the right of asylum. No pun intended.

Yes, but how much security for how much of a decreas in this so-called right of asylum?

Again, it's a matter of degrees, and not just black and white.

If we let in one asylum seeker, was our security undermined so much as to become unacceptable?
Or is the limit 100 asylum seekers? Or more?

How do you even begin to measure "security"?
And don't you think shutting the door completely may have other negative consequences down the line?

I mean, to me this sounds a lot like:
"Car accidents results in deaths every year, so... we should all stop driving cars."

There's acceptable risks involved in a desired activity.

Letting in asylum seekers may not be at all desirable to you, but it is for many, and I don't think it's just for alleviating their conscience or whatever.

Third, this should be negotiated between countries, i.e. if disaster hits my country you take my people in and preserve their rights, if disaster hits your country, I take your people in and preserve their rights. I see no reason why the EU or the US should allow millions of Syrians when they wouldn't be welcome in Syria themselves or wouldn't be treated with dignity.

I talked a little about this above.

I think there's something to be said for being the "bigger man", not just to take the moral highground and then gloat about it later, but maybe us taking them in could actually make them change their ways, and eventually they would welcome us if needed? And I'm not just saying this should be a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your-back kind of deal, but also an if-we-all-scratch-the-world's-back-then-everything-will-improve kind of deal. It could be very good "economy" to help out in the long run.

But more importantly, you're forgetting the fact that it's way cheaper to just help them in their own country in safe zones or even resettle them in similar countries and then just send aid to those countries to deal with it. Living costs in the EU or the US are far higher and you also have to deal with the risks. For every person you can resettle in the US you could be helping 12 in their own country.

Really you could brainstorm many different ways to help them with none of them having to set foot in your country. Insisting that Merkel's way is the only way suggests a hidden agenda.

Now this is more like it. This is pragmatic, economic, realistic talk in my eyes. Discussion options, alternatives, instead of the talk being about "letting everyone in or shutting everyone out."

Why isn't everyone talking about this instead of the other, unrealistic, absolutist crap?

Now, I'm not sure if anyone is insisting on Merkel's way, and I doubt there's any sinister hidden agenda. That honestly sounds a bit too much like conspiracy crap to me. At best you could talk about somewhat undisclosed ideological reasonings. (You may have noticed that non-absolutist things are a reoccuring theme here...)
It also sounds dangerous. It's the kind of talk that I think creates a larger and more vicious divide between the two sides. (Dear god, the horror of there supposedly just being two sides in a complex issue...)

But yes, resettling people within their own country and similar options should definitely be discussed. Also... what should be discussed is the absolute, abject failure of the international society to properly deal with the situation in Syria. What an absolute, astounding clusterfuck that has been. Now, I wouldn't mind temporary housing millions of fugitives in the EU if there was a clear and certain resolution to the war on the immediate horizon, but taking on millions of refugees in when you don't know if you're ever getting rid of them again is certainly not desirable.

 

[WarK]

P.S. Trump really is a moron.
(Facetious as this may look, I'm really serious here. You may agree with the policies coming out of the White House, and enjoy the ramifications of his presidency, but... you gotta agree that there's something seriously wrong with the guy, right?)

He talks like a moron and acts like a moron, that makes him a moron in my eyes.

Yes, I acknowledge that he's not a "complete" moron. Such a person would have problems even tying their shoelace. What I mean is... if you took specific metrics, different areas of mental skills (we could even use the psychological theory of the "many kinds (usually 10 main ones) of intelligences") and emotional abilities, and measured them, Trump would score well below average on many areas.
I'd rate him as being well below averege on the following areas:

General intelligence. (What is usually measured with standard IQ tests.)
Language.
Critical thinking.
Empathy.
Intra- and extrapersonal intelligence.
Logic.
Deeper contemplation.

Trump is a fucking moron. It'd be funny if not for the fact that he's been actually elected.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

P.S. Trump really is a moron.
(Facetious as this may look, I'm really serious here. You may agree with the policies coming out of the White House, and enjoy the ramifications of his presidency, but... you gotta agree that there's something seriously wrong with the guy, right?)

He talks like a moron and acts like a moron, that makes him a moron in my eyes.

Yes, I acknowledge that he's not a "complete" moron. Such a person would have problems even tying their shoelace. What I mean is... if you took specific metrics, different areas of mental skills (we could even use the psychological theory of the "many kinds (usually 10 main ones) of intelligences") and emotional abilities, and measured them, Trump would score well below average on many areas.
I'd rate him as being well below averege on the following areas:

General intelligence. (What is usually measured with standard IQ tests.)
Language.
Critical thinking.
Empathy.
Intra- and extrapersonal intelligence.
Logic.
Deeper contemplation.

Trump is a fucking moron. It'd be funny if not for the fact that he's been actually elected.

He appointed a YEC to Secretary of Education. I cannot believe anyone thinks he is not a moron.

 

[Laurens]

Re: The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

Trump is a fucking moron. It'd be funny if not for the fact that he's been actually elected.

He appointed a YEC to Secretary of Education. I cannot believe anyone thinks he is not a moron.

I think he is so incomprehensible that some people think he is somehow a genius.

I will see if I can find the video, but I saw a video where the speed of his voice was modulated so that he sounded drunk. No word of a lie he talks like a drunkard who will ramble at anyone who is too polite to walk away. It would be funny but its a bit too scary

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Tree]

That's nice but I didn't support Trump for his Christian values, I supported him because he was strong leadership material and the only one who could have defeated the left. Actually if you forced me to place my money on it, I wouldn't be surprised if he's not religious at all.

As for Betsy DeVos being a Young Earth Creationist - I dont know: 1. where you got that information from 2. how that would actually impact US education on a larger scale considering Trump doesn't want the federal government to be too deeply involved in controlling education, for example he's against Common Core and pro school vouchers. At worst she might enable it rather than mandate it.

Also regressive leftist propaganda on college campuses is far bigger threat than YEC in high school. Unless you're a biologist, and students passionate about it will generally figure out creationism is bullshit on their own anyway, it really doesn't matter if you believe nonsense about evolution. A lawyer can still be a good lawyer even if he doesn't have a clue at all about biology. But if you buy into far left "fuck America fuck white males I'm a victim wah wah wah" politics you're going to be a very negative influence in society no matter what your career path is.

Personally, between someone with no degree and gender studies, I'd choose the one with no degree. You're asking for a frivolous lawsuit or at the very least lots and lots of drama if you hire someone who's been taught how to be a perpetual victim.

I talked a little about this above.

I think there's something to be said for being the "bigger man", not just to take the moral highground and then gloat about it later, but maybe us taking them in could actually make them change their ways, and eventually they would welcome us if needed?

I think there are times when you should be the "bigger man". This isn't one of them. If wanted 100% eye for an eye, well let's just say it can get a lot worse than being denied entry into a country as a refugee, no need to be graphic about it. People should be treated fairly but at the same time they should not be allowed to take advantage of you. I don't believe in turning the other cheek, there has to be a better balance between full vengeance and pathological altruism. Both extremes will lead to your downfall.

Also giving people free stuff doesn't make them good, otherwise dictators who literally have everything would be the nicest people on Earth.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Actually if you forced me to place my money on it, I wouldn't be surprised if he's not religious at all.

Irrelevant, since he panders to the Religious Right at every chance. Tell me, what is the difference between a True Fundamentalist Christian in office and one that enacts laws to appease the Fundamentalist Christians?

As for Betsy DeVos being a Young Earth Creationist - I dont know: 1. where you got that information from

DeVos was on the advisery board for the Student Statesmanship Institute, which is pro-creationism and anti-gay. This is beside the whole "Kingdom of God" thing.

2. how that would actually impact US education on a larger scale considering Trump doesn't want the federal government to be too deeply involved in controlling education, for example he's against Common Core and pro school vouchers.

You honestly do not see how placing a YEC in charge of education can be a problem? What is next, you are going to argue that placing a climate change denier as head of the EPA is also not a problem?

At worst she might enable it rather than mandate it.

We already have terrible education in the U.S., why be okay with the chance that she could make it worst?

Also regressive leftist propaganda on college campuses is far bigger threat than YEC in high school.

Says you.

Unless you're a biologist, and students passionate about it will generally figure out creationism is bullshit on their own anyway, it really doesn't matter if you believe nonsense about evolution.

Except, that does not happen.

A lawyer can still be a good lawyer even if he doesn't have a clue at all about biology.

Correct, my only point would be that a they could not be a good lawyer and a creationist. Creationism is, from top to bottom, logical fallacies. If someone was a lawyer and a creationist, I would find myself a new lawyer, since they obviously have a problem with logic or are extremely biased. This is what the evolution vs creationism debate has become in our society, a litmus test for basic education. As you believe Trump is not religious, yet is fine with creationism, that really does not shine a positive light on his education or intelligence.

But if you buy into far left "fuck America fuck white males I'm a victim wah wah wah" politics you're going to be a very negative influence in society no matter what your career path is.

Personally, between someone with no degree and gender studies, I'd choose the one with no degree. You're asking for a frivolous lawsuit or at the very least lots and lots of drama if you hire someone who's been taught how to be a perpetual victim.

Have fun tilting at windmills.

 

[Gnug215]

That's nice but I didn't support Trump for his Christian values, I supported him because he was strong leadership material and the only one who could have defeated the left. Actually if you forced me to place my money on it, I wouldn't be surprised if he's not religious at all.

As for Betsy DeVos being a Young Earth Creationist - I dont know: 1. where you got that information from 2. how that would actually impact US education on a larger scale considering Trump doesn't want the federal government to be too deeply involved in controlling education, for example he's against Common Core and pro school vouchers. At worst she might enable it rather than mandate it.

Also regressive leftist propaganda on college campuses is far bigger threat than YEC in high school. Unless you're a biologist, and students passionate about it will generally figure out creationism is bullshit on their own anyway, it really doesn't matter if you believe nonsense about evolution. A lawyer can still be a good lawyer even if he doesn't have a clue at all about biology. But if you buy into far left "fuck America fuck white males I'm a victim wah wah wah" politics you're going to be a very negative influence in society no matter what your career path is.

Personally, between someone with no degree and gender studies, I'd choose the one with no degree. You're asking for a frivolous lawsuit or at the very least lots and lots of drama if you hire someone who's been taught how to be a perpetual victim.

I talked a little about this above.

I think there's something to be said for being the "bigger man", not just to take the moral highground and then gloat about it later, but maybe us taking them in could actually make them change their ways, and eventually they would welcome us if needed?

I think there are times when you should be the "bigger man". This isn't one of them. If wanted 100% eye for an eye, well let's just say it can get a lot worse than being denied entry into a country as a refugee, no need to be graphic about it. People should be treated fairly but at the same time they should not be allowed to take advantage of you. I don't believe in turning the other cheek, there has to be a better balance between full vengeance and pathological altruism. Both extremes will lead to your downfall.

Also giving people free stuff doesn't make them good, otherwise dictators who literally have everything would be the nicest people on Earth.

Well...

I don't really know what to respond, since out of my entire response, you only responded to a tiny bit, and kinda out of context at that.

I guess that's that, then.