Only twenty-five years ago we were fighting communism, here in America, yet today...
It was twenty-five years ago that America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? I find this relieving as opposed to the rather constant pessimism hereabouts about the human spirit/condition/nature.
Times are changing for America, possibly for the better?
EDIT: Wow, I must be high. I first wrote 16. Had to revise that to 25. I guess I can't do math. Haha.
Times are changing for America, possibly for the better?
EDIT: Wow, I must be high. I first wrote 16. Had to revise that to 25. I guess I can't do math. Haha.
Comments (84)
I find it sad that some Americans have failed to learn from the Soviet experiment with socialism and communism. Alas, I think it's safe to say that Bernie Sanders stands virtually no chance to win against Hillary, or in the general election. This flirtation with socialism is a one-time event.
Sanders may be a socialist, but he isn't proposing socialism as the theme of his highly unlikely (but not impossible yet) administration. Without a socialist movement--a party, experienced party personnel, a program, a history--there can be no socialist reform, and there is no socialist movement, personnel, program, or history.
Sanders is proposing certain democratic reforms--all to the good. But let's not go overboard on what he would wish to do or be able to do.
I would like to see a successful socialist movement, party, personnel, program, and history. Small groups of dedicated people have worked on trying to build such a movement over the last century and more, everybody from the early anarchists, the IWW, Socialist Party, SWP, Socialist Labor, New Union Party, CP-USA, and so on. I worked on one of these efforts for a couple of decades, on and off, and it is very tough going.
It isn't that socialist organizers get hostile responses, they don't get ANY response.
The SCOTUS is key because we can't count on the bowels of congress moving in an orderly fashion in the next few terms, as long as the far right maintains enough strength in office. (People should not be predicting the demise of the Republican Party. It isn't going anywhere in the near future. Alas, alas O...)
Democrats and Republicans both have behaved in such a way to demoralize the active voting citizenry, so fewer and fewer people are participating in elections. That doesn't favor liberals, usually. The POTUS and SCOTUS are thus the bulwark holding back the corrosive reactionaries.
Traditions should not be abolished for foolish reasons. What reasons do we have to put in "liberal" judges?
Didn't the OP place it under the "Politics and Current Affairs" section?
I hear this childish remark all the time: we don't live in 1776, or we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, etc. etc. Of course. But what does this have to do with our conservative tradition, which is what made us great in the first place? You know, without those rich white people that you hate, you wouldn't even have the nuclear waste dump to throw their ideas into. Where has the respect gone in today's world?
People somehow think this is a shut-down answer. It has been a progressive meme for far too long, and it's absolutely stupid. Just because we're not in 1776 doesn't mean I should stop using Newton's laws when designing a house! In fact, quite the contrary, I should use them, because they are working and they have a great track record. So does religion, so do our traditional values, which by the way, were endorsed by 90%+ thinkers in history, including atheists, very important.
Why do you think that virtually all the major religions have promoted the same values? (for example, all religions see homosexual sex as immoral and damaging to the one who engages in it... yes, even Buddhism, and progressives have been very annoyed when Dalai Lama has stated this). Why has Epicurus, Lucretius, and the atheists promoted virtually the same values as the religious people across the whole world? You know why? Because those values work, and those values make our societies work. Without virtue, nothing, all the stars and the galaxies of this universe, all the plants, the animals and the beautiful people, all is as nothing!
As for scientific advances, you can't just stroll on down and give all credit to rich white people. These advances came from thousands of years of effort from people globally, and didn't require divine right rule, slavery, or any of that other nonsense to come into fruition.
Yes it has. There's many brown, black, Asian and all other colors and races that have done well in America. The period of slavery was an unfortuante period in history, but you cannot keep blaming that forever from now on for the condition of people. Slavery has ended. And some people have done amazingly well. There's many black millionaires in the US, people of color, people who have worked really hard to do something great for themselves and for their communities. There are many black people today who aren't doing well - that is true. But that to a large degree is the result of the environment they have grown in, combined with the wrong choices that they have made.
Quoting discoii
Well these advances did come from rich people, full stop. Only rich (not white, but rich - we've had some amazing geniuses coming from other parts of the world, especially China, India and the Middle East) people have ever had the time to be thinkers and scientists. Everyone else has been pre-occupied with the jobs of daily life, and this isn't something bad - the world can't be full of scientists and nothing else. So you should at least be thankful for these people, and realise that a large part of the good that you share in today is due to rich people. Sure, rich people have also done a lot of harm to the lower social classes, but that doesn't mean there was no good.
Yes it is not great anymore because it has lost virtue, and by losing virtue it has lost everything worth having. That's why people need a MORAL education first and foremost... they need to learn about the sins of gluttony for example, then they will no longer spend their money on food that makes them fat. They need to learn discipline, courage, integrity... then America will indeed be great again!
There is no progressive tradition (at least not until the socialists like Marx). Such a thing does not exist. Liberal is a conservative word, applied to conservatives like John Locke, who thought that people should have individual freedoms for themselves. Of course this does not mean that traditions are not valuable and should not be kept, but rather that people should not be punished by law for disagreeing with them.
Quoting discoii
Quoting Agustino
These are not creditable views. Are you two conspiring to correct the errors of our ways by burning the library down?
I repeat: no good political ideas that came out of the rich white men that founded the United States are there as ways to advance humanity as a whole, but these good ideas, free speech, religious freedom, originated from poor and oppressed peoples--not those assholes. The ideas that did come from them was to couple these ideas of freedom and liberty with slavery and imperialism--the paradoxical oppression that lingers and stays with us until this very day. Once again, the proof is in the pudding: America has been at war since its founding the the present, no hiccups, only strongarming and war-mongering. America is a nation of brutes as leaders... well-dressed brutes, to be sure, but blood drenches from their shiny shoes.
Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men. Ideas that advanced humanity, brought humanity forward, were found among the poor and downtrodden, who conspired against them. They slowly incorporated these ideas, filtering out the good parts, and keeping them in name in legal form, while slowly forming an apparatus around them so that these human tendencies towards freedom can be controlled.
And I should be thankful for Newton, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Hume? What of all the poor and dead thinkers, probably better thinkers--who knows?--whose potential was stifled through the hierarchy? What of these poor and dead thinkers that influenced the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire, and even the lord-sage of American 18-19th century political philosophy Thomas Paine? These poor don't get the credit, but these rich assholes didn't just come up with ideas about equality among humans out of a vacuum. Nor was it their intention to ever follow through with it.
We have a tendency to assign credit to these men, but the fact is that they drew from the work of others. Oh, these are great men, they say. They are brilliant men, one of a kind! Well, to hell with that, the mere existence of great men in oppressive societies means the stifling of millions of other great humans. I will take their ideas, and be rid of their names and association, because we are still living the rich white male hierarchy, and this sort of credit-giving continues the narrative that we are supposed to live, after systematic white-washing over generations.
From the French Revolution, which by the way, for your information, was not started by the poor people. It was started by people like Georges Danton and Maximillien Robespierre (who by the way was the first to use the words liberte egalite fraternite) who came from well-to-do, respectable families - not wealthy, but nevertheless well-off, noble families. Robespierre's grandfather for example was a well-known lawyer at the time. So let's see how virtuous Robespierre was... yeah, he ordered people to be killed by the guillotine ...
Quoting discoii
Nope, political philosophy, including the idea of equality, originated in the writings of rich people.
Quoting discoii
What does the Vanderbilt/Carnegie family own in the US today? :) They're not even in the billionaire list :) ...
Quoting discoii
A leader has good and bad parts. People aren't perfect. Many of those leaders (including the Founding Fathers) were certainly much better than any of the modern leaders including Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. This is after we include their defects in the analysis.
Quoting discoii
This is just historically false. Sorry to have to put it this bluntly. I understand that you may be upset, but it's just not true.
Quoting discoii
This is very socialistic, but I DOUBT even BC will agree with you, and we all know his motto is "workers of the world, unite!" :P ....
Again, this is simply untrue. The poor generally did not have the time to think and develop ideas. It's just the way things were. But most poor people through history have been respectful towards the rich, and have been grateful for what they had. Progressives like to throw stones at the rich, but if it wasn't for the rich, they wouldn't have anything they have today. They would still be playing with bows and arrows...
Quoting discoii
Yes, you should be thankful to those thinkers. The poor and dead thinkers that you want have never existed. Poor people work to get food, they don't have time to think. They were out there ploughing the fields, they didn't have time to sit down, learn to read and write, study philosophy, and develop ideas... You think the rich have a hatred for the poor or something. But this is not true...
There is nothing bad with this though. Being poor is not the worst thing that can happen. Lacking virtue is worse than lacking money.
It didn't disappear.
Your question is simple, but the answer is complex -- I'll just scratch at it. There is a lot of information out there about who earned the big piles of money, and how that fortune has flowed over the decades.
Even when there aren't any rich heirs, many of the rich people left behind large land holdings, urban real estate, and so forth that passed into the hands of the state, the church, universities, and so on. Frequently these properties have been preserved as state parks, museums, schools, etc. In New York, for instance, the Empire State Building was built on land owned by the Astor Family. (John Jacob Astor, et al) A couple of early New York City (hey -- New Amsterdam!) families still own quite a few parcels of land on which big buildings sit.
What happened to all their money?
Many of the very rich men of the late 19th early 20th century set up foundations into which a substantial portion of their filthy lucre was poured, then the income from the funds directed to be used for philanthropic, benevolent purposes. Ford Foundation is a good example. Over the generations since the death of the Original Accumulator, the fortunes have been diluted -- spread out over an ever larger number of heirs.
Rockefeller: (oil - Standard Oil) a large amount of Rockefeller went into buying the land for, and building Rockefeller Center. It was a huge outlay. Begum in 1929, about, it didn't make any money at all for the first 15 years. Now it is quite profitable. The rest of the money? Willed to successive generations of, reducing each descendent's share. Quite a bit of it went into the Rockefeller Foundation and The Rockefeller University (a graduate medicine research institution) and Rockefeller Hospital.
Vanderbilt: Their fortune was made in railroads like the New York Central -- now merged into some multiply successive corporation. However, they made a lot. The Vanderbilt's farm was the 146,000 acre Biltmore estate in North Carolina. They bought and built a lot of real estate. Some of it is still kicking around. The rest of the money? Willed to successive generations of, reducing each descendent's share.
Carnegie: (railroads, coal, shipping, and steel) Proportionately, Carnegie was richer than Bill Gates. He decided to give away his fortune when he retired and discovered it was difficult to give it away fast enough -- income kept coming in. Carnie funded all sorts of institutions -- the endowment still does -- like libraries in small towns across the country (2,508 libraries around the English speaking world); Carnegie Mellon University is a descendent. Numerous churches and colleges were beneficiaries. Carnegie Hall in NYC; Carnegie Library and Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh; Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland; Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.--contributing to, among other things, hybrid corn, radar, the technology that led to Pyrex® glass, and novel techniques to control genes called RNA interference; 2 of the big telescopes in Chile are Carnegie Institution beneficiaries; Carnegie Foundation in The Hague; The Carnegie Dunfermline Trust, Scotland; Carnegie Hero Fund Commission; The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (TIAA-CREF, professors retirement fund was started by this foundation; TIAA is now worth about $350,000,000,000--not from Carnegie, of course; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Carnegie Corporation of New York -- set up to distribute philanthropic funds. The United Kingdom Trust; Carnegie Council for Ethics on International Affairs;
Here are some large foundations:
1.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA)
$44,320,862,806 (Microsoft)
2.
Ford Foundation (NY)
12,400,460,000 (cars)
3.
J. Paul Getty Trust (CA)
11,982,862,131 (oil)
4.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ)
10,501,370,521
5.
Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN)
9,995,102,248 (pharmaceuticals)
6.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA)
9,042,503,000 (technology)
7.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation (MI)
8,621,183,526 (breakfast foods)
8.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA)
7,084,903,284 (technology)
9.
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (CA)
6,559,384,939
10.
Bloomberg Philanthropies (NY)
6,550,282,874 (business data)
Been reading Chomsky lately?
Look, I'm well aware of the historical bloody mess we've left behind us, but Discoii, there are no human societies on earth who have not left a bloody mess behind them. I am not claiming that bloody messes are a necessary companion of civilization's triumphant progress. You've read Guns, Germs, and Steel -- there are reasons why the white devils in the Middle East flourished as they moved west out of the ME and into Europe. They happened to have material advantages granted by geography, botany, and their predecessors who domesticated wheat.
Quoting discoii
Well, no -- I don't think it was. Franklin was aware of the Iroquois political arrangements, and the Iroquois were aware of us, and there was some communication between the two. Do you think the founding genocidalistas would have looked to the people they were busy killing for political ideas? Seems unlikely. I think they probably looked to their own political documents (like the Magna Carta) for inspiration. There were many features of the matrilineal Iroquois that were quite dissimilar to Anglo-American political experience. Yes, the Iroquois had cooperative political institutions, but cooperative political institutions have been invented in many places and times all over the world.
Quoting discoii
Arabia! Africa? Asia? Surely you jest. It isn't racist or imperialist, or any number of nameable and unnameable sins to locate the 1700's leading proponents of Liberté, égalité, & fraternité in Paris rather than Timbuktu.
The Declaration of independence was written in 1776 (you know this, I know). The Constitution was wrapped up in 1788, after the clunky Articles of Confederation. The French Revolution ran from 1789 - 1799. We had finished the foundation work before the French blew up.
Quoting discoii
Locating the heart of brutality in white men (setting aside "rich" for now) seems quite racist. I'm surprised you would say such a thing. All men are brothers, all men are bastards, and their sisters are all bitches. We are all alike in our capacities for goodness and vileness, and whatever has been done in one corner of the world has been done in the other corners as well. You don't want to fall into the trap of supposing "the superior virtue of the oppressed" (Bertrand Russell--another privileged white male).
Well, yes: there has to be a relationship between the lives of ordinary people and the ideas of thinkers, writers, leaders. Take the civil rights, peace, gay liberation, union organizing, and women's equality movements: All of these movements had leaders, writers, organizers, thinkers... who developed and promulgated ideas. If they weren't picked up by the masses and put into practice, and if the masses' practices were not reflected in the thinking of leaders, the whole thing would be a sterile exercise.
Ordinary women, ordinary blacks, ordinary gays, ordinary working people, ordinary students both initiated, resonated to, and responded with the ideas that leaders, writers, thinkers, and organizers worked with. There has to be a continuous interplay between the rank and file and the leadership. An eloquent educated speaker may call for the right of blacks to vote in Alabama, but it is rather ordinary people who are going to walk into the polling sites. Academics may lay out why gay people should be free from discrimination, but it is ordinary gay men going about their gay business that forces the issue on the public. Housewives who don't read philosophy were the women who got jobs in mostly male factories and learned to operate machinery and tools. It is striking workers, not labor theorists, who are going to get canned.
Both sides are needed: the small coterie of idea mongers and the large rank and file of riff raff who shake the foundations by their choices made en masse.
Quoting discoii
For god's sake, of course they drew from the work of others. Culture is one big plagiarism racket, don't you know. Endless borrowing cum theft.
We can't help it that some of the people who have good ideas also have the considerable wherewithal it takes to get their ideas down on paper, published, reviewed favorably, and passed into the general stream of culture. You know what, I'm sure all three of us -- Discoli, Bittercrank, and Agustino have all had great ideas every now and then, but it wasn't within our power to get it down on paper, published, reviewed favorably, and passed into the cultural stream.
Some hot-shot go-getter who may not be as smart but is glib and can type fast will have the same idea (or more likely, steal it from us) and will become famous. Not rich if he steals my ideas -- I never think of good money making schemes, and have never recognized one when I saw it. But I've had good ideas. So have you two.
And sometimes, hate to admit it, people get their books written because they work harder at it than my esteemed self does, and maybe they don't even lead a life of quiet desperation, like me. SOBs.
I see you've surmised that life really sucks. Quite right, it does. Sucky sucky sucky life. And I've spent decades stewing over it, like you are here. Keep stewing -- it's a necessary process. Just don't let it twist you too far out of shape. Twisted sisters aren't much good for anything.
They have great hair though!
[quote=Terry Eagleton]Lots of men and women in the West are fervent supporters of bloodstained setups. Christians, for example. Nor is it unknown for decent, compassionate types to support whole civilisations steeped in blood. Liberals and conservatives, among others. Modern capitalist nations are the fruit of a history of slavery, genocide, violence and exploitation every bit as abhorrent as Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union. Capitalism, too, was forged in blood and tears; it is just that it has survived long enough to forget about much of this horror, which is not the case with Stalinism and Maoism.[/quote]
That's an excerpt from chapter 2 of his book Why Marx Was Right. I recommend reading the whole chapter, as it's of particular relevance, given some of your comments.
Quoting Agustino
Ha!
Quoting Agustino
No, Danton's first appearance in the Revolution was as president of the Cordeliers club. He became president in 1790. The Storming of the Bastille, widely accepted as marking the beginning of the French Revolution, occurred on July 14th 1789, and before that there was The Day of Tiles on June 10th 1788, which was followed by grain riots from March through April of 1789, and then there was the Reveillon Riots in April 1789. Members of the Third Estate were representatives of the common people, who revolted against unpopular tax, among other things, set by the Ancien Regime. Robespierre gained prominence as an outspoken advocate of the poor. So, you're wrong. The revolution was started by the poor, who were reacting to their treatment by the Ancien Regime, and was carried through with the aid of people such as Danton and Robspierre.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10565264/Left-wing-thinking-still-prevails-in-schools.html
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/kline.php
http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/the-reason-why-hollywood-actors-are-predominantly-leftwing
etc. etc.
This is outrageous! Our moral values are undermined, day after day, and people are living worse lives, and suffering much more day after day. And everyday the media and Hollywood only advertises immorality - it is true. You cannot argue with this. And this is inadmissible - it has destroyed the lives of millions upon millions of people. Good men and women have to stand up - because the communists have for too long made communism sound and look cool. It is cool to cheat on your wife - it is cool to shag as many people as possible before marriage. We have to make conservatism cool again, so that people can stop being deceived by what looks attractive but is rotten at the core. If we don't, then we will not have a society anymore - Europe and the US will not exist anymore in 50 years. What I am saying here is the truth - look at the Roman Empire - the beginning of immorality was the beginning of collapse. An immoral society cannot exist. A society that isn't built around personal responsibility, family values, loving other people, and living a life of courage and integrity cannot survive. And religion is essential in doing that. It cannot be done without mobilising the strength of religion - the only force in history which has ever succeeded to teach people morals.
I am blessed to have had the free time required to study philosophy and study the entire history of human thought. And I have a responsibility to society because of this, to share the fruits of my investigations, and to be a light-bearer to the world. You may not feel the pressure of this responsability Sapientia. But I do. I cannot abandon these people in the darkness. I cannot abandon a man like this:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html
A man who is suffering greatly, and who feels like he has to suffer like this - that it is just that his wife do something like this to him, and that it is just for him to bear under it. I am here to protect these people, who cannot protect themselves, because of their low self-esteem, because they are financially dependent, or any other reason. I am here to make sure that these people recieve the human dignity and respect that all human beings deserve, regardless of race, color, religious views, etc. We have to stand up to this communist propaganda and reclaim our historical values, which have allowed human civilization to become what it is today. And people have been decieved by the media for the following reason: it is only the communists who have been interested in joining the media and joining politics. Good men and women have thought that they don't need to get involved to combat the radicals - after all, they were radicals, no one was going to believe them. But this, as Plato put it in his Republic - is how what is harmful befalls society - when good men become apathetic to what is happening in the polis.
People have to understand that these Hollywood values are values which were NEVER agreed to in the whole history of human thought - not by believers, not by atheists, not by anyone. I mean we have universities in the Western world, where left-wing hate mobs drive out anyone who speaks about religious or conservative values. We have universities where 50% or more of student leaders are LGBT. There is nothing wrong with some student leaders being LGBT, BUT, how is it possible that in universities where 85% of the student population is heterosexual, there are so many homosexual/lgbt leaders? I tell you how it is possible - the heterosexuals are no longer interested in politics. But the progressives militantly send their people into politics. The same with good men and women generally. Hollywood is producing left-wing propaganda because good men have been driven out, by force, out of their acting careers, by progressive extremists. It is seen as un-cool in Western society to express admiration and respect for moral values. No, if you don't bow down your head to the immorality and social anarchy promoted by the communists, you are labeled as backwards, and oppressive. If you think women should respect their bodies, you are labelled as a mysoginist. If you think that babies should be protected in their mother's womb, you're labeled as oppressive, and against woman healthcare.
These that I wrote about here - these are the real problems of the future. Not global warming. Not the rich becoming richer. But these. These are single-handedly the culprits of the evil we see in society, and of the suffering that people go through. This is why, you have women in this world, who waste their lives in promiscuity till they are in their 30s, and their bodies can no longer handle it, and they have no one to care about them, they have no one to love them, they have no one to be there for them, to care for them. This is an utterly sad and evil society, which poisons its people, and then leaves them to die in misery, at best stuffed with some prozac. And instead of fighting the root cause of the problem, the communists look to provide free pay to these women when they can no longer work. Or they want to give them free mental healthcare - the type of mental healthcare which, after they have ruined themselves, tells them "oh don't worry honey, you did your best, you just didn't find the right people, etc. etc.". This is not mental healthcare, this is humiliation and perpetuation of misery. Even psychology is controlled by left-wing extremists. As if providing free pay or free healthcare can somehow undo the violence that mis-education has done to them. You have to understand Sapientia, that people in the US, and in Europe too (although things in Europe always happen after they happen in the US, we will notice them in 15 years time), are starting to see through this marxist propaganda. They are starting to realise how they have been decieved to ruin their lives. To care about their careers, and not about their moral values. To care about money, and not about forming loving relationships with those around them. And this is why people are so angry.
Donald Trump is right. We have to stop being politically correct - this is exactly what the Marxists want us to do. To be politically correct, so they can keep destroying society. Good men and women need to get involved in politics, to get involved in culture, and to speak out against vice and immorality, and for virtue - the future of our society rests on our shoulders.
What is this track record of horror, backwardness and oppression? 100 years of inquisition? What about the track record of secularism then? What about 100 years of communism? Count the number of people brutalised by the state, and this will make the Church seem as a small child!
And the separation of Church and State was relatively recent in history. The dominant role of the Church has a much longer history, and one which includes far more atrocities in the name of religion than the inquisition, so no, those committed in the name of Communism don't pale in comparison - they don't even compare. I think you need to read up on history, or read without blinkers.
I don't, but most people do. It is silly if you think that most people have the time and the intelligence required to discover moral right and wrong alone and by themselves without guidance. You don't expect people to discover Newton's laws of motion by themselves, why do you expect them to discover morality by themselves?? If science deserves to be taught in schools, then morality deserves to be taught EVEN MORE! So this progressive meme: "hurr hurr, we don't need religion to determine moral right and wrong, hurr hurr" is nothing but nonsense. It's like saying you don't need science textbooks to know and understand Newton's laws of motion. Yes you do!
Quoting Sapientia
Yes they do pale in comparison. You should be aware that without the Church, we wouldn't even have the society we do today. Single-handedly, the Church has probably been one of the most unifying forces in history. All the atrocities you cite (which by the way are mostly during the Inquisition, and are otherwise much fewer than you imagine) are mere footnotes to the good that the church has done.
Funny. We all have a conscience, and even young children demonstrate moral judgement and understanding. It stems primarily from empathy, not some Biblical text. You won't discover empathy from studying planetary motion.
Without having such an intuition, we would never be able to discover moral right and wrong, as we do through religion and philosophy, neither would we be able to perfect our characters.
The USSR was defeated. If by that you mean communism, then I guess it was. The idea of socialism was not defeated, as it existed and continues to exist throughout Europe. Whether socialism is an early form of communism is debatable, but certainly not something that has ever empirically occurred.
The truth is that all countries' economies exist on a spectrum, with some having little government control and few social security protections and some having more. The US is to the right of Sweden which is to the left of the UK. That the US has moved to the left isn't amazing, nor is it a triumph for Marxists.
Unless Congress excretes some sort of law, SCOTUS will have nothing to rule on.
You misinterpret what I meant.
The ideology of "communism" was defeated in people's minds with the fall of the USSR. That it happens that socialism is becoming mainstream after all the red scares and propaganda on the issue of "communism" and "socialism"after only twenty-five years is a testament to the remarkable human spirit.
I see the emergence of Bernie and Donald not to be a sign of the remarkable human spirit, but as evidence of the law of entropy in action. Why you can only see the left side of the ledger and not the right seems like selective analysis.
Why do you see Donald that way?
No, I think this is simply a testament to human stupidity and failure to learn from history :)
I also think that the US political system is incredibly conservative by design, with so many checks and balances, that in times of turbulence, you end up with preservation of the status quo. As long as the Dems and the Republicans remain so far apart, nothing happens.
That may be true politically, but culturally there has been a very large shift to the left. The left literarily dominates American culture. This is precisely why the media hates Trump but loves Bernie.
Are there no laws already on the books that can be taken to court and declared, or not declared, unconstitutional?
In recent times, outside of America, there has been a surge in right-wing parties across Europe, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise, especially given the migrant crisis.
Funny that you say that a man who has done so well in business is a buffoon. Trump has always stood up for greatness, for believing in people, and for doing great work. And before the usual objection comes that he has done terrible in business and if he had invested in S&P500 stocks he would have had more money today - maybe that is true, but don't forget that Trump isn't someone who sat on his wealth, he is someone who has been actively involved in wealth management. Even to KEEP such wealth when you're investing it left and right the way Trump has been, even THAT is a huge achievement.
Yes, which is exactly what I am predicting as well. People are getting sick of how much communism and socialism have hurt our societies. People want to live the good life, and living the good life requires strong morality, and a society which fosters family life and all the other virtues, including confidence, faithfulness, integrity, courage, commitment, love-of-neighbor, personal responsibility, and freedom - virtues which by the way are required for good economic achievement. In 50 years time, Europe will switch back completely to its traditional virtues, I predict. And we will have a new golden age, where people live happily together in communities bound by friendships between families, and where the goal ceases to be personal career achievement.
A ridiculous, ludicrous figure; a clown. I'd say that Trump fits the definition. Have you seen him on TV? Have you seen how he behaves and listened to what he has said? Have you read his controversial quotes?
One thing's for sure, he has done very well in inheriting and receiving a very large amount of money from daddy. But as for how well he has done in business, there's reason to doubt his oft presumed talent.
Quoting Agustino
:D
Sure, he believes in people. Unless you're one of those rapey Mexicans or terrorist Muslims or inferior blacks or pesky poor. Trump stands up for his vision of greatness. Trump needs to go to Specsavers.
Quoting Agustino
Oops, too late.
Quoting Agustino
Ok, well done, Trump. Have a scooby snack. There are some things that are more important than money, and in any case, there are plenty of other politicians with similar capabilities who don't share his vile opinions.
Quoting Agustino
No, in this case, the case of Europe, it has very little to do with communism and socialism, and it has much to do with ignorance, prejudice and an inward-looking attitude. It's the exact opposite of love-of-neighbor. It's the age-old vice of making a scapegoat out of Johnny Foreigner. They aren't voting for right-wing parties out of fear of a communist dystopia.
What is important to me is the tone of his comments. IF a potential candidate is willing to admit wanting to punch a protester in the face or urge his supporters to aggressively oust someone from a public meeting--when making debut appearances as a candidate--THEN it doesn't bode well for the sort of responses he might have to citizens who might object en masse to something he has done. It doesn't speak well for Trump to have rather casually insulted so many people.
I don't care that he's being politically crude, frank, honest, or incorrect. I have opinions that aren't politically correct too. What disturbs me is that his language suggests a leaning toward the style of fascism or gang politics. (Note, I didn't say he is a fascist; I said he leans toward the style of certain fascist dictators we have known and not loved. Maybe he is a fascist, but I don't have any evidence of that.)
He may sound out-landish and over the top with some things, but that's just how he is in the way he speaks. He simply talks that way, pure and simple, and anyone who has listened to his talks even before he ran for President knows this. I think overall he is a good man, he has defects, like all other people do, but I see nothing terribly malicious in him.
Quoting Sapientia
Agreed.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree, Trump encouraging violence at his rallies is something that is wrong. But that's not the whole man, so I'm willing to agree that this is something that is bad about Trump. There are also good things though, despite his encouragement of violence.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I wouldn't exactly go this far. He has shown a willingness to handle tough questions, and has not appeared to encourage violence against those who want to ask/argue. He has however encouraged violence against those who came there to disrupt his rallies and protest against him. He hasn't encouraged violence against everyone who disagrees with him, as a dictator would, but rather just those who interfere with his rallies. I guess, because he wants to keep the image of the tough guy, he wants to be totally in control of his rallies, and therefore wants to give a strong message to people: "don't interrupt my rallies". And in a way his point is correct (although using violence to make it is certainly wrong). People should not go to a rally meant to support a candidate in order to demean him. It's just rude. If you wanna protest, that's fine, but don't do it at a rally... the purpose of a rally is to support a candidate, not to have protests. So to a certain extent, people going there to protest were also asking for it. Nevertheless, I don't mean to ever justify the use of violence - he simply should not have encouraged violence. Ted Cruz, I believe, was right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmxBp4IFe_I
Trump is responsible for creating an environment that has encouraged violence from his supporters.
Pesky poor? He has never spoken ill of the poor as far as I'm aware. Nor has he spoken badly about the blacks - quite the contrary he has said that the African-American youth is having a lot of problems that they need help with. Additionally he has been endorsed by quite a few important black people, including Dr. Carson, Mike Tyson (who by the way is also Muslim!), etc.
As for the Muslim terrorists and the rapey Mexicans (not all Muslims and/or Mexicans, just those qualified by the respective adjectives)... would you be FOR such people?
If the rally was a private, ticketed event, not open to the public, fine. It would be rude to go and disrupt it. However, if it is a public rally with doors open to all comers, then disruption through normal protest activity is appropriate--but limited to normal protest -- holding signs, asking unpleasant questions, chanting, etc. Anything beyond that (hitting, shooting, kicking, stomping, beating on people) is wrong.
Would you have disrupted Hitler's rallies by appropriate protest actions, assuming you wouldn't have minded being taken out and shot afterwards?
No. I wouldn't disrupt anyone's rally. I would try to organise a different rally for protesters. Or, I would write and speak to people about my views, but not at the candidates' rally. Holding signs and asking questions is okay - but screaming, chanting, etc. is just rude at a rally which is meant to be for support.
Exactly. He talks and acts like a buffoon, and that gives me cause for concern, pure and simple. This is a potential president of the United States, for goodness sake. I don't believe it's all bluster, hot air and attention-seeking rhetoric. I think he has shown his true colours.
Quoting Agustino
Then you aren't looking hard enough. But even if there were no malice, well intentioned damage is not desirable, and damage is what he'd bring about. The greatness of some at the expense of others. I feel for the minority groups that he has targeted. They have a hard enough time as it. The last thing they need is him adding to their troubles.
Quoting Agustino
There's interview footage of him in 1999 calling them morons, and more recently, he said that poor people shouldn't play golf, but should aspire to be able to one day afford the privilege. Also, I know that he takes the typical hardline right-wing view on welfare, and I can't see him cracking down on big businesses and supporting workers.
Quoting Agustino
Pah ha ha! This Dr. Carson? And the disgraced brute and convicted rapist Mike Tyson?
Trump refused to condemn actions taken and comments made by the Ku Klux Klan and one of its former leaders.
Quoting Agustino
Of course not, but unlike Trump, I don't tar them all with the same brush, and I don't endorse proposals which would unjustly discriminate against them.
I don't think this is buffoon behavior quite frankly. His way of talking is quite effective at convincing people, and making people feel good. I wouldn't associate effectiveness with buffoonery.
Quoting Sapientia
Illegal immigrants should be out of the country though. The law is the law, and it must be respected. That's what justice is no? If someone does wrong and breaks the law, they deserve to be punished, and failing to punish them is a failure to do justice.
Quoting Sapientia
Okay, but I don't take any of these remarks as seriously as you seem to. You seem to take what is a small matter and make it into something huge. Many of the remarks he has made are in specific contexts and have to be treated as such. Also you should remember that here is a man who often exaggerates when he speaks. Also you forget that he has said that people who can't take care of themselves must be taken care of - and that includes those who, because of poverty related circumstances, are unable to work.
Quoting Sapientia
Ummm what is wrong with Dr. Carson? I don't think Russell Brand has a point, he has totally missed the argument that Carson was making. And I agree with Carson - family is a pillar of society, and marriage is a religious institution, and should not be altered. Civil unions, etc. should be used for homosexual people, but marriage should remain, as it has traditionally been, a religious institution between a man and a woman. And this is not homophobic, and should not be made fun of. This humiliation of traditional views by the progressive media, especially by comedians, is extremely harmful. These people should understand that these are serious matters - not the stuff to make jokes about, or to laugh at people about. The fact that someone like Russell Brand treats this subject like this is morally reprehensible. I could likewise proceed to make fun of him for his lack of sufficient neurons to understand what homophobia is, and how homophobia is different from thinking that homosexual sex is wrong, or that marriage is a religious institution which must have religious laws.
Again - the fact that these people fail to respect conservatives, and to treat them with the dignity worthy of a human being, and to treat them as intelligent people, without insinuating that they are oppressive, or stupid etc. is very degrading. That's why we live in a society which is intolerant of conservative values, and conservative thinking. It's simply not cool to be a conservative because of what people like Russell Brand repeatedly do. So the only option is that us conservatives start making fun of, and degrading progressives, in the same way they are degrading us. There is no other way to win against this, because what is happening is that conservative views are discredited rhethorically, by making fun of them, which insinuates that conservative points aren't even worth thinking about seriously. This is the worst kind of assault that can happen on a piece of thinking. This is what Sophists do, and this is indeed buffoon behavior; instead of attacking the argument rationally, one makes fun of it, in an attempt to thereby brush it to the side.
Quoting Sapientia
Precisely because he is a brute, but he is also black, and Muslim, you would not expect him to support Trump a priori.
Quoting Sapientia
He did condemn them. He disavowed their support.
Quoting Sapientia
Depends. I've talked about this with quite a few Muslim friends, the thing is, a country, should ultimately have a right to decide who comes inside their borders, and they should be able to discriminate however they want. Of course citizens of the country should all be treated equally, but the people who come inside the country? I believe a country should be free to decide. I also believe that America banning Muslims would be ultimately America's loss, and even Trump has only proposed a temporary ban of Muslims who aren't citizens.
This one's worth a watch too. More so, perhaps. (Scroll down for the video).
This is indeed more to making a point. I still find the Russell insinuation that O'Reily is racist based on the way he has phrased his points to be sophistic, and should not be done. Because O'Reily simply hasn't made any racist statement, and why should anyone insinuate that he has? Sure, his words, if you're really crooked about it, can be viewed as such, but it's not the most plausible interpretation.
That there are poor black communities which have problems, largely because crime is more prominent in those regions (mainly due to poverty, and cultural reasons), so even policemen are generally more paranoid when dealing with them, is true, and it's something we should do something about. It must be a slow effort of integrating such communities through education.
The particular case brought forward is indeed unfortunate, that a black unarmed teenager was shot, probably for no real reason. Such mistakes can happen, but, ultimately, the policeman who has done this should bear responsibility for his actions if such a thing happens. That's why we have laws in countries, so that something wrong gets punished.
Overall, I fail to see how this really does anything to discredit Carson. Carson is just doing the right thing in his speech: there is an investigation going on, to prove the initial information recieved (namely that the teenager was unarmed, he did not pose a danger by threatening anyone, etc.), and then decide what must be done. Any person has no possibility of knowing, a priori, what the answer will be. So someone speaking about the case should take the cautious approach that Carson is taking.
The next point Russell makes, that somehow because historical issues relating to oppression have made the black community to react violently, etc. is true. But this in no way justifies the violence, and in no way does it justify not applying the law. Breaking the law must be punished, regardless of why the law was broken. Sure the people may have been oppressed. Still - this does not mandate that they kill others, that they break shops, etc. etc. Breaking the law still remains breaking the law.
Just on this last point: Russell himself says in the video that the violent reaction isn't justified, but he does say that, given the context, it's understandable and practically inevitable. I also don't recall him saying anything about not applying the law. He does make some good points about the angle with which they - Fox News and Co. - frame the issue, and their hidden agenda, and rightly questions whether they'd be consistent if the tables were turned.
And I mean, what would you do in that situation if you were Carson? I would have a similar cautious stand on the issue. One cannot start blaming the policeman who shot the person prior to the investigation. Has Fox framed the issue in a biased way? Possibly but I cant say this betrays a hidden agenda unless I see it consistently happen. I don't follow Fox, so I wouldnt know.
Justice is a concept that is more fundamental than the bare idea of respecting the law; for if justice reduced to that, then the very idea of an unjust law would be incoherent. I think some of the Republican presidential candidates were aware of the need to reform immigration law until Trump came along with his poisonous rhetoric, and they suddenly felt uncomfortable standing on his left.
On edit: It seems that John Kasich, to his considerable credit, resisted the pressure, though.
Yes, still, it is just that illegal immigration is wrong, so it follows that this, being a just law, must be enforced adequately.
Some law may be deemed "just" only in the sense that it proscribes an action that can reasonably be considered unjust on independent grounds (and/or because it institutes fairness for all concerned), while the prescribed penalty -- e.g. forced deportation and breakup of families, in this case -- is unjust due to its excessiveness, or due to an excessively long prescription period, or the lack of any such period.
So you're telling me that I should license the breaking of the law for people who are smart enough to commit to actions, under cover, which makes them very difficult to remove from society, such as illegal immigrants getting married, and having children on American soil? If I license such behavior, then we will have no more laws.
The same as finding all sorts of ways to license immoral behavior, because the consequences of not licensing it are too harsh. This is nonsense. It's not practical, and it removes the legitimacy and power of the law.
So long as the penalty produces the desired deterrence effect, there is no need to increase its severity further than that, except maybe as a means for the legislator to obtain political gain through demagoguery. Deporting families that have been long established and that may have contributed positively to society may be a penalty that is unnecessarily draconian and that harms society more than the marginal gain from the enhanced deterrence effect would justify.
You are suggesting that it's not practical for there to be prescription periods for some forms of offence. But it is quite commonplace, seems to work, and can minimise harm to society. It's also quite unclear that illegal immigration qualifies as immoral. In some cases, it may be a vital necessity. So, I don't see there to be a slippery slope towards licensing immoral behavior.
Agreed.
Quoting Pierre-Normand
What use is a nice, tall building if the foundation is corrupt? This must be an example to all that the law must be followed.
Quoting Pierre-Normand
I can see this working for some issues and not working for others.
Quoting Pierre-Normand
This is not legislating morality, but rather following the laws of a country. Illegal immigration is harmful because 1. it breaks the laws of the country, 2. it disrespects the country and the authority of the law, 3. it promotes disobedience. Therefore, illegal immigration is always wrong - even if you're running away from North Korea it's wrong so long as the country you're running to doesn't want to accept you legally. If that country had said for example, that it's willing to accept refugees, etc. it's a different story.
Suppose there would be a 20 years prescription period (maybe assorted with some other restrictions, such as the lack of a criminal record, say). It seems unlikely to me that a prospective illegal immigrant would chose to move to the USA with the hope not to get caught during the next 20 years, but would cancel her plan if there were no prescription period. Maybe there will be a precious few that would be thus influenced, but likely not enough of them to justify the harm caused to society by the forced deportation of scores of long established individuals and families.
This seems to imply that, on your view, some people's choice not to suffer and die miserably is wrong because their only means to avoiding an undeserved death constitutes a misdemeanor and is disrespectful of the law. Or maybe you just mean "wrong" pro tanto.
Okay, agreed, I see your point.
Quoting Pierre-Normand
Indeed, I mean it is wrong only in-so-far as they are breaking the law. Of course people have a right to take sensible and reasonable actions to sustain their own lives and well-being. Such a sensible action, may be seeking to escape an oppressive country which will, sooner or later, kill you anyway. But the country you are running to, has a right to refuse you - they don't have to refuse you, and mercy should be shown, but nevertheless, you have to understand that you don't have a right to be accepted by that country - it would be a privilege, not a right. With the recent refugee crisis, etc. etc. too many people seem to think they are entitled to be accepted. For example, refugees come to the borders of European soil, and literarily demand to be accepted. That's not right. They can ask to be accepted, but they cannot kill themselves on our borders, starve themselves to death and so forth in an effort to force us to accept them. That is wrong. It's like me going to the Saudi Arabian borders, and demanding that I be let in, lest I shall starve myself on their borders and show the whole world how inhuman they are for not accepting me. Emotional blackmail is wrong.
Quoting Agustino
If I were Carson, I would take a long, hard look in the mirror. His caution is selective. He wasn't cautious in his choice of comparison between homosexuality and beastiality, nor with his choice of analogy between a basic mathematical summation and a controversial social issue.
I would be cautious to an extent, but I would also speak my mind. One can at the least generalise and speak about the wider issue and express scepticism or cynicism regarding yet another suspicious occurrence.
I agree with it in this sense. I don't agree with understandable in the sense of saying that they should be forgiven.
Quoting Sapientia
When talking about moral matters and teaching a moral lesson, it is different than when having to take a stand on an issue that is still being played out in the world no?
That seems like a hasty and ill-considered judgement. Forgiveness should be conditional, and they should be granted at least that much. But even if they are unrepentant, their actions should be judged in light of the circumstances and context. They would certainly pale in comparison to the alleged long-term endemic and institutional racial injustice, as well as it's dire consequences, which seems to be being wilfully overlooked or dealt with softly by those in power.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but you're too generous towards Carson. His bias is more than apparent in the ways in which he speaks about certain issues. Granted, you said that you don't follow Fox, so you might not have seen enough to know that it's ridiculously biased (and Carson is a sort of Fox lackey or puppet or mouthpiece who willingly whores himself), but then I don't follow Fox either. You don't need to see much of it. It's as clear as day. Unless, that is, you're foolish enough to fall for it and only see what you want to see.
Yes, forgiven after they face the consequences that the law requires them to face for committing acts of violence etc. Not forgiven in the sense of not being punished for what they've done.
As for racial issues dealt with softly by those in power. I'm not quite sure Sapientia. I have a family friend whose brother goes to a prestigious US university. Sometime this year they had an incident there, where some anonymous student said on a public university chat group "back to the cornfields" regarding black people. The person was identified later by the administration, and expelled. That to me, is not dealing with a racial issue softly at all. It's perhaps dealing with it much more harshly than I think it should be dealt with. The person they expelled is right now probably going to only feel even more justified in his beliefs: what has happened, has proven him correct in his mind - namely that the black people have gotten too much power. This, combined with the fact that his being expelled will probably put severe constraints on his life, has literarily ensured that this man will hate black people. And this is unfortunate.
I would say that the same problem exists with the severity academia treats other issues, such as plagiarism. These are issues that are important to our young people, and they should be addressed. We live in a society which cannot be honest about what affects us. We cannot honestly speak about what should be done with people who are racist, because unless we take the absolutist, hard-line stance, we're labelled racist ourselves, or otherwise encouraging racism. This is a serious problem, and it's not doing any good for black people either - it's in fact only preserving the discrimination and/or hatred.
Agreed. Do you think illegal immigrants should be allowed to freely come in whenever they want?
What I find amazing is how many people do not know the difference between Socialism and Social Democracy.
Here's a useful link: https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social-democracy-whats-the-difference/
Socialism vs Social Democracy — What’s The Difference?
One is about collective ownership of the means of production;
the other about organic social solidarity with private ownership of production.
One is restrictive;
the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical (excessively abstract reasoning);
the other empirical (demonstrable, verifiable reasoning).
One is dogmatic;
the other scientific.
One is emotional;
the other reflective.
One is destructive;
the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
– One aims to establish happiness for all;
– the other to enable each to be happy in one’s own way.
The first regards the State as a society “sui generis,” of a unique essence, the product of a right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences;
the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed no better and no more efficient than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State;
the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State;
the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class;
the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
– The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions;
– the second teaches that repression alone turns political evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm;
the second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
One wishes that there should be none but proletariats;
the other wishes that there should be no more proletariats.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody;
the second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody;
the other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: Do as the government wishes;
the second says: Do as you wish yourself.
The former threatens with despotism;
the latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State;
the latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world;
the other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war;
the other believes only in works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate;
the other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions;
the other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail;
the other will succeed.
One desires equality; the other seeks equity.
– The first by lowering heads that are too high;
– the other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke;
the other will secure equity in complete liberty.
One is intolerant;
the other tolerant.
One frightens;
the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to instruct one’s self.
The first wishes to support everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to support one’s self.
One says:
– The land to the State
– The mine to the State
– The tool to the State
– The product to the State
The other says:
– The land to the cultivator.
– The mine to the miner.
– The tool to the laborer.
– The product to the producer.
One is the infancy of Socialism;
the other is its manhood.
One is already the past;
the other is the future.
One will give way to the other…
Meow!
GREG
As a general principle, I think people should be able to go where they want.
I agree, so long that this is done legally, in a way that enables communities and countries to protect themselves.
For example, I don't disagree with B. Sanders that women should be free to decide whether or not to have an abortion. But I disagree with the fact that he doesn't emphasise the moral nature of this question (ie, which is the right choice to make?), which is beyond the question of whether women should have this freedom or not (coincidentally, many people just like me would never support Sanders for this reason). Of course freedom should exist, otherwise moral excellence becomes impossible. But, people need to recieve a moral education, regarding how it is good to use their freedom for themselves and for their fellow citizens. Giving freedom without moral education regarding how that freedom ought to be used is alike giving a child a gun with a bullet inside. So I cannot encourage people to vote Sanders - he is giving children guns, without educating them to first drop childish things and become adults.
Quoting Hanover
The political pendulum in the US has been on the right for quite a while. But, one thing I don't understand is the hatred against Obama from particularly the right. I don't recall such reactions even from the left against Bush. Many people simply folded up their political ideology and placed national security as a higher priority than their personal goals (post 9/11)...
Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself.
But, I have to ask, as you sound Hegelian in these posts. Do you really think that Trump and Sanders are a reaction to Obama or rather the inherent conservatism, as you've pointed out, built into the U.S.' political system?
Obama has been a great President?? No way. More like one of the worst Presidents in US history - he has literarily not done anything while in office. Congress has. The Democratic Party has. But Obama? Absolutely nothing. The rest of the world doesn't respect Obama, I can tell you that. His one and only achievement is that he became President. That's it. He's done nothing else.
Ending two wars isn't an achievement? Closing GitMo? Introducing comprehensive healthcare reform?
Are you high on the right wing meme themes?
Ending two disastrous wars in an even more disastrous way that has left the Middle East in tatters and gave rise to ISIS...
Quoting Question
ObamaCare has done absolutely terrible for people, and has greatly diminished the quality of services.
I'm sorry to say; but, you sound brainwashed. Just sayin.
Do you disagree that the way the US ended the Iraq war facilitated ISIS's rise to power in the region? Do you not think that if the US had retreated more slowly, and promoted more stability in the region, today we would all be better off?
Also, what do you think of the millions of Americans who are disappointed with ObamaCare?
Then you have a very short memory.
Quoting Question
My recollection is that in the second mid-term elections the Democrats suffered historic losses to the Republicans in the House, Senate, Governorships, and state legislatures. http://ktla.com/2014/11/05/election-results-republicans-seize-senate-gaining-full-control-of-congress/
Quoting Question
I think everything is a reaction to something else. If that's Hegelian, fine, but I think it just speaks more to cause and effect. The conservatism I mentioned references the low level of power any one person or branch has in the US system and the very difficult path to pass a law that exists. Obamacare passed only because the Democrats had a brief moment of total control of both houses and the presidency, and it passed without a single Republican vote. It takes that sort of line up to get anything controversial done, and even then, because of the very close margins, it had to be created in a way that satisfied almost every Democrat. As I recall, the single payer option was defeated because Senator Leiberman didn't want it and the Democrats didn't have any votes to spare.
The good news is that you don't see major swings when the other guy is in charge. It's for that reason that I really don't think that Trump will matter. He will either start compromising or he'll become powerless. It's not like he can just impose his will everywhere without any checks or balances, especially since many in his own party reject him.