Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Things are getting interesting in Colorado...
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is with the testosterone on the board? We used to have openly female posters, five years ago. Now we have none.

Okay, so I type political opinions like a girl. For all you know, I have been a female all this time. I do not see where that gets us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trueblue wrote:
Quote:
That Swartz, what a sterotypical white nationalist/supremacist/whatever.



Rolling Eyes

Mmmm..you really showed him with that, Leon

As far as having anything original to contribute, indeed, I do. But, what is the point? You and your girlfriends simply discard anything that does not meet your warped paradigm(s), which usually comes along with your efforts in response represented as simple smoke screens, sounding like some sort of horrid, putrid brand of soundbite journalism.

Folks have provided much original, and factual, content that has dwarfed both you and your sisters. When will you realize this? You were owned ages ago, ma'am. Your worth (on the forum) is about as useful as chicken crap on a pump handle.


Like I was saying, the rabble has been roused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Swartz wrote:
For someone who pretends to be such a deep and principled philosophical thinker, you really turn into an intellectually duplicitous, handrubbing stereotype whenever you push out an innervated dispatch related to Trumpian nationalism.


I don't have any idea what "Trumpian Nationalism" is, because when the man in question speaks about such subjects, he invariably changes positions again, and again, and again. That is part of my concern. Mr. Trump has been only too happy to change his positions on various issues moment-to-moment even during the primary, so why on Earth would anyone think he was some kind of principled thinker? Purely and only because they have begun to project onto and identify with him, of course. What is the primary characteristic of a peasant? His relationship with and comportment towards his noble lord, of course. And now, surely, you realize why I made the joke I did.

Contrary to your implication, I have a reasonable concern, and even esteem, for America's working classes, who engage in honorable labor for their living and really are the foundation of the country. I understand their frustrations with issues like immigration, free trade, and the like, and yes, they have been disenfranchised in a meaningful sense. Unfortunately -- and this is what is vexing about the matter -- they have been and continue to be complicit in their own disenfranchisment. Just as with the "Tea Party," they're responding to dysfunction with dysfunction; embracing the snake oil salesman and setting themselves up for another round of the pain. Mr. Trump's already given enough hints that immigration (skilled and unskilled, legal and illegal) would continue under him; that military adventurism and strong support for Israel would continue under him; that the tax and labor policies of America would shift even more in favor of the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes under him (though not as severely as they would under a hypothetical President Cruz), and so forth. "I'm changing it," was a very well-chosen phrase, even if it was well chosen by accident.


I doubt you would feel the need to engage in such backpedaling if you were actually trying to make a joke, instead of showing your true feelings about the White working class. And it's all the more unbelievable to me personally being aware of how often your copatriots try to ridicule those same people in similar ways. And your analysis of Trump again comes off as crooked. You have a funny way of skewing things ever so slightly so you can deliver what I assume you believe are decisive blows to his character/policies, but I'm not sure it's worth my time to critique any of that. Part of it has to do with you simply not being aware of how a nationalist-leaning movement like the Tea Party was coopted and turned into something else so it could be driven into the ground, which is becoming routine in rightist movements due to dual-citizens like Ben Shapiro and Milo trying to parade around as the face of them.

Fox wrote:
a crowd which is not even the majority of the Republican party


This is the kind of deceptiveness I'm talking about with you. It shifts the focus from the fact that if anyone other than Trump had the kind of lead and support he does, there wouldn't even be a debate around him not receiving the nomination. The primary race would be considered all but over. This “not even a majority of the Republican Party” concept means absolutely nothing.

Leon wrote:
If these white people have actually been disenfranchised like you describe, then why get upset when someone calls them peasants?


The real issue revolves around who has portrayed these people as peasants in their media, TV shows, and movies, promoted economic policies that send their jobs overseas, and immigration policies that ensure that they will have compete with outsiders for the crappy jobs that still remain. Maybe it's the hypocrisy of the individual calling them peasants in light of who's been presenting them as such culturally, promoting their downward mobility economically, and their disenfranchisement politically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plain Meaning wrote:
What is with the testosterone on the board? We used to have openly female posters, five years ago. Now we have none.

Okay, so I type political opinions like a girl. For all you know, I have been a female all this time. I do not see where that gets us.


I'll tell you where it got us, toots: to a point where you finally started making sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
trueblue wrote:
Quote:
That Swartz, what a sterotypical white nationalist/supremacist/whatever.



Rolling Eyes

Mmmm..you really showed him with that, Leon

As far as having anything original to contribute, indeed, I do. But, what is the point? You and your girlfriends simply discard anything that does not meet your warped paradigm(s), which usually comes along with your efforts in response represented as simple smoke screens, sounding like some sort of horrid, putrid brand of soundbite journalism.

Folks have provided much original, and factual, content that has dwarfed both you and your sisters. When will you realize this? You were owned ages ago, ma'am. Your worth (on the forum) is about as useful as chicken crap on a pump handle.


Like I was saying, the rabble has been roused.


Well, from any objective point of view, you and your girlfriends were roused some time ago.

Let it go Leon...you're done, and have been for some time now. There is nothing surprising about you, which is why you are never surprised (or aware) when folks get the better you.

Anyway....trouble in Colorado...

This kind of reminds me of the Jackson, Adams election, where Jackson won the majority of the people but some back alley "delegates" (or Adams and his relationship with the Speaker of the House then) cost it. Really, roughly 1 million votes down the drain in CO.

Well, at least we know that things have not really changed since Old Hickory was ambushed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swartz wrote:
Plain Meaning wrote:
What is with the testosterone on the board? We used to have openly female posters, five years ago. Now we have none.

Okay, so I type political opinions like a girl. For all you know, I have been a female all this time. I do not see where that gets us.


I'll tell you where it got us, toots: to a point where you finally started making sense.



Burn.

You may need some SPF 3000 PM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swartz wrote:
I doubt you would feel the need to engage in such backpedaling ...


Why do you think anything I've said is "backpedaling?" Can I not even attempt to clarify something for someone who seems to have misunderstood it without "backpedaling?" I have a long posting history on this board, have written before about topics like immigration, housing, labor, and the like, and what I have written is in accord with my proffered clarification here. Beyond that, I've never been especially shy about voicing controversial or unpopular ideas, so if I really did hold the "White working class" in some sort of absolute contempt, why would I be shy about saying such? I would face no consequences for it, after all. To disagree with me is one thing, but to suggest things like "crookedness," "duplicity," and so forth implies I have some sort of motive for any of that, and it's hard for me to see what that motive might be.

Swartz wrote:
You have a funny way of skewing things ever so slightly so you can deliver what I assume you believe are decisive blows to his character/policies ...


I don't know his character, and I don't know his policies, so I can't rightly attack either in any meaningful sense. All I can do is point out perceived inconsistencies. But make no mistake, I don't think mentions of those inconsistencies are "decisive blows," because anyone who didn't notice them for them self will ignore the mention of them, or even treat their mention as an attack! So why do I mention them at all? Mostly to open myself to challenge, which is why it disappoints me when I'm repaid without much content. I know I won't change any minds; most people are not interested in serious self-examination and epistemological striving, not even in the slightest. But if I don't put myself in a position where my own thoughts can be criticized by others, it would be very easy to fall into the same trap. 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 exchange. An occasional insult mixed in with that criticism is not a big deal (especially if it's clever), but the challenge, that's what's important. Of course, no one is required to help me with that particular project, so if you wanted to simply say, "You know, conversation with Lyin' Fox isn't worth my time, so I'm going to just start ignoring him," that would be understandable enough.

Swartz wrote:
Part of it has to do with you simply not being aware of how a nationalist-leaning movement like the Tea Party was coopted and turned into something else so it could be driven into the ground, which is becoming routine in rightist movements due to dual-citizens like Ben Shapiro and Milo trying to parade around as the face of them.


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.

Swartz wrote:
Fox wrote:
a crowd which is not even the majority of the Republican party


This is the kind of deceptiveness I'm talking about with you. It shifts the focus from the fact that if anyone other than Trump had the kind of lead and support he does, there wouldn't even be a debate around him not receiving the nomination. The primary race would be considered all but over. This “not even a majority of the Republican Party” concept means absolutely nothing.


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Swartz wrote:
I doubt you would feel the need to engage in such backpedaling ...


Why do you think anything I've said is "backpedaling?" Can I not even attempt to clarify something for someone who seems to have misunderstood it without "backpedaling?" I have a long posting history on this board, have written before about topics like immigration, housing, labor, and the like, and what I have written is in accord with my proffered clarification here. Beyond that, I've never been especially shy about voicing controversial or unpopular ideas, so if I really did hold the "White working class" in some sort of absolute contempt, why would I be shy about saying such? I would face no consequences for it, after all. To disagree with me is one thing, but to suggest things like "crookedness," "duplicity," and so forth implies I have some sort of motive for any of that, and it's hard for me to see what that motive might be.

Swartz wrote:
You have a funny way of skewing things ever so slightly so you can deliver what I assume you believe are decisive blows to his character/policies ...


I don't know his character, and I don't know his policies, so I can't rightly attack either in any meaningful sense. All I can do is point out perceived inconsistencies. But make no mistake, I don't think mentions of those inconsistencies are "decisive blows," because anyone who didn't notice them for them self will ignore the mention of them, or even treat their mention as an attack! So why do I mention them at all? Mostly to open myself to challenge, which is why it disappoints me when I'm repaid without much content. I know I won't change any minds; most people are not interested in serious self-examination and epistemological striving, not even in the slightest. But if I don't put myself in a position where my own thoughts can be criticized by others, it would be very easy to fall into the same trap. 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 exchange. An occasional insult mixed in with that criticism is not a big deal (especially if it's clever), but the challenge, that's what's important. Of course, no one is required to help me with that particular project, so if you wanted to simply say, "You know, conversation with Lyin' Fox isn't worth my time, so I'm going to just start ignoring him," that would be understandable enough.

Swartz wrote:
Part of it has to do with you simply not being aware of how a nationalist-leaning movement like the Tea Party was coopted and turned into something else so it could be driven into the ground, which is becoming routine in rightist movements due to dual-citizens like Ben Shapiro and Milo trying to parade around as the face of them.


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.

Swartz wrote:
Fox wrote:
a crowd which is not even the majority of the Republican party


This is the kind of deceptiveness I'm talking about with you. It shifts the focus from the fact that if anyone other than Trump had the kind of lead and support he does, there wouldn't even be a debate around him not receiving the nomination. The primary race would be considered all but over. This “not even a majority of the Republican Party” concept means absolutely nothing.


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.


Colorado is a state of less than 6 million people. Most of the population os concentrated in the Denver/Aurora/Boulder/Lakewood area...secular progressive central.

1 million people who voted for Trump now have a worthless vote, due to the haughty and bumptious elite delegates. Granted, this is not the first time, as something similar happened to Ron Paul.

It is just shows that the voice and vote of the people can subjectively be stomped out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Swartz



Joined: 19 Dec 2014

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International