The one who will beat Trump will have to call out - and prove - the fact that both parties have turned their backs on regular American workers.

The border situation came about long before Trump.

Let's see...

Actual minorities speaking in favor of Trump vs. surveys and polls saying otherwise.

Pardon me for not exactly having much confidence in surveys/polls, given how fucking wrong they were before, and how easily the wording and sample can be - and are - both carefully selected for influencing a particular answer/result.

I must avoid jumping on my favourite hobby-horse in your thread. — unenlightened

Advice I should take more often...

:wink:

More rhetoric...

Meh.

What have I missed that matters?

Weird but very true. They all have lots of letters after their names too... if that matters to you.


That popularity thing is good know. A glimmer of hope? I've been out of the political news loop - intentionally - for quite a while.

The quality of the material being read matters too... right? :wink:

I would be happy to vote for Warren, except I have this irritant in the back of my mind. I remember how she endorsed Hillary despite her position being in near perfect alignment with Bernie. Despite her knowledge - deep knowledge - of the 2008 crash. Despite her knowledge of Hillary's financial ties. Despite her knowledge of Hillary's economic policies. Despite all her knowledge, she still endorsed Hillary...

Odd to say the least.

Too much feminist thought(anyone except another white guy) clouding one's judgment? Perhaps.

Bernie suffers from being just another old white guy... suffers from racist thought. Ironic but true. I have actually heard many well educated, normally well spoken, minority women and men say exactly that...

Anyone except another old white guy...

Shame.

Democrats did not elect Clinton. The DNC elected Clinton. The people would've elected Sanders had they been able to make their minds up for themselves. The pattern was recognized and intentionally avoided by Clinton and her support team. Quite telling that Obama and Clinton had upwards of 30 public debates. These are pivotal for free and fair elections. The more people see and hear Clinton, the less fans she has. Bernie got somewhere between 5 and 10 debates, and those were not at good time slots for the highest numbers of public viewing(during highly anticipated popular sporting events) . Despite the infrequency, after each debate his numbers grew significantly and hers dropped. The writing was on the wall.

The lack of coverage for Bernie was unacceptable in a purported republic with democratic traditions. Shameful. Points back to the real problem, including but not limited to...

...legitimized bribery.

Rabble-rousers... oh how definitions and values can change.

Trump is not.

Thomas Paine was. John Hancock was. Paul Revere was. Crispus Attucks was not. Jefferson was. Washington was. Hamilton was.

The United States is great because of people like those women, who are changing what needs changed from the inside, because they love our country. Wanting change does not equate to hating one's country.

Trump is an idiot. (in my opinion, these people hate our country)

The actual events preceding and influencing/affecting/effecting the social climate are many. The descriptions we accept and allow of those events must be scrutinized in terms of relevancy and/or adequacy.

Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom.

And, at the end of the day it's still the same old crap with this guy. But, you know... Things could always be worse. — Wallows

Indeed they could...

:wink:

It could also be the case that 48 or 49 of the 50 United States have enacted laws that force an individual private citizen to sign away his/her own intellectual property rights as an agreement of future employment.

Now...

What were you saying earlier Maw?

Trump is not the problem.

Most people I've been around are surprised at the sheer amount of support Trump had around the fringes of non college educated white males. Many of these 'outliers' are like me, except they're neither white nor male. They are the group of people who have intimate and negative personal experience with the results of America's push for globalism at the expense of a very large swathe of it's own populations' well-being.



Lobbyists write American law.

Lobbyists work on behalf of corporate interests.

Lobbyists are not elected.



I've heard the argument given that the reason lobbyists and other unelected individuals are allowed to write(or help write) American legislation is due to the highly specialized knowledge and/or background of any particular subject matter that the law has purview over(jurisprudence).

In other words...

Some law involves deep considerations/knowledge involving highly specialized subject matters such as global economic and/or environmental impacts. Those are the most serious sorts of consideration, and we ought approach such concerns using the most knowledgable, honourable, admirable, and reasonable minds available.

Those are excellent reasons to seek counsel and character standards to satisfy, but...

I would argue against the forwarding of all positions bearing any significant resemblance. I mean, such a position does not constitute adequate justificatory ground for allowing an unelected individual to write the laws that our elected officials are supposed to write. The need to seek counsel does not justify seeking just any counsel, especially one who advocates on behalf of those whose best interests are in direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of the general American public.



That's a real problem that reflects others.



The elected official has the sole responsibility of representing those who elected him/her. That is to partake in exactly that promise:To act on their behalf. Acting on their behalf is acting in their best interest. When an elected official is seeking counsel who's deliberately and intentionally acting on behalf of conflicting interests we have another very real problem.

That sort of rhetoric won't cut it. We can let the readers decide. What's the topic statement?

Too bad. With that comment about substantiated opinions and all, I figured you meant it.

I'll tell you what Maw. I love a good debate. You may know that about me already. Let's have one. Shall we?

We could do it in the debate forum. It deserves that kind of attention, in my mind. This site hasn't has one yet. And... as a bonus, the debate forum has better rules of engagement. We could come to agreement about the debate topic/statement, who will argue in the affirmative/negative, and the other terms.

Interested?

Confronting the country? As if it's new?

Her eyes must've been closed for a long time.

That's not the problem. If you do not agree that the things you just mentioned paved the way for Trump by virtue of securing enough non racist votes for him to squeak by, then there's not much more I can say. Everyone is entitled to their own belief.

The other problem is that the real problem(set out above) will be very hard to bring to light - even after Trump is gone - without being associated with/to Trump and white nationalists.

That's a bigger problem than Trump, who is not the problem, but rather a symptom.

The point was made. Just in case in seemed unclear in any way...

There are a very large portion of United States citizens who no longer think/believe that the government is acting in their best interest, and justifiably so. Some of those people were/are white people with no college education who used to be able to live comfortably by following the rules, working hard, and saving their money. They could realize the American Dream just by doing that.<-----That is no longer the case.<------------That is the problem.

This describes - roughly and generally - the conditions that led up to Trump. Trump is not the problem. Racists are not the problem. The legislation passed over the last fifty or so years has pulled the rug out from underneath of far too many Americans. This legislation is not exclusive to either party. Both parties, and nearly every president since Jimmy Carter has had such bills passed during their administrations. Those pieces of legislature caused demonstrable, quantifiable unnecessary harm to everyday ordinary average people, not all of whom are either white or racist, but all of whom used to be able to follow the rules, work hard, and be successful by their own standards. They used to be able to realize their American Dream.

Disagree all you like. There's nothing illegal about being wrong.

As I've said elsewhere, Trump's election was the result of the white identity, along with socio-cultural, economic, and political status slowly being questioned and balanced, and we are experiencing that backlash to this. — Maw

That's a part of it. Unfortunately, as I've already mentioned above, it's just not enough of the whole story.

Think what you like Maw. I'm not at all denying the racial vestiges that remained in America prior to Trump. I'm not denying that white nationalism remains. I'm not denying the existence of the KKK. They have a rally every year in Cincinnati, for God's sake. I'm simply pointing out that those people - and plenty of others - were marginalized in real financial terms, by means of less and less opportunity. If it were not for that, Trump would not have had the foothold needed. The racists alone did not elect Trump.

The United States of America has always had the best justice system money could buy. Now it has the best government money can buy, and it's been that way since Ronnie Raygun(arguably long before). Citizens United has made it legally possible for foreign entities to buy some of it. It's a shit-show on multiple levels.

Trump is not the problem. He's merely a symptom.

What's terrifying to me is the way white nationalism subsumes an otherwise perfectly warranted attitude about whose best interest a government and other elected officials should act upon. Guilty by association, anyone who seems like a white nationalist will seem to be simply by expecting a government to act in the best interest of it's everyday ordinary citizens...

What underwrites that issue underwrites many. The general public tends to think in the terms served to them... That's a big problem when those who determine the terms do not have the best interest of the public in mind... but rather their own and that interest conflicts with the common everyday citizen's.

Trump gained power - in large part - due to a largely marginalized segment of the American population, not all of whom have racist attitudes. Those people who did not and/or could not attend college, although some did. These people used to be able to just follow the rules, work hard, and still be able to buy a house and live comfortably with some sort of retirement(pension or what have you).

That's the American Dream for many people, and it's realization was happening for generations. That's what "Make America Great Again" meant to some people who believed Trump when he said things like he wanted to put America and American's first, and talked about trade wars, manufacturing, and building trades jobs. Those people have been marginalized. Not all of them are racist.

For a long list of reasons(different legislation spanning the last fifty years or so) that's just not the cae anymore, and that change is the result - the inevitable consequence - of the government's own doing, along with the unwitting willingness of the general public to consume important topics in whatever terms they are fed.

So...

Here, just like most elsewhere, the understanding of Trump and the conditions allowing Trump to happen, is based upon inadequate understanding. After all this is over, the issues that gave rise to Trump, will be even harder to address, because too many legitimate and valid points have been subsumed by Trump in his speech acts(although he does not always speak sincerely or even know what he's talking about) and anyone afterwards who attempts to raise these issues will be judged by association to Trump, and quite mistakenly.

To be clear, I loathe that man. I'm not defending him in the least.

What are you talking about?

There's an obvious disconnect here. Are you denying what he wrote? That's a foundational premiss Baden. He wrote it. He believes it. Everything you've written in the last couple of posts supports the idea.

Show me where he says otherwise.

If any thought exists before words, he's wrong.

Anyway... the subject matter and the OP are very interesting. I just don't think it's a good idea to lean too much on that guy's offering about the origen of all thought.

I mean if you had even bothered looking at this on the same page:

"The relation of thought to word is not a thing but a process, a continual movement back and forth from thought to word and from word to thought"

Your whole criticism falls to pieces. — Baden

What?

:brow:

Does this somehow exonerate him from saying that thought comes into existence through words?

OK, cool, I was just clarifying that you weren't claiming that knowing how to use the word entailed having the ability to say what the word means.

Nice example too! — Janus

Thanks.

I offered valid criticism. I received ad hom and red herring.

So, it's rubbish but it's certainly mostly true? You seem to be having trouble with the concept 'rubbish'. Perhaps some thought would help. Your posts are confused strawmen based on taking one sentence out of context and mangling it. — Baden

Whatever Baden.

:brow:

He wrote that thought comes into existence through words. No mangling needed. He's clear. He's wrong. If he meant some thought(rather than all) comes into existence through words he would have said so. He did not. His use of "merely" is to emphasize that it is not only that thought is expressed in words, but rather... that thought's very existence - the very existence of thought... comes through words. That clearly implies all thought. If I'm wrong, show me where he clearly asserts the contrary. He doesn't.

He's dead wrong, as is anyone else who believes that. It's rubbish.

I simply pointed it out. You - of all people - partake in personal attacks? Aren't you a moderator or part owner here? Someone of some importance, that much is certain.

Meh.

My father once said to me "Michael, behave." in a somber and serious, but not at all angry, voice. I was around three to three and a half. I answered, "I am being have". Pronounce that with a long "A" not short, as in "behave". I had drawn correlations, associations, and/or connections between being good and behaving. Being have was being good.

That wasn't parroting. It was a misuse of language, but perfectly understandable.

That question has already been adequately answered. What more proof could anyone ask for?

I was disagreeing with...

Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them. — Vygotsky

...because the author kept being referenced.

The story of the child is not at issue. The mother uses the phrase containing "function" in a way that correlates, associates, and/or otherwise connects it to the way she feels about starting the day without something. "I can't function without my coffee". The child uses it for the same reasons. The mother wants to have her coffee, and the child wants to have her blanket.

Using words doesn't always require thinking about using words. Answering the question of what some word or other means does. The latter is metacognitive. The former is not.

The something extra involving answering what some word or other means (meaning+) is the ability to pursue a metacognitive endeavor.

Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them. — Vygotsky

Rubbish.

Some. Certainly. Most. Certainly. Not all. It takes pre-existing thought to learn words/language.

Nice to have you aboard! — unenlightened

Thank you kind sir. Nice to be welcomed.

Thought cannot produce the new, because it is reflective — unenlightened

Reflective thought - strictly speaking - could be characterized as any and all thought/belief about what's happened. However, I think we want it to be a bit more significant than that though. Right? Otherwise all thought/belief aside from prediction and/or expectation would count as being reflective. Thinking about the sound one just heard would be reflecting upon past sounds. Reflective thought/belief has to have some more significance that just being thought/belief that is not expectation and/or prediction.

Reflective thought/belief is thinking about one's own worldview, one's own previous statements, behaviours, thoughts, and/or experiences. It is remembering how terrible one felt on one's own wedding day. It is regretting one's prior decision.

Reflective thought not only can - but it also does - produce the new.

Novel correlations drawn between things can be both. Being new thought and being reflective thought are not mutually exclusive and/or incompatible That's the general outline. Specific examples are innumerable. Here are a few examples thereof...

One can dig with a familiar item that one has never previously imagined to be and/or witnessed being used for that purpose. That is reflective thought that produced new use of a previously existing tool.

There comes a time in everyone's lives that we have our first clear memory of that which has already happened. When one first remembers one is remembering that which has previously become significant, symbolic, and/or otherwise meaningful. That memory consists of thought/belief that are both new and reflective.

The original experience(now being remembered) included an array of directly perceptible things. The memory of that experience does not include that same array of things. Rarely does. We could even say that memory never includes all the same directly perceptible things. While being strict enough about what counts as being the same thing without drowning in Heraclitus' untenable river, we can talk sensibly about an attainable criterion for being called "the same". Strictly speaking, the memory of the original experience is never exactly the same as the original experience. However, the memory can and often does include the same sorts of things.

A familiar(same sort of) sound in a new environment connects past and present. A familiar smell in a new environment does the same. New thoughts will always include some of the same content. That's how thought/belief works.

The sound of bells heard by one who is in another country can trigger memories also involving the sound of a bell. Wedding bells can trigger new thought and reflective thought. One can be certain that one is amidst a wedding ceremony in Vienna without knowing anyone involved, because one can still know who the bride and groom are, the flower girl, the ring bearer, etc. if certain circumstances arise.

These are new events with new things. There are new correlations drawn between old ideas, thoughts, and memories and currently directly perceptible things. Being reflective and being new are not mutually incompatible and/or exclusive.

Imagine walking in a familiar town. Imagine further, being particularly deep in evocative contemplative thought. There is an important upcoming foreseeable choice to be made. An inevitable future decision between two mutually exclusive options. A foregone conclusion as it were.

The sounds of wedding bells, laugher, and excitement suddenly capture a sizable chunk of your attention. You immediately realize where you are. You're in front of the church. Hmph. It's funny how sometimes we go on autopilot only to have something or other redirect our awareness to our immediate surroundings and away from the imagined impending situation.

The wedding is in the background. Literally, it's going on behind you. You are immediately reminded of a past distaster of a wedding, but immediately note that this one is different. There are happy go lucky friendly voices and the offerings of congratulations everywhere. Your attention is now more trained, and the decision dominating your thought now fades off in the background as you listen to what's going on behind you while still picturing your own wedding day.

Suddenly the cheering crowd increases their volume, and before you know it a plethora of voices begin begging for the bouquet to be thrown their way. You're now deliberately attempting to picture what's going on behind you. A content smile begins to form. Weddings have always carried feelings of happiness. Just because some are bad ideas, does not mean that they all are. You're curious now what the wedding gown looks like. Sometimes they are the most beautiful things. Oh! The lucky person caught the bouquet! The crowd raises the roof.

You turn to see the entire entourage. You cannot find the ring-bearer or the flower girl. At least, you cannot be too certain which child acted as either. The bride though... her identity is clear and obvious. And the recipient of the bouquet is waving it around cheerfully as though she'd found a life changing item or perhaps won the lottery.

These are reflective and new thought, as they must be. There is no way to acquire a wealth of knowledge about anything in particular without reflecting upon that thing. Each thing learned is new. The composite of all the new thought has reflective thought as a basis.

There are new reflections. Things like learning. — creativesoul

I'm going to play hardball about this; it's a question of time. Something is new at time t, and thereafter it is not strictly new, though we may go on referring to it as new for convenience for any length of time eg. any number of towns called Newtown, Newquay, Newcastle.

It follows that new something n, at time t, is unknown. Not that one doesn't plan Newtown before building it, but the plans are imaginary, and however detailed and closely followed they are, the built town will be capable of surprising the builders because the real is more than the imagined. (It might fall down in the first storm)

This use of "imaginary" and "real" seems a bit arbitrary and unhelpful. Hardball is good.

At the time when the plans are complete but ground has yet to have been broken...

The plans are new. The plans are real. The town is imaginary. The plans are not the town. The plans are known. The town is not.

Likewise, something m, new to me at time t, I can only reflect upon later when i have already learned from the new experience.

There seems to be some disconnect here. The something new to you at time t is part of a larger new experience. Red dresses can be the new focal point of a language-less child who does not know that what she is witnessing is a wedding ceremony.

The red dress is part of the child's new experience. The child will remember that experience every time something else later reminds her of it. Could be that she's learned nothing from the experience. She was in a mental state of being completely captivated by that red dress, at that time, and partly as a result of the lady's face. It and the dress had arrested all of the child's attention. This child later remembers the woman wearing the red dress on the day of captivation, as the result of seeing another lady, who like the lady wearing the red dress, had hairy dark growth patches above their eyes.

Remembering the wedding, the lady in the red dress's face, and the red dress is reflective thought. It is to recall some prior thought/belief about something that happened. Recollection is reflecting on past.

I think that one can reflect upon one's own worldview as well. A new viewpoint can be later reflected upon without learning much at all from the viewpoint aside from what it consists of. One can also experience what happens when s/he/they consider and agree with a new viewpoint. One can later recollect this learning experience. In this latter set of circumstances, the argument given fits.

However, there are other situations when it doesn't. Not all new experience involves learning another way to talk about the same things.

One sees a wedding for the first time. That experience may not include being able to name the event. One can witness a wedding without knowing how to articulate language. There are new things within the experience.

The recognition of new things is an experience. A new experience is full of new things. A new experience is full of old things. The recognition of a new experience contains both, new and old things. Having a new experience does not require recognizing that one is having it.

This is the distinction I want to make, the temporal one, between the present, experiential, learning process, and the accumulating, learned, reflective thought process...

One that is worthy of consideration. That distinction is spatiotemporal only. Some content can transcend both time and space.

Unfortunately, because I'm aware of the fondness you have for Hume(he is the man), the mud that the wheels are stuck in is - in part - Humean. Hume does not - cannot - draw the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Reason, in Hume's sense, is distinct and separate from the passions.

One problem is that he's taking account of that which existed in it's entirety prior to his account. Another problem is that careful contemplation of different viewpoints can influence and change one's passions by changing what one cares most about, what one is emotionally invested in, and the way one comes to acceptable terms with oneself and the world around them. So... Reason is not always slave to the passions. To quite the contrary, sometimes the passions change as an unavoidable consequence of having looked at the world through another's eyes.

Unlearning...

But this I dispute. This is the path we have been pursuing, and it can only lead to more of the same. Thought cannot produce the new, because it is reflective. I'll try a personal anecdote. — unenlightened

There are new reflections. Things like learning.