Trump's Presidency

[mrzz]

First of all I know that, as far as our conversation goes, I am splitting hairs. I perfectly understood what you meant. You´re example of communism is a good one, as in fact most communists "believe" in communism in a way that resembles a religious belief (in fact you could say that of Marxism in general). But in fairness to communism, this has nothing to do with the system in itself, rather than with the particular set of circumstances that made a given group of people become its followers/believers/practitioners/whatever.

Second (very close second) who am I to chose the words for someone who has English as his mother tongue? If someone might be missing something, that would be me.

Having said all that, thing is that at some level, you will always believe in something. The question is: how deep go the questions you are allowing your self to make about what you believe? A religious believer has not much room, while someone with an ideological orientation has much more, so he can either contribute to the evolution of his own ideology -- as so many thinkers did -- or at least clearly identify the very principles he is abiding to, and maybe attenuate or qualify his choice -- something a religious believer could do as well in principle, but in practical terms is unlikely to happen.

So -- knowing that it is almost irrelevant to our conversation here -- I would chose a word that reflects more the rational process involved in the choice you made. I purposely used something as "choice of ideological orientation" in my previous post basically because it is something that is precise enough in Portuguese. But it is not a single word, and hardly there is one with such a meaning.

I called attention to this detail (the word choice) as a lead to this subject because, as put in the original post, some people give up on the rationality once they make such a choice. In fact, they usually use rather self centered arguments to convince themselves. In the end, we see "true believers" on all sides that have no other option than to fight -- literally or not -- for their positions. How much the choice of words we use helps on that is tough question to answer, but I wouldn´t be surprised if it is more important than a simple grammatical detail.

 

[Federberg]

First of all I know that, as far as our conversation goes, I am splitting hairs. I perfectly understood what you meant. You´re example of communism is a good one, as in fact most communists "believe" in communism in a way that resembles a religious belief (in fact you could say that of Marxism in general). But in fairness to communism, this has nothing to do with the system in itself, rather than with the particular set of circumstances that made a given group of people become its followers/believers/practitioners/whatever.

Second (very close second) who am I to chose the words for someone who has English as his mother tongue? If someone might be missing something, that would be me.

Having said all that, thing is that at some level, you will always believe in something. The question is: how deep go the questions you are allowing your self to make about what you believe? A religious believer has not much room, while someone with an ideological orientation has much more, so he can either contribute to the evolution of his own ideology -- as so many thinkers did -- or at least clearly identify the very principles he is abiding to, and maybe attenuate or qualify his choice -- something a religious believer could do as well in principle, but in practical terms is unlikely to happen.

So -- knowing that it is almost irrelevant to our conversation here -- I would chose a word that reflects more the rational process involved in the choice you made. I purposely used something as "choice of ideological orientation" in my previous post basically because it is something that is precise enough in Portuguese. But it is not a single word, and hardly there is one with such a meaning.

I called attention to this detail (the word choice) as a lead to this subject because, as put in the original post, some people give up on the rationality once they make such a choice. In fact, they usually use rather self centered arguments to convince themselves. In the end, we see "true believers" on all sides that have no other option than to fight -- literally or not -- for their positions. How much the choice of words we use helps on that is tough question to answer, but I wouldn´t be surprised if it is more important than a simple grammatical detail.

I do like debating with you! It represents a worthy exchange of ideas

But in this case, had I said.. "I believe in the Libertarian party" I might concede your point. I set myself no constraints when I declare that I believe in libertarianism (note I left the word uncapitalised). I have my own definition of what that means, and no doubt members of the Libertarian party might strongly disagree with me in the detail. I would guess that most would agree with me in terms of the basics, i.e., I would like to see a smaller State that minimises it's interference with my financial and social affairs. It's the devil in the details - how I personally envision the achievement of those lofty goals - where differences are likely to come. Does that make sense?

 

[mrzz]

Thanks, Federberg (by now you probably know too well how much I like to debate as well).

It makes sense, yes. I do not think I ever had a point, as I just focused on your choice of words to raise a concern, and that concern was much more about how people could read you, than what about what you actually meant (and your further clarifications sort of confirmed what I figured from the beggining).

The way you put it, that´s basically what I feel to, even if I am not sure if I would focus on the size of the state or in what it should or should not stick its nose into. This is, obviously, a long discussion.

But the libertarians I met here are far more radical than you. Most of them preach not a minimal state, but (in the long run), a non-existent state. I even know one guy - a very bright one in fact -- that wrote an algorithm (and a whole book to present it) which objective is to ultimately substitute the state (the idea is that the system coordinates mass-bargains between citizens and companies).

This radical approach demonizes the "State" -- it demonizes a lot of things, persons and schools of thought. I cannot think of it as the same of what you defend -- after a minimal state makes sense also in a liberal way of thinking. I guess I need more details to understand better your position, now that I hopeI made clear why I was concerned to begin with.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks, Federberg (by now you probably know too well how much I like to debate as well).

It makes sense, yes. I do not think I ever had a point, as I just focused on your choice of words to raise a concern, and that concern was much more about how people could read you, than what about what you actually meant (and your further clarifications sort of confirmed what I figured from the beggining).

The way you put it, that´s basically what I feel to, even if I am not sure if I would focus on the size of the state or in what it should or should not stick its nose into. This is, obviously, a long discussion.

But the libertarians I met here are far more radical than you. Most of them preach not a minimal state, but (in the long run), a non-existent state. I even know one guy - a very bright one in fact -- that wrote an algorithm (and a whole book to present it) which objective is to ultimately substitute the state (the idea is that the system coordinates mass-bargains between citizens and companies).

This radical approach demonizes the "State" -- it demonizes a lot of things, persons and schools of thought. I cannot think of it as the same of what you defend -- after a minimal state makes sense also in a liberal way of thinking. I guess I need more details to understand better your position, now that I hopeI made clear why I was concerned to begin with.

I appreciate that buddy. There've been many times on forums when I felt that my comments have been misrepresented when posters were responding to me, so it was good to get feedback on how my words could be viewed. Although I will say that generally people see what they want to see sadly. I do try to be careful about what I write, but we're only human

I chuckled when I read about the libertarian guy you know. Would it surprise you that I had a similar view in my early 20s? As I matured though I've come to accept that there are parts of the socio-economy that market forces are an imperfect solution for. I would suggest defence, law, foreign policy are the most obvious ones. Health care could theoretically be met by the private sector, but the empirical evidence is fairly damning when you look at the healthcare outcomes in the United Sates which has attempted to do this versus other countries that don't. It's when the rubber meets the road - theory versus practice - that an inquisitive mind is forced to concede that certain aspects of ones belief systems/ political views are not as viable as hoped!

 

[mrzz]

My dilemma about the size of the state regards more education than health care. Europe (correct me if I am wrong) has shown that, at least in the health care aspect, a "larger state model" works well, while I guess that the US has shown that -- in times of economical prosperity -- a completely different model also works. With the extreme cases been shown to be at least viable, hybrid systems could surely be put in place -- so it comes down to a matter of "taste" (even if a think that at least some basic health care should be provided by the state).

Education is a different. One way or another, I have been close to this field all my life -- and I always had doubts about private education. I simply cannot accept any commercial concerns getting in the way of educational choices (and, remember, as you in general I prefer a smaller state). On the other hand, a completely state sponsored education -- which is something I have believed in all my life -- has its flaws too, the most notable one is the ideological orientation it might assume. But I rather live with this than seeing a business man calling the shots on something he does not either understand or actually cares about.

 

[Federberg]

My dilemma about the size of the state regards more education than health care. Europe (correct me if I am wrong) has shown that, at least in the health care aspect, a "larger state model" works well, while I guess that the US has shown that -- in times of economical prosperity -- a completely different model also works. With the extreme cases been shown to be at least viable, hybrid systems could surely be put in place -- so it comes down to a matter of "taste" (even if a think that at least some basic health care should be provided by the state).

Education is a different. One way or another, I have been close to this field all my life -- and I always had doubts about private education. I simply cannot accept any commercial concerns getting in the way of educational choices (and, remember, as you in general I prefer a smaller state). On the other hand, a completely state sponsored education -- which is something I have believed in all my life -- has its flaws too, the most notable one is the ideological orientation it might assume. But I rather live with this than seeing a business man calling the shots on something he does not either understand or actually cares about.

Yes. Agreed about education, my list wasn't meant to be exhaustive. Personally, my education was entirely through the private sector, but I do recognise the value and indeed the necessity of public involvement. The one thing I would add though is that increasingly there are efforts (particularly at the university level) to make education vastly more accessible. Universities like Harvard and Caltech in the US for example are producing online seminars that students from all over the world can access. This is a great step forward and it shows how the private sector can be engaged to promote education for all

 

[britbox]

Anyone getting Anti-Trump media fatigue?

Good lord, 3 headlines in the UK Independent today (once a proud independent paper, now just an online poor man's Guardian)...

'1984' to be screened by cinemas worldwide in anti-Donald Trump protest

Donald Trump 'almost met with Russian gangster linked to Putin'

Stephen King reveals which of his characters are most like Donald Trump

 

[mrzz]

"Wigs producers gather in huge anti-Trump protest"

 

[Federberg]

Anyone getting Anti-Trump media fatigue?

Good lord, 3 headlines in the UK Independent today (once a proud independent paper, now just an online poor man's Guardian)...

'1984' to be screened by cinemas worldwide in anti-Donald Trump protest

Donald Trump 'almost met with Russian gangster linked to Putin'

Stephen King reveals which of his characters are most like Donald Trump

I'm not there yet. The idea that this election might have been stolen because of collusion with the Russians it abhorrent to me. It's bad enough we've seen shady electioneering in the past with Reagan and Iran, and Nixon and Vietnam (and I would include JFK and the dodgy votes in Chicago)... at some point this stuff has to be stopped. If winning at all costs is permissible then democracy dies. Besides, it's all so darn interesting right now. I was always a politics junkie, but even Sean Spicer's press conferences are must watch tv for me now If the worst is true, we could see something historical, how can you not be fascinated by all of this?

 

[britbox]

Unless the Russians actually rigged the vote count then I don't find it fascinating at all... The reason Trump won the election was because the Democrats put up Hillary Clinton. Charles Manson would have had a better chance of securing the victory.

 

[Federberg]

Unless the Russians actually rigged the vote count then I don't find it fascinating at all... The reason Trump won the election was because the Democrats put up Hillary Clinton. Charles Manson would have had a better chance of securing the victory.

Oh I don't disagree with HRC's unpopularity, but the idea that an election can only be interfered with because of the count is false. We are now being told that the algorithms in the newsfeeds for google, facebook et al were messed with, and fake news was being promoted to the top of searches. You have to think a decent chunk of voters were swayed by that. And now we find out that Obama stopped Comey from announcing that he was indeed investigating the Trump campaign for Russian ties is another piece of news that almost certainly had an impact. Remember that a lot of those States that swung red were won well within the margin for error...

I don't feel that sorry for HRC, it always felt that the DNC primary voting rules were manipulated in her favour anyway

 

[britbox]

Ironic considering some Facebook staffers went on record saying they suppressed Conservative trending articles, CNN giving Clinton the debate questions in advance, the mass anti-media campaign to sink Trump... You'd have to think an even bigger chunk of voters were swayed by that.

 

[Federberg]

Ironic considering some Facebook staffers went on record saying they suppressed Conservative trending articles, CNN giving Clinton the debate questions in advance, the mass anti-media campaign to sink Trump... You'd have to think an even bigger chunk of voters were swayed by that.

I would disagree. I'm not sure how successful facebook staffers were. Clinton getting debate questions in advance is utterly trivial to me (but doesn't surprise me given the shenanigans at the DNC), the so called mass anti-media campaign is more than balanced by the amount of air time he got, and one could easily argue that in an anti-establishment/ disruption election anti-media would be counter-productive

 

[Moxie]

Anyone getting Anti-Trump media fatigue?

Good lord, 3 headlines in the UK Independent today (once a proud independent paper, now just an online poor man's Guardian)...

'1984' to be screened by cinemas worldwide in anti-Donald Trump protest

Donald Trump 'almost met with Russian gangster linked to Putin'

Stephen King reveals which of his characters are most like Donald Trump

How nice for you. We're getting non-stop whip-lash from all directions in political news. Probably easier to observe from afar.

 

[britbox]

I would disagree. I'm not sure how successful facebook staffers were. Clinton getting debate questions in advance is utterly trivial to me (but doesn't surprise me given the shenanigans at the DNC), the so called mass anti-media campaign is more than balanced by the amount of air time he got, and one could easily argue that in an anti-establishment/ disruption election anti-media would be counter-productive

Getting the questions in advance of a debate - and more importantly not declaring it is akin to cheating in an exam. The debates broke records for TV viewing numbers. Odd that you find it so trivial or have no concern for major media outlets intruding into an election process at that level.

Facebook staff interfered with the algorithms on trending articles - you seem more worried about their lack of success than the ethics.

Google News Contributors are vetted before they are added to the channel, but on the subject - which "fake news" articles are you referring to, that swung the election? Let's get specific? It won't be Wikileaks I'm sure - because we know there is nothing fake about their leaks - quite the reverse.

It's not fascinating for me at least. It's a daily onslaught from a butt-hurt group of media moguls, politicians and corporate interests who still can't get over it. Everyday we have the six degrees of separation played out, with Putin replacing Kevin Bacon and Trump replacing the endpoint. "Trump's friend in Wyoming has dinner with Putin's cousins wife's boss..." Yeah, yeah, yeah.... Let the man govern. Clinton lost the election with virtually every card stacked in her favour.

 

[Federberg]

Getting the questions in advance of a debate - and more importantly not declaring it is akin to cheating in an exam. The debates broke records for TV viewing numbers. Odd that you find it so trivial or have no concern for major media outlets intruding into an election process at that level.

Facebook staff interfered with the algorithms on trending articles - you seem more worried about their lack of success than the ethics.

Google News Contributors are vetted before they are added to the channel, but on the subject - which "fake news" articles are you referring to, that swung the election? Let's get specific? It won't be Wikileaks I'm sure - because we know there is nothing fake about their leaks - quite the reverse.

It's not fascinating for me at least. It's a daily onslaught from a butt-hurt group of media moguls, politicians and corporate interests who still can't get over it. Everyday we have the six degrees of separation played out, with Putin replacing Kevin Bacon and Trump replacing the endpoint. "Trump's friend in Wyoming has dinner with Putin's cousins wife's boss..." Yeah, yeah, yeah.... Let the man govern. Clinton lost the election with virtually every card stacked in her favour.

Lol! To my mind, you're still trying to litigate the elections. That's over. Trump won. What is germane now is the fact that the Trump administration is littered with suspicious Russian and Turkish relationships and the authorities are investigating it. Doesn't it strike you as odd, that we see this chemical attack in Syria, and it takes the administration 9 hours to say anything? Seems to me they are so eager not to offend Overlord Putin that they won't make a comment. Seems more America second/ Russia first than America first if you ask me

 

[britbox]

Lol! To my mind, you're still trying to litigate the elections. That's over. Trump won. What is germane now is the fact that the Trump administration is littered with suspicious Russian and Turkish relationships and the authorities are investigating it. Doesn't it strike you as odd, that we see this chemical attack in Syria, and it takes the administration 9 hours to say anything? Seems to me they are so eager not to offend Overlord Putin that they won't make a comment. Seems more America second/ Russia first than America first if you ask me

I was initially responding to your post saying The idea that this election might have been stolen because of collusion with the Russians it abhorrent to me. I'm not still trying to litigate the elections... I'm saying get over it! Let it go.

I don't see any greater problems with administration staff having relationships with Russia or Turkey than those with the Ukraine or Israel. Politicians have fingers in many pies... across parties... across the board.

If Trump can foster a more friendly or at least workable relationship with the Russians then that's a good thing.

As for the chemical attacks... maybe they were trying to identify who was actually responsible first... which would make a refreshing change. Last time fingers were pointed at Assad (almost immediately), and it was later deemed unlikely that he was the source.

 

[Federberg]

I was initially responding to your post saying The idea that this election might have been stolen because of collusion with the Russians it abhorrent to me. I'm not still trying to litigate the elections... I'm saying get over it! Let it go.

I don't see any greater problems with administration staff having relationships with Russia or Turkey than those with the Ukraine or Israel. Politicians have fingers in many pies... across parties... across the board.

If Trump can foster a more friendly or at least workable relationship with the Russians then that's a good thing.

As for the chemical attacks... maybe they were trying to identify who was actually responsible first... which would make a refreshing change. Last time fingers were pointed at Assad (almost immediately), and it was later deemed unlikely that he was the source.

Again.. that misses the point. It's not about the fact that Trump won, we've moved on. If in fact there was some sort of collusion, then that represents a subversion of American democracy. It doesn't really matter who the foreign agency was who did it, Russia this time, China, Israel or whoever next. Subverting the democratic process is what is relevant here (at least to me). It's not about the election result, it's about the subversion of democracy.

You can make a comment about the chemical attack without getting ahead of the facts with regards to who was responsible. Even the Secretary of State refused point blank to comment. That's just weird mate. It's unheard of. Governments around Europe made comments, nothing from the so called Leader of the free world. I'm amazed you can't even concede that point

 

[britbox]

Again.. that misses the point. It's not about the fact that Trump won, we've moved on. If in fact there was some sort of collusion, then that represents a subversion of American democracy. It doesn't really matter who the foreign agency was who did it, Russia this time, China, Israel or whoever next. Subverting the democratic process is what is relevant here (at least to me). It's not about the election result, it's about the subversion of democracy.

You can make a comment about the chemical attack without getting ahead of the facts with regards to who was responsible. Even the Secretary of State refused point blank to comment. That's just weird mate. It's unheard of. Governments around Europe made comments, nothing from the so called Leader of the free world. I'm amazed you can't even concede that point

Well,what is your point exactly?

Trump didn't respond quickly enough to condemn the attack = Collusion with Putin?

Trump named Assad by the way, whereas the Russians said Assad bombed a chemical stockpile.

You've already decided that the Russians and Trump colluded to win the election, even with the investigation pending... implied that he wouldn't have won the election without Russian help, which I find borderline ridiculous... and that fake news also contributed to win the day, without ever offering up one example of the fake news that swung it.

Now, the fact he didn't respond in a timely "fashion" is somehow linked to some adoring relationship with Putin. Like I said in an earlier post, the continual "outrage" of having Trump sitting in the Whitehouse generates a relentless feeding frenzy that can't be satisfied... it's daily, it's relentless... and becoming very boring.

 

[britbox]

Again.. that misses the point. It's not about the fact that Trump won, we've moved on. If in fact there was some sort of collusion, then that represents a subversion of American democracy. It doesn't really matter who the foreign agency was who did it, Russia this time, China, Israel or whoever next. Subverting the democratic process is what is relevant here (at least to me). It's not about the election result, it's about the subversion of democracy.

You can make a comment about the chemical attack without getting ahead of the facts with regards to who was responsible. Even the Secretary of State refused point blank to comment. That's just weird mate. It's unheard of. Governments around Europe made comments, nothing from the so called Leader of the free world. I'm amazed you can't even concede that point

By the way mate, did any of the Governments of Europe make a statement about the 200 Civilians killed in Mosul by American airstrikes last month?