President Donald J. Trump

[nooryisawesome]

I am glad both Trump and Sanders are talking about what a horrible deal NAFTA is for the U.S.

[Value Of Pi]

No, I would say that it's more that I don't see religious or social whims as being ideal places from which to derive morality from. Often, it's arguably not moral at all, such as burning a witch. But there was a time when that was seen as the moral thing to do.

I wouldn't say that it's based on that, more the enlightenment and classical humanist thinking that underlies their thought. I don't think people should be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, that would be an infringement on their right to do business with whomever they choose. Equally, I wouldn't expect a church opposed to gay marriage to perform a gay wedding. It would be ludicrous, since it's outside their doctrine. What I do object to is someone deciding on a wholly religious basis that two adults can't engage in a same sex marriage. Such a marriage infringes on the rights of no one. In fact, I'd go further and ask why government is in the marriage business at all. They should be recording that marriages occurred for legal reasons, they should not be deciding who can marry and who can not.

Yeah, but the "right thing" changes an awful damned lot. I can't think of anything more dangerous than basing a moral code on a religion. That leads to stonings, beheadings, burnings, inquisitions, and many other things in history that were grossly immoral in my thinking, but were perfectly moral at the time from a religious standpoint. So taking religion out of it, what could "doing the right thing" be based on other than a basis derived from a healthy morally relativistic look at the world? There can be no objective "right thing" otherwise, it would always be subjective with no basis at all.

Welcome to the foreign policy of Henry Kissinger lol. That's basically how he operated. That said, he was effective. I have no illusions, the world at the top is basically run by morally ambiguous people and it always has been. That's basically the main way you get there, by cheating one way or another. As far as Trump, well, look, he openly says that he's bought politicians for years and that's fundamentally how the system works. Alright, one could easily call that into question morally, it's engaging in corruption. However, when every other possibility (with the possible exception of Sanders) are the people being bought, I'd rather go for the guy that bribes rather than the guy that gets bribed.

I'm trying to find a consistent thread in your thinking, now that you're backing away from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as the key underpinnings of your moral and ethical outlook on the world.

First off, it's unclear exactly where these rights you keep talking about not infringing upon actually come from. You seem to dislike and distrust religion. So it can't be the Judeo-Christian ethic, which has its roots in the Ten Commandments, the Old and New Testaments, and millennia of religious thinkers setting down their wisdom, including figures like St. Augustine, Hillel, Maimonides, and of course Jesus Christ (assuming you believe he/He existed in any form, human or divine).

Maybe these rights come from some source unblemished by religious influence? If so, which humanist thinkers and which documents embody or express these rights, assuming you've got something in your pocket other than the Constitution?

The point being, your moral compass seems to be vague, improvised and unpredictable, which is exactly the way Trump comes off. Basically, shoot from the hip and figure out the rationale and justification later, whatever gets him off the hook.

It's one thing to say the world works in crappy ways and talk about how all we have are bad choices. We all do that. But it's another thing to vote to make a man like Trump the most powerful person in the world. Power without conscience is a prescription for disaster. If you can't see that (and see what makes Trump, Trump) with or without the help of traditional moral learning, I don't know what to tell you.

[SciFiAuthor]

I'm trying to find a consistent thread in your thinking, now that you're backing away from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as the key underpinnings of your moral and ethical outlook on the world.

A good place to start would be Voltaire. I have a profound distrust for institutions because I know that as they persist through time they tend to become less effective and more corrupt. In the political world, this creates "untouchable" politicians, decorum and enshrined ways of thinking that's very hard to get people to step outside of. We're there now, our politics has become basically paralyzed by establishment special interests on both sides so now they just openly collude with each other in matters such as immigration. That to me that fossilization presents far more of a danger to the social cohesion of the state than Donald Trump does. For example, we are conditioned by the establishment to think that deportation is somehow a bad thing, but that rampant migration of non-integrating foreign nationals into the country isn't a bad thing despite history showing us that it has never been a good thing anywhere where it's happened. 

First off, it's unclear exactly where these rights you keep talking about not infringing upon actually come from. You seem to dislike and distrust religion. So it can't be the Judeo-Christian ethic, which has its roots in the Ten Commandments, the Old and New Testaments, and millennia of religious thinkers setting down their wisdom, including figures like St. Augustine, Hillel, Maimonides, and of course Jesus Christ (assuming you believe he/He existed in any form, human or divine).

I derive them from logic and the understanding that everybody alive on this earth has just as much of a right to be here as I do. That millennia of religious thinkers you mention were archaic primitives that came up with a few good ideas, but fundamentally bought into something that is very unlikely to be untrue and that killed a whole lot of people over the centuries. I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but they based their philosophies on something that probably doesn't exist. That makes them logically flawed.

Maybe these rights come from some source unblemished by religious influence? If so, which humanist thinkers and which documents embody or express these rights, assuming you've got something in your pocket other than the Constitution?

They derive from reason.

The point being, your moral compass seems to be vague, improvised and unpredictable, which is exactly the way Trump comes off. Basically, shoot from the hip and figure out the rationale and justification later, whatever gets him off the hook.

I think you're overstating that and trying your ass off to baffle me with bullshit. I know how that trick works. Do better.

It's one thing to say the world works in crappy ways and talk about how all we have are bad choices. We all do that. But it's another thing to vote to make a man like Trump the most powerful person in the world. Power without conscience is a prescription for disaster. If you can't see that (and see what makes Trump, Trump) with or without the help of traditional moral learning, I don't know what to tell you.

Why do you think Trump doesn't have a conscience? That sounds made up to me. I mean, yeah, you have to compromise certain principles to make a fortune. There's no question about that. But are you saying that businessmen should be ineligible for running for office?

[Value Of Pi]

A good place to start would be Voltaire. I have a profound distrust for institutions because I know that as they persist through time they tend to become less effective and more corrupt. In the political world, this creates "untouchable" politicians, decorum and enshrined ways of thinking that's very hard to get people to step outside of. We're there now, our politics has become basically paralyzed by establishment special interests on both sides so now they just openly collude with each other in matters such as immigration. That to me that fossilization presents far more of a danger to the social cohesion of the state than Donald Trump does. For example, we are conditioned by the establishment to think that deportation is somehow a bad thing, but that rampant migration of non-integrating foreign nationals into the country isn't a bad thing despite history showing us that it has never been a good thing anywhere where it's happened. 

I derive them from logic and the understanding that everybody alive on this earth has just as much of a right to be here as I do. That millennia of religious thinkers you mention were archaic primitives that came up with a few good ideas, but fundamentally bought into something that is very unlikely to be untrue and that killed a whole lot of people over the centuries. I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but they based their philosophies on something that probably doesn't exist. That makes them logically flawed.

They derive from reason.

I think you're overstating that and trying your ass off to baffle me with bullshit. I know how that trick works. Do better.

Why do you think Trump doesn't have a conscience? That sounds made up to me. I mean, yeah, you have to compromise certain principles to make a fortune. There's no question about that. But are you saying that businessmen should be ineligible for running for office?

Okay, you don't care for religion AND political institutions because they are responsible for the bad things that have gone on throughout history. You like Voltaire with his ultra-romantic view of human rights, even though the effort to get those rights, the French Revolution, was a mass slaughter of guilty and innocent alike, leading directly to the reign of one of history's worst megalomaniacs. Not nearly as good or positive an effort as our revolution and resulting Judeo-Christian based republic in the U.S.

And the principles you would like everyone to live by are all arrived at (inevitably and definitively, I imagine). by logic and reason. Presumably, your logic and reason, or maybe Trump's, but maybe not mine. You start with nothing but logic and out of that comes wisdom. A neat trick with no starting point and no way to confirm that the calculation adds up, other than the say-so of other people who think it does.

I do question whether Trump has a conscience, based on what he has said and done -- and how he justifies it all. What I'm sure of is that to the extent it exists, it is not up to the job of keeping his worst instincts and prejudices, as well as his flawed thinking, in check.

You're worried that nothing will change. I'm worried that, with Trump, too much will change. I am not a revolutionary, but it sounds like you are. I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for.

[WOTR]

A good place to start would be Voltaire. I have a profound distrust for institutions because I know that as they persist through time they tend to become less effective and more corrupt. In the political world, this creates "untouchable" politicians, decorum and enshrined ways of thinking that's very hard to get people to step outside of. We're there now, our politics has become basically paralyzed by establishment special interests on both sides so now they just openly collude with each other in matters such as immigration.

I was reading an article by one of Regans speech writers, Peggy Noonan.  Listening to Trump supporters (and, also to Bernie supporters) on this board and elsewhere, I feel that she may be dead on in this article.  I don't think that it matters if she is correct in saying that the "protected" and "unprotected" classes are at odds.  What matters is that is the perception, and people are starting to shake things up (for better or worse.)

I was also reading a commentary on Peggy's writings that had went a little further and included people being sick of TARP and other bail outs doing nothing for them (again, you can debate this- but the feeling of "the unwashed masses" is that they hurt the many to benefit the few...)  I think both reasons are playing a part in the rise of Trump.

Two selected paragraphs from her article and the link:
"There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully."

"The unprotected came to think they owed the establishmentâ€"another word for the protectedâ€"nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance... Mr. Trump came from that."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-1456448550

[Faustina]

I don't mean that Trump and his campaign are an act in terms of any wild Hillary conspiracy theory. They're an act in terms of him not being what he claims to be and his not having the interests of the country as his greatest concern. This problem overall, and with all the specifics of his history and character, make him unqualified for the job of president. Except in some alternate universe, which as it turns out, may be what we are living in.

I kind of get the feeling that what you see is what you get with Trump:  a powerful, rich businessman who is such an egoist (and a narcissist) that he's willing to go to all the time and trouble to try to get voted in as the country's President (the ultimate prize as the top position of power in our country).  I also think he really thinks he has what it takes to "make America great again," being an egoist.  What he doesn't seem to realize is how hard it's going to be to get anything really accomplished in Washington if Congress goes out of its way to make things difficult, as they likely would.  I believe there's a limit to how much President's can do just by Executive Order.

[SciFiAuthor]

Okay, you don't care for religion AND political institutions because they are responsible for the bad things that have gone on throughout history. You like Voltaire with his ultra-romantic view of human rights, even though the effort to get those rights, the French Revolution, was a mass slaughter of guilty and innocent alike, leading directly to the reign of one of history's worst megalomaniacs. Not nearly as good or positive an effort as our revolution and resulting Judeo-Christian based republic in the U.S.

Well, I'd invoke the framers again in that case. Revolution is great, it's a positive thing, so long as it's done in a civilized manner. Jefferson himself pointed that out. What we have here on both the right and left are people against any sort of revolution wishing to get Trump or Sanders out of the race at any cost to preserve the establishment. That's outdated thinking.

And the principles you would like everyone to live by are all arrived at (inevitably and definitively, I imagine). by logic and reason. Presumably, your logic and reason, or maybe Trump's, but maybe not mine. You start with nothing but logic and out of that comes wisdom. A neat trick with no starting point and no way to confirm that the calculation adds up, other than the say-so of other people who think it does.

Works for science and engineering. Try to build a car without logic and show me what you come up with.

I do question whether Trump has a conscience, based on what he has said and done -- and how he justifies it all. What I'm sure of is that to the extent it exists, it is not up to the job of keeping his worst instincts and prejudices, as well as his flawed thinking, in check.

Specifics please. Let's dig in.

You're worried that nothing will change. I'm worried that, with Trump, too much will change. I am not a revolutionary, but it sounds like you are. I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for.

Well, technology is going to force more change than you're comfortable with in a very short time no matter who you vote for. We need to rethink things, and no candidate is ready for that, rather they want to rehash the politics of the last 30 years. Well, the time for that is over. Only Trump is talking about flexibility in ideology.

[SciFiAuthor]

I was reading an article by one of Regans speech writers, Peggy Noonan.  Listening to Trump supporters (and, also to Bernie supporters) on this board and elsewhere, I feel that she may be dead on in this article.  I don't think that it matters if she is correct in saying that the "protected" and "unprotected" classes are at odds.  What matters is that is the perception, and people are starting to shake things up (for better or worse.)

I was also reading a commentary on Peggy's writings that had went a little further and included people being sick of TARP and other bail outs doing nothing for them (again, you can debate this- but the feeling of "the unwashed masses" is that they hurt the many to benefit the few...)  I think both reasons are playing a part in the rise of Trump.

Two selected paragraphs from her article and the link:
"There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully."

"The unprotected came to think they owed the establishmentâ€"another word for the protectedâ€"nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance... Mr. Trump came from that."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-1456448550

I saw that and I think she's right in a way, but not quite hitting the mark. Trump will openly say that the government hides true unemployment numbers. Well, it does. Since 2008 we've been living with the illusion that we actually recovered from the recession as far as jobs when we haven't. People still think that with nearly 1/3 of the population unemployed somehow that translates to a 4.9 percent unemployment rate. Yes I know there are mitigating factors to arriving at that number, but there aren't enough to account for it.

[FightTheFuture]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0pO9VG1J8

[SciFiAuthor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0pO9VG1J8

A few years ago you'd have been bitching about SNL trashing Romney or McCain or Bush. What changed? If Cruz ends up the candidate and they rape him, what will you say then?

[Value Of Pi]

I kind of get the feeling that what you see is what you get with Trump:  a powerful, rich businessman who is such an egoist (and a narcissist) that he's willing to go to all the time and trouble to try to get voted in as the country's President (the ultimate prize as the top position of power in our country).  I also think he really thinks he has what it takes to "make America great again," being an egoist.  What he doesn't seem to realize is how hard it's going to be to get anything really accomplished in Washington if Congress goes out of its way to make things difficult, as they likely would.  I believe there's a limit to how much President's can do just by Executive Order.

All good points. The question you raise is important. Does he or doesn't he realize that after he wins the big prize, he may have bitten off way more than he can chew, based on his grandiose agenda? His ego might prevent him from admitting this possibility, but Trump is a very pragmatic guy in spite of his ego.

So, I think he knows he would run into major resistance at every turn: Congress, the courts, the press and every part of the Establishment. Still, he fancies himself a great leader and a man who can move mountains. The people who elected him are where he would turn for support. The bully pulpit would get one hell of a workout. Who knows what other tactics he has in mind?

The military establishment has sent the message loud and clear that they won't obey illegal orders. He should have known that this would be their response before he insisted that they'll do what he tells them in the last debate. Il Duce will have to recalculate.

[FightTheFuture]

A few years ago you'd have been bitching about SNL trashing Romney or McCain or Bush. What changed? If Cruz ends up the candidate and they rape him, what will you say then?

Not true. I`ve been laughing at their parodies since Danny Aykroyd started doing Jimmy Carter with hemorrhoids, and all the way through the Bushes and Romney, Palins, etc.

It`s called having a sense of humor.

[Jackstar]

[SciFiAuthor]

Not true. I`ve been laughing at their parodies since Danny Aykroyd started doing Jimmy Carter with hemorrhoids, and all the way through the Bushes and Romney, Palins, etc.

It`s called having a sense of humor.

They haven't been very good since Will Farrell's Bush impersonations, which were classic, though Tina Fey gets an honorable mention for her Palin. Dana Carvey's Ross Perot was fantastic back in the 90's as was Chevy Chase's Gerald Ford in the early days. I just don't get modern SNL humor, it's very millennial and sitting through a weekend update segment today is impossible for me. It's just not funny, always politically hyper-charged and invariably uber-liberal, and a far cry from the days of Akroyd and "Jane, you ignorant slut!".

[creepygreenlight]

Fuck it, just let Obama stay in for another 20 years.

[Value Of Pi]

It seems like Trump would have thought twice about asking crowds to pledge to vote for him -- with negative consequences if they betrayed their pledge -- using the following Fascist-like salute. But no, he decided that this was a good idea.

Last photo: German American Bund, late 1930s

[Jackstar]

[SciFiAuthor]

[Value Of Pi]

Everybody wave "hi" and "goodbye" to our newest troll wannabe, recently registered.

[21st Century Man]

So what?  The man prays with his father.  Is that a sin?  I am very tired of the vilification of Christians going on in our society.  Yes, some of them have brought it on themselves but not the majority.  I'm not a fundie but good lord to make jokes about people praying?

[Value Of Pi]

So what?  The man prays with his father.  Is that a sin?  I am very tired of the vilification of Christians going on in our society.  Yes, some of them have brought it on themselves but not the majority.  I'm not a fundie but good lord to make jokes about people praying?

And even worse would be to try and equate prayer with what Trump is now doing at his rallies, as I posted above.

[SciFiAuthor]

So what?  The man prays with his father.  Is that a sin?  I am very tired of the vilification of Christians going on in our society.  Yes, some of them have brought it on themselves but not the majority.  I'm not a fundie but good lord to make jokes about people praying?

Just pointing out to Pi that people raise their hands for a variety of reasons. Not everything is a 1930's Hitler rally. 

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Just pointing out to Pi that people raise their hands for a variety of reasons. Not everything is a 1930's Hitler rally.

That's definitely the weakest meme I've seen from mindless liberals this election season.

[21st Century Man]

And even worse would be to try and equate prayer with what Trump is now doing at his rallies, as I posted above.

Yes, I agree.  I find myself agreeing with you about 85% of the time.

[21st Century Man]

Just pointing out to Pi that people raise their hands for a variety of reasons. Not everything is a 1930's Hitler rally.

It just struck me wrong at first glance. I have to say though people raising their hands like that at a Trump rally is very Hitleresque.

[albrecht]

It seems like Trump would have thought twice about asking crowds to pledge to vote for him -- with negative consequences if they betrayed their pledge -- using the following Fascist-like salute. But no, he decided that this was a good idea.

Last photo: German American Bund, late 1930s

Even IF they were doing a salute, which they aren't, this style of salute has been used for centuries and today is still used in places like Mexico and South America when taking office, military parades, etc. Until Mussolini/Hitler popularized it, it was also the preferred method for American school children to use when saying the Pledge of Allegiance, which I know is a bad thing for the leftists in itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
Here is Billary.

[Jackstar]

Everybody wave "hi" and "goodbye" to

https://youtu.be/5QJWOLMerE8


I've said it before and now I'm saying it again: you are not terribly bright, yo.

[SciFiAuthor]

It just struck me wrong at first glance. I have to say though people raising their hands like that at a Trump rally is very Hitleresque.

I dunno, one of them has both hands up. Pretty sure Hitler would have frowned on that one.

[21st Century Man]

I dunno, one of them has both hands up. Pretty sure Hitler would have frowned on that one.

LOL.  He would have been shot.  I don't think most Trump followers are fascists but I think white power groups are actively supporting Trump despite Trump's disavowals.

[21st Century Man]

That's definitely the weakest meme I've seen from mindless liberals this election season.

I wouldn't call SciFiauthor a liberal.  He definitely is a social liberal but he is very conservative in other aspects.  He's primarily a constitutionalist as am I.