|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| trueblue wrote: |
It is just shows that the voice and vote of the people can subjectively be stomped out. |
Absolutely true. Are you, then, outraged when sitting Republican legislatures and governors utilize tactics to suppress voter turn out? Do you insist that Al Gore ought to have won the election over George W Bush? Are you an ardent believer that the direction of the country ought to be determined by the will of 50% + 1 of the population? Or are you comfortable with the "voice and vote of the people" being foiled by other forces so long as you approve of the outcome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| trueblue wrote: |
It is just shows that the voice and vote of the people can subjectively be stomped out. |
Absolutely true. Are you, then, outraged when sitting Republican legislatures and governors utilize tactics to suppress voter turn out? Do you insist that Al Gore ought to have won the election over George W Bush? Are you an ardent believer that the direction of the country ought to be determined by the will of 50% + 1 of the population? Or are you comfortable with the "voice and vote of the people" being foiled by other forces so long as you approve of the outcome? |
Whoah...easy with the inquisition.
Your questions open doors to other narratives...such as enfranchising low information voters. Granted, the Founders were not REALLY open to having the voice of THE PEOPLE, as why Jackson was such a threat to the establishment, as Trump is now.
But yes, in general, I do agree with your marginalized questions, namely the "50% +1" of the population"...to a point. The limit to my agreement, pertains to the concentration of the population. The "Democratic" party figured this out, once FDRs New Deal policies were implemented. If the party could control the major/largest cities, the rest of the country's population would not matter.
For example, lets take Colorado. The majority is located in the area in which I mentioned in a previous post. Thus, that pocket is "blue", but the rest of the state is "red". Geographically speaking, if we looked at it by counties, the much of the United States is "red". Illinois is a good example as well. If it were not for Chicago, it would be Republican/conservative.
There are low information voters that make up the base of both (or all) parties. Unfortunately, blacks, hispanic's, feminists, and clueless white-gilt folks fill their ranks...having no clue of what liberalism really is. It is simply a fact. On the Republican side, those who have no idea of what modern/historical conservatism (and how it relates to classic liberalism) is, either.
Thus, is why the powers that be have been dismantling American culture and adding generous amounts of "stupid water" to the education system...unfortunately, many people have bought into this.
This was a major concern for some of the Founders...namely Adams and Jefferson,who truly believed that the life and liberty of a Republic lay in the hands of an educated, virtuous, moral and enlightened society. But, then it gain, it somewhat contradicts their notion of who "The People" really were/are.
So yes, the threat of a mobocracy is real. Swartz has painted this in past posts but deaf little girls simply are incapable of understanding (not you Fox. I generally find your posts objective and balanced).
Gore...yes, he did win the popular vote, the same as Jackson. Should he have won, based on that? And no, I would not have been comfortable with the outcome, but, HE DID WIN THE POPULAR VOTE. However, go back to what I mentioned earlier, regarding the control of concentrated areas of population.
So, I have to ask you, do you think it is fair for one small area in a state, though densely populated, to be able to control the political arena of the rest of the state? A Republic is supposed to protect the minority, right? In theory, I guess.
If Americans had not allowed themselves to become completely distracted to what is truly going on, I would have more confidence in the "50% + 1" notion. If Americans had not become so completely ignorant self-serving, apathetic, blind and simply unversed in history and political theory, I would fee more comfortable with it.
But, to be fair, based on the popular vote, in a Constitutional Republic (or, Democratic Republic), the voice of the people should prevail. But, the voice of the people can also be anti-thesis to liberty and true Republicanism. Since this is an off and on reality, there are major concerns here. And, having nearly 1,000,000 votes thrown away in Colorado only serves these narratives.
With all of that said, both you and Swartz, despite the unusual banter between you both, have good points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| My suspicion is that you will read that and smirk to yourself, thinking, "Hah, there he goes pretending again," or the like, and that's okay. I don't require credulity, only sincere, content-laden criticism. |
I don't automatically think you're being intentionally deceptive, but I also realize that a blind acceptance of outsiders and the desire to believe they think the same as we do has become the greatest Achilles heel of my people. Certain groups with high verbal IQs like your own are very adept at taking advantage of and exploiting that weakness. It wasn't just the peasantry comment above, but previous ones about your contempt for Whites in the south, the idea that Europeans/European Americans and them alone are to blame for the rot that has overtaken Western societies, and the generally dismissive or muted attitude you seem to have with regard to the Jewish role in the West's decline. I guess I'll take you at your word for now, but I'm far from convinced that you lack the motivations I suspect you do because I've seen them pop up. But I also know it's something so rooted in DNA and culture that expecting any admission to a goy is expecting a bit much.
| Fox wrote: |
| This is what perplexes me so much: you understand how the sentiment of the populace can be co-opted, but seemingly refuse to take seriously the possibility that it's happening right now before you. And if Mr. Trump were to win, and his policies weren't the ones you were led to believe, suddenly it would be, "Oh Donald Trump, that shill for dual citizens. His daughter is Jewish, you know, and he's received lots of awards from Jewish 'dual citizens,' and he promised to support Israel 1000%. Dual citizens ruin everything." Nothing I said above is a lie, nor even skewed: he has a Jewish daughter, he boasted about the Jewishness of his future granddaughter, he has received awards from Jews, and he did promise to support Israel 1000%. While you support him, none of that seems to matter, but it's still there, waiting to become the explanatory factor should thinks ever turn out not to your liking. |
You're conflating a couple things here but I'm aware of all of that and have addressed a certain amount of it previously. Let me attempt to explain it as openly as I can from this general perspective. Jews are unique in the sense that they use their ethnic cohesion to develop long term, multi-generational schemes/plans to subvert or change the nations they live in. They don't want the host group to be strong, traditionalist, and nationalistic … they want it to be fat, weak, liberal, corrupt, and multicultural; i.e., easier to control. The West has become so fractured after being pulled in that direction for the last fifty years as Jews have solidified their role as powerbrokers at every level, that at this point, a man who is willing to step up and promote strength and nationalism at the executive level is a godsend. But it's not “identitarians”/White nationalists that have adopted Trump's policies, it's Trump who flew in out of nowhere and adopted theirs - not what anyone would have considered a winning approach before it happened. The fundamental systems themselves (nationalist-minded gentility vs internationalist Jewry) are polar opposites (strength/nationalism/traditionalism vs more weak multicultural liberal degeneracy/trannyism, etc.), and most of Trump's ideas align with the former and are in direct opposition to the aforementioned plan, and outwardly so, whether he realizes it or not. No one is expecting Trump to “fight the Jews” or not support Jews and Israel or anything like that, those are nonstarters in the current climate; they're promoting him because he's claiming he will do what they've been screaming about for years and years as the situation has gotten worse and worse. His ideas are more paleo-conservative than anything else, but that's close enough.
Ultimately, the only thing that really matters to most of these people, including myself, is demographics. If that isn't fixed, White Americans of all political persuasions are going to be SOL and soon. Anyone willing to step up to the plate and say they're going to built a wall and send back some of the mud people who have trashed cities across the SW is way more than anyone expected. Economic nationalism, Muslim bans, exposing the media as liars, and other things are just bonuses that are helping to push nationalist polices to the forefront again. Abortion doesn't matter, that he stumbles sometimes and gets caught in a trap or two isn't a big deal, because he's a 70 year old businessman. It's a push in the right direction, in the opposite direction we've been going in, that's all. Towards nationalism and implicit White identity. And who the hell else is offering anything other than more of the same? They'd just make it worse.
More to the substance above, no, and what's perplexing to me is hearing people like yourself say they believe that this is all a big scam. I think, what? Have you been paying attention at all? The people in charge are flipping their lids and doing everything they can to stop him for a reason. So if he's coopting anything, he's doing it in the right direction. Scam artist? That's ridiculous. The guy has his faults but he was saying many of these things back in the 80s and has always professed similar nationalistic sentiments; that's a 100% lying media narrative that has been appropriated those weak, liberal proles because they don't think for themselves. People like Leon have been gaslighted so hard they can't see up from down, so perhaps it's easier for them to believe this notion that Trump is some kind of a fraud because that's what they've been told to think. In your case I assume it's a bit more nuanced and framed in the appropriate ethnic context. But for those of us who were talking about these issues long before Trump brought them into the mainstream, I suppose it's likewise just easier for us to see that this is a brave man with good intentions, who knows what's going on, has good instincts, cares about the country, and wants to help dig it out of the grave that's been dug for it. I've seen practically nothing that tells me otherwise. In fact, the more I think about the work ethic and energy it takes to get up every day and take on this machine, the personal toll it must be taking on his family and the perpetual risk to his life from the freak mob being egged on by the media, the more I think this man is one of a kind. A true leader. And it makes me hope this liberal peon army of whiny punks with no long term perspective who think they're in a position to criticize such a hardworking, successful patriot get their due when the time comes. I haven't heard anyone from this end professing him to be any kind of savior, just a solid first step towards quelling the third world invasion and making the American empire more inwardly-focused as it should be.
Tl;dr, what it comes down to, really, is that pleb-tier liberals simply have zero awareness of outside viewpoints. They don't understand where people like myself or the new right in general are coming from because they've been gaslighted and told that these are evil viewpoints held by evil people, so don't even think about it! They think how they were told to think, which is always about nazis and fascists, etc., because the narrative they're repeating was designed by a mentally ill desert tribe who is obsessed with nazis. That is where the disconnect lies with regard to Trump. If your perspective lacks a long term perspective, if you have no in-group awareness or concern for demographics, if you think nationalism is a bad thing … Trump isn't going to make sense to you. If you do have those things, though, and you're sick of liberal degeneracy and the USSA media/political/globalist zeitgeist, Trump looks like Batman.
| Fox wrote: |
| It means a lot... within the context of the rules and regulations of the Republican Party and its presidential primary process, which is the context in question. If even citing basic, obvious facts is "duplicitous," then for God's sake, what constitutes honesty? Why should the actual majority of Republican primary voters who have not lent their vote to Mr. Trump be treated as mathematically irrelevant by the Republican Party? Why should the rules of the party be treated as irrelevant? Why should a group of people who favors the judgment of elite decision makers over the will of the people be expected to suddenly start respecting the will of a minority -- a strong minority, but still a minority -- of their registered party members? None of these questions are unfair or duplicitous. |
No, it doesn't ... and the bizarro logic you're using would only be duplicitous if it weren't so idiotic. This is a primary, Fox. Majority doesn't have anything to do with it, especially since there were 4-8 goddamn people in the race until recently. Not to mention the 1237 number was arbitrarily created in 2012 to screw Ron Paul over. Either he hits the mark or he falls just short. But even if he does, they might still give it to him - good chance they will, actually. If they don't, it will expose their corruption and likely spell the end of the Republican Party. Some groups like the neocohens have already switched sides (again – not that they were ever right to begin with) and want the Party to implode because they took it over in the 60s/70s to do exactly that. But denying Trump the nomination would be a massive and unprecedented injustice; stating otherwise is frankly just stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| My suspicion is that you will read that and smirk to yourself, thinking, "Hah, there he goes pretending again," or the like, and that's okay. I don't require credulity, only sincere, content-laden criticism. |
I don't automatically think you're being intentionally deceptive, but I also realize that a blind acceptance of outsiders and the desire to believe they think the same as we do has become the greatest Achilles heel of my people. Certain groups with high verbal IQs like your own are very adept at taking advantage of and exploiting that weakness. It wasn't just the peasantry comment above, but previous ones about your contempt for Whites in the south, the idea that Europeans/European Americans and them alone are to blame for the rot that has overtaken Western societies, and the generally dismissive or muted attitude you seem to have with regard to the Jewish role in the West's decline. I guess I'll take you at your word for now, but I'm far from convinced that you lack the motivations I suspect you do because I've seen them pop up. But I also know it's something so rooted in DNA and culture that expecting any admission to a goy is expecting a bit much.
| Fox wrote: |
| This is what perplexes me so much: you understand how the sentiment of the populace can be co-opted, but seemingly refuse to take seriously the possibility that it's happening right now before you. And if Mr. Trump were to win, and his policies weren't the ones you were led to believe, suddenly it would be, "Oh Donald Trump, that shill for dual citizens. His daughter is Jewish, you know, and he's received lots of awards from Jewish 'dual citizens,' and he promised to support Israel 1000%. Dual citizens ruin everything." Nothing I said above is a lie, nor even skewed: he has a Jewish daughter, he boasted about the Jewishness of his future granddaughter, he has received awards from Jews, and he did promise to support Israel 1000%. While you support him, none of that seems to matter, but it's still there, waiting to become the explanatory factor should thinks ever turn out not to your liking. |
You're conflating a couple things here but I'm aware of all of that and have addressed a certain amount of it previously. Let me attempt to explain it as openly as I can from this general perspective. Jews are unique in the sense that they use their ethnic cohesion to develop long term, multi-generational schemes/plans to subvert or change the nations they live in. They don't want the host group to be strong, traditionalist, and nationalistic … they want it to be fat, weak, liberal, corrupt, and multicultural; i.e., easier to control. The West has become so fractured after being pulled in that direction for the last fifty years as Jews have solidified their role as powerbrokers at every level, that at this point, a man who is willing to step up and promote strength and nationalism at the executive level is a godsend. But it's not “identitarians”/White nationalists that have adopted Trump's policies, it's Trump who flew in out of nowhere and adopted theirs - not what anyone would have considered a winning approach before it happened. The fundamental systems themselves (nationalist-minded gentility vs internationalist Jewry) are polar opposites (strength/nationalism/traditionalism vs more weak multicultural liberal degeneracy/trannyism, etc.), and most of Trump's ideas align with the former and are in direct opposition to the aforementioned plan, and outwardly so, whether he realizes it or not. No one is expecting Trump to “fight the Jews” or not support Jews and Israel or anything like that, those are nonstarters in the current climate; they're promoting him because he's claiming he will do what they've been screaming about for years and years as the situation has gotten worse and worse. His ideas are more paleo-conservative than anything else, but that's close enough.
Ultimately, the only thing that really matters to most of these people, including myself, is demographics. If that isn't fixed, White Americans of all political persuasions are going to be SOL and soon. Anyone willing to step up to the plate and say they're going to built a wall and send back some of the mud people who have trashed cities across the SW is way more than anyone expected. Economic nationalism, Muslim bans, exposing the media as liars, and other things are just bonuses that are helping to push nationalist polices to the forefront again. Abortion doesn't matter, that he stumbles sometimes and gets caught in a trap or two isn't a big deal, because he's a 70 year old businessman. It's a push in the right direction, in the opposite direction we've been going in, that's all. Towards nationalism and implicit White identity. And who the hell else is offering anything other than more of the same? They'd just make it worse.
More to the substance above, no, and what's perplexing to me is hearing people like yourself say they believe that this is all a big scam. I think, what? Have you been paying attention at all? The people in charge are flipping their lids and doing everything they can to stop him for a reason. So if he's coopting anything, he's doing it in the right direction. Scam artist? That's ridiculous. The guy has his faults but he was saying many of these things back in the 80s and has always professed similar nationalistic sentiments; that's a 100% lying media narrative that has been appropriated those weak, liberal proles because they don't think for themselves. People like Leon have been gaslighted so hard they can't see up from down, so perhaps it's easier for them to believe this notion that Trump is some kind of a fraud because that's what they've been told to think. In your case I assume it's a bit more nuanced and framed in the appropriate ethnic context. But for those of us who were talking about these issues long before Trump brought them into the mainstream, I suppose it's likewise just easier for us to see that this is a brave man with good intentions, who knows what's going on, has good instincts, cares about the country, and wants to help dig it out of the grave that's been dug for it. I've seen practically nothing that tells me otherwise. In fact, the more I think about the work ethic and energy it takes to get up every day and take on this machine, the personal toll it must be taking on his family and the perpetual risk to his life from the freak mob being egged on by the media, the more I think this man is one of a kind. A true leader. And it makes me hope this liberal peon army of whiny punks with no long term perspective who think they're in a position to criticize such a hardworking, successful patriot get their due when the time comes. I haven't heard anyone from this end professing him to be any kind of savior, just a solid first step towards quelling the third world invasion and making the American empire more inwardly-focused as it should be.
Tl;dr, what it comes down to, really, is that pleb-tier liberals simply have zero awareness of outside viewpoints. They don't understand where people like myself or the new right in general are coming from because they've been gaslighted and told that these are evil viewpoints held by evil people, so don't even think about it! They think how they were told to think, which is always about nazis and fascists, etc., because the narrative they're repeating was designed by a mentally ill desert tribe who is obsessed with nazis. That is where the disconnect lies with regard to Trump. If your perspective lacks a long term perspective, if you have no in-group awareness or concern for demographics, if you think nationalism is a bad thing … Trump isn't going to make sense to you. If you do have those things, though, and you're sick of liberal degeneracy and the USSA media/political/globalist zeitgeist, Trump looks like Batman.
| Fox wrote: |
| It means a lot... within the context of the rules and regulations of the Republican Party and its presidential primary process, which is the context in question. If even citing basic, obvious facts is "duplicitous," then for God's sake, what constitutes honesty? Why should the actual majority of Republican primary voters who have not lent their vote to Mr. Trump be treated as mathematically irrelevant by the Republican Party? Why should the rules of the party be treated as irrelevant? Why should a group of people who favors the judgment of elite decision makers over the will of the people be expected to suddenly start respecting the will of a minority -- a strong minority, but still a minority -- of their registered party members? None of these questions are unfair or duplicitous. |
No, it doesn't ... and the bizarro logic you're using would only be duplicitous if it weren't so idiotic. This is a primary, Fox. Majority doesn't have anything to do with it, especially since there were 4-8 goddamn people in the race until recently. Not to mention the 1237 number was arbitrarily created in 2012 to screw Ron Paul over. Either he hits the mark or he falls just short. But even if he does, they might still give it to him - good chance they will, actually. If they don't, it will expose their corruption and likely spell the end of the Republican Party. Some groups like the neocohens have already switched sides (again – not that they were ever right to begin with) and want the Party to implode because they took it over in the 60s/70s to do exactly that. But denying Trump the nomination would be a massive and unprecedented injustice; stating otherwise is frankly just stupid. |
Seeing as how politicians are mere actors, swaying to which ever the wind blows according a given time and place, and, considering Dem/Rep's are merely two sides of the same coin of power...would this not make sense, as the theatrical way of extinguishing the flame of the Republican party? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the answers, trueblue. I did not intend it to feel like an "inquisition," I simply wanted to better understand the totality of your position here.
As to your question for me:
| trueblue wrote: |
So, I have to ask you, do you think it is fair for one small area in a state, though densely populated, to be able to control the political arena of the rest of the state? A Republic is supposed to protect the minority, right? In theory, I guess. |
I see it the matter stands to be problematic no matter which way you resolve it. If you allow dominance based upon geographic spread, then you have a minority of people able to impose their will upon the majority, and you see this to some extent in the Senate, where Montana and California have the same degree of representation despite a huge disparity in their populations. By contrast, if you allow dominance based upon sheer population, you can end up minimizing the concerns and voice of the people living in a large part of a given state. In both cases, the real problem comes back to the fact that life in a high-density urban area differs substantially from life in a low-density rural area.
Personally speaking, I see the best resolution as keeping legislation as local as possible, with the federal government trying to defer to the states, and the states in turn to the counties, where it is reasonably possible. This is how societies like Switzerland, which are simultaneously diverse (in a real cultural sense more than a base "skin tone" sense) and functional, are so successful. But a natural corollary of such an approach is a minimization of meddling; a minimization of out-of-state groups trying to influence the politics of other regions. When people have space to live, within reason, as they feel fit, they are harmonious and magnanimous. It is when we feel intruded upon by others that we bristle and push back. Our national politics are in a perpetual state of "bristling and push back," so one can reasonably conclude that many of us feel intrusion is excessive at this point.
Note that this has been one point where my views have changed over time. When I was younger, I felt, "Well, if something is worth legislating, it's surely worth legislating everywhere, isn't it?" and thought a strong federal-level approach in most things to be reasonable. It was only over time that I came to appreciate genuine diversity of thought and realize that it of course made sense for different people to live in different ways, and thus, that they needed space to live in those different ways. I think if more people genuinely came to appreciate this, some of the tensions in our country would evaporate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for explaining. I'm not going to respond to everything, but be assured, I read it all and will give it thought.
| Swartz wrote: |
| ... but previous ones about your contempt for Whites in the south ... |
I don't hold Whites in the South in contempt, but I do take a dim view of support for the Confederacy. I think there is a distinguishing line there: not all Southern Whites support and honor the Confederacy. The Confederacy is one of the few topics in history where I simply don't see much ambiguity at all; even Nazi Germany is less repugnant, because the Nazis, ultimately, simply wanted space to themselves, while the Confederates wanted to keep a specific group in perpetual captivity in order to force labor out of them. Confederate culture succeeded in taking otherwise compassionate, reasonable men and turning them into something worse. One can't help but remember Aristotle's musings on slavery; it was so obvious that deep down he understood the viciousness of the system, but he couldn't quite bring himself to admit it so long as he was reliant upon slave labor for his lifestyle, so he acted the apologist until death, at which point he freed his slaves. It's a seductive, ugly institution. The ugliest, perhaps. It's actually one of the few historic issues that can bring me close to something like anger. Perhaps that's unfair, or needlessly emotive, or what have you, but it's the fact of the matter.
| Swartz wrote: |
| But it's not “identitarians”/White nationalists that have adopted Trump's policies, it's Trump who flew in out of nowhere and adopted theirs - not what anyone would have considered a winning approach before it happened. |
Right, which is very similar to what happened with the "Tea Party": a group of citizens were expressing genuine concern about what they felt were problems in the system, and then political figures moved in to ride that movement. We all know how that turned out. I feel like Jim Webb's position is the most honest, "If you're voting for Donald Trump you may get something very good or very bad." It acknowledges that some of the things Mr. Trump has mentioned do seem like they would be good for the country, while also acknowledging the real challenges in even trying to guess how the man would govern if elected. I have my guess, but it's probably incorrect at least in some particulars, and could be extremely wrong. It's the certainty and enthusiasm I simply can't understand.
| Swartz wrote: |
| More to the substance above, no, and what's perplexing to me is hearing people like yourself say they believe that this is all a big scam. I think, what? Have you been paying attention at all? The people in charge are flipping their lids and doing everything they can to stop him for a reason. |
Throughout the election, my primary implication is that the Republican Party in general was giving him just enough superficial push back to excite his base while not doing anything to actually prevent him from getting elected. The man's gotten a huge amount of media attention, and again, just the right sort to excite his supporters; they don't trust the broader American media, and are happier hearing Mr. Trump spoken of negatively than they would be to hear him spoken of positively. On the other hand, what recently happened in Colorado (the topic of this thread) actually does constitute real obstructionism, so that does have me re-thinking the matter. But is the party elite really worried about how Mr. Trump would govern? Or are they worried about how he would fare in a general election, where the very tactics he relies upon to excite his core supporters would leave a huge swath of the populace feelings somewhat repulsed? I'm not sure, to be honest, but my mind isn't closed on it yet.
| Swartz wrote: |
| No, it doesn't ... and the bizarro logic you're using would only be duplicitous if it weren't so idiotic. This is a primary, Fox. Majority doesn't have anything to do with it, especially since there were 4-8 goddamn people in the race until recently. |
I'm sure the party leaders would agree with your statement here. After all, if "majority doesn't have anything to do with it," then why expect the party leaders to honor a minority in its place? When Mr. Trump has received what, 38% of the primary vote so far, the party leaders can easily say, "Well, had 4-8 people not been in the race until recently, another candidate than Mr. Trump may well have had a majority, so let's not concern ourselves with that and simply choose who we feel is the best candidate." Is that fair to people like you? Perhaps not, but it's not a fair process, nor was it ever meant to be.
| Swartz wrote: |
| Either he hits the mark or he falls just short. But even if he does, they might still give it to him - good chance they will, actually. If they don't, it will expose their corruption and likely spell the end of the Republican Party. |
I think the corruption in the Republican Party is already more or less clear to anyone who cares to see it. If they hand it to him when they had any other choice, then that signals that they're okay with the potential of him becoming President, so we'll see. It's not impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Thanks for the answers, trueblue. I did not intend it to feel like an "inquisition," I simply wanted to better understand the totality of your position here.
As to your question for me:
| trueblue wrote: |
So, I have to ask you, do you think it is fair for one small area in a state, though densely populated, to be able to control the political arena of the rest of the state? A Republic is supposed to protect the minority, right? In theory, I guess. |
I see it the matter stands to be problematic no matter which way you resolve it. If you allow dominance based upon geographic spread, then you have a minority of people able to impose their will upon the majority, and you see this to some extent in the Senate, where Montana and California have the same degree of representation despite a huge disparity in their populations. By contrast, if you allow dominance based upon sheer population, you can end up minimizing the concerns and voice of the people living in a large part of a given state. In both cases, the real problem comes back to the fact that life in a high-density urban area differs substantially from life in a low-density rural area.
Personally speaking, I see the best resolution as keeping legislation as local as possible, with the federal government trying to defer to the states, and the states in turn to the counties, where it is reasonably possible. This is how societies like Switzerland, which are simultaneously diverse (in a real cultural sense more than a base "skin tone" sense) and functional, are so successful. But a natural corollary of such an approach is a minimization of meddling; a minimization of out-of-state groups trying to influence the politics of other regions. When people have space to live, within reason, as they feel fit, they are harmonious and magnanimous. It is when we feel intruded upon by others that we bristle and push back. Our national politics are in a perpetual state of "bristling and push back," so one can reasonably conclude that many of us feel intrusion is excessive at this point.
Note that this has been one point where my views have changed over time. When I was younger, I felt, "Well, if something is worth legislating, it's surely worth legislating everywhere, isn't it?" and thought a strong federal-level approach in most things to be reasonable. It was only over time that I came to appreciate genuine diversity of thought and realize that it of course made sense for different people to live in different ways, and thus, that they needed space to live in those different ways. I think if more people genuinely came to appreciate this, some of the tensions in our country would evaporate. |
My view is different, as someone who moved around growing up and ended up going to high school in rural North Carolina. People do end up stuck in regressive places and devolving control to local levels when those local levels make choices that result in much poorer outcomes and restrict others freedoms seems like a poor choice, especially when other places that make better choices bail out these places and enable them to make poor choices. I also do not think tensions would evaporate because so many people make a living off of these tensions, because gerrymandering means primaries are more competitive than general elections, and finally because people seem to enjoy the tensions and the anger and partisanship.
Perhaps it is a difference in degree, I do think that cities and rural areas have different needs and that states do as well. However, many people in the US that argue for more local control are from failing parts of the US, and only want it when it fits them. For example, the NC law that struck down local ability to set non-discrimination and minimum wage standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Thanks for explaining. I'm not going to respond to everything, but be assured, I read it all and will give it thought.
| Swartz wrote: |
| ... but previous ones about your contempt for Whites in the south ... |
I don't hold Whites in the South in contempt, but I do take a dim view of support for the Confederacy. I think there is a distinguishing line there: not all Southern Whites support and honor the Confederacy. The Confederacy is one of the few topics in history where I simply don't see much ambiguity at all; even Nazi Germany is less repugnant, because the Nazis, ultimately, simply wanted space to themselves, while the Confederates wanted to keep a specific group in perpetual captivity in order to force labor out of them. Confederate culture succeeded in taking otherwise compassionate, reasonable men and turning them into something worse. One can't help but remember Aristotle's musings on slavery; it was so obvious that deep down he understood the viciousness of the system, but he couldn't quite bring himself to admit it so long as he was reliant upon slave labor for his lifestyle, so he acted the apologist until death, at which point he freed his slaves. It's a seductive, ugly institution. The ugliest, perhaps. It's actually one of the few historic issues that can bring me close to something like anger. Perhaps that's unfair, or needlessly emotive, or what have you, but it's the fact of the matter.
| Swartz wrote: |
| But it's not “identitarians”/White nationalists that have adopted Trump's policies, it's Trump who flew in out of nowhere and adopted theirs - not what anyone would have considered a winning approach before it happened. |
Right, which is very similar to what happened with the "Tea Party": a group of citizens were expressing genuine concern about what they felt were problems in the system, and then political figures moved in to ride that movement. We all know how that turned out. I feel like Jim Webb's position is the most honest, "If you're voting for Donald Trump you may get something very good or very bad." It acknowledges that some of the things Mr. Trump has mentioned do seem like they would be good for the country, while also acknowledging the real challenges in even trying to guess how the man would govern if elected. I have my guess, but it's probably incorrect at least in some particulars, and could be extremely wrong. It's the certainty and enthusiasm I simply can't understand.
| Swartz wrote: |
| More to the substance above, no, and what's perplexing to me is hearing people like yourself say they believe that this is all a big scam. I think, what? Have you been paying attention at all? The people in charge are flipping their lids and doing everything they can to stop him for a reason. |
Throughout the election, my primary implication is that the Republican Party in general was giving him just enough superficial push back to excite his base while not doing anything to actually prevent him from getting elected. The man's gotten a huge amount of media attention, and again, just the right sort to excite his supporters; they don't trust the broader American media, and are happier hearing Mr. Trump spoken of negatively than they would be to hear him spoken of positively. On the other hand, what recently happened in Colorado (the topic of this thread) actually does constitute real obstructionism, so that does have me re-thinking the matter. But is the party elite really worried about how Mr. Trump would govern? Or are they worried about how he would fare in a general election, where the very tactics he relies upon to excite his core supporters would leave a huge swath of the populace feelings somewhat repulsed? I'm not sure, to be honest, but my mind isn't closed on it yet.
| Swartz wrote: |
| No, it doesn't ... and the bizarro logic you're using would only be duplicitous if it weren't so idiotic. This is a primary, Fox. Majority doesn't have anything to do with it, especially since there were 4-8 goddamn people in the race until recently. |
I'm sure the party leaders would agree with your statement here. After all, if "majority doesn't have anything to do with it," then why expect the party leaders to honor a minority in its place? When Mr. Trump has received what, 38% of the primary vote so far, the party leaders can easily say, "Well, had 4-8 people not been in the race until recently, another candidate than Mr. Trump may well have had a majority, so let's not concern ourselves with that and simply choose who we feel is the best candidate." Is that fair to people like you? Perhaps not, but it's not a fair process, nor was it ever meant to be.
| Swartz wrote: |
| Either he hits the mark or he falls just short. But even if he does, they might still give it to him - good chance they will, actually. If they don't, it will expose their corruption and likely spell the end of the Republican Party. |
I think the corruption in the Republican Party is already more or less clear to anyone who cares to see it. If they hand it to him when they had any other choice, then that signals that they're okay with the potential of him becoming President, so we'll see. It's not impossible. |
No worries, Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trump is no victim in Colorado.
1) Colorado adopted its rules in August, 2015. Nothing in this thread, or that I have seen elsewhere, indicates that Donald Trump objected to Colorado's rules around that time.
2) Trump competed in Colorado. He just did so poorly. He fired his Colorado State director right before the Convention. His team distributed a sample ballot with wrong numbers, and then corrected it, and it still had errors.
Trump Campaign Ballot Error May Lead Votes to Cruz
| Quote: |
All three presidential campaigns – those of Cruz, Trump and John Kasich – handed out sample ballots, providing a slate of names with the number to each candidate.
The problem for the Trump campaign was that they put out sample ballots featuring wrong numbers. The campaign first put out a sample ballot with wrong numbers for seven delegates. That was corrected, but there were still four numbers wrong.
One of the four uncorrected errors could have led Trump voters to cast their ballots for a candidate who is in fact pledged to support Cruz.
It was yet another example of the Trump campaign, which hired its current state director on Tuesday, struggling to organize in Colorado. |
3) Trump has won 37% of the vote, but over 45% of the delegates. That includes his fiasco in Colorado.
Consider Missouri's results. Trump won Missouri with 41% of the vote, against Cruz' 41% of the vote. Hundreds of thousands of ballots were cast, but the vote spread between the two was fewer than 2,000. Nonetheless, Trump won EDIT: 37 delegates to Cruz's 15 delegates. So, it could conceivably be that Colorado delegates wanted to correct the primaries so far for deviation from the principle of "democracy."
4) Trump would have likely performed poorly in a Colorado caucus or primary anyway. He received 14% of the vote in Utah and 28% of the vote in Idaho. In Kansas, he received 23% of the vote.
Trump had months to prepare for Colorado's new system. Trump also had months to prepare for the contingency of having the most delegates, but not the outright majority of delegates necessary to forgo a second-ballot at the convention. The election will not be stolen from Trump, but he may well be denied the nomination.
Last edited by Plain Meaning on Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:33 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Trump is no victim in Colorado.
1) Colorado adopted its rules in August, 2015. Nothing in this thread, or that I have seen elsewhere, indicates that Donald Trump objected to Colorado's rules around that time.
2) Trump competed in Colorado. He just did so poorly. He fired his Colorado State director right before the Convention. His team distributed a sample ballot with wrong numbers, and then corrected it, and it still had errors.
Trump Campaign Ballot Error May Lead Votes to Cruz
| Quote: |
All three presidential campaigns – those of Cruz, Trump and John Kasich – handed out sample ballots, providing a slate of names with the number to each candidate.
The problem for the Trump campaign was that they put out sample ballots featuring wrong numbers. The campaign first put out a sample ballot with wrong numbers for seven delegates. That was corrected, but there were still four numbers wrong.
One of the four uncorrected errors could have led Trump voters to cast their ballots for a candidate who is in fact pledged to support Cruz.
It was yet another example of the Trump campaign, which hired its current state director on Tuesday, struggling to organize in Colorado. |
3) Trump has won 37% of the vote, but over 45% of the delegates. That includes his fiasco in Colorado. So, it could conceivably be that Colorado delegates wanted to correct for the principle of "democracy."
4) Trump would have likely performed poorly in a Colorado caucus or primary anyway. He received 14% of the vote in Utah and 28% of the vote in Idaho. In Kansas, he received 23% of the vote.
Trump had months to prepare for Colorado's new system. Trump also had months to prepare for the contingency of having the most delegates, but not the outright majority of delegates necessary to forgo a second-ballot at the convention. The election will not be stolen from Trump, but he may well be denied the nomination. |
Were you not receiving enough attention, Ma'am?
Anyway, I do admit, PMS brought up a good point about about the system in CO. I just wonder if the voters knew about it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Seeing as how politicians are mere actors, swaying to which ever the wind blows according a given time and place, and, considering Dem/Rep's are merely two sides of the same coin of power...would this not make sense, as the theatrical way of extinguishing the flame of the Republican party? |
I can't see it not happening unless the Party changes its platforms and embraces some form of nationalism based around the explicit interests of the White population. If it doesn't, something will rise in its place. But Jewish elites already know that, that's why they're trying to run out the clock and make the demographic situation as irrecoverable as possible, to leave Whites with fewer chances to get out of the mess they've created for them without having to resort to violence. How much control these people have over the party is the question; it's certain to be a lot, but I think it has been waning due to the disastrous influence of the necohens. Those Jewish elites would rather destroy it and create a pseudo/civic nationalist party they can control than have Trump elected. He is the last person they want in office, and that's how you know he's doing something right. There are precedents for this and it's what they've done throughout Europe as the Muslim invasion has progressed: subvert the nationalist parties from within, promote civic nationalism, and make one of the key stances support of Israel, of course. It's pretty sickening stuff, but this is what they do.
| Fox wrote: |
| Right, which is very similar to what happened with the "Tea Party": a group of citizens were expressing genuine concern about what they felt were problems in the system, and then political figures moved in to ride that movement. We all know how that turned out. I feel like Jim Webb's position is the most honest |
Jim Webb is a respectable man – who supports Trump. I understand what you're implying with this, but it's a very far out concept in reality. There are theories that Trump is a release valve for the Jewish establishment, a Clinton operative, and other things, but none of that should be considered plausible at this point. What I think is plausible to highly likely (actually I'm convinced of it now in the most general way), is that there is a separate elite in conflict behind the scenes with the Jewish elite – an old guard of wealthy goyim, if you will – who are aware of some of the realities I often address here, and who do or did have an influence over Trump's decision to run. I don't think they're ethni nationalists or anything, just friends of his who are worried about the future of the country. But that doesn't change much as far as I am concerned.
| Fox wrote: |
| The man's gotten a huge amount of media attention, and again, just the right sort to excite his supporters; they don't trust the broader American media, and are happier hearing Mr. Trump spoken of negatively than they would be to hear him spoken of positively. On the other hand, what recently happened in Colorado (the topic of this thread) actually does constitute real obstructionism, so that does have me re-thinking the matter. But is the party elite really worried about how Mr. Trump would govern? Or are they worried about how he would fare in a general election, where the very tactics he relies upon to excite his core supporters would leave a huge swath of the populace feelings somewhat repulsed? I'm not sure, to be honest, but my mind isn't closed on it yet. |
Few things off here. The media coverage has been all negative and has been from the beginning, but I don't think Trump supporters are happy about that in any way whatsoever, I think it makes them really angry. Secondly, I get the feeling the party is pretty split and in more than one way, with most being generally unfavorable because they would not be as taken care of under a Trump presidency and because most are cuckservatives – true believers in an abstract, fake universal version of conservatism that has failed and is no longer relevant because it was always just liberalism lite. Their catch 22 is that screwing him over might take them all down and ensure a loss that would likely be their last.
General election polls are worthless and the MSM drones who are repulsed by Trump don't matter because most of them are lazy freaks and losers who probably won't vote anyway. I think Trump would not only win a GE vs Hillary, Bernie, or whoever, I think he would blow them out of the water. People would come out of the woodwork to vote for him, he'd get tons of democrats to switch over, and he'd suck up a lot of the minority vote as well, more than any other republican could ever wish to. The democrats would have to work overtime busing Mexicans around and registering dead people. Hillary has people falling asleep at her rallies, her campaign uses noise machines, Trump is filling stadiums.
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm sure the party leaders would agree with your statement here. After all, if "majority doesn't have anything to do with it," then why expect the party leaders to honor a minority in its place? When Mr. Trump has received what, 38% of the primary vote so far, the party leaders can easily say, "Well, had 4-8 people not been in the race until recently, another candidate than Mr. Trump may well have had a majority, so let's not concern ourselves with that and simply choose who we feel is the best candidate." Is that fair to people like you? Perhaps not, but it's not a fair process, nor was it ever meant to be. |
And if they do that, they're putting themselves at risk. I understand if you want to work through the potential justifications they could use to deny Trump the nomination in order to highlight how the process isn't fair, but that doesn't make having a majority in a primary any more important as a general principle, only as a potential technicality. But there are too many factors involved, it wouldn't make it less of an unprecedented injustice, and it would probably doom them as well. Though it might be a win for Trump supporters either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| And if they do that, they're putting themselves at risk. |
I want to focus on this a bit, the notion that the Republican Party is putting itself "at risk" somehow here. On a collective, organizational level there probably is, or at least should be, some truth to that: the party itself already relies upon aggressive gerrymandering in order to maintain the presence it has in national politics, and a relatively large proportion of its actual voting base stands to feel offended and alienated should the candidate for whom they vote be so obviously rejected by the party leadership. But on the other hand, if they do feel offended and alienated, what can they do?
1) In the short term, they can refuse to vote (or protest vote). This would probably result in them ending up with Hilary Clinton as President. Who would be more vexed by that? The Republican leaders who actually agree with her on many points, and would probably be happy to cooperate with her if not for the farcical electoral tactic of "political total war?" Or the individual Republican voters who care enough about the matter to turn out and vote in a primary? And because Americans have such a short political memory, it's not clear that such resentment would necessarily linger so long as the party was more careful in its control of its primary process from the start in order to create an illusion of consensus.
2) In the long term, they could start a new party, which is what I imagine most people think about when they talk about when they talk about the party being "doomed." But here's the real problem with that: the average registered Republican probably has little to no idea who the party's leaders really are, and it would be relatively easy for said leaders to simply adopt the posture of locusts, abandoning the eaten-out field of their previous party and migrating into leadership positions in the new "replacement" party. How could it be prevented? This is one of the primary issues in our politics: the sheer scale of it all leaves it pretty open to being co-opted, especially at the party level. A real remedy to this might be possible, but it would require a sophisticated approach, and this is the second problem, because it's exactly that kind of sophistication that is being rejected by the demographic in question.
So what's the enduring solution to that in your estimation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| A real remedy to this might be possible, but it would require a sophisticated approach, and this is the second problem, because it's exactly that kind of sophistication that is being rejected by the demographic in question. |
There you go again. More of that esteem you were referring to, Fox? Rejecting sophistication?
If this primary has shown us anything, it's that a large divide already existed between the party leadership and the populace, with the former providing the latter with nothing more than a series of globalist clowns as their presidential candidates up to this point. Tons of these unsophisticated White people you're referring to were already alienated and discouraged from voting, but the energy and proposed policies of Trump have reversed that. These are more principled, civic-minded people than yourself and your own people's disgusting cultural institutions give them credit for being, so it's hard to believe the resentment will not linger on, especially as things get worse. While you want to preach to others about (and inflate the value of) what you think are sophisticated remedies and approaches, the window for that was already shrinking and will be broadly considered closed if the other side continues to be allowed to import a new population of sophisticated Mestizos to replace these unsophisticated White people. But politics isn't supposed to be sophisticated anyway, and the solutions are simple. What can they do? Well, they can listlessly wait around until they're demographically obsolete, or they can form a new party, yes, or they can use this new leadership model, nationalist energy, ethnic awareness, and their ever-increasing firepower to create new solutions that were perhaps left off of your rather short list. It's been a house of cards for a long time regardless, the Keynesian debt scam has to end at some point, and even if Juden thinks they're unsophisticated, I don't know if any group other than strong, disenfranchised White men - who are increasingly aware of the JQ, heavily armed, and the vast majority of already existing military personnel - will be in a better position to pick up the pieces and start over when that happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| A real remedy to this might be possible, but it would require a sophisticated approach, and this is the second problem, because it's exactly that kind of sophistication that is being rejected by the demographic in question. |
There you go again. More of that esteem you were referring to, Fox? Rejecting sophistication? |
Why are you intent on taking honest observation as insults? The biggest problem both Mr. Trump and his supporters have faced in this election cycle is an unwillingness to fully engage in the more sophisticated elements of the primary process. That's not an insult, it's just a fact: when you go into a state, run a campaign that relies heavily on media attention and rhetoric and utilize very little complex organization, and then are surprised when the rules result in you not getting as many loyal delegates as you otherwise might have, what would you -- what can you call that? When a huge number of registered Republican voters don't seem to actually understand the full complexity of their party's primary process, what ought we to make of that? It's a rejection of sophistication, that's what it is.
How do you take a group that literally ignores the open declaration of a complex rules process and then, when the rules seem like they aren't leading to the result they want -- in part because they simply ignored them from the start -- gets angry, and lead that group into a position of dominance? I haven't been bringing up this topic of sophistication randomly: it's a real issue, doubly so if the group in question is going to insist on pretending such a rejection isn't happening for the sake of soothing its own pride, and act as if they're being insulted when it's brought up. I understand well enough the desire to live a simple, straight-forward, honest life, I do, which is why I eschew politics in my actual life and live quietly. But if you want to shape your broader society, well, such an approach hasn't worked historically, and it's hard to see how it could work now, so what's to be done? You say, "...or they can use this new leadership model, nationalist energy, ethnic awareness, and their ever-increasing firepower to create new solutions that were perhaps left off of your rather short list," but what does that mean, and why do you think it's viable when, again, this "energy" isn't even enough to sweep Mr. Trump to victory in his most favorable circumstances (a Republican primary)? You suggest politics shouldn't be sophisticated, and while I can understand that sentiment, it does not reflect reality, nor is it likely to ever again.
| Swartz wrote: |
| If this primary has shown us anything, it's that a large divide already existed between the party leadership and the populace, with the former providing the latter with nothing more than a series of globalist clowns as their presidential candidates up to this point. |
I agree with you, so what must be done? How do you intend to avoid the two problems I articulated above? How are you going to take these "principled, civic-minded people" and lead them to political victory in an entire society when they are struggling to achieve political victory in the scope of their own personally-chosen political party? Because it's ultimately the same problem on a smaller, more manageable scale, so I simply don't see how you can leap from, "We can't even handle a Republican primary," to, "[We] can use this new leadership model, nationalist energy, ethnic awareness, and their ever-increasing firepower to create new solutions that were perhaps left off of your rather short list."
| Swartz wrote: |
| ... so it's hard to believe the resentment will not linger on, especially as things get worse. |
Resentment. I'm glad you used that word, because I was thinking of using it myself. That's what a lot of this unfortunately seems to be, and while resentment is frequently understandable, it is rarely effectual. Pit resentment against sophistication, and sophistication will win, at least until resentment blossoms into furious rioting, at which point maybe something will get destroyed, but the long-term problems will likely remain unresolved. Working within the system to reform the system is a more efficacious potential path, but to work within a system you need to understand the system and be willing to engage within it. If Mr. Trump had as competent an understanding of America's political systems as Mr. Cruz, he'd be in a much stronger position. Instead, he's undermined his own position by disregarding the rules of the framework within which he choose to participate. Will he and his followers recognize that failure and try to learn from it, or will it just be a new source of resentment? My guess, unfortunately, is the latter.
That doesn't mean there isn't an important point here: building resentment should be taken seriously, in part because it is wise and proper to give people the space to live in a mode with which they feel comfortable, but also in part because of the risk of the above mentioned collateral damage. The refusal to take seriously said resentment is a real failing in modern western leadership, it's true, and said leaders really do need a check upon them before needless catastrophe occurs. The people sitting in comfortable chairs, certain in their own positions, furrowing their brows and suggesting, "Concern about mass immigration is really a bigger problem than mass immigration itself," are betraying their society. Some of those people are Jewish, since I know you're desirous of hearing such admissions. I agree with you that the influence of such parties being reduced would be in broader society's interests, but the style of politics at work in the Republican Primary right now seems singularly unlikely to lead to such a reduction in influence. That said, I've already admitted I could be wrong, and perhaps it will all turn out as you and Titus have foreseen. If so, I've already promised to congratulate Titus' foresight first, but I'll congratulate yours immediately after. But if it doesn't work out that way, it might behoove you to reconsider your convictions on the matter.
I think I've said about as much as I have to say on the matter. There's no point in me pestering anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Why are you intent on taking honest observation as insults? The biggest problem both Mr. Trump and his supporters have faced in this election cycle is an unwillingness to fully engage in the more sophisticated elements of the primary process. That's not an insult, it's just a fact: when you go into a state, run a campaign that relies heavily on media attention and rhetoric and utilize very little complex organization, and then are surprised when the rules result in you not getting as many loyal delegates as you otherwise might have, what would you -- what can you call that? When a huge number of registered Republican voters don't seem to actually understand the full complexity of their party's primary process, what ought we to make of that? It's a rejection of sophistication, that's what it is.
How do you take a group that literally ignores the open declaration of a complex rules process and then, when the rules seem like they aren't leading to the result they want -- in part because they simply ignored them from the start -- gets angry, and lead that group into a position of dominance? I haven't been bringing up this topic of sophistication randomly: it's a real issue, doubly so if the group in question is going to insist on pretending such a rejection isn't happening for the sake of soothing its own pride, and act as if they're being insulted when it's brought up. I understand well enough the desire to live a simple, straight-forward, honest life, I do, which is why I eschew politics in my actual life and live quietly. But if you want to shape your broader society, well, such an approach hasn't worked historically, and it's hard to see how it could work now, so what's to be done? You say, "...or they can use this new leadership model, nationalist energy, ethnic awareness, and their ever-increasing firepower to create new solutions that were perhaps left off of your rather short list," but what does that mean, and why do you think it's viable when, again, this "energy" isn't even enough to sweep Mr. Trump to victory in his most favorable circumstances (a Republican primary)? You suggest politics shouldn't be sophisticated, and while I can understand that sentiment, it does not reflect reality, nor is it likely to ever again. |
Sophistication is a terrible word choice here. But anyway, I mentioned your subtly deceptive framing before, and it took me a few minutes to catch on again, but this has crossed my mind more than once now. You create these neat but ultimately dishonest argumentative frameworks wherein you try to state something along the lines of, “since ___ and ___ is the case, you can't complain when ___ happens,” then think you can catch your intellectual adversaries at a loss when they're unable to jump through the hoops you've arbitrarily arranged. I don't think you do this on purpose to trick people, I think it's merely a reflection of how your brain functions.
But as I told you before, life isn't structured around logical fallacies, Fox. And not only do I not buy into that rigid framing, I find it inapplicable and meaningless overall. Truth, justice, and reality do not fit into these fine little philosophical frameworks either. They are not a part of the real world, they are just logic games you use to control an argument. Not to mention that you aren't being specific in the above statements at all. It sounds like you're talking about Bernie's campaign blunders. Much less excusable from a career politician compared to a businessman that became one last summer. I know Trump was winging it for a while and didn't have a ground game but he's adapted as the process has gone on and has recently made changes. Good for him.
| Fox wrote: |
| so what must be done? How do you intend to avoid the two problems I articulated above? How are you going to take these "principled, civic-minded people" and lead them to political victory in an entire society when they are struggling to achieve political victory in the scope of their own personally-chosen political party? |
How can I answer that when it's contingent upon so many unknown factors? I don't know, and why should I be expected to know? It's not really up to me. I know what I want to happen and what I think could happen, but that doesn't seem to fit into your game here.
| Fox wrote: |
| Pit resentment against sophistication, and sophistication will win, at least until resentment blossoms into furious rioting, at which point maybe something will get destroyed, but the long-term problems will likely remain unresolved. Working within the system to reform the system is a more efficacious potential path, but to work within a system you need to understand the system and be willing to engage within it. |
Nope. White people don't riot. They take abuse until things get really bad, then they snap and burn it down and hang people and rebuild their civilizations. But sophistication has already lost out, and working within the system has failed, Fox. Why do you expect White people to adhere to those values, when the system is now explicitly against them and trying to demographically replace them as quickly as possible? That system, our system, has been coopted by outsiders and their shabbos goyim, and those people are going to need to be overthrown and removed at some point. It will probably come from within, and I think we're approaching that first stage now. It could be a Weimar style uprising and swift physical removal or Russian style silent collapse, or something wholly different or in between. The Russians slowly removed Jews (these same Jews) from power over the course of decades to regain control of their society. The government never really broke it to the public, and the plebs still look around at each other, confused about what exactly happened, what that communism thing was all about. Well, they were under the rule of this foreign, nomadic elite. And there's your resentment, no secret they'll whine for centuries if prohibited from controlling the fate of others. But their own children are also weakened by their poison, so facilitating removal will become easier as the post-WWII revolutionary class dies off, as it was once the Bolshevik revolutionary class had passed on. And we're assembling.
Anyway, Whites are plenty sophisticated and I think we tried to roll with the punches and make it work, but it's not us who should be obligated to comply with that standard anymore, it's the outsiders who have corrupted our political and intellectual systems and refuse to let up who should. You're blaming the wrong people and, again, your framework of sophistication is not relevant to the situation the West currently faces.
| Fox wrote: |
| If Mr. Trump had as competent an understanding of America's political systems as Mr. Cruz, he'd be in a much stronger position. |
And if Mr. Trump had the resources of Mr. Cruz and his seasoned political swindlers at Goldman Sachs, he'd also be in a much stronger position.
Maybe it's apt to draw a parallel between the flawed logical framework you expect me to fit my argument into so that you can control the discursive outcome, and the flawed political framework groups like Goldman Sachs have played a part in creating so that they can control the political outcome. You both expect other people to play by your rules when you're in charge of dictating the terms, and are quick to penalize any divergence from your set guidelines, but that's not always how life works. It's how the authoritarian mindset of the Levant who perhaps takes his Plato a bit too seriously works. When a logical framework is arbitrary or inadequate, I don't have to fit my argument around it; and when a political system becomes corrupt and hostile towards the children of the men who built it, they are justified in tearing it down. Hopefully that answers your question about what I think must be done. You aren't pestering me though, you're making a whole lot of sense, friend. If it looks like duck.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
