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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

competent public official — Wayfarer

Hillary Clinton is competent? Really? So she was competent in the way she handled the emails? She was competent in the way she handled Benghazi? She was competent in the way she handled the Iran deal? The only time when she was competent was when she used her foundation as a pay for play scheme - yeah, she actually was competent in that.

1 and 3? Yes. Not sure what you mean when you reference ISIS. — Michael

Yes - then you see why I don't support Crooked. She will just continue Obama.

Does it not occur to you that Trump couldn't possibly be an expert (though I'm sure he'd call himself the best expert) on a single one of these issues because he has absolutely no political experience or relevant education? — WhiskeyWhiskers

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.

So you're telling me you believe that a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates, all, presumably, without prohibitive legislation? And that he's going to re-establish your preferred moral code into the heart of society again? Again, how? — WhiskeyWhiskers

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.

Divorce rates are not as high as people believe: the truth about divorce rates is surprisingly optimistic, this is the original source for that link, as you can see, the rate of divorce is falling, some incorrectly believe the 50% number, and here's one more source. — WhiskeyWhiskers

>:O Your propaganda efforts are hilarious. Okay let's have some fun. First - less people are getting married than before. Second - people are getting married late, if ever, compared to before. This means that while the population increases, the number of marriages will obviously increase but at a slower rate - hence if you calculate the statistics you linked me to, you will find that the marriage rate is decreasing, as is the divorce rate. This is only natural when you have a population which grows at a faster rate than people get married. It has absolutely NOTHING with whether less married people divorce today, than they did 50 years ago. The statistic of 50% that people know is the correct one. Of all marriages 50% end in divorce. This isn't the bullshit that oh in 15 years 80% were still together - as in one of the links you have provided. That's not the question. The question is over a lifetime are they still together? The other statistic - about marriages compared by the time when they got married - the lie of course is that if you adjust the 2000s generation to 25-30 years of married life (even though they haven't lived it yet, but we can predict by extrapolating the trend) you will find out that they will divorce more than any one else before.

Now there is another problem. That people are marrying late. What does this mean? It means that promiscuity is becoming common place in our society, which isn't good at all. It's a disaster. And it's something we have to do something about. What we have to do - I don't know, I'm not sure. But it's clear to me that we can't keep going like we have. You're just irrationally refusing to see that this is a problem, and deluding yourself with statistics that it doesn't seem you understand very well. I have studied the trends (at least in Europe, not in US) very well - the conclusions are beyond doubt. More marriages end in divorce today than ever before. People are getting married later than ever before. Less people are getting married than before. People's sexual morality is disappearing. Promiscuity is on the rise - especially in the young. These are just the facts. Look around at your world. Just go out into the street. Look what people are doing. It's a fact - it can't get any clearer. Today is the first time in history where we serve promiscuity as a business - it's called a nightclub. There we go something that can be done - outlaw nightclubs >:O

It's very clear to everyone that you have moral issues with how individuals in free society choose to conduct themselves in their own private lives, but I fail to see how simply having a republican (especially a life-long democrat kind of republican) president is going to magically reverse whatever slide into decay you perceive to be happening, especially years after their term. — WhiskeyWhiskers

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.

It's very clear to everyone that you have moral issues with how individuals in free society choose to conduct themselves in their own private lives — WhiskeyWhiskers

The way you frame this is ridiculous. This is obviously meant to suggest "what is your business in being concerned how others conduct themselves in their private lives in a free society? You have no place here". There is no freedom to be immoral and hurt other people. For no one.

The fact is there is no reason to believe that anyone has this kind of sway, even a republican president, when you accept the fact (and I bet therein lies the crux) that divorce rates have been falling year after year under republican and democratic presidents alike. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Divorce RATE - I don't care about the rate. The rate is calculated with reference to the population. Of course that is decreasing, for the reason I have described before. I'm interested in the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. The divorce/marriage ratio is a clearer indicator of that.

http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf

Now it is you who is refusing to see the facts on this issue. You deceive yourself that there is no problem. Remember that.

And the fact that you actually believe Trump is a republican (or any of the things he says) tells me you've bought wholesale into his con. He's already been divorced twice, married three times, and committed adultery. And bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assaulting women. And you think he's the solution to societies ills? Jesus Christ, he is the very best example of the exact problem you claim to hate. — WhiskeyWhiskers

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

Yeh, those research experts. Who the hell do they think they are? With their Ph.D's, Pulitzer prizes for journalism, fancy letters after their names, and awards for impartial journalistic integrity. You've spun a wheel of abstract a priori's, what do they know? — WhiskeyWhiskers

A PhD doesn't make you smart.

If I can't get you to agree that Obama's terms have not been a complete and utter failure — WhiskeyWhiskers

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

I don't have much hope of you attempting to address substance of the argument that disproves your claim that a socially conservative support network is a necessary condition for administrative success. If that were the case, it would be logically impossible for a successful 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. — WhiskeyWhiskers

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.

And what's even more bizarre is that you've come to the US political scene from the outside, you didn't even grow up in it. — WhiskeyWhiskers

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.

I don't like being so dismissive, but you don't seem to realise how utterly insane the idea of a President Trump looks from the outside. — WhiskeyWhiskers

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

You concede that there needs to "be a lot more there" for effective administration. Would this be, by any chance, an expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes it would be. Trump is still better than Crooked on economics, health care, counter-terrorism and immigration. Probably much worse on diplomacy and trade though.

You believe that being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, in the US, is a necessary condition for improving the current situation that the Western world finds itself in? How exactly? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Because our current society is greatly troubled by high divorce rates, high adultery and cheating rates, high out of wedlock birth rates, especially for the African American population in the US, and perpetual poverty and crime which emerges from such social instability. The fact that our children have close to a 1 in 2 chance of their parents divorcing - that alone is a big big problem (and by the way this isn't solved by giving benefits to single moms and all that crap. You have to go to the root of the problem. Otherwise you're merely covering the problem up instead of addressing it). Add on top of this the fact that we've come to live in a very promiscuous society, which no longer values ways of life which are necessary for social stability - to avoid conflicts and harm between people - and we have one of the most important problems facing modern Western society. Up there with radical terrorism (another one which the media never speaks about properly) and global warming.

And the situation the US finds itself in? The economic situation? The terrorism situation? The gun control situation? Immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation and on, and on? How is it at all relevant to any of these? Can you explain the cause and effect behind that? — WhiskeyWhiskers

The economic situation of the US isn't good at all. Life is becoming more expensive in the large cities, there is more and more competition, people are becoming more and more isolated. Terrorism is rampant - just this year there were quite a few attacks, including the Orlando attack, and the more recent attacks. More importantly, the US is struggling to beat a band of nomads in the deserts of Syria for over 3 years - inadmissible. How long does it take to exterminate ISIS? ISIS are nobodies compared to the resources the US has available. Within 1 year, they should have been exterminated. Furthermore, the Middle East has been left in chaos because of Obama (whom Trump was right about - he actually is the founder of ISIS) by the way he has withdrawn from Iraq. The US shouldn't have left Iraq without maintaining a sizeable force there to ensure peace. The gun control situation is a problem - and Trump will probably not address that very well, I admit that. Immigration is also a very big problem - because it is tied with other problems - such as drugs, poverty, and crime - all of which create social imbalances, which manifest also through the lack of social conservatism noticed. Obamacare is a disaster in terms of healthcare, probably half of the population, if not more according to many sources find that it has done more harm than good. Trump will likely be somewhat negative on trade and green energy.

Ok, let's talk about now, the last 8 years. Factcheck.org breaks down Obama's (and his non-socially conservative support network's) successes and failures. Given that there is actual fact-based evidence of Obama's successes, doesn't this prove that having a socially conservative support network is not in any way a necessary condition for effective government? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I don't know who the hell this factcheck.org is supposed to be or what hidden interests may be behind it. Obama's successes - that's a mirage. What's the success? Obamacare? ISIS? Supreme Court imposing the legality of gay marriage on all states? Really?? That's the "success" of Obama? Pff.

One would expect to find Obama's administration a complete and utter failure (given cancerously progressive they all are), if it were a necessary condition. It's empirically not. How do you explain this? — WhiskeyWhiskers

And this is exactly what we find the Obama administration to be. More black people are in poverty today. Many black communities are still riddled with crime, and no better than before. More black children are born out of wedlock in circumstances that are almost guaranteed to keep them in life-long poverty than ever before. He hasn't even done any good for black people - it's just been a way to shove it to them, be like "yeah there you go, you have a black president now". It means nothing. Black folks aren't living any better today than before. And yet "oh what are Obama's failures?". Are you kidding me? Obama himself is a failure - pure and simple.

It's a disgrace the Nobel Prize for Literature got thrown away this year.

It's not at all clear to me that having a high concentration of social conservatives is both a necessary and sufficient condition for an effective administration. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Sure, it's not sufficient as a condition. There needs to be a lot more there, and I'm not saying Trump's will be a great Presidency. As I've said before, progressivism as per Obama and Clinton is a cancer. Trump is merely the chemotherapy - not a good thing definitely, but better than the alternative - also a way to prepare the stage for social conservative candidates themselves.

If this was the case, then literally any Republican candidate would do. Not only that, literally any group of regular Joe's off the street would be able to govern the country as long as they were socially conservative. What is it about having a socially conservative support network that makes for an effective administration? — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's to do with the current situation that the Western world and the US finds itself in.

And also, would you want to therefore claim that the democrats can never be effective in their administration simply because they lack a support network that is socially conservative? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Not never - democrats weren't always like this. It's the New Left, from the 1960s onwards that has corrupted the Democratic Party. So again, you have to look at it as a historical situation. You are trying to take my pronouncements and apply them generally and forever - that's the wrong approach. What I said is valid only for this time period, and for the people in question.

Furthermore, how does being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, have anything whatsoever to do with economic expertise, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, and god knows what else you need to be well informed on? — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's not any help, but as I said, it's not a sufficient condition being socially conservative, but it is necessary.

The whole Republican support network has a high concentration of social conservatives. It's not that they will make Trump effective, but rather his administration will become effective. This isn't just about the person elected, but about all the people he will depend on, and who he will bring with him.

How do you determine the likeliness of this? And why don't you say the same about the accusations against Clinton? It's just rationalisations and hypocrisy. — Michael

Because it's more likely given the circumstance. It's not just "oh he has a rape case against him" - you have to understand the circumstance, and what it suggests.

Then all your talk about Bill being accused of rape is a red herring. — Michael

No, because that matters too. It's a cumulative set of issues that add up.

People like Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and so forth. You probably won't find a single social conservative in Crooked's political circle.

He settled the case with her husband. It's a reasonable inference to assume that part of that settlement agreement was that she drop her case against him. Again with the rationalisations. — Michael

No, it's not reasonable at all - they were two different cases - one regarding business dealings and another regarding rape accusations. It's also quite likely that they - the husband/wife - launched both cases just to get some money out of Donald - the business one quite possibly being a fair one - hence the settlement - and the rape one just out of vengeance, and to put more pressure on Trump.

It would be far more honest if you stop with all the character attacks and moralizing and just admit that all you care about is having a Republican rather than a Democrat in power. — Michael

I did say already that I would support Trump even assuming he is on equal moral footing with Clinton. Why? Because he has a different support network, a social conservative one, which will guide the country much better than Clinton's progressive network. In fact, if Clinton was associating herself with people like Mike Pence - would have run from the Republican side in other words - and Trump from the Democrats, I would have supported Clinton. It's very simple. As I said hundreds of times before, I don't like either of them. But Trump being elected in this case is superior to Clinton - not necessarily because he is Trump, but because of the people he is associated with, and whom he depends on.

your "Trump is morally better than Clinton" argument. — Michael

I never made that argument.

Yes, I will then consider him the equal of Bill Clinton. I'd still choose him over Bill if I had to pick between who is going to the White House, because at least Trump is sorrounded by a social conservative network, and will do more good for the country than Bill et al. — Agustino

Trump settled with his ex-wife over a rape accusation — Michael

It's his wife. She probably just wanted more dough than she could get by a simple divorce proceeding.

In the wonderful world of the practice of law here in God's favorite country, civil actions are routinely settled; no liability for the claim made is determined or admitted in that case. Various factors are involved in deciding whether settlement is appropriate, but the truth of the allegations made is not necessarily a significant factor in the decision in most cases. Factors which are significant in most cases are the costs which would have to be expended in defending against the claim (e.g. attorney's fees); the length of time which will be needed to defend against the claims (what time you'll spend with lawyers, in court, preparing for discovery, preparing for trial, all of which reduces your ability to do other things like be with your family, do your job, run your business); the character of the presiding judge and his record in similar cases; the manner in which the allegations made may influence a jury; the ever-present possibility that a litigant will lose regardless of the evidence submitted; the likely results of an adverse decision; adverse publicity in some cases....in other words, factors which are significant regardless of whether the allegations made are true or false but because litigation is a nasty, expensive, time-consuming process the results of which are never certain. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes I don't dispute this. But rich and powerful people, who easily have access to many lawyers, can outsource those worries, especially when they themselves are lawyers and have the necessary connections as Clinton was. Clinton didn't settle the case because he wanted to, or because he was scared, or because he was intimidated. He probably settled because a group of lawyers advised him to settle. It wasn't as John would have us believe such a stressful situation that that was the only way he could handle. Clinton isn't an idiot. I probably wouldn't have thought he was guilty had he settled for 100 grand, 200 grand, but close to a million is too much given the nature of the accusation. Furthermore, his well-known sexual promiscuity makes it more likely he would have attempted rape than otherwise. Not to mention that such a case would encourage all future women he has sex with to bring similar charges against him - it would set a precedent, because he would pay.

Individuals and corporations who have the resources to manage their reputations and images generally seek out of court settlements. They may or may not be guilty, they may or may not have been falsely accused. The thing they want most is for the subject and the uproar to go away. — Bitter Crank

Yes if it's possible they do. However, it depends on the circumstance. If your possible losses go up to 400 grand (fees, compensations, etc), and you settle for 5 million - then something is amiss.

Oh yeah. I should've googled it. He must be very guilty, then, because if you settle, you're guilty. Apparently. — Sapientia

Depends. If you settle a rape accusation with a stranger for 1 million, yes very likely you are guilty. If Trump were to settle Trump University cases for 1 million - it could be both ways (leaning on the guilty side however). Because those court cases have potential damages that could be greater than a million considering all the plaintiffs.

So, I looked it up, and I found the Jill Harth lawsuit. The lawsuit says Trump attempted to rape Harth. Harth dropped her lawsuit after Trump settled another lawsuit (alleging breach of contract) related to the American Dream Festival. — Sapientia

Yeah - she dropped the lawsuit, there we go. Trump never settled it.

That video, despite the fact that you're annoyed, made an important point. It wasn't discussing Carson's views on homosexuality or anything of that sort. So bringing that up is simply a red herring. The fact of the matter is that Carson is right - liberals always trick social conservatives not to show up to vote, and therefore end up with the situation that always favours them.

It's interesting to me, by the way, that as far as my memory serves, this is the first time a candidate is doing well in the US with a depressing message "the USA is doing terrible (Mexicans), it's going down the drain (terrorists) and I'll save you (with my super-wheelin'an'dealin' skills)". I'm used to "USA is the greatest country in the world and if you vote for me we'll tackle this and that problem". — Benkei

That's how it should be - the world has many problems, we should be aware what those problems are, instead of self-deluded, like Obama, and think that everything is great when it actually isn't.

Again John, clarify for me, what possible motivation could there be for paying someone close to 1 million bucks for something you hadn't even done? Stop being sly like a snake and hiding behind platitudes. Obviously he wasn't convicted. This isn't what this is about though. This is about what is - beyond reasonable doubt - likely to be the case, and we both know that.

Same reason Trump settled all of his cases. It's all about image. Even for a "normal" person such as myself, were someone to accuse me of something I never did, I'd go to great lengths to make sure he/she would stop hollering, because even if I know I'm innocent, along with the court, there will forever be stigma there from the onset of the accusation. — Heister Eggcart

And if you pay them money, the stigma will disappear?

However, and in most cases concerning powerful people, there has arisen legion upon legion of gold digging whores in this country that know that fact, and will gamble on putting someone in the middle where they can't get out, knowing that they're innocent. They just want the money. That's the bottom line. — Heister Eggcart

Exactly - so do you give in and give them the money? Do you give in, essentially to a terrorist's demands? If you do, then you're only adding fuel to the fire - you're encouraging this sort of activity. Other whores will look and will see - "oh look, she got one million bucks! Let me go to Bill and bump my ass on him a little, maybe I get it too!"

Can you tell me why you would do that? What would be your motivation for doing that?

Like this. You sound like an armchair judge who's never been outside to see the light of day. Perhaps you just don't understand how rape is perceived and understood in the US, I don't know. — Heister Eggcart

So you're telling me that if you were Bill Clinton, you'd settle a rape accusation for 850K USD, knowing very well that the woman is just playing you and you have never done anything wrong, nor raped her?

wildly self-deceived about certain topics like morality and politics. — Heister Eggcart

This is very vague. What do you really mean?

The double standard is that you take an unproven allegation as truth when it comes to Bill, but with Trump, when it comes straight from the horses mouth, you lap up his denials and apologetics. He said that he has never behaved like that? Oh common... — Sapientia

>:O But the fact that he has paid 850K to settle a rape accusation makes him 98% guilty in my mind already. For all practical purposes that is all the proof that I require. That's why I said I'd put Trump on the same footing if he had settled a rape case for such money. (the laughing face is regarding your "oh common" imitation btw :P )

I'm originally from Eastern Europe but I've been living in the UK until very recently. What makes you curious?

And, if Trump settles in the lawsuit I referenced, or any other such lawsuit, then you will apply the same standard of judgement, yes? Or will you just find another way around it? — Sapientia

Yes, I will then consider him the equal of Bill Clinton. I'd still choose him over Bill if I had to pick between who is going to the White House, because at least Trump is sorrounded by a social conservative network, and will do more good for the country than Bill et al.

Pah! There's that double standard again. Oh common... — Sapientia

I'm not seeing it. Bill hasn't said he regrets raping. Furthermore, there is quite a lot more evidence with regards to Bill than with regards to Trump on the subject of rape.

I said it was cause for concern, didn't I? I haven't denied the allegation, but that is all it ever was. It hasn't been proven in a court of law. The fact remains that Bill Clinton has never been convicted of rape. Why did she agree to the settlement? One could speculate on that, too. Perhaps her case wasn't as strong as one might assume. — Sapientia

Oh common... what would you have done my dear? If the guy offered you 1 million bucks would you not have agreed to settle, even if he had raped you? You have to think from the perspective of that woman. Probably not very talented, not very smart, not having a bright future ahead. She could never reasonably hope to make that kinda money, and she had already been raped. Nothing she could do - it had already happened. Might as well take that dough. Think about what her family would advise her - they'd probably be like "You crazy?? 850K? Take it, what else are you hoping for!" If she had refused to settle, worst would have happened (for Clinton) was him getting to jail, and a much lesser compensation - plus the risk for her of losing the case, given his political influence.

He already has! He dismissed it as locker room talk! — Sapientia

No he hasn't. He actually said it's wrong and he regrets saying it. He has also said he has never behaved like that. He furthermore pointed out that folks in today's culture talk about things like that all the time - almost shamelessly. Which again is something that the hypocritical media says nothing about.

Perhaps a Clinton + Clinton administration will change things, and whether this is good or not depends on who you are. A more liberal court, and one that stays liberal for a while, is the worst outcome that Clinton could produce. — Bitter Crank

And letting ISIS thrive. And continuing illegal immigration. And continuing the focus on identity politics. And continuing political correctness. And so forth. Tragic.

What is it that a more liberal court could do that would affect YOU materially? — Bitter Crank

Simple: create a culture which is more permissible towards sexual immorality - that is harmful for all of us, not just for me.

That is slander, as per the legal definition, as well as speculation. He has not been convicted of rape. Under the settlement, Clinton didn't admit any wrongdoing or apologize and simply agreed to make a cash settlement to Mrs. Jones. Although I do agree that that, as well as the other allegations, and the Lewinsky scandal, are cause for concern. But then, so are similar allegations against Trump, including his alleged rape of a 13 year-old girl - of which there is a lawsuit and upcoming hearing. So, you are guilty of double standards. And Bill Clinton isn't even running for president, unlike Trump. — Sapientia

Oh common give me a break... if he hadn't actually raped her, why did he pay her, what in today's money, would equal to more than 1 million dollars? Do you just throw away 1 million for nothing?Who did Trump pay in order to settle a rape accusation? (and by the way, most of the accusations against him are recent). Bill Clinton may not be running, but he's certainly going to the White House if Hillary wins.

And, if it is something other than sexual morality, can you please clarify and confirm it's importance in comparison to sexual morality? — Sapientia

Yes, it is sexual morality, amongst many other things. Trump himself probably is sexually immoral, but he will not promote this same attitude for everyone else - through for example the appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Trump will not promote identity politics. Trump will take a tough stance on ISIS. Trump will take a tough stance on illegal immigration. Trump will take a tough stance on abortion. And so forth. These things are very important. If we vote for Crooked, then they're gone - for everyone else. If we vote for Trump, they may be gone for him personally, but certainly not for the rest of us.

What effect do you believe that Hilary Clinton becoming president will bring about which is worse than someone such as Donald Trump becoming president, given what we know about the latter with regards to sexual morality, and given your stance on the importance of sexual morality? — Sapientia

First because this is about sexual morality - Bill Clinton. That in itself, getting such a man in the White House again, that is a bigger crime than anything Trump has ever done with regards to sexuality. Bill Clinton has raped multiple women - as Trump said, he even had to pay one in a lawsuite.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/13/clinton.usa1

Secondly - Clinton just is progressivism + war against Russia. Nothing could be worse. Supreme Court will be finished. We'll have even more identity politics. It will be a disaster.

I know full well that you find that sort of behaviour objectionable. But your annoyance doesn't mean as much when it's undermined by your actions. The severity of which you would have us judge it ought to be contrasted with your willingness to vote for people known to have behaved in that way.

There are a number of other acts which, if committed by a candidate running for office, would mean that they'd lose my vote. So, given that for you, this isn't one of them, then either this particular sort of behaviour isn't as bad as all of those sorts of behaviour which would lose my vote - meaning that it's not as severe as you make it out to be - or your moral standards are much lower than mine. — Sapientia

Not necessarily Sapientia. Again, I wouldn't encourage to vote for him if on the other side we didn't have a very dangerous progressive candidate - and if she wins, the culture of the US will be altered for quite a long time, in a direction that's not going to be good at all. So it's a necessary sacrifice, to prevent a greater evil.

Don't vote or vote anything but Trump. — Benkei

What does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? It has to do with morality, and your willingness to disregard your own moral principles for the sake of social conservatism winning the day. Your rhetoric on virtue ethics and the importance of sexual morality is undermined by your consequentialism. — Sapientia

No, actually I'm quite annoyed by sexually immoral people from the past, and I tend to go so far as even lower the attention I pay to their thinking. Why do you think I don't like reading Heidegger? But what annoys me isn't only so much their behaviour - it's rather that they uphold that such behaviour is acceptable and should be permissible.

You claimed earlier that Hegel was not making a point about material conditions but about the evolution of consciousness. — John

Which, by the way, is true - just as you yourself have just admitted.

He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. — John

I disagree - he thought the history of events is related to the history of ideas - ie affected by the history of ideas - but not determined by it.

I have not been offering any opinion about whether Hegel showed a necessary connection between the history of ideas and the history of events, and the dependency of the latter on the former, or whether Marx established a necessary connection and dependency the other way. — John

He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. — John

Self-contradictory.

So, this has nothing to do with what we have been discussing. — John

Good, so then can you tell me what point about what we have been discussing are you actually in disagreement with?

But this is by no means the point I was making. I didn't say that Marx was or was not mistaken. I would say that he understood very well that "Hegel's was the history of ideas- not the history of material conditions". Marx understood that perfectly well and that is why he overturned Hegel (on his own account stood Hegel right way up) to place the focus on the history of material conditions, instead of on the history of consciousness (or ideas, or spirit, if you prefer).

The point I made was that Hegel thought material conditions are an expression of spirit; so while Hegel's history of spirit is obviously not the history of actual material conditions, that fact is exactly what you would expect to be the outcome, on account of what it was that Hegel prioritized. — John

Very good. That's what I've been saying. It remains for you (or Marx) to show the necessary link between the history of ideas and the history of material conditions ;)

What does white privilege mean? Well it's obvious to anyone who sincerely takes a look at themselves and their environment. Only someone willfully blind could fail to understand how it pervades all aspects of contemporary american life. — csalisbury

Oh my days... oh my days... White privilege - that thing which decreases your chances of, for example, becoming a university professor, while your position is given to the black female lesbian, even though her capacity to fulfil the function of that position is inferior. White - so unfortunate to be born white in today's world. Everyone discriminates against you, curses you, accuses you of having oppressed them. Ridiculous! Fuck political correctness.

We should stop this divisive racial narrative - white vs black, etc. Makes no sense. People who engage in this discourse raise the dust themselves, and then complain they cannot see.