Where I differ from you, I think, is that I see that rejection of the kind of analysis I advanced in the OP as propaganda from the liberal elite as an illegitimate rhetorical strategy which serves those who would hold their prejudices against history that has marched on without them. — fdrake

Sorry fdrake, but I have to admit that this part I didn't understand clearly.

Yet notice that history has marched on in other ways too, notably that the left has changed from trying to overthrow capitalism to trying to mold it in quite a cooperative way. (Bernie Sanders is a perfect example). And civil rights naturally have not been something only promoted by the left in the broader historical context.

Unfortunately, this means that everyone advancing a political position has to care a lot more about optics than they would if things truly were decided in the court of reason, and not through networks organised to promote maximal exposure to exaggerated opinion. Ideas have to be crafted as viral content in order to gain wider audience and start convincing people. — fdrake

Perhaps in this forum reason has more to do with logic and truth than politics. I'm not in the camp of thinking that we can just logically deduce the correct choice of policy or like Leibniz thought, use math and compute the best option. We can agree on a problem, yet we have a difficult time to agree on the solution. Optics and ideas crafted as viral content have been the norm for a long time. Politics touches too many moral questions which are subjective and hence we cannot find an objective solution. And our society is extremely complex. That doesn't mean that reason isn't important.

You have 2 children. I am going to shoot one of them. Which will you choose? — Pilgrim

Yes, I do have 2 children. Hence I'll shoot you first. And don't threaten my children again.

There's free will for you.

Since we are NOT free to exercise our will in any way we choose, then free will does not really exist except for those with ultimate power. — Pilgrim

This is quite illogical as you already make exceptions. Seems like you are confusing "ultimate power" with free will, as if those in power would have then free will. As if free will depends on the power you have over others.

I agree with Rank Amateur that your idea is like a personal genie (that some have and others don't).

If the latter, I conclude that free will effectively doesn't exist for most purely because of that competitive situation. — Pilgrim

Free will isn't eradicated by the fact that our choices are somewhat limited. We still have choices to make.

more straight forward insults like "kant", — Πετροκότσυφας

What's wrong with Immanuel?

↪ssu ↪Hanover ↪fdrake ↪andrewk Does anyone happen to know how discussion proceeds in non-North American settings? Do discussions of politics on the Internet deteriorate into verbal dung throwing in South America? China? India? Africa? the Arab world? Europe? Is everybody always civil and thoughtful in Europe--especially northern Europe? — Bitter Crank

At least the politicians here (in Finland) have to be more civil as the administrations have to be coalition governments and hence the opposition parties can be your future team members in the next administration. This has a profound effect on the political discourse of toning it down and the politicians then have an effect on the discourse by ordinary people. Internet discussions? Well, they usually part to their own echo chambers as elsewhere.

There's also a little bit more social cohesion and things like the wellfare state and that the economy is in the end a capitalistic free market one are basically de facto universally accepted. Above all, there aren't inherent structural problems that would be truly dividing the countries setting the people totally apart. Even after all the negative reporting about Sweden, it's problem are in the end quite minor. Apart from the (extreme?) right wing rhetoric which has an agenda to describe the Nordic countries (especially Sweden) as all failures thanks to their open immigration policies and wellfare state programs, the countries are still quite homogenous with rather small ethnic minorities and the social programs haven't bankrupted them yet, at least. (And less noticed is that for example Sweden has changed it's immigration policy to a far tighter one. But that doesn't fit the agenda.)

Yet I think you can find in any Nordic country the same kind of phenomena as in the US as the World is so connected these days. You can call it the power of globalization.

It strikes me as very strange that you would believe my OP is just fuel for the alt-right. In no way have I expressed that bigoted ideologies are to be taken seriously intellectually, and in fact I advocate treating them as worthy more of structured contempt than debate. — fdrake

Oh, it's fuel. Not perhaps the highest octane, but still.

Seems you missed or forgot just how Hillary Clinton's famous line about the part of Trump's followers being the "basket of deplorables" got the whole Trump train excited. Such comments just play to the hand of the populists.

That you advocate structured contempt rather than debate could be easily used to promote all the things they talk of. Populist movements utilize extremely well condescending attitudes and contempt from the side they are against. That just gives beef to their whole line of the "elites" being against them with the clear intention of snuffing out the populist movement without any respect to democracy.

Key factor here is just what do you think should be answered by "structured contempt" that is not worthy of a debate? Everything the right stands for or just the clearest examples of racism and bigotry? Is there any reason for a debate?

The vitriolic hatred is intended to be a mirror of the hatred applied to those who come under the use of these terms. — fdrake

Perhaps I don't get you correctly here, but it sounds like if the other side would spread disinformation, the reply would be then "Quick! Let's counter this and create our own disinformation!"

Also, this isn't specific to American political debate. It's about internet discourse on politics. — fdrake

Well, when talking to total strangers that we will never meet, the cordial manners of a political discussion have been forgotten. And now that unfriendly tone is coming to the discourse even if we know each other as good manners seems to be "political correctness" or hypocrisy to others.

With tweeting and Facebook etc. the discourse has become a parade of short witty replies and gotchas. Longer responses that intend to seek some kind of consensus or solution to an issue are rare and... dull, difficult. In fact, what I find lacking are the kind of discussion openings that don't follow the dichotomy of being for or against some issue promoting clearly the agenda of one side or the other, but find good and bad things in the issue and hence aren't clearly for or against it. These kind of answers just confuse the partisan crowd as the answers aren't simply the reurgitated talking points.

I'm new to this forum, so first-hello. My understanding of the concept of freewill is that we are all free to respond to situations that we find ourselves in, in a way that we see fit-without any influence or concern for the thoughts and feelings of others. We are all, almost constantly being put into situations that we would not have chosen for ourselves, but we are free to respond to those situations in a manner that we see fit. — ceewoody

Hello to the forum, ceewoody.

Add there that you can learn, adapt and understand your own thinking. Some might say you are conscious. You can understand how you have behaved earlier under certain conditions, like if you have lived in a warm climate, you perhaps haven't needed a raincoat or an umbrella as the warm rain hasn't been such a problem. But once you travel to a colder climate, the rain can be freezing and you have to protect yourself from it. Likely you will learn that quickly.

Basically the above can be something that a Computer has been programmed to do. Yet the Computer has to be given an exact algorithms how to "learn", how to change it's current program once the old program doesn't give the outcome intended. Humans can innovate and come up with new solutions that didn't exist earlier as they can reason how they have operated before, in a way they can understand their "operating program" has earleir been, and use that information to create something new.

Somehow after Trump's elections it has become okay to just bash ad hominem after ad hominem on anything you don't like and even supposed thinkers are trying to gain credit (while saying they aren't) because they support a mainstream opinion (albeit wrapped in different vocabulary; we didn't read all these books for nothing, did we?). — Coldlight

+1

There doesn't exist a political discourse in the US that would try to seek any consensus on anything or try to solve things. It is just about bashing the other side with the most ludicrous examples. The sides don't basically interact anymore. And of course the current US president, a champion in this rhetoric, has done his share to poison the discourse, but this has been a thing long time coming.

For someone the OP can informative, yet the vitriolic hatred tells very well just how much the sides hate each other in the American discourse. Hence likely the few genuine alt-right people would just love fdrake's outburst which remind me of Captain Haddock's famous curses.

I remember the time when the extreme right were simply laughed at. It was simply whimsical and pathetic. Now this hatred and fear just makes them happy.

Seems to occur more on the Right, who just re-package immoral positions for a modern age. — Maw

Just who has the most immoral positions naturally depends on one's political views.

The left had it's heyday of repackaging after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowdays the younger generations are blissfully ignorant what the old Moscow-supported extreme left was like with it's Marxist-Leninist lithurgy in Europe or elsewhere. (In an ironic twist we now have a Moscow-supported extreme right.)

I don't think those talking about classic liberalism and people like Adam Smith are repackaging things. In the era of Trump they are more likely just to uphold the views of the "ordinary" right in the face of an imbecile movement (that believes in an inept narcissist) and that will likely chant "Lock her up" in the US at least until the 2020 elections (or until when Trump is thrown out of office or resigns). And in Europe there will be those few who march under new silly flags, but their extreme ideologies won't find a fertile ground as the people are just fed up with the botched immigration policies (at least in their view). The media will naturally make it a huge thing.

There isn't so much intense ideological passion in these movements as in 20th Century. Collective movements both on the right and on the left have too many skeletons in their closet from history.

History won't repeat itself, it will just rhyme a bit.

"Classical Liberalism" is merely a re-brand for those of a libertarian-conservative persuasion, who don't want to use their terms because of the toxicity often associated with them. — Maw

To be honest, both the left and right have a habit of trying to rebrand themselves, find again their roots and try to sell their ideology to a new generation that is totally ignorant of the past.

Something totally normal for political movements.

So at a cursory analysis the answer seems to me to be an obvious yes, because 30-50% of the factors determining a response would have differed (although perhaps only slightly) as other cultures would have a different mix of genetic personality traits, and a substantial (although unknown) proportion of their response would have been the result of their child-rearing practices, which again would have been different. The environment, which in our example is the one factor we're keeping constant, plays the minority role, albeit a very large minority.

The huge caveat I would add to that analysis, is that it hinges heavily on the genetic differences in distribution of personality types making any aggregate difference to the culture's response. — Pseudonym

Well, it's certainly obvious that you look at this from the genetical and from child-rearing practices. Fair enough, but I would point out that the reduction from societies to individuals and their genetical background etc. brushes aside what sociology is about. And sociology (and history) can tell us a lot even if they surely aren't natural sciences. Reductionism (or methodological reductionism) has it's pitfalls.

What is very typical to every country, people or "culture" that has gained a dominant position usually through winning wars against others is that they don't see their success due to applying new technology, having a better organization or simply because of their superior numbers and resources. No, what they see as the key to their success is their inherent traits of the people themselves. They have been simply better, the people themselves are special and are different from others. Some would call it racism, but that negative term doesn't capture so well what I'm going for. No dominant country wants to accept that it's success is because of something else than the exceptionality of it's people.

Basically the point is that classic Western Imperialism doesn't differ so much from Japanese Imperialism even if the cultures do differ. And so don't the Muslim conquests differ so much from the Roman ones. The differences are actually quite minor in the end. And this is because every nation or culture that has gained dominance has always learned and adapted things from others and has had various relations with other cultures and people. Hence it's no wonder that the cultures have been similar and only when there has been absolutely no interaction before, has it happened that one "culture" has been totally superior in technology to another. Trade, ideas and interaction in general make us similar.

Please be kind to an honest inquiry:
I am not really understanding the 'sides' of this upheaval. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The Germans suffer from a complex because of their past. Partly it's self flagellation and the inability to get over their ugly past. If some German would say nazism is a past issue and today we are living in a different world, he would be basically crucified as his view could be intrepreted in a very bad way. Hence the Germans have a habit of depicting problems of today as resemblances of the past, as nazism is somehow coming back etc.

It's a bit like the problematic issue that Americans have with slavery and Jim Crow: even if it's past history, the issue still comes up in current debates.

Anyway, a huge influx of immigrants in a short time will create a heated debate in every country however permissive or non-permissive the country is.

Western civilisation has been a disaster because it has exploited, massacred and oppressed millions of people to get where it is. — Pseudonym

If I may interrupt for just a little question: do you think that other cultures would have been better, especially if they would have enjoyed similar technological advantage in the 18th - 19th Century? Or would they have been similar disasters?

Comes to my mind the Chinese advisors who succeeded in reasoning to their Mongol overlords that killing absolutely every human being in some vast area and turning the whole land to pasture to their horses wasn't such a great idea and far better idea would be to leave some people alive to be taxed.

Sometimes being abusive or simply condemning somebody's viewpoint might be the proper thing to do, but that correct moment emerges very seldom. A false statement can be put down without being abusive. In fact, likely people will enjoy far more when somebody is corrected in the most cordial manner. Perhaps when someone apparently doesn't understand that he or she is way off from what is defined by good manners or by the site guidelines, then it might be best to let them have it to wake them up. Unfortunately we make the judgement far too easily sometimes even without truly understanding what the other is saying. Especially when we don't know the person.

I remember in the old PF how quick and effective the administrators were to spot the occasional crank or the person who would start to make ad hominem attacks and be too abusive. Poof! And they were gone instantly. The NKVD worked so well. That instilled a little bit of fear into us and kept the discussion rather polite. Yet when the old forum crashed the first time, the first thing on my mind was had I written something bad and gotten evicted for some reason.

No, but the planet, and all the living things that live here, would be. Better off, that is. It's humans that are the problem. Both in terms of our rapacious demands on the resources of our Earth, and the sheer number of us making those demands. — Pattern-chaser

This idea starts from the thinking that we humans are somehow separate from the life on the planet, that were are not a species as others and part of those living things. We surely are the dominant species and mold a lot the planet to our benefit, but that doesn't make us totally separate. In my view this is just the extreme hubris of humans who think that they are absolutely different from anything else. Life hasn't been harmonious even before us with mass extincion events happening before our time. The truth is that if a large asteroid hit the planet and would wipe out the human race, there still would millions of years for life to recover on Earth and prosper before the Sun burns the planet. So life on this planet isn't going to be erased away by us.

Caring for the environment is one thing, saying that humans are just a problem is something else. It's just self-criticism stretched out to the extreme and to the absurd.

Comes to my mind (from a totally different field) certain Americans who are convinced that all the problems and crisis in the World happen because of the actions of the US government and simply don't understand how hubristic, self-centered and truly condescending their viewpoint is. As if everything evolves around the US and other people couldn't be able stir up problems without it.

Also, usually more affluent societies do take care more of their environment — ssu

I don't think this is true at all. I already linked you to the problem of pollution in China and that is where a lot of things we use in the West is manufactured. Britain became very polluted when we did our own manufacturing. — Andrew4Handel

Perhaps you don't notice, but pollution in China actually does make my point: even if it has grown, it's still a poor country compared to West as the per capita isn't so high. Other places with huge pollution problems in urban areas are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Mongolia, India. The least polluted urban areas you find in Australia, New Zealand, Estonia, Finland, Canada, Iceland. The comparison tells it all.

It's no wonder you have the least pollution, tough environmental laws and a working environmental policies in wealthy industrialized democracies. And btw, you in Britain are still making a lot manufacturing, very likely far more than earlier, even if it doesn't employ as much people as before thanks to automation.

Based on the rates of resource domination and depletion by the west to support our current lifestyles we would have to come up with some dramatic new technology to give everyone as similar lifestyle quality and not completely wreck the planet. — Andrew4Handel

Well, that is happening. And it can happen in the future.

Just to give an example of the "dwindling" resources take what is called Peak Oil. It has already happened: that is the peaking of conventional oil production. Happened some years ago actually in the timeline the inventor of the term had forecasted in the 1970's (if I remember correctly).

So has the World fallen into chaos and anarchy? No. Not only has production methods changed, but also alternative energy production has emerged. For example solar power has made dramatic advances in few years. And finally it seems that electric and hybrid cars are truly cornering the market. There is your example how that adaption through technology happens in the real World.

Decreasing the population is responsible breeding.

Unfortunately the worlds population is increasing. — Andrew4Handel

Unfortunately?

A stable population could perhaps work, but a decreasing population creates a lot of problems. The most simple fact is that an increase in population is the most natural reason for economic growth. A decreasing population is a reason for stagnant growth or a long economic downturn. This then hampers down technological innovation and advancement as companies do not see incentives for R&D. Also this naturally makes changes in the demography of the population as there are far fewer younger people than older people. This in turn creates huge problems for our pension systems, but it also creates other problems too.

And basically economic stagnation and recessions create political upheaval, crisis and problems. In poorer countries this leads to conflict and war.

Rise in the wealth of the population has been historically the biggest reason for population growth to decrease. Hence if the poorest countries which have the highest population growth would get richer, the problem would go away. Also economic growth would then give these young populations work, which then would solve a lot of their internal problems. Also, usually more affluent societies do take care more of their envinronment where in the poorest countries where people have to fight against starvation their basic needs go understandably in front of things like preserving the environment.

Hence your idea of decreasing population being a good thing will in fact create huge problems and a lot of suffering.

Are saying you think everyone can have a car, washing machine, microwave, computer and so on?

Even if it were possible I still think it would be irresponsible use of resources. — Andrew4Handel

So you having those appliances isn't irresponsible, but some African having them would be?
And what is so irresponsible in having them in the first place? After all, for you and me to discuss this thing here on the Philosophy Forum means that both have a device to enter the internet. What is irresponsible in that? We'd be better off without Computers, the net, cars etc?

The anti-intellectual strand just seems to be dominant at the moment — Baden

I agree.

I think the damage that the inept moron Trump is doing will have severe effects not only to the GOP and the politics of the US, but in other places too.

But anyway, both the left and the right are allways under attack from extremist elements and fringe groups who want to take control of the movement and push out those in the political middle.

I don't see evidence that communist regimes took extra care to preserve their environs, more the reverse. It is not like they tried sustainable practises and failed rather the reverse. — Andrew4Handel

Well, they didn't.

And even if cooperatives can be quite successfull in the West, the soviet style agriculture and economy wasn't. And here with the history of the multitude of Marxist-Leninist experiments we can see that what on paper looks just, logical and reasonable in reality can end quite poorly. And this is one of things that has to be in consideration: we might talk about philosophical constructs on how to improve the World we live in on some theoretical level, yet there is the actual political World we live in where benevolent ideas might come out as not being so good. Property rights as an institution is actually very important. To have somebody (usually a government official) then deciding who is eligible for "stewardship" and who isn't creates a vast mountain of problems in my view.

— Andrew4Handle

Overpopulation is a fairly recent problem. These countries became poorer and exploited under colonialism and inherited the colonialists religious beliefs in fertility and contraceptives etc.

It is ironic that the western countries which consume the most of the earth resources become complacent about their luxury and can boast of responsible breeding. It is not clear that all these others people can conceivably share our lifestyle and consume the same amount of resources. — Andrew4Handel

Responsible breeding? What are you talking about?

You should actually look at the present fertility rates around the World to notice how dubious the idea that the West can boast of "responsible breeding" is. The World's average total fertility rate has dropped from 5 in the 1960's below 2,5 at the present. And notice that a rate below 2 means a decreasing population, which is reality to many, many countries, rich and poor today. Now only something like 14 countries in the World have a fertility rate of 5 or more.

And the idea that other people cannot share our lifestyle sounds to me as a static view of the World where there is no increase in productivity and technology. Or that we can take into account the environment. As if it would be impossible for others to enjoy the quality of life that we do. Luckily reality has shown otherwise as we have seen a huge increase in affluence around the World and a similar vast drop in global povetry in our lifetime. That tells something different.

Infinity is a Mathematical fiction and should be applied carefully to the World of Physical Things. For example we can say that there are an Infinite number of Natural Numbers. Natural Numbers are Mathematical concepts. — SteveKlinko

Well, infinity is a very useful mathematical concept then. After all, the number "3" doesn't physically exist either.

I think the popular opinion is that Atheism is actually the belief there is no god rather then lack of belief in a god.

At least that's how militant Atheists come off to me. — Sum Dude

Anybody having the zeal to promote and explain his religious views, especially trying to counter other views sounds like a preacher to me.

1. A quantity is a specified amount of something. It has a limit. The infinite is that which has no limits and so cannot be quantified. Therefore, not a quantity as not quantifiable. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I would say that it simply isn't countable or computable. Yet it does in my view quite clearly define a quantity.

The problem is that math starts from counting. And hence we have all the problems with infinity.

It seems to me tribal societies with traditional methods are less prone to starvation and over population , live within there means and understand their land. Notorious famines have occurred as consider, in British India and Ireland whilst resources are being shipped elsewhere and local means of subsistence have been undermined by turning crops into cash.

Private property is far more in need of a central authority than stewardship. You need a government and army to enforce property rights and a legal system in the past there was the divine rights of kings now there is inheritance law.

Can you link me to counter evidence? — Andrew4Handel

How about the failure of the Marxist-Leninist experiment?

Wouldn't that be apt to say being close to "stewardship"? Quite much central authority with central planning. It's called history, you know.

And furthermore, the idea that tribal societies are less prone to starvation and over population is simply incorrect. Tribal societies with antiquated farming methods and substance farming have always been prone starvation due to bad years. Substance farming can sound something romantic, but it's totally incompatible to feed the modern world. With all it's negative sides (which I assume people here will eagerly point out), modern industrial agriculture is the solution that we don't have famines in the West.

And furthermore, the reason for the Irish famine was potatoe blight (and potatoe was the cheapest thing to cultivate with usually the biggest crops, hence it became the main food for the poor). My country (Finland) suffered one of the most latest famines ever to happen in Western Europe, and that was because of weather causes. Not because of capitalism or land ownership issues.

And the increase in affluence of the population brings population growth down. Overpopulation is a problem in the poorest countries where the simple reason for having more children is that they can work for the family and take care of you later.

I don't think science has to make any metaphysical commitment like naturalism. I think naturalism and physicalism are quite meaningless in terms of picking out entities. — Andrew4Handel

Comes to mind the scientist who says he/she has absolutely no philosophical views or any interest in philosophy: He/she just runs the tests, uses simple statistics and that's it.

I don't think China might be considered as Fascist. — Marcus de Brun

It's approach to economics is very much close to fascism. The socialist planned economy has morphed into a more capitalist planned economy, hence it can be argued that China is fascist. The Communist Party and the state claim the sole right to represent the “universal interest" of the people. Furthermore, Xi Jinping looks more and more like a leader for life (as with the removal of term limits for the President).
Nationalism has a very important role in China while Communism is only basically left to speeches. All these look very much like fascism, even if fascism is a derogatory word reserved for the enemy in China.

If the entire world were 'free' to live as we whiteys do in the west... there would not be a tree left in the Amazon. — Marcus de Brun

I disagree with the idea that if the Chinese would live as wealthily as we in the West, there wouldn't be any trees in the Amazon. Global povetry has dramatically been reduced in our lifetime (a thing we forget in the West). Actually middle-class people are environmentally friendly: they can think about the environment, they are not trying to get their daily food in order to survive. Rich countries can take care of the environment, if they want to. Besides, never forget the impact of technology. For example, the productivity of agriculture is going up. And one can imagine if the majority of countries, China included, would be as technologically advanced and productive as the Netherlands is now in agriculture, feeding the World would be possible even with higher living standards.

So, what's wrong with fascism? I've been told it's the most efficient form of government and most productive of all possible. Most people who lived under fascism (without the idolatry of a raving meth addict, racism, discrimination, and outright genocide) seemed to benefit from that form of government in the past dramatically. — Posty McPostface

Safety valves that you find in a justice state/democracy that starts from the individual don't exist or aren't as important.

Government being close to industry creates a fertile ground for corruption.

The authoritarianism creates a fertile ground for dictators and a dysfunctional police state.

Present example of a fascist state would be China in my view.

They're all part of a Shallow State conspiracy against America, being Russian and/or Big Business shills. — Michael

Yep.

But you see, money talks and bullshit walks. If you become a whistleblower, there's a crowd for you in the Alex Jones Prison Planet realm, but not anywhere else. And you have get income.

I listened to an interview of William Binney once well before the Trump era. Came out as an intelligent person who truly avoided doing anything criminal. But then… Binney stated that Russia didn't invade Eastern Ukraine? Heck, I could see the GRU unit flags on the APCs. Yeah, obviously everything a forgery...all the various Russian armoured vehicle columns caught by smartphones.

It's actually sad that whistleblowers have to choose sides and become talking heads of the other sides agenda. The only exception is Valerie Plame, who was outed by Cheney, and was forced to become a "whistleblower".

Trump has managed to turn many of his supporters into mindless parrots for his talking points, and they are, with regard to him, incapable of any form of critical thought or even basic reasoning. As in, for example, when he tells hundreds of apparent lies, they'll deny any of them are actually lies. Or when he says words that mean things that are obvious in context, they'll deny that's what he actually meant because it makes him look bad. And so on. — Baden

What's the most crazy response when Trump utters incredible lies is that the supporters (with the psychosis) simply love it as it offends the people they hate: the liberals, the leftists, the Washington swamp, the "Deep State" etc. The fact that Trump told a lie doesn't matter at all. It's not just that Trump is politically incorrect, which many do like, in the psychosis stage it goes into facts and policies based on lies. And if someone says that what Trump stated was untrue, the he or she has Trump derangement syndrome.

Everything is just political rhetoric. Or everything said against Trump is just political rhetoric. That's how it goes.

Baden, maw, you can notice the Trump Endorsement Psychosis (TEP) from the reaction of a Trump supporter if he or she is presented of any kind of comment about Trump´s actions that isn't positive or flattering. They will turn the subject IMMEDIATELY to:

- Hillary Clinton
- That it was a fair election win in 2016 and EVERYTHING now is just a DNC plot
- The Washington elite (the swamp) is out to get Trump
- The Fake News leftist media
- The Deep State that opposes Trump
- the missing DNC Server
- Seth Rich
- Pizzagate (etc.)
- other loonie stuff

Or whatever is the latest talking points from Trump supporters to be reurgitated.

If they are just happy that they have a job and the economy is OK, then they don't have the psychosis.

I would say there's a virulent Trump endorsement psychosis among his base.

(psychosis= a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.)

Just try to talk to a Trump supporter and they will start to bable about evil Hillary Clinton, the deep state, the economic miracle Trump has given them...

How can so many of us look at the same reality and have such radically different views of it. — Rank Amateur

Basically people live in parallel news environments with totally different "facts". Social media just enforces that.

But note that this isn't anything new, especially in early 20th Century political newspapers could invent whatever was suitable for them. Journalistic ethics is a new thing.

There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. — Agustino

Ah, the lust for killing each other. As if that would make your country better.

Look, you don't have a famine. You don't have over 30% unemployment. Your government hasn't collapsed literally, the police department and the army still work. You don't have any of the historical reasons for a civil war. Your situation isn't as bad as for example in Mexico, and they aren't on the verge of a civil war.

What you have is a political discourse that just loves the hyperbole. It's going to be a civil war. Not just political upheaval like in the late 60's early 70's, but a civil war. That's hyperbole. What you do have is an out of control political environment where any kind of consensus isn't needed as it is presumed that the winner can take it all and simply dismiss the opposition. You don't have to form coalition governments. Hence the political rhetoric has drifted into two separate worlds that don't meet anymore.

Perhaps the reason why Trump supporters don't get it is that they just think that anybody critisizing Trump HAS TO BE a supporter of the democrats, or liberal, or leftist. This is very typical and indeed a similar approach can be found in the democratic camp when there is a democratic president in office.

We have the right/left divide too where the other side obviously seems annoying from one's point of view, but nobody thinks that killing your fellow citizens would make the country better. Because that's what is comes to in a civil war.

Banno, thanks for the hilarious pictures!!! :razz:

The reality could not be shown more evidently as in the news conference of yesterday. It doesn't come as shocking if you have listened to Trump in the end. Perhaps (or hopefully) more people are just noticing his utter incompetence and weakness.

After all, even if an US presidential candidate would have colluded with the Russians to get himself elected and the Russians would have something on him, it still wouldn't mean that the president would have to be such a slavish lackey as Trump. They (the Russians) would totally understand if the US president still would have some harsh words at them from time to time. They wouldn't "kill their gold laying goose" by making a scandal because of some minor issue. They would be happy for far less. This just shows Trump's utter incompetence.

It's still very fascinating when you think of it.

Anyhow, best to be suspicious of Putin's Russia and the manipulative powers within the United States - whether these be Trump and his lackeys or the previous and largely bipartisan "establishment". — Erik

One has to be critical of the criticisms and statements on both sides, which one can only be with truly learning about the issues oneself. Occams razor is a good method here.

Best propaganda is made by only referring to facts. Hence you have to know what facts are then left out in order to notice the subtle propaganda/agenda.

This sort of American exceptionalism - I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) this is the angle you'll take — Erik

Wrong it was indeed. But many think that only neocons are in favour of NATO etc.

IN FACT American unilateralism and especially the extreme hubris of the neocons is the total opposite here. If you noticed, neocon policies were not so loved in Europe (remember Freedom Fries?).

The basic fact, despite all the critique you can justifiably have toward US foreign policy, is that other Western countries accept and are quite OK with the whole international system that the US itself created for itself after WW2. NATO, CENTO, SEATO were all American ideas at the end. NATO brings not only stability, but basically puts the US in the position of a superpower, just as all the other international organizations like the IMF or the role of the US dollar does (again something done after WW2). Hubris would be to think that the US has such a leading role just because it has the strongest military and the largest economy.

The Superpower status comes from the role that the US plays through organizations like NATO. One has to remember that the US had a very large economy before WW2, but it was a smaller player on the World. Hence there isn't a reason why economic and military power would go automatically hand in hand with the nations position in the World.

Somehow many Americans don't see any reason for these complex alliances, think (as Trump) that these organizations and alliances are just a burden to the US, a lousy deal. The fact is without them, the US wouldn't be a Superpower, it wouldn't get other countries to send troops to it's wars and likely would lose it's position, which indeed has made it's own position better. Just think about the role of the US dollar. Futhermore, other countries would make their security arrangements then without the US. Basically they would turn their back on the US in these issues and make their own policy. If you the Americans would be OK with that, well, president Trump said the EU was a "foe" of the US.

Enlighten us on the motives and agenda of Russia — Erik

Now that a is big subject. Perhaps in a nutshell it is that Putin needs an sinister enemy to justify his crackdown on the opposition and to stay in power for life. After all, first it was Napoleon, then Hitler, so don't trust the West. And offence is the best defence.

Couldn't care less. — frank

I guess that says it all. The grandest fallacy of all human reasoning: I don't know; I don't need to know; you can't tell me; therefore I must be right; go away and don't bother me. QED. — tim wood

Yep, this shows the utter ignorance and naivety of many Trump supporters. Why, they haven't anything against Russia, so why bother, why not be in good terms with them? So Trump is doing just fine trying to improve the relations!

The utter inability to see that Russia especially under Putin sees the US as it's main enemy and is trying weaken the power of the US in the World is evident with these people. Russia clearly understands that Trump is a passing moment, and is trying to get the most of it. And Americans believe the lies. Why, it's just the American "Deep State", the military-industrial establishment, fooling the people and making everything up. Russia and Putin would just want better relations.

The lack of understanding the motives and the agenda of foreigners can be very detrimental.

So now UK Prime Minister Theresa May has told what was Trump's advice/suggestion approaching Brexit.

Trump suggested the UK to sue the EU.

May couldn't hide her amusement when telling this.



One among other Trump ideas that fully show what kind of blissfully ignorant idiot he is. Like his proposal to Macron that France should exit the EU to get a trade deal with the US and that Russia and the US should create a joint task force to counter hackers and cybercrime.

Only clueless Trump supporters can think these are great ideas. But they tell clearly just on what kind of level Trump truly operates.

think he's aimed at Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, or any other target of opportunity. I suspect he thinks that he does not have to wage and win a world war. He only has to intrude into their sovereign space in such a way that it is instantly perceived as a fait accompli. in short he relies on his ability to make the West dither, as it did in the 1930s with Hitler, and with the Soviet Union and other dictators since. — tim wood

Putin's aims are simple and well documented. Just start with the official Russian military doctrine. It states the following:

12. The main external military risks are:

a) build-up of the power potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and vesting NATO with global functions carried out in violation of the rules of international law, bringing the military infrastructure of NATO member countries near the borders of the Russian Federation, including by further expansion of the alliance;

Hence the main focus is to weaken the Transatlantic Alliance and also the European Union. Have the European countries deal with Russia on a bilateral basis is the objective. Now Russia has to deal with these countries as part of EU and/or NATO. Any West European country is militarily weak compared to Russia on a bilateral basis. Hence without a working NATO, East European countries will fall under the sphere of influence of Russia. Putin doesn't have to invade them (and risk WW3).

Hence Putin isn't likely to invade a NATO country. He can succeed with his game if NATO becomes as defunct as earlier similar organizations like SEATO and CENTO, which now are in the dustbin of history.

And now he is winning...

Agent Trumpov coming here to Finland to meet his handler next monday.

Helsinki is a perfect background for the biggest covert operation/espionage success in history . :grin: