Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[T.Lex]

Doesn't mean that everything he's doing is right though.

Oh I don't know, sure appears that some support at least this or that. You don't have to buy everything in order to support some of even his most obvious sorry, dangerous, and stupid crap.

Just for my own clarity, do you equate "some support for this or that" to be "everything he's doing is right"?

Heck, I supported some of what Obama did, but still believed him to be the worst president in at least 50 years. Maybe 100.

I think Trump is doing some really boneheaded things, but I do support some of what he's done and is trying to do.

Or are you actually a more typical INGO binarian? People are either ______ or ______.

 

[Dddrees]

Just for my own clarity, do you equate "some support for this or that" to be "everything he's doing is right"?

Heck, I supported some of what Obama did, but still believed him to be the worst president in at least 50 years. Maybe 100.

I think Trump is doing some really boneheaded things, but I do support some of what he's done and is trying to do.

Or are you actually a more typical INGO binarian? People are either ______ or ______.

Unfortunately it's always been extremely difficult for me to separate things once somebody shows a certain level of dishonesty. I'll admit that. But then again how can you believe anything when the person in question is a habitual liar. When it comes down to it how much can you really trust someone who has no integrity?

But besides all that crap, he's promoting a policy of America Being Great when he's doing everything he can possibly do to ignore or pit us against the rest of the world. Please show me where isolationism has ever worked. Pitting us against everyone else in the long run is only going to make us weaker. We simply can't ignore the fact we exist in a world where there are others. You can't do it, you really can't. Well you can, but it's not going to pan out very well.

So if in the meantime he does any good and I did mention a few just today, I doubt in the long run this good will ever outweigh the damage he does. I didn't even bother to mention the other numerous examples where his methods, means, and reasoning are just extremely wrong headed.

 

[jamil]

Well label me all you want too, that doesn't make it true. I've never been one to support that crap no matter who did it. People here just tend to support one side so they get upset when I point that their side or their people are wrong. Let's get a Hillary thread going so I claim she's crap too.

I don't claim a side. But if I post anything positive at all about Trump you reply to me as if I have taken a side. I view issues as individual parts separated from camps. So just because I may see several issues as positive's for Trump doesn't mean I'm on his side.

As far as what it appears to others in these threads, it appears you can't bring yourself to admit anything positive about Trump at all. That makes me suspect you've chosen a camp to be in. You have a side, and you tow the line for your side.

Oh. And, BTW, you still haven't told us who you voted for. It's okay. Of course you don't have to. But I'd like to see who is this perfect candidate you voted for, given your very high moral standards. It seems apparent that you judge the character of INGO posters by the person they voted for. At least you've done that with me. Seems fair I should get to judge you by yours.

Ah, people are screwed up. What a revelation. The point is people tend to take the path of least resistance or what others have been willing to put up with. If people on a larger scale stopped putting up with it we might just have a chance to change this sorry state of affairs. Just when you think it can't get worse, someone else comes along and proves that not to be the case.

I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.

That's what we're up against. We've given the illusion of electoral choice by our voting system.

When you have a first-past-the-post primary, and a two party electoral system, how exactly do you plan to stop putting up with it?

You just gonna stop voting? ~120 million people probably won't care that you didn't vote for one of the two losers. Something has to give. I think we don't have a chance to take government back unless we change the method of voting to something that gives people a real choice for our representatives and executives.

 

[Fargo]

Unfortunately it's always been extremely difficult for me to separate things once somebody shows a certain level of dishonesty. I'll admit that. But then again how can you believe anything when the person in question is a habitual liar. When it comes down to it how much can you really trust someone who has no integrity?

But besides all that crap, he's promoting a policy of America Being Great when he's doing everything he can possibly do to ignore or pit us against the rest of the world. Please show me where isolationism has ever worked. Pitting us against everyone else in the long run is only going to make us weaker. We simply can't ignore the fact we exist in a world where there are others. You can't do it, you really can't. Well you can, but it's not going to pan out very well.

So if in the meantime he does any good and I did mention a few just today, I doubt in the long run this good will ever outweigh the damage he does. I didn't even bother to mention the other numerous examples where his methods, means, and reasoning are just extremely wrong headed.

Ok, for the sake of argument let's act as if everything you said above is somehow provable as true. What is 10 or so posts pretty much every day ranting about it in nonspecific, unarticulated terms accomplishing here?

Everyone knows how you feel about Trump, they knew it about 1235 posts ago. All I have seen happen since is people being driven TOWARD trump because of the wildly inarticulate nonspecific accusations being paraded around both here and by the MSM as if somehow self-evidently true.

Its the exact same behavior that won him the primary and to a lesser extent the election.

If you want to criticize a specific act for specific reasons with specific basis and evidence, I think you might find some agreement here. The current plan, not so much.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

How about out that one where there's strong reason to believe his wife was at one point an illegal alien. To bad the Obama Birthers aren't on that one. Ah that's right the leader of that pact is now the one potentially guilty of extreme hypocrisy.

Duh! Of course she's an illegal alien... but that's the small beans... you are totally overlooking the fact that she is a RUSSIAN SPY! Have you ever seen any bona fide proof that she's not? There you go!

 

[Alpo]

I was watching a video on a dive discovery off of Marseilles. A large cargo vessel of Etruscan origin sank about 2500 years ago loaded with amphoras of wine. 30 tons of cargo.

We really don't know much about the Etruscans. They borrowed letters from the Greeks. They weren't much on documenting their own history like other civilizations during the bronze age. It is obvious from what we have found that they are likely the founders of western civilization as we know it today. Cultured, technologically skilled and great craftsmen, traders and seafarers. One of the few societies that was inclusive of females in higher level pursuits. But they disappeared (or were absorbed into Roman society) within a millennia.

I sometimes wonder after watching similar films or reading about prior societies, whether the USA will have a full millennia. I doubt it.

 

[Fargo]

I was watching a video on a dive discovery off of Marseilles. A large cargo vessel of Etruscan origin sank about 2500 years ago loaded with amphoras of wine. 30 tons of cargo.

We really don't know much about the Etruscans. They borrowed letters from the Greeks. They weren't much on documenting their own history like other civilizations during the bronze age. It is obvious from what we have found that they are likely the founders of western civilization as we know it today. Cultured, technologically skilled and great craftsmen, traders and seafarers. One of the few societies that was inclusive of females in higher level pursuits. But they disappeared (or were absorbed into Roman society) within a millennia.

I sometimes wonder after watching similar films or reading about prior societies, whether the USA will have a full millennia. I doubt it.

If we do, it will likely only be because of geography. I doubt we remain one country anywhere near that long, we will split internally not because of conquest.

I think technology actually accelerates, and so dramatically shortens, the lifespan of societies/civilizations.

 

[T.Lex]

I was watching a video on a dive discovery off of Marseilles. A large cargo vessel of Etruscan origin sank about 2500 years ago loaded with amphoras of wine. 30 tons of cargo.

We really don't know much about the Etruscans. They borrowed letters from the Greeks. They weren't much on documenting their own history like other civilizations during the bronze age. It is obvious from what we have found that they are likely the founders of western civilization as we know it today. Cultured, technologically skilled and great craftsmen, traders and seafarers. One of the few societies that was inclusive of females in higher level pursuits. But they disappeared (or were absorbed into Roman society) within a millennia.

I sometimes wonder after watching similar films or reading about prior societies, whether the USA will have a full millennia. I doubt it.

My understanding, from significant reading of peer reviewed articles, is that the last Etruscan leader was selected because he promised to make [strike]Etrusca[/strike] [strike]Etrusciland[/strike] Tuscany great again.

 

[jamil]

I was watching a video on a dive discovery off of Marseilles. A large cargo vessel of Etruscan origin sank about 2500 years ago loaded with amphoras of wine. 30 tons of cargo.

We really don't know much about the Etruscans. They borrowed letters from the Greeks. They weren't much on documenting their own history like other civilizations during the bronze age. It is obvious from what we have found that they are likely the founders of western civilization as we know it today. Cultured, technologically skilled and great craftsmen, traders and seafarers. One of the few societies that was inclusive of females in higher level pursuits. But they disappeared (or were absorbed into Roman society) within a millennia.

I sometimes wonder after watching similar films or reading about prior societies, whether the USA will have a full millennia. I doubt it.

This is a fascinating topic. I tend to think the West especially is in a lot of chaos right now. It all looks like social entropy. Not sure how that will turn out. I hope the sane liberals can unite with the sane conservatives/libertarians and that they will defeat the social justice warriors/Marxists. If they can't. We already have a really good idea what that looks like from the events of the last century.

 

[T.Lex]

This is a fascinating topic. I tend to think the West especially is in a lot of chaos right now. It all looks like social entropy. Not sure how that will turn out. I hope the sane liberals can unite with the sane conservatives/libertarians and that they will defeat the social justice warriors/Marxists. If they can't. We already have a really good idea what that looks like from the events of the last century.

I'm not sure there is a good corollary in history.

The tectonic faults being revealed in the "west" - socialism v. government conservativism (not sure what a decent label is) - don't have good historic analogs, IMHO.

Terrorism could be fairly described as the anarchists of 100 years ago, sorta. But the rest gets even blurrier. The "national socialism" that rose to power in the post WWI environment isn't really the "social socialism" of the modern era. I guess I'm open to that case being made, but I'm not there yet.

We are, to coin a phrase, in a Brave New World.

 

[Alpo]

My understanding, from significant reading of peer reviewed articles, is that the last Etruscan leader was selected because he promised to make [strike]Etrusca[/strike] [strike]Etrusciland[/strike] Tuscany great again.

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure there is a good corollary in history.

The tectonic faults being revealed in the "west" - socialism v. government conservativism (not sure what a decent label is) - don't have good historic analogs, IMHO.

Terrorism could be fairly described as the anarchists of 100 years ago, sorta. But the rest gets even blurrier. The "national socialism" that rose to power in the post WWI environment isn't really the "social socialism" of the modern era. I guess I'm open to that case being made, but I'm not there yet.

We are, to coin a phrase, in a Brave New World.

I think the corollary's are kinda obvious. If the Marxists win, we know what that looks like. Russia implemented it, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, more recently Venezuela. I see no reason to think that more advances in technology will make a new Marxist implementation in a former USA look any different than that.

If liberty/capitalism wins we kinda know what that looks like. We've mostly had that the past 240 years or so. If some hybrid of the two wins out, probably that's only postponing another war of ideas later on, unless it's sustainable. Of course I'm not going to discount that some other yet not thought of thing happens, which may be the most likely.

But it does seem like today is more chaotic than it's been since the last cultural revolution.

 

[Alpo]

Pure capitalism will result in Corporate states, methinks. Banking, Big Business, Media. Please don't use the word "Liberty" in the same noun!

Ultimately, they introduce neo-feudalism.

 

[jamil]

Pure capitalism will result in Corporate states, methinks. Banking, Big Business, Media. Please don't use the word "Liberty" in the same noun!

Ultimately, they introduce neo-feudalism.

Wow. You got "pure capitalism" out of that? Kinda reading into things, eh?

I'm not a proponent of anarcho-capitalism which is really the only form of "pure capitalism" that I've heard anyone today speak of implementing. If you're talking about "free market" capitalism then that's something different, which most certainly does involve liberty. Well, unless you're a neo-Marxist who thinks "liberty" includes group rights to other people's stuff.

But, the context is the current battle of ideas, which is really between what we have now, which is not free-market capitalism, and this rebranding of Marxism as social justice.

I would like us to get much closer to free-market capitalism, you know, more liberty and stuff. But collectivists gonna collect, so I'm under no delusion that however this battle of ideas is resolved, we will be any freer than we are now. I suspect that at most we'll (hopefully) stave off the new Marxism. I trust you'll be on the right side of that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wow. You got "pure capitalism" out of that? Kinda reading into things, eh?

I'm not a proponent of anarcho-capitalism which is really the only form of "pure capitalism" that I've heard anyone today speak of implementing. If you're talking about "free market" capitalism then that's something different, which most certainly does involve liberty. Well, unless you're a neo-Marxist who thinks "liberty" includes group rights to other people's stuff.

But, the context is the current battle of ideas, which is really between what we have now, which is not free-market capitalism, and this rebranding of Marxism as social justice.

I would like us to get much closer to free-market capitalism, you know, more liberty and stuff. But collectivists gonna collect, so I'm under no delusion that however this battle of ideas is resolved, we will be any freer than we are now. I suspect that at most we'll (hopefully) stave off the new Marxism. I trust you'll be on the right side of that.

I think Alpo is saying that "pure" anything (in regards to govt) eventually will end up bad for everyone who isn't at the top of the pyramid.

 

[jamil]

I think Alpo is saying that "pure" anything (in regards to govt) eventually will end up bad for everyone who isn't at the top of the pyramid.

Maybe that's what he's saying, but that's not what he said.

But to your point, pure anything with government isn't really possible. On paper "pure" Marxism should work. But paper isn't people. So it just doesn't work like that. I think a system which thrives better in accordance with human nature is a better system. Free markets are ultimately what people default to even in repressive systems whether markets are allowed out in the open or if they have to go underground.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe that's what he's saying, but that's not what he said.

But to your point, pure anything with government isn't really possible. On paper "pure" Marxism should work. But paper isn't people. So it just doesn't work like that. I think a system which thrives better in accordance with human nature is a better system. Free markets are ultimately what people default to even in repressive systems whether markets are allowed out in the open or if they have to go underground.

Ya know, having studied Marxism in-depth, I found myself wondering how people actually thought it could work. Even on paper it is obviously unworkable. Sure, a great idea for poverty stricken nation where, to a man, everyone suffers... nor so great if that same nation has even the smallest amount of people who hold wealth.

 

[Alpo]

jamil:

I'm saying that we are NOT headed toward free markets. And we are NOT headed toward liberty. I think you've looked too hard and too long at the "needy" end of the spectrum and may have forgotten that a hot tub filled with banks, big business and big media already run many things and ultimately will run the world economy. I'm against it, of course, but that is the direction we are heading. It doesn't take Kurzweil to see that future.

 

[jamil]

Ya know, having studied Marxism in-depth, I found myself wondering how people actually thought it could work. Even on paper it is obviously unworkable. Sure, a great idea for poverty stricken nation where, to a man, everyone suffers... nor so great if that same nation has even the smallest amount of people who hold wealth.

That seems obvious to you and me but there's a growing number of newly minted Marxists graduating from university every year.

 

[jamil]

jamil:

I'm saying that we are NOT headed toward free markets. And we are NOT headed toward liberty. I think you've looked too hard and too long at the "needy" end of the spectrum and may have forgotten that a hot tub filled with banks, big business and big media already run many things and ultimately will run the world economy. I'm against it, of course, but that is the direction we are heading. It doesn't take Kurzweil to see that future.

Saying that I shouldn't say liberty in the same sentence as capitalism is a funny way of saying what you're saying then.

No I have no doubt that we're not heading towards free markets nor liberty. We've been headed towards the croniest form of oligarchical capitalism possible. I'm not sure that all the bigs have the ability to stop what's coming. There is a large and growing discontent from most sides with the cronies. Liberals. Conservatives. And even the Marxist progressives. The only people not pissed are the crony participants and a few of their naive useful idiots.