Trump

[Mightysword]

What did Trump promise them that neither Republicans or Democrats didnt? Did he deliver?

He delivered something far more specific than like I said, a vision of lala land. To give you a few examples:


- Obama won Belmont County, in the coal country along the Ohio River, in his first election. It shifted to Romney in 2012, and on Tuesday Trump won almost 70 per cent of the vote.

- Across Ohio, nearly half of all voters said international trade hurts the country’s jobs situation, and two-thirds of them backed Trump. Two-thirds of the state’s voters said the job situation in Ohio had deteriorated or remained static over the past four years, and three-quarters of them voted for Trump.

Source: why did the Rust Belt voted for Trump

And before you turn into a debate about these quote itself, let's me pre-emtive and say it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, that you think their belief is right or wrong. This was how people think, so Trump's message strike a lot closer to home. At least, sure hell a lot closer than Obama's word to Romney in his debate saying "those jobs are gone Governor, they're not coming back". Sure, it is easy to generally promise people "I gonna make your life better". Trump's message went one step further by saying "this is how I gonna do it!". He even got bonus point when the message already click with what people perceived as their problem.


Did Trump deliver? Well, he tried. Whether it does anything is up to time and debate. But people still have a better bet on him over someone who would do nothing, you can't blame people taking that bet. And btw, I'm some sort of an environmentalist, just happen to be one who can also think objectively.

So maybe idealistic, or maybe realistic, - I think I'd vote for him to find out. The government here is not set up to cut through bs and break down each policy and promise ahead of time; then hold politicians accountable.

The point is, it is so unrealistic I don't have to vote for him to find out. If I was able to vote in the Democrat primary, I would vote for Hilary. She does have a more balance and centrist campaign than to be Sanders.

But if the Trump voters see his ideas as unrealistic, that is an explanation why they dont care for any of his messages.

New flash: I didn't vote for Trump, and as you can see I don't care for Sanders message. Sure, if someone gonna run his platform 100 years from now, and if one - I'm still alive, two - our position will be a lot better than it is now (hopefully) than maybe I'll give it a thought. But yes, his message during the year of 2016 is just a bunch on idealistic nonsense.

Forgot which episode it is, but I remember there was one in Star Trek where Picard hosted a couple of 21st centuries celebrities who were obsessed with wealth and such. He told them this is the 24th century, material need is no longer a concern, and you live for the sake of self-enrichment. But yeah, that's 24th century, not now.

Oh come on. Trump version of a Democrat needs to be someone who would call for imprisonment of Republicans when he gets into power - and print it on all the hats. That will be at least an honorable beginning, for me to even consider awarding that title.

I'm simply talking about policy wise, in term of how far it is to the right and to the left.

I'm not talking about the etiquette side of thing, because surely there isn't a need for debate? I don't want to do something THAT pointless

[BugMeister]

why do you bother to debate the situation..
THE RUSSIANS STOLE YOUR ELECTION..!!

"Trumpism" was their tool..
- and it still is..!!

- you MUST correct the mistake..

[Mightysword]

why do you bother to debate the the situation..
THE RUSSIANS STOLE YOUR ELECTION..!!

With all due respect, that's your fantasy and not my reality.

Feel free to think likewise if it gives you some inner peace at night

[BugMeister]

Mightysword, it has been proven - why do you resist this?

[Mightysword]

Resit what?

[Hank001]

@ BugMeister
Took a nap so I could get "FEAR" loaded into my Kindle. I guess they released it Eastern Time because it's 11:40 pm here and it's half way loaded. Wish Hunter S. Thompson was still kicking. Then we'd be reading "Fear and Loathing in DC". Or Ken Kesey and he'd fit it into a sequel to, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" with you know who getting the lobotomy at the end.

Night all, gotta bedtime story to read...

[BugMeister]

I really hope that Michael Avenatti doesn't run for president..
he's worth ten times more to the American public if he remains above the
grovelling that appears to go with the office, since Drumpf's appointment..

[Ketraar]

I just think social changes should rightfully die out in the planning stages when trying to figure out who will pay for them.

News flash for you. Its inevitable. Social change is a large and heavy freight train coming down a hill at 200km/h there is no stopping it, no matter how much you try, you can hop in or stand aside and be left behind. History is not very kind to people that try to stop progress, it is like gravity a force of nature.

MFG

Ketraar

[Hank001]

Ketraar said:

News flash for you. Its inevitable. Social change is a large and heavy freight train coming down a hill at 200km/h there is no stopping it, no matter how much you try, you can hop in or stand aside and be left behind. History is not very kind to people that try to stop progress, it is like gravity a force of nature.

Truer words, but I've got the feeling some are going to rush to the tracks waving their arms yelling "Stop! This is treason!".

[Mightysword]

News flash for you. Its inevitable. Social change is a large and heavy freight train coming down a hill at 200km/h there is no stopping it, no matter how much you try, you can hop in or stand aside and be left behind. History is not very kind to people that try to stop progress, it is like gravity a force of nature.

See, you are right, at the sametime this post is also rich in irony. I agree that it is inevitable, progressiveness is a natural thing. But activism is anything but natural. I used this analogy before: but progress is like a car on the highway cruising to a destination. The problem with activism is they're impatient and simply want to go as fast as possible. They keep their feet on the gaz pedal while ignoring the engine maybe overheating or the tires are burning. Leave it to them and the car will eventually crash and burn on the side of the street instead of actually reaching the destination. I do believe in the long run, conservatism is a losing battle, but it is a necessary battle because someone HAVE to apply the break here and there.

I have never hided the fact I disklike activists. Because to me a lot of them are impatient, immature and also a bunch of narcissist. They want things that may naturally take 100 years to happen in 10. They don't want to wait for nature to do its work over generation, but want to see it happens in their life time. They don't want someone else to take the credit of achieving something, they want their own names in the annal of history "I am important, I was the one that make changes happen". Especially the type who believe progress is a train coming down hill at 200km/m! Piece of a advise for you, a train coming down a hill at 200km/h is not a train that will make it to the next station, but one that are more likely gonna fly off the rail. So be thankful to the very people you wake up and criticizing daily. It is their existence that make the train of progression to slow down enough to turn the next corner safely, so that all passenger can make it.

[Ketraar]

You clearly are mixing up things and making stuff as they fit your narrative.

There is NOTHING natural about social constructs, it takes the time WE want it to take. You insulting people that fight for things to change faster so the effects can be felt and possibly make life better for a bunch of people is just idiotic and frankly pisses me off.

If you dont like that women want equality NOW and not in 50 years, that minorities want to be treated as humans NOW not in a 20 years, than frankly you are part of the problem. Its only natural that once a problem is discovered we want it fixed asap, not in some made up "natural" time frame.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: Also activism is the state of ACTION, meaning DOING something, not just talk about it. If you dont want to do anything just sit down and do nothing, no one asks you to do anything, but dont tell what I can or should do, I have the same freedoms as you.

[Hank001]

Mightysword says:

I have never hided the fact I disklike activists. Because to me a lot of them are impatient, immature and also a bunch of narcissist."

Humm... Okay you realize that the description of an impatient, immature, narcissistic activist fairly well sums us Donald Trump don't you?

[Morkonan]

...There is NOTHING natural about social constructs..

To be entirely fair, all the most basic "social constructs" are entirely "natural" in origin, with clear evolutionarily reinforced analogues.

If you dont like that women want equality NOW and not in 50 years, that minorities want to be treated as humans NOW not in a 20 years, than frankly you are part of the problem...

In what traditionally "Western" nation is this not the case? Where is it where women aren't equal or minorities aren't treated as humans?

AFAIK, in "Western" societies, there are laws regarding "equality" and against "discrimination" based on race as well as a host of other qualities individual humans can have.

But, the government can not pry open a person's head and force them to change their attitudes. And, neither can a crowd of people or a legal case or someone throwing a brick through someone's window.

In this situation, IMO, most "activists" are expressing their own outrage and frustration, but not focusing it appropriately. It's not about the "government" or the "laws" - It's about the "people." But, it's not efficient to take a crowd of protestors door-to-door to speak with individuals, so the mob focuses on releasing their anger and frustration at a "target." Sometimes that target is deserving of that and sometimes it isn't. If the mob focuses itself against a racist organization or a group that perpetuates discrimination, that may be a good target. But, when they just blindly rail against a government that has continued to support their cause through true legislation, that's a bad target.

To change people's hearts and minds one must go straight to them. And, it can't be done while screaming at them and smashing in their windows or demanding that they make sacrifices without just cause. Despite one's outrage, one must treat others, even of differing opinions, with compassion.

There is always "discrimination" of some sort. But, for the ones that have been institutionalized or legally supported and have formed a particular culture, they will fade. Unless they receive support from other, more vocal and convincing groups, that is... That's where "Trump" and his agenda might play a destructive role.

[clakclak]

[...]

In this situation, IMO, most "activists" are expressing their own outrage and frustration, but not focusing it appropriately. It's not about the "government" or the "laws" - It's about the "people." But, it's not efficient to take a crowd of protestors door-to-door to speak with individuals, so the mob focuses on releasing their anger and frustration at a "target." Sometimes that target is deserving of that and sometimes it isn't. If the mob focuses itself against a racist organization or a group that perpetuates discrimination, that may be a good target. But, when they just blindly rail against a government that has continued to support their cause through true legislation, that's a bad target.

To change people's hearts and minds one must go straight to them. And, it can't be done while screaming at them and smashing in their windows or demanding that they make sacrifices without just cause. Despite one's outrage, one must treat others, even of differing opinions, with compassion.

There is always "discrimination" of some sort. But, for the ones that have been institutionalized or legally supported and have formed a particular culture, they will fade. Unless they receive support from other, more vocal and convincing groups, that is... That's where "Trump" and his agenda might play a destructive role.

I find it dangerous that you equate activism with rioting. Not every form of activism is a violent demonstration where a "mob focuses on releasing their anger and frustration [by] smashing in [...] windows".

Amnesty International is an activist group, Green Peace is an activist group, Human Rights Watch is an activist group. Most of these groups day to day work is done on a small level with information stands in public areas, advertisement for their course, collecting signatures for petitions or journalistic work.

You don't usually see members of Amnesty International rioting in the streets and throwing in windows.

[Hank001]

If you stand around mumbling "This sucks" you're a dissident.
If you march with a sign saying "This Sucks!" You're an activist.

dis·si·dent /ˈdisidənt/
▸ noun
a person who opposes official policy.

ac·tiv·ist /ˈaktəˌvist/
▸ noun
a person who campaigns for political or social change.

So as far as it goes not all dissidents are activists but generally all activists are dissidents.

[clakclak]

If you stand around mumbling "This sucks" you're a dissident.
If you march with a sign saying "This Sucks!" You're an activist.

dis·si·dent /ˈdisidənt/
▸ noun
a person who opposes official policy.

ac·tiv·ist /ˈaktəˌvist/
▸ noun
a person who campaigns for political or social change.

So as far as it goes not all dissidents are activists but generally all activists are dissidents.

Yes but to be an activist you don't have to take part in riots and be violent.

[Hank001]

clakclak notes:

Yes but to be an activist you don't have to take part in riots and be violent.

Indeed, however Trump himself used the fear thereof when he spoke to his base saying, "If I'm impeached there will be riots!" Giving his base the idea they should crawl out of their holes with guns blazing, if and when the law finally catches up to him.

I suppose it's the old debates on the activism of Gandhi verses MILITANCY. Activism by passive resistance verses tossing bricks.
Back to Oxfords:

mil·i·tant /ˈmilətənt/
▸ adjective
prepared to take aggressive action in support of a political or social cause.
– SYNONYMS
hard-line, extreme, extremist, committed, zealous, fanatical, radical.
▸ noun
a militant person.
– SYNONYMS
activist, extremist, partisan, radical, zealot.
– DERIVATIVES
mil·i·tan·cy noun
mil·i·tant·ly adverb.

Which is a designation I'd personally like to avoid in my activism as it eschews the rule of law, basic civil conduct, you know all those things that Trump says he for, but proves by words and actions he has little regard for.

[Observe]

I just think social changes should rightfully die out in the planning stages when trying to figure out who will pay for them.

Change is constant. Life cannot exist without it and neither can society, ergo social change is constant. Adaptation must be likewise. Resistance is futile.

Money is the transfer of energy. You already apply some of your energy to support police and fire departments, military, roadways, schools and various diverse infrastructure. Next time you need the fire department or drive down a highway, remember, you can only have those things, because of the benefits of social changes. That includes you and some of your money. You will be assimilated.

You wouldn't have any of these social benefits that you take for granted, if they had died out in the planning stages when it came to who will pay for them, as you suggest.

[Ketraar]

This is a thing I keep trying to make people realize. All these "but I did it myself and with no one's help" type people. And then I ask them, who made it possible for you to be where you are, how many other peoples lives, in terms of work and effort, it took to create the things you start off.

Yes Da Vinci was great, but had he not being paid by some dude he would have starved or would have been too busy farming to not starve. That dude that paid him had money due to some people working for him, he would have starved or would have been busy not starting too. NO ONE lives the live we live based on own merits. NO ONE!

We thrive due to the efforts of others that contribute in LARGE part to our well being. It takes a HUGE amount of people's efforts to make stuff so we can just idle and do nothing in the safety of our homes. Anything we think, anything we create is based on the collective efforts. Yes its that word you fear so much, there is no way around it if you want an advanced society (not just technologically).

MFG

Ketrara

[Observe]

Even development of the internet, was helped by government funding. Smartphones have transistors, integrated circuits, GPS systems. All these have benefited from government research and funding. I expect the same is true for gun technology.