Clinton is by no means above reproach but all this nonsense about Libya and emails, are just echoes of enormous efforts by the fringe right to manufacture evidence of wrongdoing. — Wayfarer

Yes: for all of the endless carping about how awful Hillary is (even from some of the people who support her), it's telling that her enemies must constantly invent scandals out of thin air. If she's so terrible, don't her actual malfeasances suffice to discredit her? Clinton is possibly the most-scrutinized politician in history. Face it, right-wingers: there's just no "there" there. Just admit that you suffer from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome), and seek treatment (step 1: Fox News detox).

I got my absentee ballot in the mail the other day. I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Clinton, or for no one at all, although indeed I could always just write in Agustino. Perhaps he'll champion social conservatism and take away my health insurance, or perhaps if there's a turd on his bicycle seat he'll accuse me and get some mad scrilla, upwards of $1 million dollars, for ever would I be guilty, >:)

To mods: is there a way to block posters, as there was in PF? — Arkady

The short answer is: Not yet. If we can get one, we'll make an announcement.

And you think Crooked is an expert right? Trump knows and understand business, he can think from a businessman's perspective while in office, which will be helpful at least in economics. Also he has a knack for getting things done, which will be helpful in the case of both illegal immigration and terrorism. He has the right attitude. Also, the job of President isn't about doing things yourself. It's about getting others to do things and making sure that they do do them. — Agustino

My views on Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with why you support Trump. [Edit: This is how tribal and black and white your thinking is, as I say at the end of this post. You think that because I'm anti-Trump I therefore must be pro-Hillary, completely incorrect] I point out that Trump isn't an expert on anything he is required to be, and your response is "but Hillary isn't either!".

I know you know Trump isn't an expert on anything because you don't even attempt to defend that he is. Does it really not bother you that you're supporting a person who has absolutely no experience, knowledge or qualification in any of the subjects required to govern? You just respond with, "he understands business and he gets things done." Do you honestly think that's a good reason?

Trump knows and understand business, he can think from a businessman's perspective while in office, which will be helpful at least in economics. — Agustino

This is a start. Tell me, in real terms, with actual cause and effect, what he will do with his business expertise to fix the economy. I've been asking this whole time for details. Now's your chance.

Also he has a knack for getting things done, which will be helpful in the case of both illegal immigration and terrorism. — Agustino

Astounding. You're supporting him because he has a "knack". Trump does things. What things? This and that. He gets things done. He's a doer, not a talker like that Obama who obviously spent 8 years sitting on is arse smoking a joint on the White House porch. Trump "has a knack", so he should be president of the most powerful country in the world.

He has the right attitude. — Agustino

What attitude? The one he put on a hat? Details.

Also, the job of President isn't about doing things yourself. It's about getting others to do things and making sure that they do do them. — Agustino

Yes, Agustino. Because before Trump all the White House staff and civil servants just sat around doing nothing, ignoring their seniors, letting the country fall apart. Probably sat on the porch smoking that joint. Thanks, Obama.

I'm not going to continue the conversation about divorce rates. Firstly because it's a fundamental given in your world view so it's obviously not going to change, secondly because it's a side issue to your support for Trump. I want to know why you'd support him. Unless of course you want to back up your statistics with some evidence, then I'll at least consider your position.

In-so-far as progressivism is a root cause of the moral decay of society, and Trump is against progressivism, he will help. I do not claim he will reduce them - perhaps not. But he will ensure that the progressives stop with their advances, which will prepare the groundwork for a future social conservative candidate to come and finish the job. — Agustino

Can you define progressivism please? You know how I hate sloppy labelling. Then can you also cite actual evidence (by that I mean a link to an expert analysis) detailing the link between progressivism and this moral decay you speak of. Then I want statements from Trump saying exactly how he is going to reverse this decay. I don't want your own handwavey speculation of a philosophic type, on either point.

Your mistake is to actually believe Trump is against anything just because he says so. We, on the outside of the bubble, can all see Trump for what he really is. This is what I find so completely bonkers.

As I said - he will ready the ground for reversing that by dealing with the progressives. Someone else will need to come afterwards to reverse that slide. — Agustino

I presume by "dealing with the progressives" you mean to say he'll lock them all up and tell their parents about all the pre-marital sex they're having. This is so vague a response, Agustino. What does "dealing with the progressives" mean? What does "ready the ground" mean? How will he do that? Has he said he'll do that or are you just hoping he'll do that because he plays for the red team (or so he says, even though he's a lifelong New York democrat) and you like the red team?

As I said, if progressivism is cancer, then Trump is chemotherapy. — Agustino

As I said, I want details. Definitions. Cause and effect. Not handwavey non-sequiters that only a five year old would think was airtight. Your reasons so far have been mickey mouse grade. I've repeatedly asked you for details and evidence and you've provided precisely none, other than your own tirade on the moral decay of western society and Donald Trump level sloganeering.

We've heard all that before, but now I want to know what good reasons you have for supporting Trump. The sooner you give them the sooner this will all be over and we can both go back to the safety and comfort of our bubbles.

And I'm going to press you on that last point, about Trump being everything you claim to be against. Think about that; you openly support a man who has literally committed the major immoralities you sincerely believe are at the heart of the decline of western society. You believe adultery is immoral; Trump has admitted to cheating on his wife. You believe in life-long monogamy; Trump has been divorced twice and married three times. He has bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assaulting women. How can you support him? It's insane enough that anyone supports him after learning about just this last bit. But you of all people, Agustino, are still supporting him even though he is, to you, the metaphorical incarnation of Satan? You are the very person who should be supporting him the least! I'm sorry, but that is a joke. Either you don't take your principles as seriously as you make out, or you are being wilfully ignorant. This should be more than sufficient to disqualify Trump for president, under your moral code. What does cognitive dissonance on that scale feel like?

I'm not going to let this point go, by the way. You'll have to address it sooner or later. I'll PM you in your sleep.

A PhD doesn't make you smart. — Agustino

Finally something true. No, having a Ph.D does not necessarily make you smart (though it probably does in actuality, after all that critical study and research). But you've failed entirely to miss the point. probably deliberately. Having Ph.D's, Pulitzer prizes for journalism, fancy letters after names, and awards for impartial journalistic integrity, does make one an expert on ones subject area. Given that, how do you intend to dispute the evidence that Obama has not been the failure your republican talking heads make him out to be?

I never said complete and utter failure. But they were a failure, yes. — Agustino

If you cannot provide me with evidence from experts (regurgitating republican memes will not cut it) as to how Obama has been a failure then in light of the impartial and well-researched evidence I have provided you have to concede that Obama has not been a failure, and that that disproves your claim that having a socially conservative support network is a necessary condition for administrative effectiveness. Of course it isn't a necessary condition, that's obviously false on the face of it. You either concede, dispute, or deny deny deny. It doesn't even matter what the semantic difference is between a failure and a complete and utter failure. If having a socially conservative support network were a necessary condition for administrative success, then Obama could not have had administrative success, because he's a cancerous progressive. Your first reason for support Trump has been disproved with basic logic, Agustino. What else do you have?

No it wouldn't - because as I have said to you before, Democrats weren't always like this. Only after the New Left came into power, after the 1960s, did Democrats become so anti social conservatism, and so rooted in the promotion of promiscuity. — Agustino

I am quite obviously talking about democrats in their current form, Agustino, as you told me to earlier. So again, if you tell me to do something, I expect you to stick to it too. I am talking about modern democrats. Obama, Hillary. The Cancerous Progressives. Why on earth would you think I'm talking about all democrats throughout the history of the USA? So just to be clear, even though I've been through this: if it were the case that having a socially conservative support network was a necessary condition for administrative success, it would be logically impossible for a successful modern day democratic presidency. Think about that. Really think about what you're saying and compare it to reality. It would be as impossible as drawing a square circle. That is absurd.

Yes because I don't listen to the corrupt progressive media (who are the majority of all media), nor do I get involved in viewing corrupt Hollywood (also a majority progressives) and neither do I like the academia (90% progressives in some social science universities). These three entities have the largest concentrations of progressives out of any. — Agustino

I see. So you listen to corrupt right wing media instead. Wonderful. Oh no sorry, your favourite media outlets are obviously not the corrupt ones. Which sources do you go to for your US news, by the way?

Let me understand this. You don't even watch Hollywood films, which are fictional, because they are corrupt, yet you will blindly support Trump who has actually committed adultery [edit: which is also sex outside of marriage], divorced twice, married thrice, and bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assault women. Hollywood is bad, even though it's fictional, but Trump is going to Make America Great Again even though his moral crimes are literally real, and he wants to be President Of The United States Of America?

And then you say you don't like academia. So you don't like experts either. Any study that comes out of any university, no matter how valid and credible can be simply labelled (as you love doing) as "academia" and can be disregarded as corrupt and untrustworthy. That is a fantastic way of deligitimising and avoiding any opinion contrary to your own, isn't it? You are actually in a bubble.

If by "outside" you mean the brainwashing media - then sure. — Agustino

I don't follow US media, we've got enough problems of our own in the UK to deal with. Or is all media brainwashing? That would be convenient for you wouldn't it?

So far, Agustino, I've begged for details, evidence, and cause and effect explanations as to why Trump is worthy of being president, in your eyes. So far you've not produced one solid argument, one scrap of evidence, nor a single explanation. Not a single one. Instead I get hand wavey, philosophic wankery (I love philosophy as much as the next person on these forums, but there is a time for philosophising and a time for concrete, real world facts) about the moral decline of western society and downright nasty labelling and generalisations about those on the left (cancerous progressives to which Trump is the chemotherapy, whatever that actually means in real terms).

Nothing you've given me is concrete, it's all abstract nonsense. Just admit that you're voting for him out of the base tribalism of party politics. He says he's on the red team, even though he's been pro-choice all his life until conveniently he decided to play for the red team and needed to win red support like yours (yes, he has even supported baby killing, Agustino!) Hillary is on the blue team, red team good, blue team bad. Trump good, Hillary bad. You've bought into his con wholesale and have been subject to the very 'brainwashing' you think you're above.

Imagine how much better the world wold have been today if Gore had won. We will never know of course but I'm certain there would have been no invasion of Iraq. If Trump were to win it literally could mean the end of Western civilization. — Wayfarer

Trump wouldn't start a war like Bush. And I agree that back then probably Gore would've been a better choice.

With Trump the US is facing an existential menace which could literally wreck the country in the same way the GOP has been wrecked by him. We really need to see this as a genuine crisis. — Wayfarer

There is a story about Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Russell was involved in creating a "World Organization for Peace and Freedom" and when he heard, Wittgenstein was critical. Russell responded by: "Well, I suppose you would rather establish a World Organization for War and Slavery" to which Wittgenstein replied "Yes, yes, much rather that!"

My reaction is the same. Why are you concerned about wrecking the country? It has already been wrecked with the progressives in charge from the 60s onwards. What can Trump do now? What's left for him to destroy but ruins?

Clinton is by no means above reproach but all this nonsense about Libya and emails, are just echoes of enormous efforts by the fringe right to manufacture evidence of wrongdoing. — Wayfarer

No it's not efforts on the fringe right. Actually even much of progressive media is highly critical of her - and much of progressives themselves (just look at the students' reaction in the video below - and we all know students ain't conservative). You are being brainwashed Wayfarer - sorry to tell you. You should stop listening to the progressive media propaganda about Clinton now that they're scared of Trump. Clinton is a liar - a much greater liar than Trump - and a spineless scum. She has no courage - no attitude - no nothing. She would lick boots to get elected - she would do anything. Trump at least has some sort of self-esteem, albeit twisted one, which keeps him from humiliating himself just to get elected. The only reason why Clinton is not going to jail is because she would drag a lot of folks with her if she were to - she's very well connected, and very powerful. She can buy or blackmail people in key positions. She holds the FBI in the palm of her hand. Of course they can't get her. It's not that easy when you're dealing with an octopus which has its arms everywhere.



Hillary Clinton ain't honest - and nobody believes she is.

Benghazi?? Jesus Christ, you have really drunk the Fox News Kool Aid. Bush and his cronies started a war on false pretenses which has cost the country dearly in blood and treasure, and he gets a free pass from conservatives. — Arkady

No he doesn't - Bush was a horrible President.

Congress held more hearings on Benghazi than perhaps any other issue in recent memory and found no wrongdoing on Clinton's part — Arkady

They did - except that she's covering things up and using her power and influence to protect herself. Anyone else who would have bleached their servers would have been arrested.

So, please stop the right-wing bullshit. — Arkady

To let you tell me your left-wing bullshit right? >:O

To mods: is there a way to block posters, as there was in PF? I'd prefer to have to never read another of Agustino's posts ever again, if I can help it. — Arkady

Why are you so upset huh? If I ended up behaving so childishly like you, I might end up blocking 60% of the folks here (I'm one of the few conservatives around). In fact I'd go out seeking a different online community full only of conservatives. But I don't, because unlike you, I can respect the fact that others hold to different opinions, even though I disagree with them and believe they are wrong. It's much better to stay in an aggressive environment - as they say pressure makes diamonds. But I guess you're not a diamond ;) - you can't even stand 1 dissident, much less tens of them. I've had entire threads where I defended a view entirely by myself. I don't care - the truth doesn't need populism to stand up.

This is nothing else but the malice you hold in your heart, and the hatred and fear you have of those who you don't agree with. Even on a philosophy forum you want to run away and hide from views that you don't agree with. Of course what you're really afraid is that if conservatives get in power, your current way of life will be affected - that's what truly matters to you. But equally you don't care at all how the way of life of conservatives has been destroyed by the progressive administrations of the last 50 years, especially during Obama's tenure.

I don't have to ask you - I already know your views on the issues social conservatives care about - family, monogamous marriage, premartial sex - I know them - from your attitude. It's so obvious that you're all about prejudice and bias - you couldn't accept living in a different world, a world that doesn't run by your values, a world that runs by different rules. You'd burn the whole place down. But us conservatives have been living in such a world for decades - and yet we accept it, we're grown up people, and we're looking patiently for ways and opportunities to bring change, without stomping our feet like little kids and saying we don't want to acknowledge things we don't like. So I advise you to grow up - get a grip on reality. Not everyone agrees with you.

My views on Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with why you support Trump. [Edit: This is how tribal and black and white your thinking is, as I say at the end of this post. You think that because I'm anti-Trump I therefore must be pro-Hillary, completely incorrect] I point out that Trump isn't an expert on anything he is required to be, and your response is "but Hillary isn't either!". — WhiskeyWhiskers

We have to make a choice between Hillary and Trump. There is no other real alternative. Therefore we must compare them and see who is the better choice. It doesn't matter if both are completely incompetent - we still have to determine who is better, since we only have a choice from incompetent people.

I know you know Trump isn't an expert on anything because you don't even attempt to defend that he is. Does it really not bother you that you're supporting a person who has absolutely no experience, knowledge or qualification in any of the subjects required to govern? You just respond with, "he understands business and he gets things done." Do you honestly think that's a good reason? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Trump is an expert on many more things than Clinton. He lives in the real world - not the fake world of lies and politics - where you actually have to do pragmatic stuff - you know the stuff that has to bring in the dough - stuff that has to show real results - where you can't deceive yourself.

This is a start. Tell me, in real terms, with actual cause and effect, what he will do with his business expertise to fix the economy. I've been asking this whole time for details. Now's your chance. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Lower taxes for one. Put restrictions on businesses seeking to move their workforce offshore (to Mexico or China). Encourage an entrepreneurial mindset. Place trade restrictions against currency manipulators. And this is just scratching the surface of what he can do.

Astounding. You're supporting him because he has a "knack". Trump does things. What things? — WhiskeyWhiskers

He's built an amazing company, and he's built great buildings. Those are just the facts. You can't cheat the facts. You can't lie about them. Because in the real world, unlike in the Crooked political world of we know who, your results show. You can't lie about them - you can't fake it.

What attitude? The one he put on a hat? Details. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes a confident "can-do" attitude, and an attitude which doesn't avoid seeing the truth - that America has a lot of problems. He's not a fake lying politician like Obama "Oh How are you Minnesota? We should be proud of our achievements, we've done great! America is already great! We've beaten the worst recession since the Great Depression, we've gone out of Iraq, we've stopped Iran's nuclear deal bla bla . Americans are not scared people. We're great! I believe in Americans, I have great hope in the American people" --- pathetic rhetoric. Absolutely pathetic. Every time I hear Obama speak - it's the same shameless rhetoric that he's said from day one. From day one he's just been feeding the ego of idiots telling them that they are great, even though they're in the gutter and eating dirt.

I'm not going to continue the conversation about divorce rates. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Right because you've lost in that chapter and you don't wanna admit it. You refuse to recognise that you are wrong, pure and simple. You refuse to admit the facts - that you go on so much about.

Firstly because it's a fundamental given in your world view so it's obviously not going to change — WhiskeyWhiskers

No the facts are not a given in my worldview. They are the facts. They are the truth. It has nothing to do with my worldview. I could for example have the worldview, as some people here no doubt do, that it's great that so many marriages end in divorce because we should eliminate the institution of marriage. That would be a worldview that is also congruent with the facts. But your position is just avoid the truth.

Can you define progressivism please? — WhiskeyWhiskers

The opposite of social conservatism. Pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro non-monogamous ways of life, pro premartial sex, etc.

Then can you also cite actual evidence (by that I mean a link to an expert analysis) detailing the link between progressivism and this moral decay you speak of. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Progressivism just is this moral decay. Being pro abortion for one is a form of moral decay. So there is no "link" as such between them - they are the same thing.

This is so vague a response, Agustino. What does "dealing with the progressives" mean? What does "ready the ground" mean? How will he do that? — WhiskeyWhiskers

It means throwing all of them in jail as soon as possible and letting them rot for eternity there - what do you think it means? (I'm just joking there). It actually means that his political incorrectness will destroy this ideal of political correctness from the American mind and therefore destroy one of the main defences of the progressives, which will enable future social conservative candidates to tackle them head on in the public arena.

I presume by "dealing with the progressives" you mean to say he'll lock them all up and tell their parents about all the pre-marital sex they're having. — WhiskeyWhiskers

That's not such a terrible idea, why don't you write it to Trump? >:O

I've repeatedly asked you for details and evidence and you've provided precisely none, other than your own tirade on the moral decay of western society and Donald Trump level sloganeering. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes I have. I have cited statistics for you, and I have explained them in the cases where you have actually offered specific evidence to discuss. Not when you point to "Oh here are the factcheck.org experts, here's the evidence" which of course is a whole fucking big website. I'm not going to search through all that for I don't know what. If you want to discuss specific evidence, then don't put it only on me to bring it up - you should do likewise.

And I'm going to press you on that last point, about Trump being everything you claim to be against. Think about that; you openly support a man who has literally committed the major immoralities you sincerely believe are at the heart of the decline of western society. You believe adultery is immoral; Trump has admitted to cheating on his wife. You believe in life-long monogamy; Trump has been divorced twice and married three times. He has bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assaulting women. How can you support him? It's insane enough that anyone supports him after learning about just this last bit. But you of all people, Agustino, are still supporting him even though he is, to you, the metaphorical incarnation of Satan? You are the very person who should be supporting him the least! I'm sorry, but that is a joke. Either you don't take your principles as seriously as you make out, or you are being wilfully ignorant. This should be more than sufficient to disqualify Trump for president, under your moral code. What does cognitive dissonance on that scale feel like? — WhiskeyWhiskers

As I said - I don't support Trump, and I think he's an immoral person. It's a strategic vote for social conservatives. He's the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is harmful to you as well, but it may very well save you from cancer. Or it may not. But it's a risk one has to sometimes take. So I don't say vote Trump because of his character. I say vote Trump because he'll bring an end to political correctness and progressivism, which is necessary to ready the ground for social conservatives. How will he do it? By being Trump - by being outrageous, demeaning and insulting openly.

I'm not going to let this point go, by the way. You'll have to address it sooner or later. I'll PM you in your sleep. — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's good if you come in my sleep it's more time efficient that way ;)

But you've failed entirely to miss the point. probably deliberately. Having Ph.D's, Pulitzer prizes for journalism, fancy letters after names, and awards for impartial journalistic integrity, does make one an expert on ones subject area. Given that, how do you intend to dispute the evidence that Obama has not been the failure your republican talking heads make him out to be? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Experts don't necessarily know any better. I've learned not to trust experts on many issues, ranging from health to engineering to politics. Experts are there to deceive you. Not because they really know what they're talking about. They just seem like they do. You have to be able to judge things for yourself not go like a slave to the expert (or the priest!) to tell you what the truth is - to judge for you.

If you cannot provide me with evidence from experts (regurgitating republican memes will not cut it) as to how Obama has been a failure then in light of the impartial and well-researched evidence I have provided you have to concede that Obama has not been a failure, and that that disproves your claim that having a socially conservative support network is a necessary condition for administrative effectiveness. — WhiskeyWhiskers

If the experts say something that the majority of the people disagree with - then it is likely that the experts have something wrong. I'll just give you one example. Obamacare. The majority of people disagree with the results of Obamacare and are against Obamacare. They experience the system firsthand and are unhappy with it. The experts can say it's the greatest healthcare policy of all time - the fact is the people ain't likin it and that's that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html

Really give me a break. I shouldn't have to teach you basic facts. I can go scurrying for this evidence, I've looked at it many times before, why should I need to go re-checking just because you don't know the facts? The fact is Crooked and Obama don't give a shit about the people. They just want to impose their radical progressive agenda on everyone.

This is really shameful that you keep dragging on about me providing you evidence. Why don't you go and get the evidence yourself? Why do you want evidence about every single thing? It's as if I'm running for President myself. If you want to discuss specifics, then you should inquire about specifics. For example, see the opinion of this expert on this issue. What do you think? Then I can actually provide you the data that would prove my point because I know what you're specifically talking about. Right now you're just creating a rhethorical mess - you demand some abstract evidence for me - evidence in general that Obama was a failure - in I don't know what chapters of his Presidency - and then expect me to give you anything but abstractness. If you want concrete details, then you have to ask for concrete details.

if it were the case that having a socially conservative support network was a necessary condition for administrative success, it would be logically impossible for a successful modern day democratic presidency. Think about that. — WhiskeyWhiskers

That is mostly true unfortunately, yes.

And then you say you don't like academia. So you don't like experts either. Any study that comes out of any university, no matter how valid and credible can be simply labelled (as you love doing) as "academia" and can be disregarded as corrupt and untrustworthy. That is a fantastic way of deligitimising and avoiding any opinion contrary to your own, isn't it? You are actually in a bubble. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I haven't said this. I have simply said that many studies coming out of Universities are biased towards progressivism. This is merely a fact.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/14/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservative-faculty-5-to-1-academics-explain-why-this-matters/
http://dailysignal.com/2011/02/14/breaking-professors-might-have-liberal-bias/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/study-finds-those-graduate-education-are-far-more-liberal-peers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2015/05/07/apparently-90-of-harvard-faculty-can-agree-on-something-giving-to-democrats/#f7ef2af19a8e

These are just the facts. I could go on and on, but you refuse to recognize it. The media, Hollywood and the academia have a strong liberal progressive bias - it's just what it is. You're even refusing to see that. You're just blinding yourself to the facts.

I don't follow US media, we've got enough problems of our own in the UK to deal with. Or is all media brainwashing? That would be convenient for you wouldn't it? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes the UK media is even more liberal progressive than that of the US - hence why you hear only the bad stuff on Trump. As I said, Europe is more affected by progressivism than the US so far.

So far, Agustino, I've begged for details, evidence, and cause and effect explanations as to why Trump is worthy of being president, in your eyes. — WhiskeyWhiskers

And I have given you the reasons. He will be a middle finger to the progressives, he will disrupt them, divide them, destroy their means of defence (political correctness). In other words, he'd do everything that is required to do to stop them at this point.

There's also a lot of Russian disinformation being circulated, its scary to see how easily people swallow it. — Wayfarer

The Russian media is actually quite a bit more honest than its Western counterparts. This Russian phobia of the West is just that. A phobia, which probably requires medical treatment. Lots of Westerners are guilty of it, but they know very little if anything about Russia - except of course what they are fed by their own media.

The Russian media is actually quite a bit more honest than its Western counterparts — Agostino

I think possibly you're a Putin troll. It's a shame, but in any case, I wish to have no further interaction with you.

What do you know about Putin, and more importantly how do you know it? Have you ever been to Russia? Have you lived there? Do you have relatives or friends who have lived there? If not - then how do you know anything about Russia if not from what you read in the press?

We have to make a choice between Hillary and Trump. — Agustino

We don't actually, which is why I'm not voting. I greatly regret voting for Obama four years ago, but that was before I drifted more to the right. Given my perspective now, I cannot distinguish who the lesser of two evils is in this election. Thankfully, I am not required to choose.

Put restrictions on businesses seeking to move their workforce offshore (to Mexico or China). Encourage an entrepreneurial mindset. Place trade restrictions against currency manipulators. — Agustino

This trade isolationism has been tried and failed before, during the '30s. When you do this, you raise the price of all goods and services. Moreover, forcing companies to stay will simply mean the government subsidizing them so they can compete. Bigger, more bureaucratic government is not something I would think someone on the right, such as yourself, would be in favor of.

He's not a fake lying politician like Obama — Agustino

Yes he is. Every other sentence he utters contradicts the previous one. As of a couple years ago, he was on the left, supporting people like Hillary at charity events and galas. His pivot to the right on certain issues is purely down to the fact that he's running as a Republican. So he's as fake and as much of a liar as Hillary and Obama. Although, in Obama's case, I think he's a bit more authentic than the former two; it's just he's authentically wrong.

Imagine how much better the world wold have been today if Gore had won. We will never know of course but I'm certain there would have been no invasion of Iraq. If Trump were to win it literally could mean the end of Western civilization. — Wayfarer

Wow. I saw this quoted in a later comment and had to wipe my eyes a few times. First, the world would have been a better place if Gore had won? The whole world, objectively better, because of one Albert Gore? Really? Second, I agree with the Iraq war, so speak for yourself. Third, if you think Trump winning spells the "literal" end of Western civilization, then I'd be curious to know why and how, because that is perhaps the most wildly exaggerated and absurd claim of the three.

We don't actually, which is why I'm not voting. I greatly regret voting for Obama four years ago, but that was before I drifted more to the right. Given my perspective now, I cannot distinguish who the lesser of two evils is in this election. Thankfully, I am not required to choose. — Thorongil

That's a very fair position. As I said either not voting or voting Trump in my view - for conservatives - are acceptable choices. I can understand why one would not vote Trump.

Yes he is. Every other sentence he utters contradicts the previous one. — Thorongil

I agree but certainly in a different sense than Clinton. Trump's history is ambiguous - both left and right, continuously switching. But he will not refuse to admit that he's taken certain positions in the past (such as being pro-abortion for example). On the other hand, Clinton you literarily play her the video of her saying X, and immediately after she will say she's never said X.

Although, in Obama's case, I think he's a bit more authentic than the former two — Thorongil

Why would you say so?

This trade isolationism has been tried and failed before, during the '30s. When you do this, you raise the price of all goods and services. — Thorongil

It's not so much isolationism - it's not a complete cut from trade. But it will be a reduction. This will in and of itself increase the price of all goods and services. Hence why it should be combined with other measures which will enable decreases of prices and avoidance of inflation. It's a well-known link in economics between inflation and unemployment. Such other measures can be tax-cuts.

Bigger, more bureaucratic government is not something I would think someone on the right, such as yourself, would be in favor of. — Thorongil

Bureaucracy definitely not. Bigger government - it depends in what sense. I don't think you can say people on the right are completely against all forms of government - we certainly do want some government. We don't want the government which forces us to recognize the legality of gay marriage, which forces us to perform abortions, and so forth. But we do want the government which protects us from crime, which creates a stable macro-economic environment, and so forth.

The Russian media is actually quite a bit more honest than its Western counterparts. — Agustino

About what? The murders committed by Putin's thugs among their own ranks?

Why would you say so? — Agustino

I mean to say that I think he actually has certain principles he holds to, principles I disagree with, but principles all the same. Trump and Hillary do not have any principles; they are pure opportunists.

which creates a stable macro-economic environment — Agustino

This is the key assumption I would press you on. Why do you think it has done, does, or is capable of doing this?

About what? The murders committed by Putin's thugs among their own ranks? — Thorongil

Now Putin is very well loved by the Russian public. I have quite a few friends who live in Russia, and most of the population simply loves Putin's style of government and are happy with the performance of their government. Unlike his current Western counterparts, Putin is able to get things done. And yes, obviously he has to work with Russia as it is, including all its bad parts, some of which I have mentioned. He's able to move his country in one direction, expand its sphere of influence, and promote its interests. He's a very good leader. The West is failing - because we have weak leaders. And that's a very big problem. Not because Putin is a bad guy - he's not, he's just following the interest of his nation. The problem is that we're too weak - we can't stand up to him, we can't outsmart him. Now Putin's influence over Eastern Europe is growing - as far as I'm concerned that's not a good thing, but the West is too weak to deal with him - and probably Trump will actually be worse on this point - protecting the Eastern border - than Clinton - although Clinton may risk starting a war - so it's tough to decide which is worse.

Interesting insights, but the Russian press is still objectively less free than the Western press.

Putin is able to get things done — Agustino

Yes, human rights and international law violating things.

This is the key assumption I would press you on. Why do you think it has done, does, or is capable of doing this? — Thorongil

For the simple reason that it controls legislation. If government creates legislation which gives me tax-breaks if I'm a small business (say less than 100K revenue) and employ more than 5 people - then more people will open their businesses. This will create a favorable macro-economic environment for small businesses with literarily no negative effect on the economy. Likewise, government legislation will determine the ease I can collaborate with other firms - how easy it is to break a contract and get away with it, whether the bureaucracy requires me to employ a lawyer from the start, and so forth.

For the simple reason that it controls legislation. If government creates legislation which gives me tax-breaks if I'm a small business (say less than 100K revenue) and employ more than 5 people - then more people will open their businesses. This will create a favorable macro-economic environment for small businesses with literarily no negative effect on the economy. Likewise, government legislation will determine the ease I can collaborate with other firms - how easy it is to break a contract and get away with it, whether the bureaucracy requires me to employ a lawyer from the start, and so forth. — Agustino

Agreed, but these are negative interventions (relieving burdens), not positive ones like forcing companies to stay.

but the Russian press is still objectively less free than the Western press. — Thorongil

Is this a bad thing? For example should the press become like the American one, full 85%+ of progressive propaganda? The American press is only apparently free. In truth, it's not. It's governed by progressivism and political correctness - which are systemic problems, not under the control of any one person. If you go out of the party line of the New Left, you'll be isolated and effectively thrown out - discounted from having a significant say in public discourse. So either way - whether there is no direct control of government over it - or there is - the press ends up being controlled it seems. At least if it's official this illusion doesn't exist.

human rights and international law violating things. — Thorongil

Again that's the way the system functions. You may disagree with it - as do many people - but if the US were to come in there and install its own leaders, the same problems would appear. It's just the way those regions work - the same way Sicily works mafia-style regardless of all the efforts undertaken to curb it. It's a mentality that is at fault - a mentality that is shared by all the population.

Agreed, but these are negative interventions (relieving burdens), not positive ones like forcing companies to stay. — Thorongil

The first example isn't a negative legislation. It's forcing a positive change - it rewards people for seeking to open their own business.

For example should the press become like the American one, full 85%+ of progressive propaganda? — Agustino

Where did you pull this number from? Freedom, in this case, is determined by the degree to which journalists are free to speak their minds and report the facts as they see them. It may well be that the most popular news outlets are those with a leftist bias, but in a democracy, this is nothing to be surprised about. The majority tends to win. As long as those of opposing views are not being, oh I don't know, murdered for dissenting opinions, then there's not much to be upset about. There is no gun pressed to the head of the average American, forcing them to read Salon and other crappy leftist outlets. So your problem is in fact the electorate, not the media.

If you go out of the party line of the New Left, you'll be isolated and effectively thrown out — Agustino

Yes, but the key here is that the government doesn't do this. And the person thrown out can then go work for Fox News or Breitbart or something.

You may disagree with it — Agustino

Yes, I disagree with human rights violations and will continue to do so.

It's forcing a positive change — Agustino

I don't see it.

your problem is in fact the electorate — Thorongil

Okay so in a democracy, what should be done about the electorate?

Yes, but the key here is that the government doesn't do this. And the person thrown out can then go work for Fox News or Breitbart or something. — Thorongil

I possibly agree that this may be preferable. But it really depends on the conditions where it is applied. I grew up with a very liberal education considering where I'm from so that's why I tend to agree.

Yes, I disagree with human rights violations and will continue to do so. — Thorongil

Okay - the question is do you have a way to prevent them? And if so, what is that way? What can Putin do today - or really anyone in Russia - to stop such things from happening?

I don't see it. — Thorongil

So is creating special artificial rewards in an economic environment not equivalent to setting up macro-economic conditions that are aimed to achieve a certain positive goal?

you can't even stand 1 dissident, much less tens of them. — Agustino

I don't desire to block you because you're a "dissident." There are many people with whom I disagree and with whom I've had interesting and civil discussions. However, you are dogmatically right-wing, and you say nothing which can't be found on a Fox News opinion piece. In our prior discussions, you've also established yourself as a moral lunatic, obsessed with "promiscuity" and its supposedly detrimental effects on the moral fabric of society. You also pull "theories" and "facts" out of your ass when it suits you. In short: you're just not worth reading. Goodbye.

dogmatically right-wing — Arkady

That's not true, I've always provided reasons for believing X and Y.

Fox News opinion piece — Arkady

I should start listening to them then, it seems they have interesting things to say ;)

In our prior discussions, you've also established yourself as a moral lunatic, obsessed with "promiscuity" and its supposedly detrimental effects on the moral fabric of society. — Arkady

Okay so believing promiscuity is harmful apparently is equivalent to being a moral lunatic. I didn't know most of the people who have ever lived have been moral lunatics... neither did I know that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and virtually all the other major religions have also been involved in moral lunacy... how quaint.

You also pull "theories" and "facts" out of your ass when it suits you — Arkady

Where are these smelly theories and facts that I pulled out of my ass? >:O

We have to make a choice between Hillary and Trump. There is no other real alternative. Therefore we must compare them and see who is the better choice. It doesn't matter if both are completely incompetent - we still have to determine who is better, since we only have a choice from incompetent people. — Agustino

Just concede it, you assumed I was pro-Hillary because I'm anti-Trump. You were wrong, because you look at everything in black and white. There's social conservatives on one side and cancerous progressives on the other. Trump will Make America Great Again, and Hillary is the devil. This is how you sound.

We have to make a choice between Hillary and Trump. There is no other real alternative. Therefore we must compare them and see who is the better choice. It doesn't matter if both are completely incompetent - we still have to determine who is better, since we only have a choice from incompetent people. — Agustino

We do indeed have a choice. What I'm wondering is what is your substantive reason for supporting Trump. So far I've had some rubbish about necessary conditions which was obviously false.

Then I had the demonisation of everyone in America and the western hemisphere who isn't socially conservative as therefore progressive and "cancerous", in spite of a god knows how many other factors and nuances and alternative possibilities, which is literally the most simplistic mindset you could possibly have unless you want to put everyone in the planet into just one box (but then that would include yourself, so that won't do). But as you said elsewhere, that kind of thinking makes things "simpler". You don't know how right you are.

Then you said Trump is the chemotherapy for the cancer that is progressivism. Which means (whatever that does in fact mean, you haven't explained the metaphor in real terms) that Trump and his socially conservative support network are going to somehow make hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people throughout America and the rest of the western world do a 180 on their way of life, their fundamental beliefs, and their emotive behaviour, by following the Puritan-esque moral precepts of Agustino from the philosophy forum. Or would it be enough to just fix America?

In his spare time I have to also assume he's going to fix the American economy, fix immigration, fix trade, fix cyber security, defeat ISIS, defeat political corruption, fix political correctness, fix employment, fix tax, fix healthcare, and fix foreign policy. Am I missing any?

And you believe him and his people are going to do all this, despite not being able to provide a single shred of evidence for the precise steps he plans on taking to do this. No worries, though, he gave me this hat that said "Make America Great Again". God only knows what the term "fix" even means here when applied to so many diverse subcategories of governmental responsibility, but no wonder I don't understand it - it's a Trump term.

Trump is an expert on many more things than Clinton. He lives in the real world - not the fake world of lies and politics - where you actually have to do pragmatic stuff - you know the stuff that has to bring in the dough - stuff that has to show real results - where you can't deceive yourself. — Agustino

Sure, he's the best expert. Better than anyone. No one experts better than Trump. Especially Crooked. Sorry, not an answer.

Hillary's qualifications or lack thereof are not evidence of Trumps. If you're so sure he's an expert on "many more things than Clinton", then prove it. Show me what qualifications and experience he has with any of the governmental roles I listed. Like I asked you to.

Yes I have. I have cited statistics for you, and I have explained them in the cases where you have actually offered specific evidence to discuss. Not when you point to "Oh here are the factcheck.org experts, here's the evidence" which of course is a whole fucking big website. I'm not going to search through all that for I don't know what. If you want to discuss specific evidence, then don't put it only on me to bring it up - you should do likewise. — Agustino

You have cited statistics on something that is utterly irrelevant to what I was asking for. This was not about divorce, I do not care about that. It's about what Trump wants to do to Make America Great Again. I want to see some evidence of Trumps competency and his step by step policy proposals. So you say:

Lower taxes for one. Put restrictions on businesses seeking to move their workforce offshore (to Mexico or China). Encourage an entrepreneurial mindset. Place trade restrictions against currency manipulators. And this is just scratching the surface of what he can do. — Agustino

So he'll lower taxes. He'll do the exact same thing that every other republican has ever done in modern history. Wonderful. It clearly hasn't worked, though, has it? Or is step 2 and 3 of his master plan going to do the trick?

Trade restrictions on currency manipulators. Oh wait, none of the US’s big trading partners had engaged in currency manipulation in the past year, the Treasury said in its twice yearly foreign exchange market report to Congress. But you and Trump know, despite not working for the Treasury, something they don't, I bet. Or else it's those pesky progressive experts and their brainwashing bias.

He'll also "encourage an entrepreneurial mindset". As if potentially becoming a billionaire wasn't enough incentive. As if people are going to stop what they're doing with their lives to become entrepreneurs because President Trump is a billionaire. Even though every single president in recent history has been well inside the top 1%. It doesn't seem to have had any impact, considering how you think the US is in such a terrible state under Obama. If you think it does make an impact, you know what I'm going to ask for? Evidence, please.

Lastly, I'm not here to "scratch the surface". This is not a surface issue. What else can you tell me about "what Trump can do"?

As I said - I don't support Trump, and I think he's an immoral person. It's a strategic vote for social conservatives. He's the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is harmful to you as well, but it may very well save you from cancer. Or it may not. But it's a risk one has to sometimes take. So I don't say vote Trump because of his character. I say vote Trump because he'll bring an end to political correctness and progressivism, which is necessary to ready the ground for social conservatives. How will he do it? By being Trump - by being outrageous, demeaning and insulting openly. — Agustino

How can this be a strategic vote for social conservatives when Trump himself is quite clearly, under your own definition, blatantly not a social conservative? His track record proves that. He's been married three times, divorced twice, cheated on his wife, had extra-marital sex, and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You actually should be voting for Hillary - she's still married to her first husband, she hasn't committed adultery, nor has she had children out of wedlock. Trump is a "cancerous" progressive, Hillary is a social conservative according to your definition. So what the hell are you even talking about anymore?

If the experts say something that the majority of the people disagree with - then it is likely that the experts have something wrong. I'll just give you one example. Obamacare. The majority of people disagree with the results of Obamacare and are against Obamacare. They experience the system firsthand and are unhappy with it. The experts can say it's the greatest healthcare policy of all time - the fact is the people ain't likin it and that's that. — Agustino

"If the experts say something that the majority of the people disagree with - then it is likely that the experts have something wrong." - Agustino, 2016. I once thought you were intelligent.

Really give me a break. I shouldn't have to teach you basic facts. I can go scurrying for this evidence, I've looked at it many times before, why should I need to go re-checking just because you don't know the facts? The fact is Crooked and Obama don't give a shit about the people. They just want to impose their radical progressive agenda on everyone. — Agustino

Finally you provide me a link. Unfortunately though, even if Obama care was a total and abject failure, that does not prove that Obama's terms as a whole have been failures.

You're right, you do not need to teach me basic facts. But the ins and outs of the most complicated piece of healthcare reform in history is hardly a basic fact, is it?

They want to impose their radical progressive agenda on everyone? And this is coming from the person who has admitted he wants to impose his socially conservative agenda on western civilisation (or was it 'just' the US?), by installing, in spite of admitting the degree of all their other innumerable faults, a social conservative into the position of President of the United States of America to do it.

This is really shameful that you keep dragging on about me providing you evidence. Why don't you go and get the evidence yourself? Why do you want evidence about every single thing? It's as if I'm running for President myself. If you want to discuss specifics, then you should inquire about specifics. For example, see the opinion of this expert on this issue. What do you think? Then I can actually provide you the data that would prove my point because I know what you're specifically talking about. Right now you're just creating a rhethorical mess - you demand some abstract evidence for me - evidence in general that Obama was a failure - in I don't know what chapters of his Presidency - and then expect me to give you anything but abstractness. If you want concrete details, then you have to ask for concrete details. — Agustino

No Agustino. What is shameful, absolutely fucking shameful, is that you think you have acceptable reasons for supporting someone as utterly bonkers as Donald Trump for position of leader of the free world.

Yes, I'm being nasty and demanding. Because the burden of proof is on you to provide me with evidence to justify your decision. Yes, I want evidence. Your decision will affect me. Even though I don't even live in America, it will drastically affect me because we live in a globalised world.

I would love to talk specifics with you, but so far you have totally avoided any semblance of the word. I've repeatedly asked you for policy proposals, qualifications, empirical evidence, a youtube clip of the man himself - any little shred to back up what you've been claiming about Trump. Unfortunately, the few links you provided were about divorce (not the topic at hand) and Obamacare (nothing to do with Trump). I'm not creating a "rhetorical mess". I'm making specific requests for more information about the things you're saying.

First of all I asked for evidence of Trumps expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc. I got nothing except watery bullshit.

I then asked for a cause and effect explanation of how being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, has any bearing on a persons ability to improve the economy, gun control, terrorism, immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation etc. I got watery bullshit.

I then asked for evidence of Obama's failure as a president that contradicted the evidence I gave. I got something about Obamacare. Another republican talking point. It says nothing of anything else Obama has done in office. Watery bullshit.

I then asked, if being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc is a necessary condition for success in other areas of government, how do you explain Obama's success in some of these areas despite being a cancerous progressive? I was again asking for a cause and effect explanation, evidence would be nice. Instead you ignored it.

I asked how, in concrete terms, a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates. I got watery bullshit.

I then asked you to tell me, in real terms, with actual cause and effect, what Trump will do with his business expertise to fix the economy. Your explanations were pathetic. Lower taxes like every other republican has ever done, fix a problem that doesn't even exist, and somehow "encourage an entrepreneurial mindset". Watery bullshit.

You then said Trump "has a knack" for things. I asked what things. You told me he's built a great company and great buildings. He's also been bankrupt several times. You honestly sound like you have as much depth and knowledge as Trump. If you interviewed someone for a job as an economist, a foreign affairs advisor, a healthcare systems adviser, a counter-terrorism expert, etc all rolled into one, and in response to you asking for their qualifications they said "I build great buildings and great companies" you would be as mad as them if you didn't laugh them out the door, down the street, and have them locked up in the nearest mental institution.

I then asked, what attitude does Trump have that is "the right one"? Oh, it's a "can-do attitude". Marvelous. Absolutely marvelous.

I also got how he's not a "fake lying politician like Obama", who says stuff like:

"Oh How are you Minnesota? We should be proud of our achievements, we've done great! America is already great! We've beaten the worst recession since the Great Depression, we've gone out of Iraq, we've stopped Iran's nuclear deal bla bla . Americans are not scared people. We're great! I believe in Americans, I have great hope in the American people" --- pathetic rhetoric. Absolutely pathetic. — Agustino

Yes, absolutely pathetic indeed. Although it sounds exactly like something Donald Trump himself would say. Your lack of awareness of astounding. You do realise he's ridiculed for sounding exactly like that?

Christ I'm getting tired of this. Then I asked if you could also cite actual evidence detailing the link between progressivism and societies moral decay. This is an empirical claim that can be observed and studied - and it would behoove society to do so, for its existence depends on recognising its own decay. You then refuse to cite any studies, and instead insist that they are in fact one and the same thing. A tautology, a trick of definitions and language. Why bother trying to establish B being caused by A when you can just say B is the same thing as A? Watery bullshit. Wouldn't feed it to my neighbors dog. And I don't even like my neighbors dog. Not even they would swallow it, anyway.

Then said I want statements from Trump saying exactly how he is going to reverse this decay. I also added, "I don't want your own handwavey speculation of a philosophic type, on either point."

You then snipped out this part and proceeded to give me your own philosophical handwavery, on both points.

I then asked you how Trump would save the western world from moral decay. You said, in not so many words, he'll destroy political correctness by being an asshole. Fantastic analysis, Agustino. Top work. The experts are ready to see you now, they have a job offer for you.

I wanted you to explain what this cancer and chemotherapy metaphor meant in real terms. You ignored it.

Yes I have. I have cited statistics for you, and I have explained them in the cases where you have actually offered specific evidence to discuss. Not when you point to "Oh here are the factcheck.org experts, here's the evidence" which of course is a whole fucking big website. I'm not going to search through all that for I don't know what. If you want to discuss specific evidence, then don't put it only on me to bring it up - you should do likewise. — Agustino

You did not give me anything I asked for. You cited some stats about divorce (and how you wanted the SIMPLEST possible raw calculation of divorces, which if you were to read the pages I gave you you would see why that raw number is not appropriate, but as you said earlier simplicity makes complicated things easier) and something about Obamacare.

I did not merely point you to "a whole fucking big website", I pointed you to the exact page that details, with massive great big up and down arrows to make it as crystal clear as day, how well Obama has fared in different aspects of his administration. Or are the massive arrows and double digit percentage points not simple enough for you?

And I'm sorry to say that it is all on you here. I am scrutinising your support for Trump. I don't have a position in this debate. The burden of proof is on you, Agustino. No one but you because you support Trump and I want you to justify that.

I'm going to stop going through all the requests that I've made for evidence or detail which you've failed to provide because it's getting tiresome, and the pattern has been established at this point.

As I said - I don't support Trump, and I think he's an immoral person. It's a strategic vote for social conservatives. He's the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is harmful to you as well, but it may very well save you from cancer. Or it may not. But it's a risk one has to sometimes take. So I don't say vote Trump because of his character. I say vote Trump because he'll bring an end to political correctness and progressivism, which is necessary to ready the ground for social conservatives. How will he do it? By being Trump - by being outrageous, demeaning and insulting openly. — Agustino

If you don't support Trump then you have a bloody funny way of showing it. If you support social conservatives, and Trump is a social conservative, then you support Trump. If he wasn't a social conservative, you wouldn't support him. Not only that, I'll remind you that, according to your own definition, Hillary is more socially conservative than Trump. Why don't you vote for Hillary? Let me guess, she's on team blue and Trump is on team red.

These are just the facts. I could go on and on, but you refuse to recognize it. The media, Hollywood and the academia have a strong liberal progressive bias - it's just what it is. You're even refusing to see that. You're just blinding yourself to the facts. — Agustino

Just because certain institutions have a liberal bias does not mean you have grounds to entirely dismiss everything they have to say. It means you take it with a pinch of salt and look at both sides of the story. Not cover your ears in go live in a republican echo chamber. Have a sense of proportion man. Again, too black and white.

Experts don't necessarily know any better. I've learned not to trust experts on many issues, ranging from health to engineering to politics. Experts are there to deceive you. Not because they really know what they're talking about. They just seem like they do. You have to be able to judge things for yourself not go like a slave to the expert (or the priest!) to tell you what the truth is - to judge for you. — Agustino

Another absolute blinder. "Experts don't necessarily know any better". Christ there is no nuance with you, is there? Just because they don't, logically, necessarily, know any better does not mean they don't know anything at all and they're not to be trusted. Do you honestly think that a person who goes to university, studies hard on a specific subject, is tested by professors, scrutinised, corrected, recorrected, for years and years under the most stringent learning conditions and then has a successful career in their field, is not "necessarily" going to know what they're talking about?

Where else does this apply? Would you say your doctor, after having spent years in medical school and working in hospitals, doesn't "necessarily" know what they're talking about?

I've learned not to trust experts on many issues, ranging from health to engineering to politics. Experts are there to deceive you. Not because they really know what they're talking about. They just seem like they do. You have to be able to judge things for yourself not go like a slave to the expert (or the priest!) to tell you what the truth is - to judge for you. — Agustino

Jesus fucking Christ you actually would.

Not only do you say something so mental, you then go on to say "experts are there to deceive you". You are tin-foil-hat insane, Agustino. Through the looking glass. Down the rabbit hole. Looking through the other end of the telescope. Where is the common sense in anything you're saying? Are there any experts you don't think are out to deceive you? Or are you the only one?

And I have given you the reasons. He will be a middle finger to the progressives, he will disrupt them, divide them, destroy their means of defence (political correctness). In other words, he'd do everything that is required to do to stop them at this point. — Agustino

That is precisely the problem. You've given me reasons. Abstract a priori's spun into some grand philosophical theory by Agustino The Great. There is no substance to anything you say. There is only ideology all the way down. Pure ideology, nothing more. You make it sound like there's some kind of war going on between good and evil and all of western society depends on just picking the right emperor, when really you're electing a diligent and capable civil servant to high office for the purposes of effective government. Is that really, in your honest opinion, Donald bloody Trump?

You support Trump because he's going to be (if you even believe it) a "middle finger" to progressives in your 'us vs them' black and white world. What a fucking solid reason for electing a con man to President of the United States. God help us all.

I did not merely point you to "a whole fucking big website", I pointed you to the exact page that details, with massive great big up and down arrows to make it as crystal clear as day, how well Obama has fared in different aspects of his administration. Or are the massive arrows and double digit percentage points not simple enough for you? — WhiskeyWhiskers

No you actually haven't. Check the link which you gave. It leads to the home page of factcheck.org.

Well shit, I did indeed. I apologise. Here is the link.

Okay so in a democracy, what should be done about the electorate? — Agustino

Outside of giving them better education, nothing.

the question is do you have a way to prevent them? And if so, what is that way? What can Putin do today - or really anyone in Russia - to stop such things from happening? — Agustino

The international community has various ways: diplomacy, economic sanctions, military assistance and guarantees of it to threatened states, and as a last resort, direct military intervention.

So is creating special artificial rewards in an economic environment not equivalent to setting up macro-economic conditions that are aimed to achieve a certain positive goal? — Agustino

You described removing barriers for the business to succeed (specifically taxes). That's not a positive reward being bestowed.

Okay good, thank you. Now you will have to wait a little until I go through that so that I can get back to you.

Just concede it, you assumed I was pro-Hillary because I'm anti-Trump. You were wrong, because you look at everything in black and white. There's social conservatives on one side and cancerous progressives on the other. Trump will Make America Great Again, and Hillary is the devil. This is how you sound. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No I haven't assumed you are pro-Hillary - I have however assumed that if you would be forced to pick between Trump and Hillary you'd pick Hillary. Is that statement true or false?

Now I have never said Trump will make America great again. I haven't even said he will fix the divorce problems, the abortion problems and many of the other issues social conservatives are fighting for. I simply said he will disrupt the progressives, which is necessary before being able to introduce the social conservative policies in question.

I will address the rest of your long post in some time.

Outside of better education, nothing. — Thorongil

But education obviously isn't working, so we have a very real problem. People are more educated than ever today, and many are more immoral than ever. So what does it mean then?

The international community has various ways: diplomacy, economic sanctions, military assistance and guarantees of it to threatened states, and as a last resort, direct military intervention. — Thorongil

Again you're ignoring the fact that the international community cannot do anything. Firstly because Russia is a superpower. Secondly because even if they do - it will not change things, since things come from the mentality and ways of life adopted by the people there. They will not change - regardless of the intervention. You do an intervention in Iraq - does anything change? No - you still get the same terrorists and animals running the show. Because that's just the culture of that region. You appoint someone to government - he, or his underlings - will end up doing the same things. The culture must evolve itself - and that cannot be imposed by any outside force. Now from the inside change is possible but probably cannot be achieved in a single lifetime.

You described removing barriers for the business to succeed (specifically taxes). That's not a positive reward being bestowed. — Thorongil

Yes only that I'm speaking about people starting businesses. To quit my job and start a business I receive certain advantages. This can and often does include tax-breaks. Since my company would not pay as much corporate tax as my previous employer did I will be able to allocate myself a higher salary. That's an incentive to start a business. Another incentive could possibly be state given, non-returnable funds. Say given that I present a strong business plan which gets approval I receive up to 30,000 USD in start-up capital - not all at once of course, but over the course of starting my business with the state verifying things on the way. That's another intervention in the market that's possible. And so forth. So again - my point is that regardless of how you call it - removing barriers or not - the government should be actively involved in shaping the macro-economic environment. They should for example decide that it is good that more people start new businesses - and therefore allocate tax breaks to such businesses, while not to others. And so forth - these are government level decisions in favor of all sorts of different interventions. So in-so-far as such actions may entail big government, they may. But that's not necessarily bad I don't think. That's what I mean by controlling the macro-economic environment - controlling the environment in order to achieve some objectives.