Karl

He said he would deport ILLEGAL Mexicans/Muslims so why not stop trying to create hate/fear where none need exist ? Illegal - have you understanding of that word ?

I hope it doesn't go the way of division that we are experiencing post Brexit. A divided country is not a happy country.

It's simple 'walk soft and carry a big stick' that's what presidents do. You aren't going to make friends with Assad, Gaddafi or Saddam by bombing the shit out of their countries. Presidents prefer peace to war, but the point of a president being the chief of an army is to project strength not friendship. Friendships are not personal, they are expedient alliances.

Nope, what dismantles barriers is free trade between people in different countries. Presidents are leaders of an army, they might well act like ambassadors, but ultimately they represent the armed might of the nation.

If we wish to know the person at the top of the pyramid we need only look in the mirror.

There is much in what you say that I agree. If his economic policies are as he has stated in his campaign then they are protectionist and statist ( infrastructure make work schemes like the New deal era). I certainly wouldn't be concerned about Mexicans hating him, nor Russians liking him, the USA doesn't need friends, only allies that respect for its defences and enemies that fear them. There is also the small matter of the GOP holding power - the false binary party politics is still the elite establishment and can still block anything he wants to do. Time will tell if he can really make America great again, but he deserves an opportunity to try.

See everyone as an individual and not a collective. Judge and prepared to be judged. Everyone equal under an objective law.

:-)

Read 'Mobocracy' if you want to understand this phenomenon. Polls are used to get across messages. It has been this way since Edward Bernays saw how the crowd could be utiled. However, what seems to have been misunderstood is the contribution the Internet has made to breaking down the old messaging systems predicated on newspapers and the television. It is not so much the case that he who has the money controls the country, but he who has the media-music, social media, publishing, tv, radio, films-that controls the country. This is the reason why politicians are desperate to shackle the Internet for their own purposes. Those that grasp the power of this relatively recent phenomena can message in a way never considered possible.

Imagine Marine LePen for France happening !

Burned up what little credibility remained.

It's only one man, the republicans are still the establishment personified. However, it's undeniable that it shines a more positive light on Brexit. No more 'back of the Q' Obamarisms. Trump is far more welcoming of Brexit as a parallel to his win. The deplorables might now get the respect we should have had before Brexit and realise that this is a movement that won't be stopped by elites using the judiciary to try and water down Brexit.

Brexit redux

It's simple. He mirrored the actual voters by expressing what they wanted to say. By this method he whipped up the crowd. He became the crowd. He has a personality, when he is speaking he sounds just like a regular person but magnified through a bullhorn. Despite the continued attacks, indeed because of them - basket of deplorables, mysogenist, racist, stupid-he outed Clinton as a snob and elitist. There are more working class Joes than there are elites. He used a simple message, just like Obama and he tailored it. "Make America great-again" " crooked Hillary" "drain the swamp" mixed with the releases of wiki and the secret server, plus the Clintons dynamic legacy, eventually that message broke through.

It means discovering reason, we have many generations that have not discovered it. Change the philosophy, it's the only way. This must be done through the intellectuals and academics-those that have not discovered reason must discover it.

Mysogenist ? He shows no sign of it. He's married with two daughters, kind of hard to get away with being a mysogenist in those circumstances. He has plenty of women working for him and happily promotes women. He doesn't treat women like some special protected species either. He is as nasty about Rubio as he was about Clinton-equality.

Good fences mean good neighbours.

Act morally. Don't initiate violence against people who are not an existential threat, don't lie about people, don't steal from people, don't ask others to steal on your behalf, don't demand values you haven't earned, nor demand values for other people who haven't earned them. Don't be your brothers keeper, nor expect him to be yours.

I would add the caveat that they should withdraw their military where it is in unnecessary conflict with other nations that do not directly threaten the USA. The problem for the US is its 'war on terror' as no such thing is possible. A war is a specific violent action against a specific enemy threat with the aim of removing that threat. Terror is the action of a nation against its own people. A war on terror is a nation fighting a war against its own policies. Hence the war the American military is fighting is really a war against its own people - which, following the recent election revelations is now very obvious.

Might be a lot more than a wall. He maybe indicating some advanced, integrated kind of multiple security-it could even be offensive and be mined.

That's only if you believe in God. I find it neither compassionate, nor loving, indeed absolutely the opposite.

Got a PDF ?

There is no chase, interpret the writing as you see fit Brian. Ive presented my interpretation of the underlying philosophy. You can accept it or not. :shrug: If I'm asked to compare against objectivism then sure I would, but that's not what this thread is about, except where Jeff asked me specifically about my own beliefs regarding control of the universe and so I have to answer that as an objectivist.

Except that isn't what I'm doing. I'm interpreting what is being said in a philosophical sense. So, you can either accept that interpretation or not, I don't particularly care either way and that isn't in any sense pushing anyone towards objectivism-which, by the way, I would expect anyone reading objectivist philosophy to read with discrimination.

That's an interpretation Jeff, my reading of it comes directly from stoic philosophy and so I'm relating to it in that context. As I said, it's up to everyone to make a judgement. I'm certainly not in control of the universe. As I have said many time 'to transform nature, man must first obey nature'. Nature applies to man as to every other thing in the universe. Mans nature is to reason because he has to. He is a volitional entity with a volitional consciousness. You are wrong, but you are reading in the context that you see it with regard to apathy. This is why I mentioned Gods will, a deterministic universe of which man is a small piece of God, like a finger serves the body (in stoic parlance). Mans reason is applied only to doing his duty and therefore achieving happiness by that duty. This is virtue for virtues sake and not for any other kind of gain. Everything is directed towards the soul, the internal spiritual and so this is what is meant by 'the nobler self', but if you wish to read into it a less rigorous outward kind of achievement then that's up to you. I could produce several quotes which would be unambiguous if you need confirmation of my interpretation, however if you read it in the sense you are taking it then that's fine by me, it's your reading of it and you must integrate it. It's rather like me trying to tell you about a wine and the matching food, it's my interpretation from experience, so if you find the wine suits your taste with something different, then that's your choice.