Trump has had an instinctive ability to tap into a certain anti-establishment mindset and manipulate it to his advantage. — Baden

I think his "instinctive ability" is that he's a realist. He's not burdened with visions of how things should be and so can better see things as they really are. Here's an example to illustrate.

The media typically presents itself as a public service, and we typically buy this story. Trump sees through this self flattering story the media tells itself about itself, and understands that corporate media is just another profit seeking business. He "instinctively" gets that the media is not in the news business, they are in the ad selling business, and that their business model is powered by drama. So Trump hands over a non-stop stream of drama and is rewarded by the media with a non-stop spotlight on his every utterance.

As evidence, using this method Trump has succeeded in getting you and me to talk about him in this thread. And by talking about him, focusing on him, keeping him in the spotlight, we are helping to make him powerful. We're all competing to proclaim how superior we are to Trump etc etc, but here we are, doing his bidding.

He's not playing 4D chess, so much as 1D checkers. — Baden

Um, when was the last time that piles of total strangers sent you 200 million dollars? When was the last time that powerful Senators got down on their knees before you? How many people come to your rallies? When were you last covered on the news?

My point is this. This thread is mostly little people trying to pretend they are big. Me too. It's not really about evidence or reason or philosophy so much as it is emotional posturing.

This is exactly what Trump and his sycophants are trying to achieve, although as SLX points out, Trump's mendacity is outweighed only by his utter lack of competence — Wayfarer

I can fully agree that Trump is an evil scumbag, so we don't have to debate that.

Claims by some that Trump is stupid and incompetent strike me as somewhat ridiculous emotional poses by my fellow members. In 2016 he defeated all competition from every party, and successfully showed the entire political and media classes to be incompetent in their predictions. Since then he's come to totally dominate the Republican Party to the point that very few Republican leaders will publicly stand up to him. Yes, he lost in 2020, but not by that much. And now he is using his defeat to raise something like 200 million dollars for investment in his next political adventure.

Dear fellow members, when you can match this record of accomplishment please return to the thread, this time with actual evidence, to show that you are smarter than Trump. When you get elected to ANY OFFICE, that would be a good time to try again.

Members are confusing their distaste for Trump, which I enthusiastically share, with an analysis of his intelligence. But then, the political commentary here is generally abysmal, so I have only myself to blame if I'm surprised.

Trump’s really acting like the guy who, when a girlfriend dumps him, throws acid in her face so that nobody else will like her - ‘if I can’t have her, nobody else can, either.’ — Wayfarer

Could be, a reasonable theory. Or, there could be more to this. If we can momentarily detach ourselves from our disgust of Trump, and for a bit look at him as a political communicator/debater, a man of rhetoric, he becomes rather more interesting.

We might observe how nobody really knows what Trump is up to. Everyone has their pet theory, but nobody really knows. Part of Trump's instinctive debate genius is to perpetually keep everyone off guard, confused, befuddled, not knowing what's going to happen next.

As example, imagine that he's preparing his followers to support a coming coup attempt. Not saying this is so, just asking you to imagine. Look at how we're unprepared for such a possibility. Is he a cartoon? An imbecile? An ego maniac? Is he serious? Is he cooking up a big surprise?

Yes, yes, I know, I know, each of you wants to chant "Trump is stupid and we are smart!!!" over and over again. Ok, fair enough, not really arguing, I just think it's more interesting to try to get beyond these emotional poses, our emotional poses, and try to look at Trump through other lenses. And, you know, he is President, and we are not.

I've been following American politics on an almost daily basis since the early sixties. Trump is easily the most interesting political figure of my lifetime. You look at him hosting some insipid reality TV show and can't imagine voting for him for dog catcher, and the next thing you know he's obtained personal control of the nation's nuclear arsenal. Hollywood is not creative enough to write scripts like this.

I think we should be careful in assuming that we know what Trump is up to. Trump himself may not know. He's a very instinctive and spontaneous player. And using that method he succeeded in defeating the entire political establishment at their own game, until very recently.

The time to relax will be when they're lowering Trump's casket in to the ground. Until then, we'd be wise to keep an open mind and pay attention.

I have started this topic because I haven’t heard any good arguments for what underpins the concept of morality in the absence of religion. — Restitutor

Ok then, here's an attempt. What underpins the concept of morality, what makes it objectively valid, is self interest.

Persistent interest in moral issues for thousands of years is not fundamentally about society, which is too large of a phenomena for most of us to grasp. And even if we can wrap our minds around something as large as society, we don't really care about society. One significant piece of evidence for this is a widespread lack of interest in nuclear weapons, a well oiled machine standing ready to erase society in just a few minutes. So while morality is certainly helpful to a society, and this is the context in which morality is often discussed, we might keep looking for what "underpins the concept of morality".

What makes morality objectively valid (without reference to any authority or higher power) is that it addresses fundamental problems of the personal human condition which have not changed in many thousands of years. Yep, regular readers, here it comes again... :-)

We are made of thought. Thought operates by a process of conceptual division. This process of division creates an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" perceived to be very small and "everything else" perceived to be very big. This division driven perception gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems.

Moral acts address this fundamental human problem by easing the perceived division between "me" and "everything else". Or, to put it more plainly, love feels good.

Religion is not necessary to discover the objective validity of morality because anyone of any belief can test morality for themselves, and in fact all but the psychopaths among us do so regularly. As example, what pulls me back from continuing to yell at my fellow forum members is not guilt, obligation, social pressure, the church, fear of the mods or any other higher power. What pulls me back from over indulging my worse instincts is that being an asshole doesn't feel good, that is, self interest.

So while the objective value of morality is not dependent upon religion or higher powers etc, in the spirit of self interest and feeling good we should try to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that, in Western culture at least, religion has been the leading spokesperson for morality for thousands of years. Religion continues to persist and prosper even in the age of science because a core part of it's message works in serving the individual's self interest.

seeking enlightenment inhibits enlightenment — The Opposite

Oh darn, I wanted to say that!

So I'm still trying to figure out what Trump's goal is in denying the validity of the election.

Is it something simple like the desire to stay in the spotlight as long as possible? Is it basically just spoiled brat egoism?

Or is there a larger plan in the works? Is he already running for 2024? Is he planning on transitioning from king to king maker, a new version of Rush Limbaugh? Maybe start his own media network called TrumpTV? Is he preparing his base to accept a coming coup?

Is it just a business calculation, with all publicity judged to be good publicity for his brand renting business?

Has he just trapped himself inside of an ego outburst? Or is his ever scheming mind cooking up a larger agenda? If so, what?

I remain intrigued by the idea that when seen from the perspective of the biosphere as a whole, we are the virus, and the corona bug is the antibody.

We are pushing the biosphere hard enough that significant parts of it are in risk of collapse, and the biosphere is responding by sending it's antibody soldiers to the site of the infection. If we keep pushing against the limits of the biosphere and the corona bug does not end the infection, more antibody soldiers will be sent.

If we keep pushing, either we will kill the biosphere, or it will kill us. Either way we lose.

Consider the theist who takes it to be an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God. Starting from that foundation, they then proceed to make various claims by referencing Bible verses which they feel support those claims. Note the two step process...

1) First one chooses an authority which one deems qualified, and then...

2) One references that authority to come to various conclusions.

What's happening in this thread is that human reason has been chosen as the authority which is deemed qualified to consider the subject of gods. And then various conclusions have been derived by reference to that authority. The original poster is agreeable to accepting challenges on Step 2, but not on Step 1.

Consider the theist who wishes to have a debate about the correct interpretations of various Bible verses. To them, the only valid debate is one in which one person says the Bible verse means X while another speaker says the Bible verse means Y.

And then you come along and ask, "Where is the proof the Bible is the word of God?" They can not provide proof, which tends to make the Bible verse interpretation game seem kind of meaningless. And so you become an unpopular person who is interrupting the game they wish to play.

But, I am wondering if there is ways to perhaps accelerate or sharpen the thoughts themselves — Thinking

There is such a way. Give the thinking a rest.

When we exercise our muscles we are damaging the muscles. The muscles are rebuilt a bit stronger during the time that we aren't exercising. This same simple common sense principle can be applied to the operations of thought.

Imagine that you bought a new machine from HomeDepot. The first thing you'd want to learn is where the on/off button is. If you couldn't or wouldn't find and learn the on/off button you'd be considered a totally incompetent user of that machine. You know, you'd be the guy who leaves his lawn mower running 24 hours a day in his garage because he never learned how to turn it off.

Philosophers wish to be great thinkers, but they typically can't be bothered to learn about the on/off button of their chosen tool. And so they often think non-stop every waking moment, thus needlessly dulling the edge of their knife. As a result most of philosophy is typically just an endless repetition of what somebody else has said, with each speaker attempting to rebrand what has already been said as their own invention.

Your stated goal is, "to perhaps accelerate or sharpen the thoughts themselves in order to almost physically comprehend more in a given moment".

Accelerating thoughts is easy enough, just feed your mind as much media stimulation as you can. In this case, you'll have more and more thoughts, of ever lesser value.

Sharpening the thoughts is a trickier business, as that will require letting the thoughts go on a regular basis, much as a the body builder gets stronger by resting.

Should the thoughts become sharp enough you might discover that your sharpened thoughts are less the path to what you really want than they are the primary obstacle. And then your philosophy may begin to devour itself. So if you really wish to be a great philosopher, don't sharpen your thoughts too much. :-)

One was about the conceptual basis of the conflict between Russia and the West, — jamalrob

There is no conflict between Russia and the West. There is a conflict between the Russian regime and the West.

and one was claiming that Putin's increasing authoritarianism is a response to perceived threats to his position. — jamalrob

Increasing authoritarianism is a highly predictable property of gangster despots.

You have to begin contributing here properly — jamalrob

Feel free to explain why I should bother. In my view, I'm showing the appropriate level of respect for this thread.

I'll accept what you say about Putin's wealth if it makes you happy, — jamalrob

Don't accept what I say, learn it for yourself. Everything I'm saying is only a few clicks away on Google.

but for the purposes of this discussion I don't really care about it.

Could you perhaps link us to the discussions where you do care about it?

The subject of foreign intervention and territorial expansion by Russia has come up a few times in this thread, with a few of the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about Putin's evil designs, or some such caricature. — jamalrob

At least one member is noticing how you consistently avoid explaining Putin's vast wealth to us.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-rich-vladimir-putin-us-senate-wants-know-russia-president-net-worth-1331458

Some analysts claim Putin may be the richest man in the world. Bill Browder, a British-American financier who previously did business in Russia, has estimated that the Russian President is worth about $200 billion.

Is that a US plot too?

And again, what you don't get, or aren't capable of getting, is that Putin's wealth is just the tip of the iceberg. Putin sits on top of a vast system of patronage with every level kicking a percentage of money stolen from the Russian people up to the next highest level.

And if you should shine a light on this vast theft, you mysteriously find yourself poisoned by some Soviet era chemical weapon.

I think it's almost to Putin credit that he's made it seem as though Russia is a far bigger fry than it is. — StreetlightX

Yea, Russia only has a big pile of hydrogen bombs they can deliver anywhere in the world in just a few minutes. Definitely a small fry little bit of nothing country.

Paul Edwards This will be my last reply to you — Benkei

YEA!!!

I was thinking about something along these lines today while daydreaming - that I seriously give very little shits about Russia as any kind of major world-level threat — StreetlightX

Yes, Russia only has enough nuclear weapons to destroy modern civilization in just a few minutes, an act they've come close to doing by accident at least a couple of times (as has the US), so why worry about them at all, as Russia couldn't possibly be any kind of major world level threat.

My take away from that was that my arguments apparently confuse you, which is probably why you never actually engage them. — Benkei

I don't engage you because you're not qualified to take up my time, on this particular subject. On other subjects I remain open minded.

Seeing the world in good and bad is the actual philosophical failure here, allowing for no nuance or reflection — Benkei

Plenty of nuance and reflection is possible once one has reached clarity on the bottom line. The problem with your posts is that you offer lots of nuance and reflection etc built upon a foundation of a fundamental confusion. That is, on this particular topic, you are an immature thinker, confusing a big pile of data, nuance and reflection etc with clarity.

If your ego wasn't so wound up in fantasy moral superiority poses you would likely be able to see the simplicity of such clarity. If Saddam moves in next door to you and screams start coming from the house, Saddam is the bad guy, and you are the good guy, the civilized neighbor. And as the good guy you would immediately call the police, knowing as you do that the police are imperfect human beings carrying guns.

Paul gets this. You don't.

When you do get it, you might become an interesting commentator on such subjects.

Ok, that's cute, and just another way of obscuring that you can't keep up, on this particular topic. On other topics I've found your commentary interesting and constructive, the "you can't die because you don't exist" thread for example, that was good.

Paul Edwards seems a good example of someone qualified to discuss this particular topic. Paul clearly understands that there are good guys and bad guys, and that the bad guys represent a clear threat to everything we hold dear. Paul is not at all confused about any of this, and the intellectual and moral clarity he demonstrates makes the rest of what he has to say worth considering.

Please note that I've been happy to disagree with Paul on tactical issues (in the Iraq war thread he started), and he has agreeably accepted such challenges and replied with his own. Such debate is entirely constructive. Paul doesn't know an air war against the Iranian regime would work, and I don't know that it wouldn't. So it's good to have opposing notions come in to constructive conflict so that additional light might be shed upon the options. Neither of us are afraid to be challenged.

My point is that it's not possible to have constructive debate with anyone who can't tell the difference between good guys and bad guys. And when when such ignorance is being hard sold by the mod team, the supposed "leaders" of the forum, we are traveling beyond the absurd. To the degree I've attempted to engage in such a ridiculous process, that's my own typoholic disease speaking, which I can blame on no one else of course.

Cartoonish, pretty much everything. Mainly, the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself, bleeding the people dry so he can build more palaces for himself. It's simplistic and a bit ignorant, I think. — jamalrob

You've yet to explain Putin's vast wealth. Please proceed to do so.

The label "cartoonish" is an attempt to fool readers, or perhaps just yourself, that characterizing a claim is equivalent to defeating that claim. Such an effort is fairly labeled "high schoolish", and unsuitable for the owner of a philosophy forum, who one would think might be making an attempt to model the kind of thinking and writing one would like to see more of.

I didn't say that "Putin is merely a gangster out for himself". You said that, and then attributed the claim to me. His regime is bleeding the Russian people dry, and he is building more palaces for himself, but we agree that's not the only thing he's doing. He's invading his neighbors for example, which as best I can tell you've expressed no complaint with.

Here's the core problem of this thread. A number of members wish to present themselves as sophisticated commentators on the geo-political situation, but they don't even know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, thus rendering all the rest of their blabber without any credibility at all.

This is a common problem in philosophy. Immature thinkers will often feel their value can be measured by how complex and sophisticated their statements are. In time they hopefully learn that the point of this process is to get to the simplest possible bottom line by the shortest path possible.

PLEASE NOTE: I said nothing about perfect guys, as there has never been such a thing and most likely never will be. Good guys and bad guys is a relative concept, as it always is when describing any human beings.

The question is, who is most likely to assist in building peace and freedom, and who is least likely to do so?

America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, invested huge amounts of money in to the attempt to make these better places, and now we are voluntarily leaving.

Putin invaded Ukraine, is doing nothing to improve what he has stolen, and he ain't leaving until somebody kicks him out.

The failure of so many members of this philosophy forum to grasp the overwhelmingly obvious difference between such good guys and bad guys is truly pathetic. It makes me embarrassed to have invested so much time in such a juvenile operation.

You have a cartoonish view of the Russian state. — jamalrob

Could you then please explain how Putin became so rich?

And it's not just Putin as a single person. Putin stays in power by allowing those under him to also steal a piece of the pie. So if the guy at the top is worth some number of billions, and there are god knows how many people under him doing his dirty work, and the theft goes on year after year, decade after decade, the total haul may be in the trillions. All sucked out of the Russian people.

Anyway, good try, but this thread is pointless. It's just another reminder of how bankrupt philosophy really is.

in which case he might be seeking to continue and intensify the cold war against Russia. — jamalrob

May I please renew a call for a bit more precision in our language? Nobody wants any kind of war with Russia. Some people do seek a higher level of opposition to the Russian regime.

The reason I keep quibbling about what may seem a small point is that when we refer to conflict with "Russia" or "Iran" implicit in such language is an assumption that the regimes of these countries are legitimate representatives of the populations which they dominate.

Putin is not Russia. Putin is a gangster who is robbing the Russian people. Do a google search. Many sources speculate that Putin may be one of the richest people in the world. Whatever his net worth, where do you think all that money came from? It came from the Russian people. They didn't donate this vast wealth, or willingly pay Putin a super generous salary. Putin stole the money through the elaborate patronage scheme which is the Russian government. It's just like the mob, everybody in the system steals whatever they can, and then kicks money up to whoever is above them on the totem pole. And Putin sits on top of the pole.

The Russians are very intelligent people. So why does their economy always suck? The answer is that the wealth of the Russian people is being systematically stolen on a massive scale by a very highly organized criminal gang headed by Putin.

The Russian people are one thing, the prey.

The Russian government is something else altogether, the predator.

We should use language which makes the distinction between the two clear.

Please stop talking to me — StreetlightX

You can ban me when ever you wish, no problem. This thread is just another example of why I have no fear of such a decision on your part.

Another dodge. — Benkei

Show me you are as outraged by psychopathic regimes shooting their own people down in the streets as you are by legally elected Western politicians, and then maybe we could have a useful discussion. Until then, I can only spend so much time in this thread.

The animosity to Russia makes very little strategic sense for me otherwise. — StreetlightX

There is no animosity to Russia from anybody that I've heard. There is animosity by many to the Russian regime.

The Russian regime is basically a high level Mafia organization which exists for the purpose of sucking as much money as possible out of the Russian people for deposit in secret off shore bank accounts. Where are your posts screaming snotty outraged rants about such a ruthlessly large scale theft, one wonders.

All of these regimes are basically just very smart criminal gangs who have progressed from robbing banks to stealing entire countries. They are, if you will, the elites of the criminal world.

I'm not sure who you're referring to here — jamalrob

European critics of American involvement around the world.

I was looking for some serious analysis from people who know more than me. — jamalrob

Ok, cool, you've certainly succeeded in generating stimulating conversation.

I've read that discussion. To me it's a very unattractive, rather deluded and unhinged vision. — jamalrob

I disagreed with Paul's tactics, but he's the only person I've read on this forum so far (best I can recall) that has the morality right. Gangster regimes are our enemy. Simple! But how to confront them, not so simple. Like I keep saying, I'm very open to a tactical debate. But people who don't understand who the enemy is are mostly a waste of time.

aside from all of that, the US has done some good things, but it still doesn't follow that US liberal interventionism is, currently, a wise way forward that will make things better on the whole. — jamalrob

1) I agree with Paul that it is the moral responsibility of those who are free to help others to also be free. This part is very clear and very simple.

2) What is the best method of helping imprisoned people in various circumstances? This part is very complicated and tricky.

By "liberal interventionism" I'm referring to efforts ostensibly to spread democracy or help suffering populations by means of interference in sovereign states: meddling in elections, imposing sanctions and other economic punishments, sponsoring opposition groups, regime change by direct military force, and so on. — jamalrob

Yes, I understand. How would your perspective relate to cases such as the allied invasion of Normandy, or resistance to Soviet expansionism? What should our relationship with despots be?

Even if that's true, it doesn't mean they want the US to do it for them. — jamalrob

As Paul correctly pointed out in the Iraq war thread, it's asking a bit much for unarmed civilians to overthrow determined psychopaths with armies at their disposal all on their own. The thing is, we have no way of knowing what the Iranian people really want because the Iranian regime has stolen their right to speak, to vote.

Intellectual dishonesty is dodging the same issue three times in a row — Benkei

You're clogging the thread with junk, if I reply to every one of your little posts all hope will be lost for this thread. If you wish to now claim victory, please do so, I don't mind.

which was a war that the US gave weapons to both sides in — Coben

Yes, because the strategy at that time was to let the competing psychopaths fight each other instead of fighting us. And because Saddam exhausted himself in Iran he was thus much easier to defeat when it became necessary to do so.

Though the invasion led to the creation of Isis and this was certainly a threat to the neighbors — Coben

Yes, IS was a threat, and so the Islamic State was then effectively crushed.

We might observe how Iraq war critics are typically far more interested in demonizing those who crushed the Islamic State than they are in demonizing the Islamic State. It was the same for Saddam. Five words about Saddam being bad, and then 27 billion words about Bush as the new Satan etc. Complete lack of moral clarity.

then changed to fighting an evil regime for the people of Iraq and then didn't give a shit about them in the long run. — Coben

Iraq war critics showed no interest in the Iraqi people before the war, and now that American involvement in Iraq has wound down they again show no interest. That is, they were never interested in the Iraqi people, they were only interested in using the war to score partisan political points. If Iraq war critics were interested in the Iraqi people they could, for example, argue for a massive rebuilding fund.

The US ought to fuck right off from anywhere possible — StreetlightX

What country are you in Street? If your country is in NATO have you petitioned your government to leave that alliance? If yes, that would seem to be an intellectually honest position which I could respect.

If I understand correctly, the EU has an economy roughly equivalent to the US. If true, then the EU should be able to afford to defend itself without reliance on America. You might be surprised how many Americans would be agreeable to such an outcome. Should Russian troops push deeper in to Ukraine, it's your continent, you deal with it.

Irrelevant. You argued that it was just and right to invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. — Benkei

If you intend to continue a pattern of blatant intellectual dishonesty it will probably be best for me to ignore you so as to preserve the peace of the thread.

As for the neocons, they always wanted to wipe Iran off the face of the earth — StreetlightX

They wish to wipe the Iranian REGIME off the face of the earth. So do most Iranians best I can tell. Just to be clear, the Iranian regime is not Iran. The Iranian regime is a relatively small group of gangsters holding the Iranian people prisoner.

My argument is that we should share agreement that the Iranian regime is a psychopathic theocratic dictatorship, and that it is morally sound to wish them gone. Once that's done, then we can then have a reasonable debate about tactics. As example, Paul Edwards feels we should try to overthrow the Iranian regime with an air war, which I have already argued against in his thread. I prefer a more patient and peaceful strategy of attempting to bankrupt the regime through sanctions etc. Others may argue we leave the job to the Iranian people. If such debates can be stripped of the fantasy moral superiority poses, such debates seem reasonable and constructive.

The challenge we face is that many critics of American policy cherish their fantasy moral superiority poses above all else, and once that's taken away they typically lose all interest in such subjects. I'm open minded on that for now, but my best guess is that this will be the fate of this thread.

Simple calculus is that Saddam killed less people during his entire reign — Benkei

See? You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, which is why I'm not taking you seriously. A million people were killed in the Iran/Iraq war alone.

Also, you continually make the classic mistake of the typical Iraq war critic. You completely ignore what Saddam (and his sons) would have done given another 20 years in power. Whatever that death toll would have added up to, it's completely missing from all your calculations.

As you know, Iran is riding the edge of becoming a nuclear power. How do you think Saddam and his sons would have responded to that threat? There's an excellent chance that with Saddam's regime still in power we'd now be witnessing a nuclear arms race exploding across the Middle East. Instead, today's Iraqi government presents no threat to any of it's neighbors.

But nuance and subtlety and actually thinking things through seem to be a problem — Benkei

Blah, blah, blah, thank you for the morally superior lecture. Try again when you get around to thinking things through.

Oh, and add to that such beauties as the "unitary executive theory" and that it was Obama who started military actions in Libya and Syria without congressional approval. Clear moral vision my fucking ass. — Benkei

If your argument is that Americans are not perfect, I agree. If your argument is that America makes mistakes, again agree.

Are you in Europe? If yes, why not petition your government to leave NATO? Nobody is forcing you to be part of that alliance, so if you think we suck, ok, fair enough. So go do your own thing instead.

Because your elections are bought and paid --> everything that derives from it is circumspect. — Benkei

Ok then, you're right. So America will now bow out of all it's partnerships around the world such as NATO and then the morally superior Europeans will be free to make the best deal with Putin and the Chinese Communists that they can get.

You have to admit that some of the more recent attempts to show morally right balls ended up making things worse, as in Iraq? — frank

So, bring back Saddam then? That's a reasonable question which members could address.

There was a choice. Invade Iraq, leading to what we see in Iraq today. Or don't invade Iraq, and Saddam's sons would most likely now be in charge there. Both of these outcomes are highly imperfect. There is no perfect choice available.

As a test, someone could run for high office in Iraq on the platform of bringing back a regime as close to Saddam's as possible. We could see how that vote goes.

I do agree that tactical debates are reasonable. There are better and worse ways to confront tyrants, and all solutions are not created equal.

A lineage of Democratic American presidents who had clear moral vision, and the balls to confront the gangsters. Some succeeded, some failed, all had the right idea. Best I can tell, Biden will be part of this tradition.

Here's an interesting thread some of you may have missed.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9544/iraq-war-2003

Paul Edwards makes the case for aggressive military action to overthrow despots.

In that thread I applaud the clarity of his moral vision, while debating some of his suggested tactics. Personally, that seems a constructive way to proceed on such topics. Here's an example...

Imagine that Donald Trump (or the leader of your own country) took away your right to vote and then shot you and your friends down in the street when you dared to protest that theft. I think we all know how you would feel about such a theft and the thief. You'd be OUTRAGED!!!. And that's the appropriate way to feel. We should all be able to agree on this. If we can't, there's really no point in further conversation.

The next question is, what to do about the theft? This is a tactical question where we can reasonably differ because none of the choices are pretty or easy. If such a discussion can be stripped of the fantasy moral superiority poses which are so popular, I'd find such a tactical debate to be reasonable and constructive.

The question is irrelevant because anyone elected via the banana-republic system in place in the US is unqualified to have access to that button. — Benkei

A transparent (and somewhat lazy) attempt to position yourself as being above the arguments presented, without actually meeting any of the arguments. Or even trying.

Here's the way to attack Biden, and America more generally....

1) Biden applied to be the American Commander-In-Chief which gives him, a single human being, a single button he could press to utterly destroy modern civilization within minutes.

2) We American voters didn't ask him about that button.

3) Biden said almost nothing about the button himself.

4) And you too dear great philosopher are as equally guilty of being as utterly clueless as any of those mentioned above.

See the problem here? You can't throw stones at Biden and America without throwing a few at yourself as well. And that is... UNACCEPTABLE!! So this line of reasoning will die a quick and quiet death.

What will the Biden presidency of the United States mean for the world? — jamalrob

A far more united global effort to fight climate change for one. Of course there's no where to go but up from here.

This, along with the generally more bellicose tone of the Democrats over the past few years, leads me to wonder if we might be going to see an interventionist foreign policy even more ambitious and more dangerous than Bush's or Obama's. — jamalrob

BUSH: Would you like to see Saddam back in power?

OBAMA: Would you like to see Al-Qaeda restored to it's former glory?

TRUMP: Bring back the Islamic State?

And if you would please sir, could you please explain why a philosophy forum which absolutely refuses to discuss nuclear weapons even the slightest little bit should be considered qualified to offer credible commentary on issues of global security?

From my point of view, this seems like it will only strengthen Biden's liberal imperialist agenda. — jamalrob

Here's one view of the last century seen through one American's eyes.

1) In WWI we lost about 100,000 American lives to help stop Europeans from killing each other in vast numbers in yet another totally pointless European war.

2) Twenty years later in WWII we did the same thing again.

3) From 1950 until 1989 we risked the nuclear annihilation of the American homeland in order to prevent Russian tanks from rolling across Europe to the English channel.

As our reward we now get to enjoy some (certainly not all) snooty Europeans lecturing us about what baby killing war mongers we are pretty much any time we try to liberate from bondage any one else in the world. This moral "logic" is summarized as follows:

Saving Europeans from themselves = good.
Saving anyone but Europeans = bad.