Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

Back on topic:

Is nobody concerned over the apparent involvement of Trump's family members in either his politics or his business? Wasn't part of the reason people didn't vote for Hillary her mingling of here non-government life with public service?

Where are "the right's" voices of concern on this issue?

 

[pucho812]

I have no concern who he decides o run his businesses while he  on the job in the white house.
I am tired of news reporting on speculations of who will be and won't be when it comes to trump. They didn't do that with the others.  I guess  clinton having her maid print out classified documents was o.k. but trump and what he is doing is not?  News stories based on speculation is never good for anyone. 

 

[Gold]

When you really dig into it and don't swallow everything thrown at you nowadays, even by scientists, then the evolution theory raises some serious questions, too.
And especially at the root,

The Origin of Species was a unfortunate title. Should be the development of species. Evolution doesn't account for the first living thing, only the development after that, unless I missed something.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I have no concern who he decides o run his businesses while he  on the job in the white house.
I am tired of news reporting on speculations of who will be and won't be when it comes to trump. They didn't do that with the others.  I guess  clinton having her maid print out classified documents was o.k. but trump and what he is doing is not?  News stories based on speculation is never good for anyone.

You're getting it backwards. I didn't complain about Clinton's supposed mingling of personal finances with public decisions, "conservatives" did. So, since they did, they should be equally concerned about Trump doing the same.

Unless of course it's "Do as I say, not as I do" that applies.... or in other words, a hypocritical double-standard.

 

[Phrazemaster]

When you really dig into it and don't swallow everything thrown at you nowadays, even by scientists, then the evolution theory raises some serious questions, too.
And especially at the root, or may I say the beginning, even evolution (the theory) can't escape from assumptions. Which in fact makes it a belief, as well.

Not so very long ago, evolution was regarded lunacy and sacrilege. Now we're heading towards the total opposite.
I personally believe it's not so "simple", either way.
And I firmly believe we're not as clever as we like to think.

BTW a Dutch scientist has come with a new theory that could seriously shake the laws of physics as we "know" them.
Or so they say.
But please don't ask me to explain that theory ...  ???

Such a great point - the assumptions often determine the outcome.

It's how debaters win arguments - get the opponent to concede some ground rules and then move in for the kill. Often we are blindest ( ) to our own assumptions, which is why we fight so hard for our beliefs - because it's so "obvious" we are right (given our often unstated, unconscious assumptions)!

 

[Phrazemaster]

A two-party system makes it highly apparent, but it also holds true for three-, four- or five-party systems etc.

The purpose of democracy is to ensure the "will of the people" is accomplished. Our election systems do not ensure the will of the people is accomplished.

I read an article one time on different voting systems. Depending on the voting system, the results would turn out differently. We allow people to vote for just one item at a time. It would be better if we could vote our 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc. The "two party system" polarizes the results and skews them in such a way that they misrepresent the will of the people.

Imagine if, in this election, we had the choice of Hillary, Trump, or None of the Above.

If enough people had voted the none of the above, we could have dumped the 2 candidates and found better ones.

Great thread.

 

[Andy Peters]

Is nobody concerned over the apparent involvement of Trump's family members in either his politics or his business?

I am, but nobody listens to me. That said, the word you seek is "oligarchy," which, one might point out, is the form of government used in Russia.

Wasn't part of the reason people didn't vote for Hillary her mingling of here non-government life with public service? Where are "the right's" voices of concern on this issue?

The word you seek here is "hypocrisy," which is, apparently, a foundational principle of the Grand Old Party.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Such a great point - the assumptions often determine the outcome.

I still object to the usage of the words "assumption" and "belief" in conjunction with the theory of evolution. Can't think of a single serious scientist that both raises valid concerns over evolution and has the data to show it.

 

[john12ax7]

Both parties are shining beacons of oligarchy and hypocrisy. I'm not sure the endless "yeah but the other one is worse" really accomplishes anything. If anything it makes things worse further dividing the people and ignoring the actual problem.

It would more effective if the true liberals and true conservatives would band together and denounce their respective parties, as neither actually represents them.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Both parties are shining beacons of oligarchy and hypocrisy. I'm not sure the endless "yeah but the other one is worse" really accomplishes anything. If anything it makes things worse further dividing the people and ignoring the actual problem.

It would more effective if the true liberals and true conservatives would band together and denounce their respective parties, as neither actually represents them.

I've been saying this for some time. The party system is perfect for keeping us arguing and squabbling about stupid things that obscure the real issues. It's a divide and conquer strategy that keeps the real leadership of this country - that oligarchy of rich elites - in control and in the shadows.

How refreshing it would be to just be Americans solving common problems.

There's a quote I read awhile back by (?) Jefferson, to the effect that if parties ever came to the American political system it would destroy us.

Who cares about Rs or Ds? Can we just be one people and look at the issues individually, instead of lumping them together with other, unrelated issues? Forcing us to agree with Candidate A's stance on issue 1, but disagree on issue 2 -- but be forced to choose A anyway?

There is no granularity to our system. It's black/white, R or D.

Very little of life is like that. It's no wonder the system works so poorly.

 

[DaveP]

I agree with that.

The problem is the Doctrine of Right and Left.  They are bound by it, shackled to it.

The best answer is to be pragmatic and just find the best all round solution to a problem regardless of what the rule book says.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

The problem is the Doctrine of Right and Left.  They are bound by it, shackled to it.

Who? Democrats and Republicans?

I'd say this is where the terminology becomes woefully inadequate since I find little about the Democrats that qualifies as "left", with the exception of some social issues such as gender equality and gay marriage. But by and large it's a right-of-center party economically speaking, as well as ideologically.

The best answer is to be pragmatic and just find the best all round solution to a problem regardless of what the rule book says.

DaveP

Except that we can guide society using various means, and do so all the time (by "we" I actually meant the state and its agents).

So the question really is whether or not we want our society to be a certain way. In a sense all policies have ideology underlying them, so the question is what ideologies we subscribe to. We can possibly call them "left" or "right" and/or "authoritarian" or "anarchist", and anything between those four points.

One can't just be pragmatic without having something to guide the decisions being made.

 

[Andy Peters]

It would more effective if the true liberals and true conservatives would band together and denounce their respective parties, as neither actually represents them.

They have been!

 

[john12ax7]

They have been!

I see it occasionally, but it's certainly not the norm

 

[Phrazemaster]

Who? Democrats and Republicans?

I'd say this is where the terminology becomes woefully inadequate since I find little about the Democrats that qualifies as "left", with the exception of some social issues such as gender equality and gay marriage. But by and large it's a right-of-center party economically speaking, as well as ideologically.

Except that we can guide society using various means, and do so all the time (by "we" I actually meant the state and its agents).

So the question really is whether or not we want our society to be a certain way. In a sense all policies have ideology underlying them, so the question is what ideologies we subscribe to. We can possibly call them "left" or "right" and/or "authoritarian" or "anarchist", and anything between those four points.

One can't just be pragmatic without having something to guide the decisions being made.

Mattias you make some compelling arguments about how our society is shaped, particularly in regard to the underlying assumptions. Thanks for your cogent analysis.

 

[CJ]

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/10/donald_doesnt_know_anything_author_david

 

[DaveP]

Except that we can guide society using various means, and do so all the time (by "we" I actually meant the state and its agents).

So the question really is whether or not we want our society to be a certain way. In a sense all policies have ideology underlying them, so the question is what ideologies we subscribe to. We can possibly call them "left" or "right" and/or "authoritarian" or "anarchist", and anything between those four points.

One can't just be pragmatic without having something to guide the decisions being made.

I'm surprised that you of all people would say the first sentence, that sounds rather sinister to me.   It also sounds like you are advocating that the Elites are the only ones with the intellect to guide the masses!

To guide the decisions of government, you have the constitution, the law, an innate sense of right and wrong, the contemporary sense of morality in the nation, the secularity of the state, an enormous reservoir of wisdom in learned people throughout the country.  What you don't need is the dogma of the Left and Right, that is what makes for national division and the pandering to special interest groups like the super rich, wall street, religeous fundamentalists or humanist activists etc. etc.

I use as my precedent:  Marx's dogma led ultimately to the deaths of around 30 Million Russians in Stalin's purges.  Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, North Korea,  30 million deaths in the Chinese cultural revolution.  Nietzsche's superman philosophy led to Hitler, WW2 and the Jewish Holocaust.  So no, I am not a fan of the doctrinaire approach!

DaveP

 

[hodad]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/schumer-and-pelosi-have-a-plan-to-make-trump-popular.html

If you were wondering if sodderboy's attacks on obama's infrastructure spending plans are baseless (which of course they are), there's a nice section of this article about that.

If you entertained any illusion that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility, there's plenty in this article to give the lie to that as well.

 

[dmp]

Hodad - that article makes great points and I think the facts support the theories. It is very depressing to see the success of the strategy.  It seems politics in the US has become a sport for a lot of people. They are just rooting for their team - and not paying attention to facts (or misled by propaganda).

"Obama spent years pleading publicly and privately with the Republicans to support a national infrastructure bank. They blocked it on the purported grounds of affordability. To the extent they are willing to support infrastructure spending under Trump, or at least stand aside, it is a continuation of a pattern dating back to Reagan, in which Republicans toggle between wild expansionary fiscal policy under Republican presidents and brutal contractionary policy under Democratic ones."
"The cycle has been repeated enough times that careful observers simply assume that the GOP will immediately flip from debt hysteria to debt mania. "

Just seeing the hypocrisy already from Obama critics suddenly supporting his policies if they happen under a Trump administration is disheartening.

The sad thing is that the country has a high enough level of debt that it will become crushing with normal interest rates. It could potentially put the country into a precarious position. Now is the time to pay it down.
I worry that some ( "starve the beast") are unconcerned with insolvency, however, as a bankrupt country would sell off assets (Fed land, etc).

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'm surprised that you of all people would say the first sentence, that sounds rather sinister to me.   It also sounds like you are advocating that the Elites are the only ones with the intellect to guide the masses!

Yeah, sorry, that was worded very poorly.

What I meant to say was really only one half of a two-part issue:

1: We can use the state and its agents to change society. "Agents" is another poor choice of words, as "employee" would have sufficed quite well. I really only mean that there's an underlying ideology no matter what you say, and that the laws and policies that we enact are based on ideology and in fact do have an effect on society. We apply these policies using everyone from the policeman to the teacher to the court.

2: The second part that I left out was how those ideologies and its representatives are put in power. That could be done by anything from a violent overthrow to some sort of democracy.

So, not nearly as sinister as it looked. And again, sorry for wording it so poorly. I do try my best

As for "elites" guiding society: Again, that wasn't the point I was making. I think any group in government will have an effect on the people that government ultimately controls. So government would still change society even if it wasn't "the elites". Having said that I do think the discussion about anti-intellectualism, the level of democracy, meritocracy etc is worth having. Quite frankly I'm on the fence about the whole thing.

To guide the decisions of government, you have the constitution, the law, an innate sense of right and wrong, the contemporary sense of morality in the nation, the secularity of the state, an enormous reservoir of wisdom in learned people throughout the country.  What you don't need is the dogma of the Left and Right, that is what makes for national division and the pandering to special interest groups like the super rich, wall street, religeous fundamentalists or humanist activists etc. etc.

But you have to be careful when you write "the dogma of the Left and Right", because it's not at all clear just what that means. For example:

I use as my precedent:  Marx's dogma led ultimately to the deaths of around 30 Million Russians in Stalin's purges.

Ok, so rather than a lengthy explanation of why I think the above is wrong I'll just shortly say that I think it's wrong (duh), and then point you to an excellent reply by Chomsky when he's asked a question (more like a long comment) by a very annoying leftist (!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

You seem interested in politics so I think the above explanation by Noam is well worth the watch.

Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, North Korea,  30 million deaths in the Chinese cultural revolution.  Nietzsche's superman philosophy led to Hitler, WW2 and the Jewish Holocaust.  So no, I am not a fan of the doctrinaire approach!

DaveP

Ok, but how do you define "doctrine" then? The definitions I see of the word pretty much boils it down to more or less a set of beliefs regarding basic principles. I mean, wouldn't the right to own personal property be a doctrinal principle? Or gender-equality?

How does one determine where the line is drawn between doctrine and not doctrine?