Under Trump

[liminal_luke]

No, I mean those who have no intent or interest in helping to heal but instead sustain and grow their own personal power by keeping a population like fish on a stringer.

 

Yeah, I probably shouldn`t pick on chemotherapy.  I`ll admit, I`ve got something of a knee-jerk reaction against such medicine but I think there`s healing intent -- and actual healing in many cases.  

 

The situation you describe is a dire one, and you rightly object to it.  I don`t doubt that it exists.  And maybe there`s kind of a catch 22: some groups cloak themselves in a mantle of righteousness (not discriminating unjustly against others) as a way to disguise evil --and if you point it out you can come off, to some, like a supporter of bigotry.

 

To avoid any such twisted confusion from the get-go, I`ll ask a root question: do you believe that racism and sexism exist and that they are social problems?

[Aetherous]

We`ve gotten so polarized with some people objecting to infection and claiming the fever is never harmful, while others object to the fever and claim the infection doesn`t exist. The wise physician, I think, acknowledges both.

 

I think of it more like this: every once in a while, the body gets a paper cut or a small draw of blood (cases of genuine racism or sexism, rather than cases where that accusation is made).

 

In the past, there was a very large wound, which we collectively healed, leaving a scar (representing our knowledge that there used to be genuine racism or sexism on a large scale...for instance, there used to be slaves of another race, women used to not be allowed to vote, etc).

 

One group currently screams about there being an enormous wound, while the other group knows it's just a small cut (that it's the rare individual doing the wrong thing, who is justly dealt with). Of course the wound no longer exists.

 

The screaming group points the finger way too often, at nearly everyone who doesn't think like them. For instance, disagreeing with the concept of white privilege making a person a racist. Or pointing out that in your experience women earn just as much if not more than men, despite what random statistics claim, makes you a misogynist.

 

Furthermore, name calling is a sign of a weak mind. Lump someone into a box that conveniently makes it easy to disregard them, rather than understand or listen to them.

 

While I personally almost didn't vote for Trump due to the 10 year old private comment, I also understand that there's much more to a Presidential election than a popularity contest. It's not about who can speak the most polite and smile the best...it's about policy related to more important things like global terrorism, the national economy, education, attempting to get known corruption out of politics, etc.

 

What I've seen in this election...SLANDER. Where someone says that Trump said something he didn't...for instance, people thinking he's racist against Mexicans or Muslims (which isn't a race, btw). The left created a straw man argument there, and anyone with half a brain saw through it.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Aetherous

[blackstar212]

No, I mean those who have no intent or interest in helping to heal but instead sustain and grow their own personal power by keeping a population like fish on a stringer.

Yes Republicans and Democrats they are both on the same team.

[dawei]

What I've seen in this election...SLANDER. Where someone says that Trump said something he didn't...for instance, people thinking he's racist against Mexicans or Muslims (which isn't a race, btw). The left created a straw man argument there, and anyone with half a brain saw through it.

 

I basically agree with your point and this example can be viewed from either side as there are some things he said that obviously triggered people...  but what surprised me the most is that the pre-election claims that the 'right' would cause violence and hatred if Trump lost, we instead are getting it from the 'left' folks who made those claims... and their outrage seems... quite outrageous on some level.  But everyone needs to deal with their life in their own way.  I'm just one of them, as many have said in interviews: He won and its time to move on; what's next... get to it...

[Brian]

Yeah, I probably shouldn`t pick on chemotherapy. I`ll admit, I`ve got something of a knee-jerk reaction against such medicine but I think there`s healing intent -- and actual healing in many cases.

 

The situation you describe is a dire one, and you rightly object to it. I don`t doubt that it exists. And maybe there`s kind of a catch 22: some groups cloak themselves in a mantle of righteousness (not discriminating unjustly against others) as a way to disguise evil --and if you point it out you can come off, to some, like a supporter of bigotry.

 

To avoid any such twisted confusion from the get-go, I`ll ask a root question: do you believe that racism and sexism exist and that they are social problems?

Undoubtedly. We are, biologically speaking, discriminating engines. The primordial survival instincts of the human animal are rooted in distinguishing between friend and foe. Recent studies in early childhood development suggest that threat recognition begins to develop before mobility or language, and that classification as similar or dissimilar is one of the first forms of decision-making to emerge in small children. The question is not whether this is innate but how we teach our young to use this ability (or, more sinisterly, whether "we" pretend to deny it in order to leverage it as a subconscious pry-point...)

[blackstar212]

I basically agree with your point and this example can be viewed from either side as there are some things he said that obviously triggered people...  but what surprised me the most is that the pre-election claims that the 'right' would cause violence and hatred if Trump lost, we instead are getting it from the 'left' folks who made those claims... and their outrage seems... quite outrageous on some level.  But everyone needs to deal with their life in their own way.  I'm just one of them, as many have said in interviews: He won and its time to move on; what's next... get to it...

Yes big money has won. The people have been polarized and do not see the truth. They pick right or left when really it does not exist.

[MooNiNite]

right and left definitely existed in this election. 

[Aetherous]

Yes big money has won.

 

I really question that. Hillary was the big money candidate. Appointing people who worked at Goldman Sachs, being a businessman, having an Exxon CEO doesn't mean you're going to operate a big money (in politics and economy) administration.

[blackstar212]

I really question that. Hillary was the big money candidate. Appointing people who worked at Goldman Sachs, being a businessman, having an Exxon CEO doesn't mean you're going to operate a big money (in politics and economy) administration.

both are the big money candidates that is where people got duped. You will see mark my words spend spend spend

[Aetherous]

both are the big money candidates that is where people got duped. You will see mark my words spend spend spend

 

Time will tell!

[Aetherous]

Ibut what surprised me the most is that the pre-election claims that the 'right' would cause violence and hatred if Trump lost, we instead are getting it from the 'left' folks who made those claims...

It's always the case that what we think and say about others applies primarily to ourselves. Takes a rare person to see this about themselves.

[Brian]

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/505860058/obama-warns-trump-against-relying-on-executive-power

[MooNiNite]

big money lost!!! are you kidding the entire mainstream media was against trump

 

HIllary's entire campaign was paid for by rich corporate powers. 

[blackstar212]

Time will tell!

Yes the billionaires will enact laws that take money out of their pockets and allow the middle class to grow at their expense........the plutocrats have sealed themselves into power.

[blackstar212]

big money lost!!! are you kidding the entire mainstream media was against trump

 

HIllary's entire campaign was paid for by rich corporate powers.

You have been duped and buying into nonsense. Goldman Sachs 1 the people 0

 

Billionaires wanted direct power not a surrogate. They now have it.

[Aetherous]

Yes the billionaires will enact laws that take money out of their pockets and allow the middle class to grow at their expense........the plutocrats have sealed themselves into power.

If they were smart, they'd realize that money in the pockets of the middle class can only make their businesses more profitable.

[blackstar212]

If they were smart, they'd realize that money in the pockets of the middle class can only make their businesses more profitable.

they are going to change labor laws to make themselves more money.they want the USA to be like Mexico

[Brian]

they are going to change labor laws to make themselves more money.they want the USA to be like Mexico

I thought Mexico was a shining example of the socialist utopia "Progressives" claim the USA should aspire to emulate but now you make it sound like a bad thing?

 

Perhaps more like Venezuela, then? I hear they've done good things with their economy in recent years.

[blackstar212]

I thought Mexico was a shining example of the socialist utopia "Progressives" claim the USA should aspire to emulate but now you make it sound like a bad thing?

 

Perhaps more like Venezuela, then? I hear they've done good things with their economy in recent years.

Of course I make it sound like a bad thing. I am progressive not a fake. There is little middle class in Mexico which disqualifies it as a utopia. Utopia for the rich perhaps.

 

Mexico had the wealthiest person in the world for quite the time. Sounds nothing like a socialist paradise to me.

Edited December 21, 2016 by blackstar212

[Brian]

Of course I make it sound like a bad thing. I am progressive not a fake. There is little middle class in Mexico which disqualifies it as a utopia. Utopia for the rich perhaps.

 

Mexico had the wealthiest person in the world for quite the time. Sounds nothing like a socialist paradise to me.

Perhaps you could point out one? It seems each one I investigate has abandoned their founding principles or is living on the largess of a previous generation or becomes a hellhole. I must be looking in the wrong places.

[Brian]

I'm confused, too, about this idea of a strong middle class being essential to the socialist utopia. I thought the objective was a classless homogeneous proletariat (affectionately called Proles in some circles...)

 

All animals are equal, and all that?

[blackstar212]

I'm confused, too, about this idea of a strong middle class being essential to the socialist utopia. I thought the objective was a classless homogeneous proletariat (affectionately called Proles in some circles...)

 

All animals are equal, and all that?

all depends on the definitions of what exactly is socialist. It appears as usual there is polarization on the definition.

 

I consider Norway, Denmark, Canada to be socialist among others. Others disagree.

 

Communism as described in Karl Marx's communist manifesto has never existed. It is a lie put out by the authoritarians (big money) to control the people.

[Brian]

all depends on the definitions of what exactly is socialist. It appears as usual there is polarization on the definition.

 

I consider Norway, Denmark, Canada to be socialist among others. Others disagree.

 

Communism as described in Karl Marx's communist manifesto has never existed. It is a lie put out by the authoritarians (big money) to control the people.

I am curious -- are you aware of how Marx explained the distinction between "communism" and "socialism" when asked why he and Engels switched from the former term to the latter?

[mvingon]

"Perhaps you could point out one?"

 

Carlos Slim, check out his FTC records, or search news. He doesn't even employ Mexicans, because Filipinos work cheaper, and don't deviate from the script.

[mvingon]

England was social Democrat, till Tony became Bush's lapdog.