Just looked him up. It’s not the same person.

Second, he resonates with those whose political sentiments are based on fear and resentment. It is not that he understood this, but rather that these are his political sentiments too. They range from his opposition to government regulations which force him to comply with safety and environmental codes when building, to being forced to rent to blacks, which he fought in court and lost, to scapegoating Muslims and minorities even though his businesses hire many illegal immigrants.

Third, he made a deal with Evangelicals. Trump, who until recently favored abortion rights, became a anti-abortion champion. I do not recall ever expressing strong pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem views before the Evangelicals made a deal with the devil. Why they are pro-Israel, pro-Jerusalem is something I discussed in this topic not too long ago. Why he is is because of their political power. Like his attraction to ostentatious displays of wealth — Fooloso4

I don’t believe Trump actually believed the birther bullshit. He just knew it would be widely popular. Also, your second paragraph which I quoted above furthers the argument that Trump understands people (at least a lot of people).

Who wrote “The World is Flat”? I think that is the guy who writes for the NYT.

Politics are the show indeed, the bread to the people, the coliseum to us Romans. Everywhere in the world. — James Pullman

It seems to be better in the Scandinavian countries. There the governments appear to work for the people. The institutions of my country aren’t inherently bad, but there are many bad people running them. That said, there are “good” people in my government who have “good” policy positions that would greatly benefit the people. Elizabeth Warren is one. I doubt she is all buddy buddy with Devin Nunez.

If I ever get out of this quagmire of apathy that I’m in, then I will read those thinkers’ works. As of now, I’m just trying to survive each day.

Is David Friedman the one who writes for the New York Times? Whichever Friedman that is, I like what he has to say.

That is only the show that they put on for their constituents. They all work together to expand the powers of government over the governed. Behind closed doors they are all pals. — Harry Hindu

I have no doubt that they can set aside their differences at times, and that many of them are friends, but I don’t subscribe to that particular flavor of conspiracy theory.

Of that, I have no doubt. May I ask which right-libertarians you have read? — Virgo Avalytikh

I am only familiar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and the many right-wing politicians who espouse that philosophy.

I never espoused socialism per se. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that what I call “right-wing libertarianism” is the same thing as what you call “right-wing libertarianism,” just as what you mean by “socialism” is not what I mean by it.

Well, 'morally bankrupt' is quite a serious charge if you don't have anything with which to back it up. 'I wrote a book but then deleted it' isn't too impressive, you understand. — Virgo Avalytikh

Yeah, I can be a bitch (or dick), too. I just choose not to be right now.

Meaning that wasn’t intended by the artist is the best kind of meaning of all, IMHO.

I don’t have a copy anymore. I deleted it in a self-destructive fit.

The rise of identity politics is the result of the State focusing on our differences to use them to divide us. Instead of focusing on the corruption of the elites in government positions, they have us pointing the finger at each other. — Harry Hindu

Not only that. The “State” itself is equally divided.

I self-published a now unpublished book, and I wrote a little in the Philosophers’ espousing socialism thread.

Not really. I’ve outlined my views elsewhere before. I’ve just no interest in doing it again. This just harkens to my thread on identity politics. I suppose I am stubborn in a lot of ways, too. I’m open to new ideas, but the right-wing libertarian philosophy is morally bankrupt.

I tend to think that universes are constantly being belched from other universes. One or many had to have always existed.

I am in agreement with you. I just didn’t feel like ripping into someone I like. Besides, I’ve been through this song and dance before. Usually the right-wing libertarians give straw man arguments and oversimplify how the world works. I just get exhausted arguing with them.

(just the cherry: personal provocation by opposite ideas between great minds has, historically, given birth to important conclusions and added up knowledge). — James Pullman

Often times the synthesis or completely original idea formed after considering a battle of minds is done by a third party. Some can learn. Others are more stubborn. The current state of affairs in Western democracies and the coercion of the several autocracies is decidedly stubborn.

The Princess Bride always makes our points better. — T Clark

So wise and true.

The identity that matters most is one's identity as a human-being-becoming-a-person. We can be grouped into pairs, families, clans, tribes, interest groups, nations, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Two Statists and one Anti-Statist? One can be proud but at the same time indifferent. I think this is the best way. This way, differences are recognized but one doesn’t have to give up one’s identity. One can also learn if one is indifferent and can strengthen one’s justifications. That’s something one can be proud of.

One of the lessons here is: If you don't want near by countries to collapse into shit holes, then help them. This idea certainly applies to Central America. We could stem, even reverse, the flow of migrants from Central America by a comprehensive development program which could do for the area what the Marshal Plan did for Europe. And we should, since we have been fucking this region over for what, a century at least, and longer. — Bitter Crank

That seems very intelligent and moral to me. Good luck getting the conservatives to tax and spend, though.

The Princess Bride made my point better. Thanks.

Thanks for the input. I should have a few to several paragraphs in an OP sometime today. Thanks for suggesting such an important topic! :smile:

I understand. That´s why I purposed the topic! :) — James Pullman

Let me mull it over and see what I can come up with.

So we should open a topic, no? We could call it " On the concern of balance the need for recognition and the need to be different". What you think? — James Pullman

The politics of difference is of interest to me as well as your normative implication. I think that would be an awesome topic, but I wouldn’t know where to start.

conflict is a conflict: opposition, battle, differ, diverge, disagree. And for the record, i don´t see it necessarily as a negative thing. Like I said, I like it. From discussion, if endured and persevered, normally results increase of knowledge. — James Pullman

Conflict does help me to understand things better. It’s just that so many people take it personally or get personal. I’m not immune to that myself.

Also for the record, If I was American, I would not vote for Trump. — James Pullman

I didn’t take it that you would.

Well, obviously I disagree, but I don’t want to battle you on social policy.

I’m not sure what you mean by “search conflicts.”

I agree. My confused use of language was trying to communicate what you just said.

I think Trump is very smart. — James Pullman

He has the keen ability to manipulate, which is a sign of intelligence at least in one forum.

You sound like you'd be fun to debate. — Virgo Avalytikh

If you like to win, then yes. I’m a terrible debater.

So, I am incompatible with the practices of Oxford University Press. Furthermore, there is no doubt that I am more stubborn than them. There is simply no hope for them that they would defeat me in nay saying. That kind of people cannot make me adjust to them, because I have a long history of doing exactly the opposite, and always winning at that. As Nassim Taleb so beautifully wrote: The most intolerant wins. — alcontali

The most intelligent are often the most humorous, and at the same time, inaccessible to the masses.

In my opinion, human society is effectively capable of scaling into the millions (and even billions) without unduly restricting personal freedom or imposing ill-founding collectivism; which is what Noam Chomsky's political philosophy would lead to. (Well, it historically certainly did.) — alcontali

I was thinking that selfishness and individualism cannot be the sole foundation as there is a duality to humanity which includes concern for the community. There is a selfishness and an altruistic drive in most people who aren’t psychopaths or sociopaths.

That’s why I believe in responsible capitalism with aspects of democratic socialism, namely the inclusion of unions, worker inclusion on company boards, and a strong social safety net.

Or....there is some subtlety hidden in the negation that escapes me, and the whole OP actually has some epistemic value. — Mww

Maybe my title was confused. I’m not sure now. I don’t have a lot of confidence in that.

I was thinking that if truth is a requirement of knowledge, then happening to correspond with actual states of affairs in reality cannot be fully known (or certain or proved).

I’m not sure that games with rules have meaning, but they can be meaningful to some.

Chomsky isn't God, of course. But I think you might cut him some slack if he doesn't happen to meet your criticism needs at some particular moment. — Bitter Crank

I found that what I’ve read from Chomsky is pretty disturbing and scary stuff. I think his criticisms should be leveled at the individuals who led and continue to lead these institutions more so than the institutions themselves. My opinion.

I agree. “Work” as in work you don’t enjoy or work that you mind is a dirty word.

“Work sets you free.” At one time a spiritual lesson, then made sinister by Auschwitz. Fucking Nazis.

Dare I ask for a translation?