You're certainly are a strange one. I said she is a charismatic politician. Can I know what that has to do with sleeping with someone? Can I know what that has to do with having or lacking credentials? Can I know what that has to do with being beautiful? :chin: — Agustino

oh, excuse me! Did not realise you had changed the subject. I may be strange to you but you certainly have very short attention span.

ummm no. — Agustino

Ummm yes.

oh, excuse me! Did not realise you had changed the subject. — CuddlyHedgehog

What makes you think that the Le Pen post was addressed to you? :brow:

Did it have an @CuddlySpinyHedgehog next to it or something? :eyes:

What makes you think that the Le Pen post was addressed to you? — Agustino

Exactly the same thing that made you think all my previous posts, that you replied to, were addressed to you.

Exactly the same thing that made you think all my previous posts, that you replied to, were addressed to you. — CuddlyHedgehog

Well, you had quoted me in those posts as far as I remember.

Well, you had quoted me in those posts as far as I remember. — Agustino

Not always as far as I remember. And are we only meant to reply to posts that are addressed directly to us? Oh, I must have misunderstood the forum rules.

Not always as far as I remember. — CuddlyHedgehog

How good is your memory?

And are we only meant to reply to posts that are addressed directly to us? Oh, I must have misunderstood the forum rules. — CuddlyHedgehog

No, obviously not. However, you can't treat a post not addressed specifically to you as a continuation of the previous discussion that was with you.

However, you can't treat a post not addressed specifically to you as a continuation of the previous discussion that was with you. — Agustino

Yes, you can if it’s on the same thread and following a long string of replies on the same subject.

ok :meh: :sweat:

He's a wannabe dictator.

Trump isn't a morally perfect person, for example, I think in matters of sexuality he has some important shortcomings, but in terms of getting things done, useful policies (like the tax & bureaucracy reduction), it seems that he's been doing well. Also, he's a very good cheerleader for America. — Agustino

He seems doing well in terms of getting things done???

Ummm... one year and what has he done?

Nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and a tax cut that puts US deficits to the trillion level from here onward.

That's your definition of "doing well" when his goddam party has majority in both houses?


The most rational Pro-Trump reasoning ever that I've heard was a voter that said he wanted Trump because a) with Hillary the media would be a total lapdog and with Trump they would do their job and b) the less a President does, the better.

Now his dreams were fulfilled. Because Trump is so incompetent that not much has actually in the end happened.

The reason why populist movements have failed in the past is because their economic policies never work. We know that a trade-war was one of the major causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s. We also know that even a child can see why the use of tariffs is a policy doomed to fail. If we did gain some advantage by imposing a high-tariff, which is actually paid for by Americans through higher consumer prices, then we can easily expect the other country to respond with a high tariff of their own against our exports. So, the end result is no advantage from the use of trade tariffs, while having reduced the amount of economic activity taking place overall. In other words, one has to be extremely naïve to think Trump's plan is going to work.

Trump's been enamored by political despots including Putin, Edrogan, Duterte, and most recently Xi Jingping, who's dissolution of the CCP's two term limit has arguably made him the most powerful person in the world. Donald Trump's besmirching of allies, America First policy, and numerous other deleterious remarks, positions, etc., will bring further harm to America's image on the world's stage, enabling a despotic China to dominate instead, and promote/export political authoritarianism as a viable alternative to liberal democracy.

Trump is doing nothing different from what the GOP has accused the Democrats of doing, since the days of FDR. The GOP is not giving a tax-cut, because there is no government spending reduction along with the "tax cut." That means that the debt will rise as deficits skyrocket, which will then require a larger tax increase down the road to pay for it. Trump's economic plan is based on party politics that has existed for almost a century now. Like the Who sings, "Here comes the new boss; same as the old boss."

liberal democracy — Maw

Why should we think liberal democracy is the best or only way of organising our societies politically? :confused: Just because that's the current status quo? I thought philosophers prized themselves on opposing the status quo - that's how it was in the past. But today philosophers prize themselves on defending the status quo... On being leeches and gadflies on the status quo, in cahoots with it.

I thought philosophers prized themselves on opposing the status quo - that's how it was in the past. But today philosophers prize themselves on defending the status quo... On being leeches and gadflies on the status quo, in cahoots with it. — Agustino

Uh, no. Philosophers aren't just rebels.

Why should we think liberal democracy is the best or only way of organising our societies politically? :confused: Just because that's the current status quo? — Agustino

No. It's the current status quo because it's believed to be the best way.

Uh, no. Philosophers aren't rebels. — Michael

Then why is it that Descartes, Spinoza, etc. all feared persecution and were very careful about what they said? Was it not because, in many ways, they opposed the status quo and the common ways of thinking?

Or do you reckon that philosophers have always merely expounded the prevailing spirit of the times?

No. It's the current status quo because it's believed to be the best way. — Michael

Indeed. But history shows us that all forms of political organisation change. Today democracy, tomorrow monarchy. What is the problem? The problem is that there is always a danger to side with what is currently believed to be the best way - you have the whole supporting culture behind you, it is an easy position to defend, and therefore likely to be wrong.

Then why is it that Descartes, Spinoza, etc. all feared persecution and were very careful about what they said? Was it not because, in many ways, they opposed the status quo and the common ways of thinking?

Or do you reckon that philosophers have always merely expounded the prevailing spirit of the times? — Agustino

What I meant was that they're not essentially rebels. They don't oppose the status quo for the sake of opposing the status quo. If the status quo is believed to be contrary to the facts then the philosopher will oppose it, but if it agrees with the facts then he will support it.

it is an easy position to defend, and therefore likely to be wrong. — Agustino

Non sequitur.

What I meant was that they're not essentially rebels. They don't oppose the status quo for the sake of opposing the status quo. If the status quo is believed to be contrary to the facts then the philosopher will oppose it, but if it agrees with the facts then he will support it. — Michael

Yes - I find it absurd and extremely arrogant to think that the status quo of today is in accordance with the facts. That's what all cultures until ours have also thought, and look, they seem to have been wrong.

No, not because it's the status quo. Citizens in liberal democracies experience better well-being, stronger and more defend-able human-rights, more accountable and transparent governments, and greater economic opportunities, among other important criteria, when compared with more authoritarian countries.

Citizens in liberal democracies experience better well-being — Maw

This is questionable. I can get you to speak to a lot of people in Eastern Europe who much preferred communism to democracy. In addition, quantifying "well-being" is also not easy, and we never ran experiments on this, except, of course, experiments run while liberal democracies ruled our society.

stronger and more defend-able human-rights — Maw

Yeah, probably I can agree to that in most regards.

more accountable and transparent governments — Maw

No, definitely not. I think democracy is one of the most corrupt systems of government, where the rulers have no long-term responsibilities because all that matters is staying in power and the next election.

greater economic opportunities — Maw

Why are greater economic opportunities a good thing outside capitalism? Taking greater economic opportunities as a positive is already to presuppose the validity of our current economic system which has so shaped our way of life.

The democracies of Eastern European countries tend to be weaker, more susceptible to corruption than Western countries, so I'm not surprised by your skepticism. Undeniably, there is more than one way to measure 'well-being', but in all international studies there is a correlation between democratic countries and well-being. I am not aware of any study shows the antipode. Regarding transparency, elected officials are responsible and are held accountable to their constituents. Authoritarians are not. In addition, a strong, independent media is important in holding elected officials accountable and uncovering and reporting corruption, scandal etc. This is not so easily done in authoritarian regimes. Perhaps more to the point, there are ample studies showing that democracies are indeed more transparent than alternative political regimes, so it's not a matter of subjective "I think", or political abstraction. In regards to economic opportunities, I think the ability to enter a market-place to buy or sell commodities and services is an important freedom in-itself. It also enables one to advance in their social mobility.

Agree, but do not romanticise democracy, or conflate it with plebiscitary systems -- though you mentioned "liberal democracies" -- since its weaknesses are apparent with Weimar Republic, 1933. Populism is a unique phenomenon (= instability) with liberal-democracy.

Of course. The type of abstraction I'm providing could easily be conflated with a naive 'folk democracy'. While democracy isn't without it's unique flaws and fragility, as we both agree, it's preferable to alternative systems.