I am a stable genius

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 17285
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 8137
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#21 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:03 am

"Yeah the reform party doesn't really count. I am pretty sure they entered his name into it, he never campaigned for it, and was only listed on like one primary ballot. So, no that doesn't count."

False on all three counts ND. Well done. Almost as wrong as Trump himself.

1. "I am pretty sure they entered his name into it."

They did not. Trump entered his name himself. He announced his candidacy on Larry King Live on 7th October 1999. He formally joined the Reform Party's New York affiliate, the Independence Party, on 25th October.

2. "He never campaigned for it."

False. Yes he did. He gave a series of media interviews in October and November 1999, outlining tax reform proposals and criticising US trade policy. He held a campaign rally in Miami in November 1999 and addressed a congress of the Cuban American National Foundation, at which supporters waved "TRUMP 2000" banners. He gave an interview on Late Edition with Wolf Blizter in which he pledged to spend $100m on a self-funded campaign, and identified John McCain and Colin Powell as potential members of his cabinet.

Trump continued to make media appearances throughout December 1999 and delivered several speeches denouncing Pat Buchanan, who was his main rival for the Reform Party nomination at this point.

Also in December Trump wrote a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, seeking protection for the rights of third-party candidates to appear in general election debates.

In January, Trump attended further campaign events and a Reform Party fundraiser. Later that month Trump hosted a meeting of Reform Party leaders and delegates at his club at Mar-a-Lago.

By February, infighting in the Reform Party caused Trump to withdraw. But it is not true to claim that he did not campaign.


3. "[Trump] was only listed on like one primary ballot."

He was listed on two primary ballots, and his campaign attempted to get his name on a third. He failed to get enough signatures to be included on the New York primary ballot. He was listed on both the Michigan and California primaries - and in fact won them both.

President Eden
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:11 pm
Karma: 1619

Re: I am a stable genius

#22 Post by President Eden » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:23 am

ND wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:13 am
I say we defeated it in 2016, but we need to continue defeating this every time it pops up. I understand classical liberalism which really gave birth to constitutional values and natural law. That's great. But, modern liberalism isn't liberalism at all. It's Marxism. Marxism is an evil ideology which must be defeated and ridiculed.
I don't think a liberal society can defeat Marxism.

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 525
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#23 Post by TrPrado » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:13 pm

President Eden wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:23 am
ND wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:13 am
I say we defeated it in 2016, but we need to continue defeating this every time it pops up. I understand classical liberalism which really gave birth to constitutional values and natural law. That's great. But, modern liberalism isn't liberalism at all. It's Marxism. Marxism is an evil ideology which must be defeated and ridiculed.
I don't think a liberal society can defeat Marxism.
I’m suddenly afraid.

Jeff Kuta
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:44 pm
Karma: 9

Re: I am a stable genius

#24 Post by Jeff Kuta » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:14 pm

It seems liberal democracies around the world defeated Marxism.

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 316
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#25 Post by peterlund » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:22 pm

ND wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:13 am
... But, modern liberalism isn't liberalism at all. It's Marxism. Marxism is an evil ideology which must be defeated and ridiculed.
ND clearly does not have a clue about what he is talking about. Go back to University (if you ever have been there) and reread any course on political science and you figure out that Liberalism is the opposite of Marxism/Socialism. The best thing about Liberalism is that it is also the total opposite of Fascism and the total opposite of your clown in the White house.

This all makes me a really proud social liberal. The only humanistic alternative around.

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 525
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#26 Post by TrPrado » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:56 pm


Condescension
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:09 pm
Karma: 19

Re: I am a stable genius

#27 Post by Condescension » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:02 pm

Liberalism is terrible. ):

Something being the opposite of fascism doesn't make it good.

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 525
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#28 Post by TrPrado » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:09 pm

Well now we’re up to two subtle suggestions/defenses of fascism. This is exciting.

ND
Posts: 2709
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:49 pm
Karma: 947

Re: I am a stable genius

#29 Post by ND » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:16 pm

Classical liberalism is not terrible at all. Modern Liberalism however is not liberal. It's simply Socialist-Marxist.

Also, Constitutional values and natural law is really the opponent of authoritarian ideological systems like Fascism and Marxism.

Also, Peterlund, geez. Liberalism is Marxism lol. It's not like there is a difference at this point. Also, I've achieved two separate M.A.'s. So, there's that.

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 525
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#30 Post by TrPrado » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:25 pm

Just from Twitter-going, I can affirm that Marxists hate liberals just as much as you do, ND.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 17285
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 8137
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#31 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:19 pm

@ND: "Also, I've achieved two separate M.A.'s. So, there's that."

This has what to do with what? (I mean, other than you boasting).

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 525
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#32 Post by TrPrado » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:34 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:19 pm
ND wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:16 pm
Also, I've achieved two separate M.A.'s. So, there's that.
This has what to do with what? (I mean, other than you boasting).
You know you could just use the quote button yes?

brainbomb
Posts: 15882
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: the sock drawer
Karma: 4727

Re: I am a stable genius

#33 Post by brainbomb » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:54 pm

TrPrado wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:34 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:19 pm
ND wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:16 pm
Also, I've achieved two separate M.A.'s. So, there's that.
This has what to do with what? (I mean, other than you boasting).
You know you could just use the quote button yes?
Naw we dont do that here.
Dilly dilly

President Eden
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:11 pm
Karma: 1619

Re: I am a stable genius

#34 Post by President Eden » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:04 pm

Jeff Kuta wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:14 pm
It seems liberal democracies around the world defeated Marxism.
They outlasted the first openly-Communist superpower.
In my view, in the nearly ~30 years since this occurred, the progressive left in the majority of those liberal democracies has partially embraced the philosophical grounding of Marxism. But I also don't think you have to accept that premise to come to my conclusion.
The more important thing is the focus of both philosophies in light of our understanding of human nature from our own history.
Human societies have always organized themselves in terms of in-groups and out-groups, and that this is evidence that such behavior is intrinsic to human nature and unlikely to change.
Liberalism does not proactively establish in-groups or out-groups and has historically stood in fierce opposition to that practice. (This is why liberalism works well in societies that have already sorted themselves out ethnically and religiously, but runs into difficulties in multiethnic or multireligious societies:
the principles are wonderful, but have trouble upending existing illiberal in-group/out-group behavior, since it doesn't provide meaningful alternative in-groups and out-groups.)
Marxism creates a specific type of in-group and out-group (oppressors and oppressed) which can never ultimately be upended, no matter how societies change to meet the Marxists' demands. Liberalism's freedoms necessarily lead to different life outcomes among different people, which then creates "privileged" and "underprivileged" groups for Marxists to advocate against/for,
respectively. The original Marxists saw this in the wake of the Industrial Revolution and focused on economics, but if a liberal society (through no direct fault of liberalism, mind) has any kind of in-group and any kind of out-group, Marxists have ground to say that there is a problem that needs correcting. And if that in-group and out-group arises from liberal freedoms simply staying out of the way of life choices running their courses, how can liberalism satisfy Marxism's demand for equality in this area?

If you believe the uncontroversial premises that not all people are the same; that different people make consequentially different life choices; and that a liberal society requires the freedom for people to make those consequentially different life choices, then you are advocating for:
(a) a pretty common understanding of liberalism in practice
(b) a system that Marxists will place under relentless siege until the end of liberalism, the end of Marxism, or the end of time.
TrPrado wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:09 pm
Well now we’re up to two subtle suggestions/defenses of fascism. This is exciting.
>95% certain Condescension is in the Marxist camp and not fascist camp. (or barring that, that he is not a fascist, whatever his leanings are)
100% sure my suggestion wasn't subtle
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:19 pm
@ND: "Also, I've achieved two separate M.A.'s. So, there's that."

This has what to do with what? (I mean, other than you boasting).
Probably the guy he was responding to telling him to "go back to University (if you ever did)."

ND
Posts: 2709
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:49 pm
Karma: 947

Re: I am a stable genius

#35 Post by ND » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:16 pm

Yep was responding to the guy making personal attacks and stating that I never went to a university.

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 316
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#36 Post by peterlund » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:28 pm

ND wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:16 pm
Yep was responding to the guy making personal attacks and stating that I never went to a university.
And that is false too. I did not state anything; I wondered using the word "if'. Please be careful with the details!

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 316
Contact:

Re: I am a stable genius

#37 Post by peterlund » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:45 pm

Condescension wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:02 pm
Liberalism is terrible. ):
Something being the opposite of fascism doesn't make it good.
Also to be noted is how the authoritarian ideologies Fascism, Socialism and Marxism collude in their collective approach on how to organise society. The individual and its human rights is of little value to all of these totalitarian ideologies. For them it is completely acceptable if some individuals perish for the greater good of the collective.

Since the individual and its rights such as human rights, freedoms of different kinds, democracy ... all are at the very core of all liberal thinking, Liberalism is the natural opposite pole or them all.

ND
Posts: 2709
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:49 pm
Karma: 947

Re: I am a stable genius

#38 Post by ND » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:55 pm

That's fair @Peter, my apologies for misconstruing your statement. I also agree with your definition of "liberalism" as a wall against authoritarianism.

Condescension
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:09 pm
Karma: 19

Re: I am a stable genius

#39 Post by Condescension » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:10 am

Any system that favors some newborns over others is unjust. Class is the favoring of some newborns over others, so any system that supports class structure is unjust. Pretty simple stuff. Welfare capitalism might be the only realistically achievable compromise but that's a deeply sad notion. Idk where you're pulling your critique from, Eden. Socialists don't believe that everyone should have equal welfare, just that a person's welfare shouldn't depend on morally arbitrary traits like class, race or gender.

President Eden
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:11 pm
Karma: 1619

Re: I am a stable genius

#40 Post by President Eden » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:01 am

Condescension wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:10 am
Any system that favors some newborns over others is unjust. Class is the favoring of some newborns over others, so any system that supports class structure is unjust. Pretty simple stuff. Welfare capitalism might be the only realistically achievable compromise but that's a deeply sad notion. Idk where you're pulling your critique from, Eden. Socialists don't believe that everyone should have equal welfare, just that a person's welfare shouldn't depend on morally arbitrary traits like class, race or gender.
There is so much to unpack in your "pretty simple stuff" there, my friend.

Why is the creation of a system of societal organization that favors some newborns over others unjust, and if it is, why does that matter for creating such a system?

The deepest-seated instinct humans feel is the desire to procreate and raise children. It is intrinsic to our nature as animals to seek to propagate our genes. It is the only constant to every human society and the fundamental basis of continuing such a society. Favoring our newborns over newborns different from us, however we understand ourselves to be, is what all humans do, whether they are willing to acknowledge this or not. For the overwhelming majority of recorded history, this was not only understood but considered to be normal and healthy behavior. It is only in the last few hundred years, and only in liberal societies of modern European origin, where this premise is even questioned. Declaring it a "simple" matter that this premise is wrong is rather sweeping if you ask me.

Not all socialists may believe that everyone should have equal welfare (although I think that any socialist you asked would make it so, if they could play God long enough to do so), but when one declares that the characteristics which differentiate groups of human beings, and which therefore are responsible for unequal welfare, are "morally arbitrary," it is difficult for me to see where there can be any other endgame except equal welfare for all.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest