Never Trump

[Red]

Lol. You probably think this is trivial, but you were the one who pointed this out as an article worth reading so I'm going to go on yet another diatribe. The left seems to love big fancy words, even when they can't actually figure out what they mean. Most readers simply skip over them, probably figuring that they don't have enough knowledge or background to understand what it's saying. Some people think these sorts of words are an indication that the author is smart. I think they are an indication of an Emperor with no clothes. I'm a lot more impressed by someone who has the guts to express their ideas plainly, in simple language that everybody can understand.

TLDR: The left seems to believe that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you should just baffle them with ********.

Yeah, but after reading the comments that accompanied the article, I realized my mistake, lol. Actually, the article alarmed me, because, as anti-Trump as I am, the thought of justifying violence to oppose his candidacy scares the hey out of me. I would much rather let the cards fall as they may, and trust the American people to prevent Trump from being too much of a fascist for our national health, if he is elected.

But, I'll take the opportunity to react to your suggestion that the "left seems to love big fancy words", to look more closely at what franklin mentioned and you keyed on, namely why people seem to fall so easily into opposing camps. And BTW, yes, thanks for the clarification on suggesting Trump instigated the protesters, now I understand you.

https://www.alternet.org/fascinating-differences-between-conservative-and-liberal-personality

I find point #4 in the article below fascinating, seeing as it suggests actual brain biology differences between liberals and conservatives...

https://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

 

[Red]

You are misunderstanding me. If it could be proven that Trump actively instigated any of this I believe it will be very bad for him. But that is not what is happening currently. Instead people are throwing around unfounded suggestions that Trump is behind this. To people who support Trump even a little bit that sounds like a desperate attempt to smear him, and I think it will eventually help him.

If people really believe that Trump is behind this they ought to do a few things. First, Clinton and Sanders ought to vehemently tell their supporters not to instigate violence. They should tell them how important peaceful protest is and they should come down hard on the thugs. Then they should investigate who the people instigating the violence really are. They should do everything they can in the background to find out who told them to do the things they are doing. I don't think they will ever do this because I think they already know that left wing organizations are the ones who are really behind these demonstrations.

Where I might disagree here is because witnesses reported gang members instigating violence in San Jose. One more reason I regret posting that link that suggested the left actually was organizing and justifying the use of violence. I hope I am not simply trying to pass the buck of blame, but in most instances of large crowds it's not unusual for some people to attend because they want to rumble. So I'm not sure left wing organizations are behind it at all. Can it be proven that that is the case? I have read reports suggesting gang members wearing their gang colors were starting fights with Trump supporters. I suspect the blame might be more of a mixed bag then simply "left wingers". It would seem pretty counterproductive if they were telling followers to wave Mexican flags and burn American flags.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Where I might disagree here is because witnesses reported gang members instigating violence in San Jose. One more reason I regret posting that link that suggested the left actually was organizing and justifying the use of violence. I hope I am not simply trying to pass the buck of blame, but in most instances of large crowds it's not unusual for some people to attend because they want to rumble. So I'm not sure left wing organizations are behind it at all. Can it be proven that that is the case? I have read reports suggesting gang members wearing their gang colors were starting fights with Trump supporters. I suspect the blame might be more of a mixed bag then simply "left wingers". It would seem pretty counterproductive if they were telling followers to wave Mexican flags and burn American flags.

There appears to be lots of evidence that organizations on the left are promoting these protests. I'm unaware of any evidence that organizations on the right are promoting protest either at Trump events or at any other candidates events.

Here is one source: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...tests-were-100-organized-political-astroturf/

It's obviously a conservative site so some people will say it doesn't count, but the evidence seems pretty solid. It's interesting that this sort of stuff is apparently not being reported in mainstream news sources. Some mainstream sources are suggesting, without evidence, that Trump might be behind the violence as we've already discussed. It almost makes you think they have a liberal bias.

 

[Red]

That's a very good distinction to make when we are speaking in currently defining terms. Every rational person knows "conservativism" has its merits as much as the liberal welfare side does. It's the clinging add-on agendas that, for one reason or another, those types tend to align with that brings a lot of cloudiness to the designations.

As an aside, I doubt I will ever understand why humanity tends to land in one camp or the other on a plethora of issues. Anyone have a clue? The closest I can come up with is "conservative" is associated with a hard ***, do it yourself mentality while "liberal" is associated with a fluffy feel good and failure mentality. I doubt that is the true underlying reason why humanity is split into binary groups that align on most issues as we do.

Well, some more food for thought here. And suggestions for finding common ground....


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

 

[Red]

1. Flattering liberal portrait:

"They [Liberals] do not equate downtrodden or impoverished status with inherent unworthiness or inability . . . In a nutshell, liberals are less selfish and more empathic and tolerant than conservatives. Their fear of aiding the undeserving is outweighed by their fear not helping the truly needy . . . Liberals do not need to bolster their self-esteem by living in a stratified society in which they can claim superiority over this or that group . . . Finally, liberals do not blame the victim or make defensive attributions . . . Liberals acknowledge that fate can be capricious and that bad things happen to good people."

2. Flattering conservative portrait:

"Conservatives realize the importance of incentives and that no, or little, aid is often the best help of all. The conservative response to social problems avoids the simplistic first response of treating the symptom by creating a new and expensive government program . . . conservatives are more integratively complex than liberals because they understand how often well-intentioned political reforms have unintended consequences or perverse effects . . . Finally, conservatives understand how free markets work, [they] recognize that the invisible hand of free market competition leads in the long term to incentives to produce good at levels of quality and quantity that satisfy effective demand for those goods."

3. Unflattering liberal portrait:

"They practice, in effect, a kind of social homeopathic medicine that treats symptoms rather than underlying causes . . . They fail to take into account the growing burden on the economy and the perverse incentives that dependency on public programs creates . . . Liberals not only exaggerate the efficacy of government; they underestimate the creativity of the free market. Many liberals mindlessly condemn capitalism as a culture of greed and ignore the power of the market to stimulate hard work, investment and entrepreneurship . . . [Liberalism] is a reflection of the widespread 'psychology of dependency' in which government, by transference, takes on the role of nurturant, powerful parent."

4. Unflattering conservative portrait:

"[C]onservatives do not understand how prevalent situational constraints on achievement are and thus commit the fundamental attribution error when they hold the poor responsible for poverty . . . [C]onservatives are too prone to engage in zero-sum thinking, either I keep my money or the government takes it. They fail to appreciate the possibility of positive-sum resolutions of societal conflicts . . . Conservatives cling to the comforting moral illusion that there is a sharp distinction between allowing people to suffer and making people suffer. Finally, conservatives fail to recognize that even if each transaction in a free market meets their standards of fairness, the cumulative result could be colossally unfair. Some people will acquire enormous power over others . . . [C]onservatism and compassion are antithetical." 29



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/studies-conservatives-are-from-mars-liberals-are-from-venus/252416/

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

1. Flattering liberal portrait:

"They [Liberals] do not equate downtrodden or impoverished status with inherent unworthiness or inability . . . In a nutshell, liberals are less selfish and more empathic and tolerant than conservatives. Their fear of aiding the undeserving is outweighed by their fear not helping the truly needy . . . Liberals do not need to bolster their self-esteem by living in a stratified society in which they can claim superiority over this or that group . . . Finally, liberals do not blame the victim or make defensive attributions . . . Liberals acknowledge that fate can be capricious and that bad things happen to good people."

2. Flattering conservative portrait:

"Conservatives realize the importance of incentives and that no, or little, aid is often the best help of all. The conservative response to social problems avoids the simplistic first response of treating the symptom by creating a new and expensive government program . . . conservatives are more integratively complex than liberals because they understand how often well-intentioned political reforms have unintended consequences or perverse effects . . . Finally, conservatives understand how free markets work, [they] recognize that the invisible hand of free market competition leads in the long term to incentives to produce good at levels of quality and quantity that satisfy effective demand for those goods."

3. Unflattering liberal portrait:

"They practice, in effect, a kind of social homeopathic medicine that treats symptoms rather than underlying causes . . . They fail to take into account the growing burden on the economy and the perverse incentives that dependency on public programs creates . . . Liberals not only exaggerate the efficacy of government; they underestimate the creativity of the free market. Many liberals mindlessly condemn capitalism as a culture of greed and ignore the power of the market to stimulate hard work, investment and entrepreneurship . . . [Liberalism] is a reflection of the widespread 'psychology of dependency' in which government, by transference, takes on the role of nurturant, powerful parent."

4. Unflattering conservative portrait:

"[C]onservatives do not understand how prevalent situational constraints on achievement are and thus commit the fundamental attribution error when they hold the poor responsible for poverty . . . [C]onservatives are too prone to engage in zero-sum thinking, either I keep my money or the government takes it. They fail to appreciate the possibility of positive-sum resolutions of societal conflicts . . . Conservatives cling to the comforting moral illusion that there is a sharp distinction between allowing people to suffer and making people suffer. Finally, conservatives fail to recognize that even if each transaction in a free market meets their standards of fairness, the cumulative result could be colossally unfair. Some people will acquire enormous power over others . . . [C]onservatism and compassion are antithetical." 29



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/studies-conservatives-are-from-mars-liberals-are-from-venus/252416/

You're posting a lot of very thought provoking stuff on this topic. I really think you should repost it in its own thread. I would love to have a non-politically charged discussion about these thoughts.

In regard to this post in particular, I think the descriptions are well done with one important exception. In the non-flattering conservative portrait it says that conservatives are prone to zero-sum thinking and that's why they want to limit taxes. I have never heard a conservative say anything like that. They want to limit taxes because they don't believe the government is good at managing the money. They believe that the free enterprise system does a much better job. I think that conservatives typically have an abundance mentality. Most do not believe that they are worse off because the 1%ers control too much of the wealth. That is a liberal concept and it's firmly rooted in zero sum game thinking.

 

[♪alt13]

and I thought the biggest difference was the color of their pom-poms.

 

[Red]

There appears to be lots of evidence that organizations on the left are promoting these protests. I'm unaware of any evidence that organizations on the right are promoting protest either at Trump events or at any other candidates events.

Here is one source: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...tests-were-100-organized-political-astroturf/

It's obviously a conservative site so some people will say it doesn't count, but the evidence seems pretty solid. It's interesting that this sort of stuff is apparently not being reported in mainstream news sources. Some mainstream sources are suggesting, without evidence, that Trump might be behind the violence as we've already discussed. It almost makes you think they have a liberal bias.

I'm not going to say the source somehow doesn't count. I'll just say, OK, there are leftist groups that are indeed promoting the protests. What I don't know is whether they are actually promoting attacks on Trump supporters. Obviously, as I learned in the last day or so, liberal bloggers are indeed justifying violence. Because they believe that is how you resist fascism. What I don't know is if there are actual leaders at these protests who are saying things like "Don't forget to attack people. That's why we 're here.". Or, if instead, the violence is more spontaneous and along the lines of "I don't like what that jerk Trump, the guy you like so much, hates me because I'm Mexican. But, in the meantime, here 's my fist in your mouth.". Or if the attacks on that woman, who smiled through it all, was done on cue from protest leaders, or just anger playing out in a very unfortunate, inappropriate, and counterproductive manner.


I can't just forget some of the things Trump said to his followers earlier in the primary season. Things like waxing nostalgic for the good ole days when physically harming protesters enough to put them on stretchers was a really good thing. At the time, that, and other things he said just seemed so irresponsible. And I thought that because I thought "does he not realize that there are nutjobs out there, in his audience and elsewhere, who will see that as his seal of approval for violence"? I can't just forget that Trump is the only one of the candidates to wax nostalgic for the days when violence at political rallies was somehow a beautiful thing. And I don't even know what era he was waxing nostalgic over, come to think of it. 19th century union riots? I'm not going to pass the buck. What happened in San Jose was not good. And I'm concerned that it is far from over. But I don't know how much of it was anger spilling over, and in part a response to Trump's own hateful rhetoric, and how much was actually directed by leaders saying "let's rumble. All Summer long."

I'm trying to make sense of it all. I thought this article reflected my point of view somewhat.

https://www.slate.com/articles/news...6/06/how_should_america_resist_a_fascist.html

 

[Dr. Jones]

Many decades ago those in need were looked after by their neighbors, their local churches, friends, and family.
As government expanded it seems, to me, neighbors and others 'learned' to back off and let it be someone else's problem.

It's not hard to understand, really, but probably too late to return to that way of thinking.

 

[Gameface]

Many decades ago those in need were looked after by their neighbors, their local churches, friends, and family.
As government expanded it seems, to me, neighbors and others 'learned' to back off and let it be someone else's problem.

It's not hard to understand, really, but probably too late to return to that way of thinking.

That's a pretty romantic notion.

Today there are people who are helped by their neighbors, their church, etc. Decades ago there were people who suffered and were not helped by anyone.

This idea that we have lost something as a society, that we are less than we used to be, I don't think this has any basis in reality.

It seems to be something that has been an underlying theme in a lot of your recent posts. It's an idea I reject. So if it seems like it has something to do with me and you, it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that I think humanity is headed in the right direction and things are just about as good as they've ever been.

 

[Dr. Jones]

That's a pretty romantic notion.

Today there are people who are helped by their neighbors, their church, etc. Decades ago there were people who suffered and were not helped by anyone.

This idea that we have lost something as a society, that we are less than we used to be, I don't think this has any basis in reality.

It seems to be something that has been an underlying theme in a lot of your recent posts. It's an idea I reject. So if it seems like it has something to do with me and you, it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that I think humanity is headed in the right direction and things are just about as good as they've ever been.

It's true. You seem very... cynical. Don't take that wrong, it's just an observation.
What I said is true. If you would like hard data, I will provide it, even though you may be set on finding a way to refute facts for the sake of your ideals. (And I recognize I may be doing the same)

I do believe that bigger government has desensitized neighbors. I do believe I can prove the correlating data. I don't wish, however, to debate it in a negative way, for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[Gameface]

I'm cynical for thinking the present is every bit as good as the past? Okay.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'm cynical for thinking the present is every bit as good as the past? Okay.

Sorry, bad form on my part.
I meant to say you seem generally cynical about my posts, personally.

Said even more plainly, I sense some direct personal issue with me... even though you have said that's not the case. I've sensed it for about 6 months or more. That's cool if you generally disagree with my takes or even genuinely dislike me, but I've sensed it *thick* for a long time.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That's a pretty romantic notion.

Today there are people who are helped by their neighbors, their church, etc. Decades ago there were people who suffered and were not helped by anyone.

This idea that we have lost something as a society, that we are less than we used to be, I don't think this has any basis in reality.

It seems to be something that has been an underlying theme in a lot of your recent posts. It's an idea I reject. So if it seems like it has something to do with me and you, it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that I think humanity is headed in the right direction and things are just about as good as they've ever been.

 

[moevillini]

It's true. You seem very... cynical. Don't take that wrong, it's just an observation.
What I said is true. If you would like hard data, I will provide it, even though you may be set on finding a way to refute facts for the sake of your ideals. (And I recognize I may be doing the same)

I do believe that bigger government has desensitized neighbors. I do believe I can prove the correlating data. I don't wish, however, to debate it in a negative way, for what should be obvious reasons.

It has as much to do with the fact that we are a more mobile society and don't have the same roots and connections that we did back 100+ years ago.

And the fact that over the last 60+ years we've had automobiles and televisions, so folks tend to stay in their own private bubble and may not be as connected to their community.

 

[Dr. Jones]

It has as much to do with the fact that we are a more mobile society and don't have the same roots and connections that we did back 100+ years ago.

And the fact that over the last 60+ years we've had automobiles and televisions, so folks tend to stay in their own private bubble and may not be as connected to their community.

Yes.


Would love to share About more detailed ideals

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Ah bloody hell, maybe I have misjudged Donald Trump.

I just saw an interview of how he greatly respects and admires Muhammad Ali.

So impressive. Not even that big of a deal that The Great One's ashes will be deported.

 

[fishonjazz]

Many decades ago those in need were looked after by their neighbors, their local churches, friends, and family.
As government expanded it seems, to me, neighbors and others 'learned' to back off and let it be someone else's problem.

It's not hard to understand, really, but probably too late to return to that way of thinking.

Iawtp

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That's a pretty romantic notion.

Today there are people who are helped by their neighbors, their church, etc. Decades ago there were people who suffered and were not helped by anyone.

This idea that we have lost something as a society, that we are less than we used to be, I don't think this has any basis in reality.

It seems to be something that has been an underlying theme in a lot of your recent posts. It's an idea I reject. So if it seems like it has something to do with me and you, it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that I think humanity is headed in the right direction and things are just about as good as they've ever been.

I'd sy as bad as they have ever been tho. Glass half empty.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[babe]

I'm cynical for thinking the present is every bit as good as the past? Okay.

too many bubbles in the brew.

Of course we're talking about people not an abstract "past" or "present". Trends with large statistical variance in the category are like slot machines. You win some, you lose some. But with a society trending away from God, I'd say you lose a lot.

However, since that's not actually the trend in America, we are winning. One of the reasons we are winning is because a majority of the immigrants, legal or illegal, don't have the sophistry to deny God. They might be running stuff or whatever, but they say their prayers at the border.

The reason it's so crucial to the left to get the Mex demonstrators out is to create a myth that will be useful in curbing Trumps innate appeal to the immigrants. Everybody loves a winner, especially a rich winner. Do you know how many thousands of Hispanics work for Trump? He might win the Hispanic vote.