Political Posts

[Gregmal]

15 minutes ago, Castanza said:

A spade is still a spade and I think it's undeniable that Trump has permanently introduced this new flavor of fascism into American politics.

Racism, Fascism, Bigotry was totally cool for a decade plus when many of these same folks openly championed a "if you aint gay/black/or Hispanic you dont count" agenda. They earned this.

17 minutes ago, Castanza said:

How does American pivot from this course?

It's just gonna continue to erode. The masses are too far gone. For all the talk, theres no better example than Elon Musk. One of the brightest minds we've ever seen. Lifelong liberal. Now...these mouth breathers are burning cars and calling him a fascist LMFAO. Mini Mike Bloomberg was also given similar warning, as was Howard Schultz when he considered running. These animals have created an environment where you need some psycho like Trump to run....cuz no one rational will. 

[73 Reds]

5 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Racism, Fascism, Bigotry was totally cool for a decade plus when many of these same folks openly championed a "if you aint gay/black/or Hispanic you dont count" agenda. They earned this.

It's just gonna continue to erode. The masses are too far gone. For all the talk, theres no better example than Elon Musk. One of the brightest minds we've ever seen. Lifelong liberal. Now...these mouth breathers are burning cars and calling him a fascist LMFAO. Mini Mike Bloomberg was also given similar warning, as was Howard Schultz when he considered running. These animals have created an environment where you need some psycho like Trump to run....cuz no one rational will. 

It has to start with higher education.  Ideology does not belong anywhere in or near the classroom. We have a generation of brainwashed young people who believe that because they are "highly educated" they are morally superior.  Unfortunately, they are also by and large broke which may be our one saving grace.

Edited February 5 by 73 Reds
missed line

[Red Lion]

2 hours ago, Libs said:

 

Not me. I fear what the left will do when they get back in power. As an example of what we face here in CA, even though it should be obvious to any clear-thinking person that the CA wealth tax would be stupid and self-destructive- we may very well get it on the ballot and pass it. Silicon Valley pays 35% of CA's taxes. So let's drive them out! A recent poll said 52% of those polled who understood the likely economic impacts of the tax STILL SUPPORT IT.

 

It's the same mentality attached to climate change- let's crush the economy even though it won't help (thanks to China's emissions).

 

Greg I may have to move to JOE territory after all!

 

I too fear what the Newsom administration might look like, and I feel like Trump is alienating independents left and right. 

 

I think the optics of the immigration situation are not playing with anyone except true MAGA supporters. Shutting down the mass influx over the border was likely a win with public perception, but that political capital was quickly squandered. 

 

Getting our allies to contribute more to defense spending and his handling of Iran/Israel were a foreign policy win amongst independents I suspect, but the whole NATO/Greenland/Canada situation seems wildly counterproductive.

 

I think a lot of independents might look favorably to deregulation/slowing the onslaught of illegal immigration/extending the 2017 tax cuts. But they very well may swing the other way because of the brutish and unapologetic trolling with immigration, the Mr. Hyde tariffs, Greenland, Nato, persecution of political enemies, etc. 

 

Then there's also a high likelihood that the Democrats take the house, bringing an end to the Trump 2.0 legislative agenda, and ushering in the era of nonstop congressional investigations and house impeachment proceedings. 

 

In the longer run, it seems like the democrats are firmly moving under the control of the idealistic wealth redistributing progressive left. This leaves a lot of historically democratic voters susceptible to voting for more moderate type Republican candidates, but Trump seems to be doing anything he possibly can to get these voters to pull out their wallets, hold their nose, and vote for whichever progressive the Democrats nominate in a given election. If Trump just did what he did on policy, toned down the incendiary rhetoric across the board, and maybe used a little bit of strategy with his tariff crusade, the GOP could have likely snaked most of these disillusioned moderate democrats/independents.  

 

 

 

[cubsfan]

4 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

Sure I don't disagree....However on the flip side of this you've had how many conservative politicians and talking heads excusing POTUS remarks as just "Trump speech" that shouldn't be taken serious. It was easy to buy and easy to excuse....remind you Hitler and Mussolini were both seen a buffoons in their early years of campaign and office who shouldn't have been taken seriously....I mean it's right out of the fascist playbook. 

 

Mein Kampf: "It doesn't matter if they laugh at us or ridicule us. All that matters is they can't stop thinking about us."

 

Trump is a master of this no doubt, which has lead to some of the "boy cries wolf" point you framed. However I don't think it's wise to lose track of the game we are in...A spade is still a spade and I think it's undeniable that Trump has permanently introduced this new flavor of fascism into American politics. 

 

My concern is beyond Trump....How does American pivot from this course? An authoritarian left leaning electorate that dismantles the Trump legacy through similar means? Where does MAGA go? Trump has patented a deck of political cards that EVERY conservative politician will have to pick from and play in order to gain favor from the MAGA faithful which is what at a minimum 50% of the conservative party voter base? To summarize, Trump has ushered in a new era of American Politics and the floor for election is much higher up the radical political ideology ladder than I and many are comfortable with. 

 

Be careful what you wish for....The durability of American institutions is being tested... 

 

That is a really whacked out point of view.

All Trump has done is bring the country back to the center - circa 1995, like a Clinton Democrat.

Obama and his losers buddies took the country so far left, it wasn't recognizable anymore.

[Castanza]

9 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

That is a really whacked out point of view.

All Trump has done is bring the country back to the center - circa 1995, like a Clinton Democrat.

Obama and his losers buddies took the country so far left, it wasn't recognizable anymore.

Holy shit lmfao dude you are lost both politically and morally. 
 

I assume you support Vance and his Bloodline immigration rule? 
 

“More American under Trump” lmfao now that is rich…

 

Genuine question…what would Trump have to do to lose your support? When would you consider him a fascist? 

[Sweet]

4 minutes ago, Castanza said:

I assume you support Vance and his Bloodline immigration rule? 

You seem to be saying this is a bad thing, and yet, it’s how many countries organise their immigration, both historically and now.  In fact more countries are going down this route.

[cubsfan]

24 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Holy shit lmfao dude you are lost both politically and morally. 
 

I assume you support Vance and his Bloodline immigration rule? 
 

“More American under Trump” lmfao now that is rich…

 

Genuine question…what would Trump have to do to lose your support? When would you consider him a fascist? 

 

Heck all Trump would have to do to lose my support is if he did nothing to get rid of Biden's disastrous policies.  Any continuation of Biden's regime would have been horrible for the country.

 

Reversing them has been very hard work and somewhat ugly in the process. Good old Joe inflicted terrible damage to our country.

[cubsfan]

29 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

I assume you support Vance and his Bloodline immigration rule? 

 

I have no idea what this means. 

 

But I certainly believe JD will make an awesome President.

[RichardGibbons]

8 hours ago, Libs said:

As if the 'No Kings' marches and the Minnesota stuff could ever happen in a fascist country. These people would be squashed like bugs.

 

Not sure why you believe this. Even in fascist countries, the people still have power, in aggregate.

 

Germany

• The Kreuzkampf (Crucifix Struggle) (November 1936)
• The Rosenstrasse Protest (February–March 1943)
• The Witten Women's Protest (October 1943)

 

Italy

• The Aventine Secession (June 1924)
• The "Bread and Peace" Strikes (March 1943)

 

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

I have no idea what this means. 

 

But I certainly believe JD will make an awesome President.

Anyone who gets his ideas from Curtis Yarvin would make a terrible President. 

[Castanza]

2 hours ago, Sweet said:

You seem to be saying this is a bad thing, and yet, it’s how many countries organise their immigration, both historically and now.  In fact more countries are going down this route.

It’s anti American 

 

Vance has said in no subtle terms that America is more than a nation of embodies creeds (American ideals). He insists that we are a “blood and soil” nation and promotes this new citizenship approach as some new packaged “American Heritage” nonsense. Heavily emphasized on European lineage. Not only is this patently false historically, but it goes way beyond any reasonable approach to selective immigration (skill, merit, etc.). No clue how he squares that idea while also being married to an Indian woman…

[RichardGibbons]

10 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

One would think on an investment forum that individuals would be able to pivot....I guess this highlights the blinders everyone bears and the subjective context in which choose to don them. 

 

Yeah, I think this Ordinary Men book provides a lot of insight into this conundrum. The book doesn't really provide good answers (IMO) as to the cause and prevention, but it does provide a lot of observations about the decisions and actions of the people involved.

 

Based on the observations, it's pretty clear how most men would act in this situation where they were instructed to commit genocide--most men would do so. Demographics don't matter much. Some (10%?) would relish it, and a tiny number (1%?) would refuse (even though the consequences of refusal were negligible, mostly social, and presumably no chance at promotion). The median and the mode man in the group would view it as a distasteful task, and just want to get it over with.

[cubsfan]

7 minutes ago, Castanza said:

It’s anti American 

 

Vance has said in no subtle terms that America is more than a nation of embodies creeds (American ideals). He insists that we are a “blood and soil” nation and promotes this new citizenship approach as some new packaged “American Heritage” nonsense. Heavily emphasized on European lineage. Not only is this patently false historically, but it goes way beyond any reasonable approach to selective immigration (skill, merit, etc.). No clue how he squares that idea while also being married to an Indian woman…

 

Must be all that white supremacy going around, you know, that MAGA stuff.

[Castanza]

9 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yeah, I think this Ordinary Men book provides a lot of insight into this conundrum. The book doesn't really provide good answers (IMO) as to the cause and prevention, but it does provide a lot of observations about the decisions and actions of the people involved.

 

Based on the observations, it's pretty clear how most men would act in this situation where they were instructed to commit genocide--most men would do so. Demographics don't matter much. Some (10%?) would relish it, and a tiny number (1%?) would refuse (even though the consequences of refusal were negligible, mostly social, and presumably no chance at promotion). The median and the mode man in the group would view it as a distasteful task, and just want to get it over with.

Read this last year actually. Very enlightening book. I’d recommend checking out The Ravine if you’re interested in the topic. 

[Castanza]

13 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Must be all that white supremacy going around, you know, that MAGA stuff.

 

Embracing Yarvin and then laying the framework for another Andrew Jackson Trail of Tears is next level. 
 

Vance is smart as a whip and well read no doubt. Less likely to draw a crowd like Trump but dangerously more organized and calculated. 
 

Perhaps you should actually do some digging and realize that ideas, opinions, and words matter. Some of you guys act S if American democracy is a permanent fixture for all of history moving forward. It only takes a few buffoons and a couple terms to muck it up. 

[RichardGibbons]

10 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Read this last year actually. Very enlightening book. I’d recommend checking out The Ravine if you’re interested in the topic. 

 

Yeah, I'm not that interested in the atrocities themselves, but more interested in how they reveal the parts of human nature that I can't understand. Like, a mother or father jumping between an angry grizzly bear and their kid isn't that interesting, because I can understand it.

 

But understanding the psychology of the people involved in something that I can't identify at all with, is fascinating. Like, I read that book, and think that I probably wouldn't be in the 10% relishing mass murder, and I'd like to think I'd in the 1% refusing to commit genocide. But the sheer weight of numbers indicates strongly that I'd be one of the people just viewing it as a distasteful task.

 

And that provides insight to me. Like, I'd much rather be in the 1%, so how do I have to think about both the world and people to become that person I aspire to be?

[cubsfan]

30 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

 

Perhaps you should actually do some digging and realize that ideas, opinions, and words matter. 

 

Thanks for the lecture. Yeah, words, ideas and opinions matter - that's exactly why normal people are fleeing the Democratic Party faster than a speeding bullet. They are total lunatics. The only thing they believe in is chaos, violence and riots.

 

Anyone that saves the country from these anarchists is good in my book - imperfect as they may be.

 

BTW - That's a great clip of JD, he is right on the mark!

Edited February 6 by cubsfan

[Gregmal]

Dont look now, but Kamala is gearing up for another campaign. Made possible by the retards in CA.....

[cubsfan]

Just now, Gregmal said:

Dont look now, but Kamala is gearing up for another campaign. Made possible by the retards in CA.....

 

Oh my - if she beats Gavin in the primary - I will laugh my ass off.

[cwericb]

42 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Thanks for the lecture. Yeah, words, ideas and opinions matter - that's exactly why normal people are fleeing the Democratic Party faster than a speeding bullet. They are total lunatics. The only thing they believe in is chaos, violence and riots.

 

Anyone that saves the country from these anarchists is good in my book - imperfect as they may be.

 

BTW - That's a great clip of JD, he is right on the mark!

 

" They are total lunatics. The only thing they believe in is chaos..."

 

Excellent description of the present administration. Good for you Cubs, right on dude!

[Sweet]

7 hours ago, Castanza said:

It’s anti American 

 

Vance has said in no subtle terms that America is more than a nation of embodies creeds (American ideals). He insists that we are a “blood and soil” nation and promotes this new citizenship approach as some new packaged “American Heritage” nonsense. Heavily emphasized on European lineage. Not only is this patently false historically, but it goes way beyond any reasonable approach to selective immigration (skill, merit, etc.). No clue how he squares that idea while also being married to an Indian woman…

This is the immigration policy of many nations, it’s not an aberration.
 

‘Anti-American’ is your opinion, and many may disagree.  
 

American immigration policy originally, and for a long while after independence, was very restrictive in who could come and get citizenship, so you are cherry picking which part of American history when you say it’s anti-American.

It’s fair to say that the immigration system was, in fact, preferentially European for most of American history.  Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

And in the days of LLMs, were you can find this information in a few minutes, I can’t understand how you reached your particular conclusions.

 

Edited February 6 by Sweet

[Castanza]

5 hours ago, Sweet said:

This is the immigration policy of many nations, it’s not an aberration.
 

‘Anti-American’ is your opinion, and many may disagree.  
 

American immigration policy originally, and for a long while after independence, was very restrictive in who could come and get citizenship, so you are cherry picking which part of American history when you say it’s anti-American.

It’s fair to say that the immigration system was, in fact, preferentially European for most of American history.  Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

And in the days of LLMs, were you can find this information in a few minutes, I can’t understand how you reached your particular conclusions.

 

Here is your LLM churn...

 

 

You do realize that America has done many "un-American" things in the past. I mean Hell, Lincoln wanted to relocate all African Americans to South America post Civil War. You need to look at the ideas proposed and how the individuals who compose them come to their conclusions. JD Vance gets his ideas from Curtis Yarvin who is a self proclaimed racist that says things like "some races are better suited for servitude than others." But hey, we've done it in the past so it must be American to do it in the future! Not sure that's a hill you want to die on. I think it's funny that some of you complain about university acceptance quotas that are not solely based on merit and then at the same time want to adopt a Federal Immigration policy that is almost completely race based. 

 

Obviously there is a need for laws and standards (no disagreement there). But a merit based system makes the most sense.  

[flesh]

15 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yeah, I'm not that interested in the atrocities themselves, but more interested in how they reveal the parts of human nature that I can't understand. Like, a mother or father jumping between an angry grizzly bear and their kid isn't that interesting, because I can understand it.

 

But understanding the psychology of the people involved in something that I can't identify at all with, is fascinating. Like, I read that book, and think that I probably wouldn't be in the 10% relishing mass murder, and I'd like to think I'd in the 1% refusing to commit genocide. But the sheer weight of numbers indicates strongly that I'd be one of the people just viewing it as a distasteful task.

 

And that provides insight to me. Like, I'd much rather be in the 1%, so how do I have to think about both the world and people to become that person I aspire to be?

I read ordinary men a few years ago, really good. Not like that book but broadly covering the personal psychological experiences that are part and parcel of large wars, I liked the forgotten highlander as well.

 

My two cents, if your going to "keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you" your going against the grain but not for going against the grains sake. You'd have to have principals based on truthier stuff, defined as requiring the fewest assumptions to be true and everything is a belief but those that require fewer conditions likelier to be closer to bedrock. You'd need a strong relationship with truth, before the event. How often do you challenge your assumptions? Many of them are not their because you put them there.  If your 1% of anything, it would feel like alienation, you'd be very different, 99%  of the time metaphorically you'd experience conflict, you'd be considered highly disagreeable by others. You'd feel out of sorts, cognitive dissonance all around, seeking confirmation (bias) and rarely finding it. You'd need a large degree of self sufficiency when being disconfirmed all around. Most people wouldn't want to be around you, if you spoke your mind, they'd suffer cognitive dissonance, you'd experience their negativity.  Consider what it would feel like to be the 1% person/outcast, know that it would happen, don't be surprised when it does. Expect. 

 

I'm more in the camp of being surprised that people aren't just destroying each other constantly, it's a miracle, and I wonder why, and try to understand. I doubt it has much to do with human nature. What it does have to do with is worth keeping an eye on. 

 

I was thinking the other day, and I don't know to what degree it's true or not, that maybe sciences pre conditions for existing is based on iron age religions and the popularization of a truth existing in the first place. That is, of course we can find philosophers going back a long ways discussing truth but very few of them had any large effect on the slow moving molasses that is cultural base programming. Nothing compared to the religions. This thing called truth existing for the masses would certainly contribute to the notion that we can find truth and should find it. God orders things and that order can be found, understood, utilized, in the ether.  The unconscious programming that most would never recognize in themselves. This juxtaposed to where science absent religion, where we are now, seems to lead the masses to new religions. People create religions after all, full stop. One ends, another begins. Are the new ones so grounded in truth? Woke? Post modernism? There is no truth except what people make, despite that truth being illogical if you make it. What's happening to the sciences in universities? If your new god is woke, your purposefully not looking at what you don't like, your triggered by it, a mental health condition even.  If there is truth, you seek it wherever it is. Part of what made science sexy for many of us is that it didn't give a f@#k about the cultural orthodoxy. Turns out maybe it just didn't care about the religious cultural orthodoxy. It was baptized in it's fight with religion for hearts and minds despite being created by it. It still cares about fitting in to what's popular, in the bubbles it's practiced most, so long as it's not conventionally religious. Maybe it's downfall. 

 

Not religious but I respect many of them. 

 

 

 

 

[Castanza]

14 minutes ago, flesh said:

I read ordinary men a few years ago, really good. Not like that book but broadly covering the personal psychological experiences that are part and parcel of large wars, I liked the forgotten highlander as well.

 

My two cents, if your going to "keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you" your going against the grain but not for going against the grains sake. You'd have to have principals based on truthier stuff, defined as requiring the fewest assumptions to be true and everything is a belief but those that require fewer conditions likelier to be closer to bedrock. You'd need a strong relationship with truth, before the event. How often do you challenge your assumptions? Many of them are not their because you put them there.  If your 1% of anything, it would feel like alienation, you'd be very different, 99%  of the time metaphorically you'd experience conflict, you'd be considered highly disagreeable by others. You'd feel out of sorts, cognitive dissonance all around, seeking confirmation (bias) and rarely finding it. You'd need a large degree of self sufficiency when being disconfirmed all around. Most people wouldn't want to be around you, if you spoke your mind, they'd suffer cognitive dissonance, you'd experience their negativity.  Consider what it would feel like to be the 1% person/outcast, know that it would happen, don't be surprised when it does. Expect. 

 

I'm more in the camp of being surprised that people aren't just destroying each other constantly, it's a miracle, and I wonder why, and try to understand. I doubt it has much to do with human nature. What it does have to do with is worth keeping an eye on. 

 

I was thinking the other day, and I don't know to what degree it's true or not, that maybe sciences pre conditions for existing is based on iron age religions and the popularization of a truth existing in the first place. That is, of course we can find philosophers going back a long ways discussing truth but very few of them had any large effect on the slow moving molasses that is cultural base programming. Nothing compared to the religions. This thing called truth existing for the masses would certainly contribute to the notion that we can find truth and should find it. God orders things and that order can be found, understood, utilized, in the ether.  The unconscious programming that most would never recognize in themselves. This juxtaposed to where science absent religion, where we are now, seems to lead the masses to new religions. People create religions after all, full stop. One ends, another begins. Are the new ones so grounded in truth? Woke? Post modernism? There is no truth except what people make, despite that truth being illogical if you make it. What's happening to the sciences in universities? If your new god is woke, your purposefully not looking at what you don't like, your triggered by it, a mental health condition even.  If there is truth, you seek it wherever it is. Part of what made science sexy for many of us is that it didn't give a f@#k about the cultural orthodoxy. Turns out maybe it just didn't care about the religious cultural orthodoxy. It was baptized in it's fight with religion for hearts and minds despite being created by it. It still cares about fitting in to what's popular, in the bubbles it's practiced most, so long as it's not conventionally religious. Maybe it's downfall. 

 

Not religious but I respect many of them. 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion and its followers are susceptible to ideological narratives like anyone else. Specifically regarding the US political climate. If you haven’t read any of his work, I would suggest reading some Bonhoeffer. Quite appropriate as a lens to view the rise of Christian Nationalism in the US. Good read regardless of whether or not you’re religious. 

[Sweet]

4 hours ago, Castanza said:

Here is your LLM churn...

 

 

You do realize that America has done many "un-American" things in the past. I mean Hell, Lincoln wanted to relocate all African Americans to South America post Civil War. You need to look at the ideas proposed and how the individuals who compose them come to their conclusions. JD Vance gets his ideas from Curtis Yarvin who is a self proclaimed racist that says things like "some races are better suited for servitude than others." But hey, we've done it in the past so it must be American to do it in the future! Not sure that's a hill you want to die on. I think it's funny that some of you complain about university acceptance quotas that are not solely based on merit and then at the same time want to adopt a Federal Immigration policy that is almost completely race based. 

 

Obviously there is a need for laws and standards (no disagreement there). But a merit based system makes the most sense.  

From independence until the 1950s or something, immigration was preferentially European because America was a European colonial project.  The laws and rules, some of which you posted, show that its wasn’t a ‘merit’ based system, immigration was geared towards European ethnicity.  You may have a different concept of what America should be, but for most of its history it was in fact an ethnically European enterprise.