Trump

[Swansman]

Jeez....seems Portslade had a damn lucky escape, after all.

Yeah I'd never fit into British society anyway... I have teeth and I dont fight in pubs.

 

[birthofanorange]

Yeah I'd never fit into British society anyway... I have teeth and I dont fight in pubs.

One day, you'll look back on all this nonsense and think " Good grief, I can't believe I was so odd."

At least, I hope you will.

 

[Machiavelli]

I did Brave New World at school and Huxley may have been a great thinker, but he was a very dull writer. Can't remember much of it. I tried 'The Doors of Perception' but it was equally flabby and I unfairly, held it responsible for the dullard Jim Morrison and his awful band.

1984 is much better written and it is the single most depressing work of fiction that I have ever read. However, it is a work of fiction. It has valid warnings of the consequences of acceptance of totalitarianism, but it was written before the current levels of dominance of international capital over the nation state.

We are probably in agreement over the pernicious effect that this dominance has on the lives of people. However, I am saying that those who benefit from it in terms of power and resources simply take individual actions that seek to protect their dominance. Of course some times these actions are collective because they are of mutual benefit to those involved - I can accept Marx's argument that classes act in their own interests. I can't accept that there is an organised cabal of shaodwy figures set on a specific end result. This is obvious garbage that has seeped out of the anti-semetic rantings of the fascist right. There is not a 'them'. We are all of us 'them'. None of us want to sacrifice the bits of the system that are of benefit to us, however much we want to criticise others for not wanting to do it either. It would be convenient if the cabal were a reality because then we could catch the baddies, have the big Hollywood ending and live happily ever after.

The situation is more complex and far bleaker than those imagined by Orwell and Huxley. There is no happy ever after, not because of Fordism, or Big Brother, but because we have too many people with multifarious objectives and motivations, fighting over too few resources. Those who have the largest share can of course use the agency this gives them to do things that further increases their share. They don't get together and agree a grand plan, because the only plan is self interest and different self interests do not always align. It doesn't matter who the powerful currently are, because history has shown that there are an endless number of us who would take their place and continue their actions if presented with the opportunity. Believing that injustice is a conspiracy of elites provides a convenient villain and lets us all off the hook. In truth, over time we have developed economic and political systems in our own image with the human imperative of protecting what is ours. These systems, by their nature, serve those who have and exploit those who don't.

I feel that the conspiracy view that this was and is intentional has a lot in common with the deist view of the world. Its an origin myth that removes personal responsibility and makes believers feel that they are in on a special secret denied to the rest of the herd. In truth everything wasn't designed by a higher power but has evolved throughout human history through the actions of countless individuals. Making any significant change for the better is glacially slow, laborious and hard because those with the power to make the change have the most to lose and the least to gain by doing so. However, belief in complexity is not a vote winner. Telling people that if everyone keeps working at a glacial pace on our massive list of arguments and differences, many things will definitely still go wrong, but things just might be a tiny bit better for our decendants in a couple of millenia, is not a powerful political platform to stand on. Far more comforting for both you and those you are trying to persuade if you can convince yourself and them that you are one of the few clever enough to have all the answers, even if the questions haven't even yet been established.

Great post.
Conspiracy thinking is for the idle. It comforts.
Far more difficult, time-consuming and dependent upon multiple, sequential decisions is to work out an alternative, and to mobilise enough people behind that alternative such that it begins to have an impact.

 

[Stato]

To reduce 1984 to "a work of fiction" when it is very clear that the man was trying to tell something is an antiintellectuel stance if there ever was one. It was certainly intended as a prediction and/or warning. As he said in his final interview:

"In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. The sex instinct will be eradicated. We shall abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless."

Also fiction. I recognised bits of the end of 1984 in there so looked it up. Orwell didn't say that in an interview. It was fictionalised in a BBC documentary. The words are a mixture of interview quotes and the conclusion of 1984 and were spoken by an actor playing Orwell. https://www.openculture.com/2014/11/george-orwells-final-warning.html

I strongly disagree that international capital did not dominate the national state at that time

I didn't say that it didn't. I said that he didn't to the levels that it does today. Global communication and the resulting increase in the speed at which money can be moved has strengthened the grip enormously.

I have a lifelong friend who is as convinced as you are that he has the secret. He is equally as convinced that anyone who disagrees with him, just hasn't been paying attention. I'd suggest, as I've suggested frequently to him, that it's a huge and fairly insulting assumption to make that people who don't agree with your conclusions, know less than you do. I can't claim to know everything that has happened in global politics during my lifetime, but I know a lot more about that than I do about Masterchef and I've never played WoW. I also never bothered watching 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' for any longer than it took for the excellent title sequence to end and the Hannah Montana level sitcom to begin.

However, I wouldn't denigrate art and entertainment. As I said on the Oscars thread, art and culture of any kind generally have an enormous value to the individual moved by it and though it may seem silly, I would say that my life has probably been given more truly meaningful moments by say a Pixies song, or Robbie Reinelt's scrappy goal at Hereford in 1997 than it has by a hundred of the political and economic books/discussions that I have read, watched, listened to, or taken part in. Despite how much me and my friend drive each other mad with rage when drunkenly discussing geopolitical motivations, we have also shared moments of great joy provided by art, seeing The Pixies together when we were teenagers for instance.

The things I've witnessed and experienced having worked in large corporate organisations for decades always mean that my worldview is going to look first for cock up rather than conspiracy. As such I couldn't disgree with you more on this topic. However, as with my friend and as Billy Bragg sang (but didn't say in an interview. There is difference): "If you stick around, I'm sure that we can find some common ground."

 

[Swansman]

Also fiction. I recognised bits of the end of 1984 in there so looked it up. Orwell didn't say that in an interview. It was fictionalised in a BBC documentary. The words are a mixture of interview quotes and the conclusion of 1984 and were spoken by an actor playing Orwell. https://www.openculture.com/2014/11/george-orwells-final-warning.html



I didn't say that it didn't. I said that he didn't to the levels that it does today. Global communication and the resulting increase in the speed at which money can be moved has strengthened the grip enormously.

I have a lifelong friend who is as convinced as you are that he has the secret. He is equally as convinced that anyone who disagrees with him, just hasn't been paying attention. I'd suggest, as I've suggested frequently to him, that it's a huge and fairly insulting assumption to make that people who don't agree with your conclusions, know less than you do. I can't claim to know everything that has happened in global politics during my lifetime, but I know a lot more about that than I do about Masterchef and I've never played WoW. I also never bothered watching 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' for any longer than it took for the excellent title sequence to end and the Hannah Montana level sitcom to begin.

However, I wouldn't denigrate art and entertainment. As I said on the Oscars thread, art and culture of any kind generally have an enormous value to the individual moved by it and though it may seem silly, I would say that my life has probably been given more truly meaningful moments by say a Pixies song, or Robbie Reinelt's scrappy goal at Hereford in 1997 than it has by a hundred of the political and economic books/discussions that I have read, watched, listened to, or taken part in. Despite how much me and my friend drive each other mad with rage when drunkenly discussing geopolitical motivations, we have also shared moments of great joy provided by art, seeing The Pixies together when we were teenagers for instance.

The things I've witnessed and experienced having worked in large corporate organisations for decades always mean that my worldview is going to look first for cock up rather than conspiracy. As such I couldn't disgree with you more on this topic. However, as with my friend and as Billy Bragg sang (but didn't say in an interview. There is difference): "If you stick around, I'm sure that we can find some common ground."

Yeah it can be rough to be insulted for having your beliefs called out as shallow and based on not digging deep enough. We conspiracy theorists get insulted for our beliefs on a daily basis, so I know it can be rough... until you get used to it. It is not a lot different from discussions in mainstream politics: using the US as an example, democrats and republicans will mock each others perpectives and it seems to be similar in England among those who vote for the dominant parties.

As for art and entertainment it is a bit like everything else, you can do it, underdo it or overdo it. I also think there is a massive difference between different sorts of culture - movies and tv-series is dangerous stuff as it doesnt only affect your emotional state but the whole belief system. It can be used wisely but it is a tool for brainwashing. Music on the other hand... most likely existed before we even had languages, it plays on a different more harmless set of strings in our brains. I wouldnt trust someone who doesnt listen to any music... I'd assume they were complete psychopaths and walk in the other direction, throwing frequent glances oveer my shoulder.

We probably have common grounds on a lot of subjects, however I dont think we'll get very close when it comes to how we believe the world is configured. While cockups happen, I'm not a huge believer in coincidence and I dont see any reason to change that view as long as the most impactful coincidences always result in the expansion of power for the conspiring cabal.

 

[lasvegan]

I said just because the US has never been optimal there is no need (for Swansman) to accept Trump as simply nothing more nor less than a typical US president. He is not typical and I am more concerned with the travesty and disgrace of a Trump presidency and the horrible prospect of a second term than I am pontificating on what constitutes an optimal political system. I find it concerning if people are like Swansman and just shrug their shoulders about Trump because he's just a typical US president.

If you are genuinely interested in my opinion (which, by your sarcastic tone, I doubt) then ask me again. You do realise, by the way, that optimal means the best possible, not 'perfect'? An electoral college designed to give disproportionate representation to farmers, and a voter registration process designed to make it hard for certain demographics to cast a vote is transparently suboptimal, I would have thought (unless you are a white conservative, of course).

I am genuinely interested in your opinion, so I will ask again. If you consider the USA suboptimal I assume that you have an optimal standard that you are comparing it to? I was wondering where and what that is.

Also, the electoral college is designed to give proportionate representation to all states of the union, including small states with farmers. I could think of nothing worse than having half a dozen major cities on the east and west coasts decide a general election.
And registering to vote is just as easy for a black liberal as it is for a white conservative, to suggest otherwise is false. But well done for managing to work in your little racist dig…

 

[Seagull58]

I am genuinely interested in your opinion, so I will ask again. If you consider the USA suboptimal I assume that you have an optimal standard that you are comparing it to? I was wondering where and what that is.

Also, the electoral college is designed to give proportionate representation to all states of the union, including small states with farmers. I could think of nothing worse than having half a dozen major cities on the east and west coasts decide a general election.
And registering to vote is just as easy for a black liberal as it is for a white conservative, to suggest otherwise is false. But well done for managing to work in your little racist dig…

One person one vote across the nation would have given the US Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016, both infinitely better than the Electoral College carve up that produced Bush (only after the Supreme Court decided on the hanging chads) and Trump who is a totally corrupt wannabee dictator who will try again to overthrow the government with the support of the GQP if he is not in jail by 2024.

 

[lasvegan]

One person one vote across the nation would have given the US Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016, both infinitely better than the Electoral College carve up that produced Bush (only after the Supreme Court decided on the hanging chads) and Trump who is a totally corrupt wannabee dictator who will try again to overthrow the government with the support of the GQP if he is not in jail by 2024.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on candidates, I can’t think of any other political families more corrupt than the Clintons and the Bidens.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am genuinely interested in your opinion, so I will ask again. If you consider the USA suboptimal I assume that you have an optimal standard that you are comparing it to? I was wondering where and what that is.

Also, the electoral college is designed to give proportionate representation to all states of the union, including small states with farmers. I could think of nothing worse than having half a dozen major cities on the east and west coasts decide a general election.
And registering to vote is just as easy for a black liberal as it is for a white conservative, to suggest otherwise is false. But well done for managing to work in your little racist dig…

Thanks for your reply. It is a tricky question. For me there are two answers. The first is what may be possible in the real world. The second is what I'd like to see tested (beta tested first) in an ideal world.

The first....I like FPTP. I'd prefer (in the UK) more seats (1000), and I'd like a reform of the laws around campaigning and advertising. For example, arguably Boris rode home on the "£350 million a week for the NHS if we leave the EU", saddled up and claimed ownership of all the winnings. I know it wasn't his campaign, but the sewage free-for-all in electioneering by other means is corroding society. I suspect, however, it always has. Oh, and lower the voting age to 16. If you can legally reproduce the species at 16 you should have a vote. I'd like to see some laws to curb the nonsense that goes on in parliament, too. People are getting away with telling too many lies, not answering questions, and generally being dicks. This, sadly, has also gone on forever.

In the middle of the possible and the fanciful, I'd like to see some changes to the laws around candidates. It seems to me that getting on the slate requires only that ,like David Bellotti and Tim Hodges, you are an inveterate politician, with the opportunist gifts of chutzpa, cunning and a conscience-free ability to lie at the drop of a hat. All the successful ones, Blair, Thatcher, Churchill, Clinton and Trump have the gene for that. There must be some way of filtering these people out of the mix. And I say that as a 'Blairite'. I know I was fooled and I chose to tolerate it for what I felt what was the greater good. It's what we, who are awake, all do. Because we have no choice.

The second answer, same number of seats, FPTP, but you have to pass a test to be allowed a vote. Basic maths and literacy, and some of the other sort of stuff that foreigners have to show capability to get UK citizenship. I would not exclude people in jail because that reinforces a sense of lack of hope, although I would suspend voting rights for the first half of a custodial sentence. I'd keep the upper chamber but change its role - in organizations I have involvement with we have an executive with a chair, but we also have trustees who ensure that rules are not broken by a corrupt executive. And yet.....I would like a swifter nimbler executive. So the devil is in the detail.

Apologies if I called you a racist. I presume you were narked because you aren't. That's good enough for me.

The art of the possible, though...we all make compromises as voters....and as we grow older and closer to death, in general, we become increasingly phlegmatic (even the grumpy buggers).

 

[knocky1]

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on candidates, I can’t think of any other political families more corrupt than the Clintons and the Bidens.

That statement illustrates your political ineptitude.

 

[Insel affe]

That statement illustrates your political ineptitude.

Not really, I think he has a valid point.

 

[Seagull58]

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on candidates, I can’t think of any other political families more corrupt than the Clintons and the Bidens.

The Trumps!!!!!!

 

[lasvegan]

Thanks for your reply. It is a tricky question. For me there are two answers. The first is what may be possible in the real world. The second is what I'd like to see tested (beta tested first) in an ideal world.

The first....I like FPTP. I'd prefer (in the UK) more seats (1000), and I'd like a reform of the laws around campaigning and advertising. For example, arguably Boris rode home on the "£350 million a week for the NHS if we leave the EU", saddled up and claimed ownership of all the winnings. I know it wasn't his campaign, but the sewage free-for-all in electioneering by other means is corroding society. I suspect, however, it always has. Oh, and lower the voting age to 16. If you can legally reproduce the species at 16 you should have a vote. I'd like to see some laws to curb the nonsense that goes on in parliament, too. People are getting away with telling too many lies, not answering questions, and generally being dicks. This, sadly, has also gone on forever.

In the middle of the possible and the fanciful, I'd like to see some changes to the laws around candidates. It seems to me that getting on the slate requires only that ,like David Bellotti and Tim Someone, you are an inveterate politician, with the opportunist gifts of chutzpa, cunning and a conscience-free ability to lie at the drop of a hat. All the successful ones, Blair, Thatcher, Churchill, Clinton and Trump have the gene for that. There must be some way of filtering these people out of the mix. And I say that as a 'Blairite'. I know I was fooled and I chose to tolerate it for what I felt what was the greater good. It's what we, who are awake, all do. Because we have no choice.

The second answer, same number of seats, FPTP, but you have to pass a test to be allowed a vote. Basic maths and literacy, and some of the other sort of stuff that foreigners have to show capability to get UK citizenship. I would not exclude people in jail because that reinforces a sense of lack of hope, although I would suspend voting rights for the first half of a custodial sentence. I'd keep the upper chamber but change its role - in organizations I have involvement with we have an executive with a chair, but we also have trustees who ensure that rules are not broken by a corrupt executive. And yet.....I would like a swifter nimbler executive. So the devil is in the detail.

Apologies if I called you a racist. I presume you were narked because you aren't. That's good enough for me.

The art of the possible, though...we all make compromises as voters....and as we grow older and closer to death, in general, we become increasingly phlegmatic (even the grumpy buggers).

And thank you for your reply, and in such depth and detail! It would take me all day to type that so I’ll keep it shorter.

What really triggered my initial response was the propensity of a large percentage of posters to take a sh*t on the USA at every given opportunity, even to take delight in it. Why is that? There are about 190 other countries in the world more worthy of criticism. I’ve lived here for 39 years now and despite its many flaws, and there are many, I still believe it is the one place on earth that offers the best opportunity for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Even a simpleton such as myself has the ability to carve out a good life for me and my family, much more than I felt I did in early 1980’s England when I made my decision to leave. Millions of others who try to cross the southern border every year probably believe the same.

You do bring up some interesting points though. Dropping the voting age to 16 would be an utter nightmare. I would endorse increasing it to say…maybe, about 35…time enough for young adults to live in the real world for a while and recover from their brainwashing by liberal professors. I do agree with you on campaign finance reform, the billions of dollars it takes to win an election is obscene. I don’t know what the solution is though. I also believe in term limits, politicians become so entrenched it is almost impossible to vote them out, mainly due to their major financing by the corporations, etc. that they are beholden to. They’re no longer interested in what’s best for the country, but what’s best for themselves.

And if I come across as sarcastic, it’s because I am, it’s the Englishman in me. No offense intended. It’s a real problem I get into sometimes because Americans have a completely different sense of “humor”. Thank you for the apology, I am not a racist even if I did vote for Trump, and besides, he was obviously a much better candidate than the current disaster in charge.

I think I went a little long, my index finger is cramping up…

 

[lasvegan]

The Trumps!!!!!!

No, not even close.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And thank you for your reply, and in such depth and detail! It would take me all day to type that so I’ll keep it shorter.

What really triggered my initial response was the propensity of a large percentage of posters to take a sh*t on the USA at every given opportunity, even to take delight in it. Why is that? There are about 190 other countries in the world more worthy of criticism. I’ve lived here for 39 years now and despite its many flaws, and there are many, I still believe it is the one place on earth that offers the best opportunity for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Even a simpleton such as myself has the ability to carve out a good life for me and my family, much more than I felt I did in early 1980’s England when I made my decision to leave. Millions of others who try to cross the southern border every year probably believe the same.

You do bring up some interesting points though. Dropping the voting age to 16 would be an utter nightmare. I would endorse increasing it to say…maybe, about 35…time enough for young adults to live in the real world for a while and recover from their brainwashing by liberal professors. I do agree with you on campaign finance reform, the billions of dollars it takes to win an election is obscene. I don’t know what the solution is though. I also believe in term limits, politicians become so entrenched it is almost impossible to vote them out, mainly due to their major financing by the corporations, etc. that they are beholden to. They’re no longer interested in what’s best for the country, but what’s best for themselves.

And if I come across as sarcastic, it’s because I am, it’s the Englishman in me. No offense intended. It’s a real problem I get into sometimes because Americans have a completely different sense of “humor”. Thank you for the apology, I am not a racist even if I did vote for Trump, and besides, he was obviously a much better candidate than the current disaster in charge.

I think I went a little long, my index finger is cramping up…

Your reply is very much appreciated.

I will whisper it in case anyone here notices, but, yes, America is in my view too, a land of opportunity. Even from a distance (Canada, when I lived there for 4 years) it seemed to me that with talent and drive, a work ethic, and fortitude, anything there was possible. Especially to me, told as I grew up in England, to know my place.

And despite my leftists prejudices, I can see why Trump appealed (I predicted he would win). I had overestimated the virtues of the alternatives. Only when I saw vids of Hillary banging on like a 1960s union leader to one audience while presenting all measured elsewhere did I consider that all may not be so cut and dried. Don't get me wrong, I nevertheless saw Trump as a less guarded and more bonkers version of Johnson. But it is what it is.

What baffles me is how the Democrats became so ruined they put forward the geriatric oaf you have 'in charge' now. He makes Roy of Watford look like Henry Kissinger .

One lives in hope. But as I always say, we elect the leaders we deseve, by whatever system. Flawed though they may be, yours and our systems, at least they are better than the systems on offer for the poor buggers in Russia. The Chinese, however, I suspect know exacly what they have and what they want. The russians, now, after 100 years or more of shithousery, may be beyond salvation.

And, in the long run, we are all dead. So live well. All the best to you and yours

 

[lasvegan]

Your reply is very much appreciated.

I will whisper it in case anyone here notices, but, yes, America is in my view too, a land of opportunity. Even from a distance (Canada, when I lived there for 4 years) it seemed to me that with talent and drive, a work ethic, and fortitude, anything there was possible. Especially to me, told as I grew up in England, to know my place.

And despite my leftists prejudices, I can see why Trump appealed (I predicted he would win). I had overestimated the virtues of the alternatives. Only when I saw vids of Hillary banging on like a 1960s union leader to one audience while presenting all measured elsewhere did I consider that all may not be so cut and dried. Don't get me wrong, I nevertheless saw Trump as a less guarded and more bonkers version of Johnson. But it is what it is.

What baffles me is how the Democrats became so ruined they put forward the geriatric oaf you have 'in charge' now. He makes Roy of Watford look like Henry Kissinger .

One lives in hope. But as I always say, we elect the leaders we deseve, by whatever system. Flawed though they may be, yours and our systems, at least they are better than the systems on offer for the poor buggers in Russia. The Chinese, however, I suspect know exacly what they have and what they want. The russians, now, after 100 years or more of shithousery, may be beyond salvation.

And, in the long run, we are all dead. So live well. All the best to you and yours

I agree that Trump is sometime bonkers, but with a choice between Trump and Joe Biden I’ll choose bonkers all day long. As you say, even the best systems of government are only as good as the people running it.

 

[lasvegan]

And speaking of the USA and oligarchy…

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bongino-us-oligarchy-haves-not-biden-administration

Yes, I peruse the Bongino Report. You may not agree with any of it, which is fine. An interesting read nonetheless…

https://bonginoreport.com/

 

[drew]

And speaking of the USA and oligarchy…

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bongino-us-oligarchy-haves-not-biden-administration

Yes, I peruse the Bongino Report. You may not agree with any of it, which is fine. An interesting read nonetheless…

https://bonginoreport.com/

Weird. You're suggesting we take seriously someone who questions a global pandemic, face masks, and the result of the 2020 election amongst other things. Next you'll be posting links to Alex Jones and his conspiracy theories.

 

[lasvegan]

Weird. You're suggesting we take seriously someone who questions a global pandemic, face masks, and the result of the 2020 election amongst other things. Next you'll be posting links to Alex Jones and his conspiracy theories.

Like I said, you don’t have to agree with any of it. It is a subject that came up in earlier posts. And face masks are useless, ask anyone who used them and got Covid.

 

[McTavish]

Like I said, you don’t have to agree with any of it. It is a subject that came up in earlier posts. And face masks are useless, ask anyone who used them and got Covid.

Or ask the people who didn't get Covid from the people wearing them?