Spot on.

The scale of terrorism related deaths are relatively minuscule compared to austerity policies enacted by governments of a certain political leaning in order to bring about privatisation-by-stealth, to give only one example (US gun-related deaths being another). Once you take this into account, you realise that quoting numbers is the very thing that reveals it's not really the numbers people care about. It's who is responsible for them. There's less cognitive dissonance involved for a right-wing mind (there is such a thing) to direct their anger, fear and prejudice towards minorities than towards politicians of the kind they like to vote for.

People were outraged when Lee Rigby was killed, and as tragic as it was, that one single murder was given the weight of an entire chapter in the book of How Muslims Are An Existential Threat To Western Values. Yet when Tory austerity cuts to the NHS result in 30,000 deaths, most people haven't even heard about it.

It's intensely interesting to me to see how people's political persuasions are actually a fairly reliable predictor of where they stand on the 'Muslim Problem', and how much weight they give to it. No one thought our very way of life was under threat when it was the IRA shooting and bombing people for decades. But when ISIS makes a few internet propaganda videos and kills a relatively small number of people, it's 'Islam' that becomes the greatest threat to the west.

I understand that some deaths are more 'visible' than others (100 people being run over by a Muslim in one day is more visible than 30,000 people per year dying due to health care cuts), and that's the point. There is a massive problem with public perception. But 30,000 quiet deaths in hospital due to funding cuts doesn't sell papers (or get clicks) does it? If it bleeds it leads, especially if it's done by one of those people. Because that's the propaganda the readership wants to be sold.

What exactly do you mean by post-modernism? And who are the post-modernists?

A rose has its thorns and yet the blossoms are beautiful to behold. Evaluating a rose soley on the basis of its pain-inducing thorns is a morbidly constricted worldview. It ignores the other significant side of the coin viz. happiness. In rational analysis it is mandatory to understand the whole issue to have any chance of a fair and reasonable evaluation. Since pessimistic philosophies obviously fail in this deparment by unduly focussing on suffering, I consider them as irrational. — TheMadFool

The fact you picked a rose for your example in the first place shows you're beginning with the conclusion that life is actually comparable to a rose; that on balance it's more positive in spite of its negatives. And life isn't necessarily roses and a few thorns for a lot of people in the world, and I could just as easily point to lots of things as symbolic of life that we could easily agree we would be better off without. But we can throw dumb analogies at each other all day.

But anyway, why is the weight pessimists give to suffering undue? They give suffering a different moral value than you do. Why do you have the correct valuation and they don't?

The expected retort of the pessimist would be that, in life, suffering is far greater than happiness. There's a simple but effective reply to such a POV - that most people are content with what life has to offer, the clearest indication of which is the absence of mass suicides. Of course one could say that this is because people haven't given much thought to the issue and thus go on living their lives despite the immense amount of suffering. My reply to this is that it is not a lack of deliberation on the issue. If it were that then there should be a conspicuous absence of pessimists. Yet, we seem pessimistic people happily selling their philosophy to the world. As you can see, pessimistic philosophy is self-contradictory and so, is irrational. — TheMadFool

How are you not just playing chess against yourself at this point? We're all winners at that mate. While they could, depending on the argument, a pessimist doesn't need to argue from subjectivity to make their case (see Benatar, 2006). Personally I'd rarely bother to go down that rabbit hole, because human psychology is so fraught with biases/coping mechanisms/adaptive traits/cultural influences that they make untangling that mess hopeless. It's empirically false that people are rational animals (in spite of their "rational analysis" posturing) so I wouldn't expect their views to be rational either, generally speaking.

As you can see, pessimistic philosophy is self-contradictory and so, is irrational. — TheMadFool

This will be my last post in this conversation because we've seen enough of these pessimism-vs-not debates before. The posts become longer while the posters become more close-minded and unreasonable. Life's too short. So I'll end my input here on a few remarks, partly because your lack of charity irked me. As much as you'd like to write pessimism off as irrational, it's a perfectly defensible world-view even if you disagree with it - and it doesn't need to be irrational for that to happen. You can hold those two thoughts at the same time. There's lots of views I find perfectly sensible (and sometimes I'm even impressed by some arguments that I don't have responses to) that I ultimately don't agree with. But frankly, and no offence meant, your challenges are some of the least convincing and least interesting I've come across, and I've seen some good ones (which inevitably end in me having to argue for moral realism against an implicitly assumed anti-realism - "but who is it good for?" - and that's a whole other debate). It looks like you've not really taken the time to engage with the relevant literature because your arguments are common stock objections that have all had responses over the years. And if you have read the literature, you should already know this. That's probably why you're being premature in calling it irrational, which I realised when you used the rose analogy, and it makes me less willing to carry on. I've heard all these points before, and they bore me. But I get that that's not really your fault, or problem. That's me. I only posted in this thread to correct some holes in your logic which I'd done by my second post, but now things are getting carried away into a classic case of an internet debate. Past a certain point I simply don't believe in them. But feel free to write a response to this post anyway. (And between me and you, you might want to drop the "rational analysis" and "fair and reasonable evaluation" stuff. It's pretentious (like naming logical fallacies in lieu of an explanation), especially when your arguments aren't that good. I'm only telling you for the sake of your own self-awareness. Because I care.)

Well, then that makes antinatalism irrational.

Necessary things cannot be avoided, as is the case. It then becomes irrational to think it shouldn't exist. — TheMadFool

Suffering is necessary in life, but life is not necessary. So suffering can be avoided, and that can be desirable depending on your moral framework. I don't see what's irrational about that. Want to provide an argument instead of an adjective?

Some would think it irrational to be so overly concerned with an inevitable. — TheMadFool

Then again, some might not. As for inevitable, see my above paragraph.

What kind of ramifications would this realization have?

For one, we can do away with pessimistic philosophies that have, well, misunderstood the whole point of suffering. They think suffering shouldn't exist, implying that it is unnecessary, which I've shown is actually necessary for survival. — TheMadFool

I don't think so. You can think suffering shouldn't exist and also understand the necessity of suffering for the survival of life as you have described it. It would just require you to commit to antinatalism. Nothing wrong with that.

To get around your conclusion another way I could also claim that pessimists understand the necessity of suffering in life as well as anyone, and that's what makes them pessimists.

The question should be, "Is this natural change?" — Harry Hindu

to say that the way one organism makes it's life is natural while another isn't is inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

?

It's amazing how the climate change 'scepticism' of a few political and corporate elites, who have pretty obvious hidden agendas (money, ideology & power), somehow got picked up and perpetuated by regular people as if they themselves are the ones who need to continue getting those campaign donations for re-election or making those millions and billions from oil shares and profits. It's equivalent to the rich and powerful convincing the poor old proles to willingly vote in their favour at the expense of their own best interests.

It's very unlikely climate change deniers have the relevant training to even know how to go about mounting realistic opposition to climate change theory in the first place. Frankly, probably no one here really knows whether humans are contributing (the denial of which therefore means conveniently that humans are safe to engage in any practices that maximise capital without having to sacrifice any of it for the sake of the planet - see paragraph one). Fortunately, we have a group of individuals whose job it is to find the evidence and let us know one way or the other. If someone wants me to listen to a priori lay-questions posturing as credible opposition instead of yielding to professionals with mountains of actual empirical evidence, they're going to have to lobotomise me (which will also be the fate of anyone who accuses me of appealing to authority). The people who call themselves 'climate sceptics' don't seem to realise that before you can even start properly debunking something, a pretty deep understanding of the subject is required first.

Anyone who wants to be intellectually honest when it comes to climate change theory ought to accept the conclusions of scientists. Ought to. Even if it's all wrong and the deniers were on the right side of the debate all along. If it turns out that all these scientists are wrong, we were still right to accept it because we had (as far as we knew, which is the best we can ever do) very good justifications for doing so. The same cannot be said currently of the deniers because they will only be accidentally right, since their arguments will not be what debunks climate change theory. That will be the job of actual scientists.

Sorry but I have to comment on that last line.. "Please bear in mind that everyone can read what you're saying." - that is exactly one of the biggest problems in our society these days. No privacy, public shaming, bullying (calling someone racist etc.) - this all causes people to censor themselves and that is not only harmful for a discussion, it's also very dangerous. — Linda

I think you've got a gripe with something that may or may not be a problem in society, but have jumped on what I've said in a case of mistaken identity. Privacy has nothing to do with anything here. He's put private thoughts onto a public forum. They're fair game. I've not bullied him, nor called him a racist - not even close. Neither have I called for someone to self-censor; only that he thinks about what he's saying before he commits to the position that there is more harm in tolerance than there is in someone being physically assaulted, as in my example. I gave him a chance to side with common sense.

It also sounds like in calling me out, you're trying to make me self-censor. Jeez, what a bigot.

But he decided to go ahead with a position which is clearly untenable to the point of being silly. He outright denies the possibility of my hypothetical even being valid, rather than admit that the tolerance it effects does have a helpful place in society (you're either tolerant or you're not). It's also proven by the fact that his longer response is full of non-sequiturs - not to mention some clearly built-up frustrations he's finally taking out on anything that looks even remotely like the nearest possible target - and self-serving conclusions as to what might happen if we exercise tolerance, all of which are purely his own logicless speculations.

If he had granted it's possibility, then he would have to concede the point that tolerance can be a good thing, in the right situations, if it prevents unnecessary harm, as opposed to it's never being so. His denial was clear when he said "that's not going to stop him!" It is perfectly possible that it might, and that is one situation where the value of tolerance would be evident. It is better to at least try to get each other to act tolerantly, because it might work. It might prevent real, actual harm (as opposed to this vague, invisible harm to society as a whole). Just because tolerance isn't enough or good in all situations, such as these riots you mentioned, does not mean that it isn't in any.

You show me supposed 'harm' in tolerance, and I'll show you the actual physical harm of intolerance. Here's an example: tolerance was what the UK had before the Brexit vote. Now, many people seem to think the vote gave them a green light to verbally and physically abuse anyone who isn't white with a British accent. These racists were always there, but they tolerated the 'Others', and it was working until the vote. That's now gone, and intolerance has taken its place. Literally, they will not tolerate people who are not white and speak with the right kind of accent. Racially motivated crimes are up by 41%.

If something does the job, I'll take it. It works until it stops working, and then you find something else.

I'm not part of this "tolerance movement" you seem to want to pick a fight with, either. Unless by that you mean simply wanting us all to make the effort to put aside whatever disagreements we have with the way other people harmlessly live their lives. How awful of me; I never considered the harm I was doing to people. What a prick I am.

I'm just making sure I understand you before I fully commit myself to abject despair.

If the only thing that would prevent a racist from assaulting an innocent person was you saying to him, listen mate, he's not a bad bloke just be a bit more tolerant, you actually think it would do less harm to say nothing and let him kick his head in for being a different colour?

Please bear in mind that everyone can read what you're saying.

You wouldn't ask him to be tolerant?

It's not "what you said", it's a consequence of what you said. If we should not be tolerant, then the white nationalist should not be tolerant of his brown neighbor who just moved in next door. If it were good for nobody, explain how it's not good for the brown guy next door if it's the only thing that's keeping him from being a victim of racism.

I'll ask you again, would you, or would you not, urge tolerance if a white nationalist was barely concealing his rage against the brown foreigner who just moved in next door?

So you wouldn't urge tolerance if a white nationalist was barely concealing his rage against the brown foreigner who just moved in next door?

Perfect is the enemy of good. If you're perpetually unsatisfied with where you are because it's not where you want to be, you're gonna have a bad time. When the future is looking bleak sometimes it helps to go through it looking backwards.

Here's the ironic corner you've painted yourself into: you are not a Christian, and Buddhists could get into heaven (maybe even Socrates, depending how you wriggle yourself out of this one). As with all conversations that seem to be had with you lately, we are now through the looking glass once again.

I'm not so sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Taoist, etc. that you'll go to hell after you die. And it depends on your inner life to be honest. It is possible for someone to be very sinful and afterwards find repentance and be saved by God's grace. — Agustino

It's possible for non-Christian religious folk to not go to hell?

But then you don't know if purgatory is real. If it isn't real then they must necessarily go to heaven because there's nowhere else for them to go. So it's possible for devout non-Christian religious folk to go to heaven, regardless of whether they follow the bible (because a Buddhist is hardly going to be following the bible their whole life, they have different scripture). It therefore also means that it's possible for someone to go to heaven without following the bible (you're in luck!). Because if devout non-Christian religious folk could go to heaven, and they do not follow the bible, then those who do not follow the bible could go to heaven. Or do they need to be devoutly religious regardless of religion?

If not, this then includes cancerous progressives, because they might be very much focusing on their inner life but not following the commands of the bible. Take Socrates for example. He might be going to heaven, according to your logic. You might meet him one day. Do you believe that?

I would ask to see you back this up with actual scriptural analysis, but I'm not in a position to verify it, not being a biblical scholar myself. You can breathe a sigh of relief.

So, again, what is the point of Christianity if it is unnecessary?

I think that if that's what I deserve and that is God's will, then I shall go to hell. I wouldn't want that to happen - quite obviously - but if that's what it ends up being that's what it is. What do I think of the possibility? Well I feel fear and repulsion. But I don't feel disgust, I don't feel injustice, I don't feel hatred towards God. — Agustino

See this is how I know you don't genuinely believe any of this Christianity nonsense. If you genuinely believed you might be going to hell, you'd be infinitely more terrified by that than by anything that can happen to you in this life. And some pretty awful things can happen to you. "Fear" would not begin to describe that feeling.

You have also neglected to comment on the fact that you are not a Christian, according to your own definitions:

I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times — Agustino

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians — Agustino

You are not a Christian, regardless of your "inner life". If you don't follow the teachings of the Bible, you're not a Christian. What do you have to say about that?

I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times — Agustino

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians — Agustino

So we've established you're not a Christian. It's not even that you're not a "true" Christian. You, Agustino, are not a Christian. It's as simple as that. You are as much of a Christian as a member of ISIS, or a cancerous progressive. What do you think about that? What do you think of the possibility of going to hell for not being a Christian?

What you deserve shall happen to you - and I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Buddhist, or any other of the major faiths you'll end up in hell. I hope God will have mercy of me and give me the strength and wisdom to be a true Christian until I die, although I probably wouldn't deserve it by myself. — Agustino

And if you're not sure if non-Christians will even go to hell, what the bloody hell is the point of Christianity? I might as well become one of those raunchy cancerous progressives and have lots of blasphemous sex because for all you know I might not even go to hell.

Is Purgatory real? If I'm a sinner I might end up there, I don't mind waiting around a while before I go to heaven. If it means I get to have lots of pre-marital sex in the meantime.

I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times — Agustino

You're not a true Christian if you don't follow the Bible.

If you're not a true Christian, what happens to you after you die?

Answer my question. Are you a true Christian?

No. Answer my question.

Are you a true Christian?

No the fact there are problems with all means that we have a standard, which we haven't yet found, with which we're comparing them when we say there are issues with all. — Agustino

So there is an infallible definition of a true Christian, we don't know what it is, but we've compared it with all the previously tried definitions and we know it isn't the same thing. How do you even know there is one if we haven't found it?

If I hide an object in my fist and ask you to find and bring me the same object without knowing what it is beforehand, how do you know you've found the right one? Not only that, there might not even be an object in my hand in the first place.

Tell me, which of these are the true Christians? How do you know?

No the fact there are problems with all means that we have a standard, which we haven't yet found, with which we're comparing them when we say there are issues with all. — Agustino

Do you know how to tell who is and is not a true scotsman true christian?

Would you not say so? Can you go around raping women and be a Christian? Would you call someone who goes and beats people on the street but says he believes Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour a Christian? — Agustino

Would you be surprised if I told you there isn't one perfect way of defining who is and isn't a Christian because there are issues with them all?

According to Agustino, there is a single belief that unites all Christians, and it's the belief in sexual morality (whatever that means once you look into the details). If you don't believe in this 'sexual morality', then you're not a real Christian. Even if you were to believe 99.9% of the rest of the Bible. That's the depth and breadth of the entire Christian religion throughout the world and the ages, in all it's wonderful nuance. Boiled down to a single necessary and sufficient condition that Agustino from the internet has divined all on his lonesome.

It is entirely down to projection and fallacies.

It's like he's never heard of No True Scotsman.

It may be true, but it doesn't follow that therefore all Christians share those beliefs. Some Christians don't even know what's in the Bible because they haven't read it. Some Christians are liberal in their sexuality. Some Christians do not believe homosexuality is a sin. Some do not believe divorce, adultery, or pre-marital sex are sins.

Even those who have read the Bible pick and choose the bits they want to follow; no one can believe everything in the Bible because there are so many contradictions. There are so many denominations within Christianity all with different beliefs, and there are as many types of Christian as there are Christians in America.

There might be strong correlations among close-knit groups (even then they won't all believe the same thing 100% of the time), but if you compare them to the other Christians in the rest of America, the world, or other tight-knit groups in either, you'll find there's probably more differences than there are similarities and there is not a single defining commonality between them all. There is not one single necessary condition for all Christians. Even if you said it's their belief in the same God, ask them to define it and they won't all give the same definition.

Sexual morality for example is shared by all Christians — Agustino

No it isn't! This is completely your own projection.

Well WW, tell me is there a conflict between the secular ideology of progressivism and religious believers judging by their creeds? Yes or no? — Agustino

Once you actually start to define the terms in detail, and point to the populations of actual people holding to those strict definitions, you begin to realise that these are extremely vague concepts that are significantly grey in reality because peoples diverse range of beliefs don't neatly map onto your simplistically defined categories. But you do not understand this point in spite of it being made to you repeatedly over the last few days by myself and others. It was remarkably enlightening when you said labelling, such as 'left' and 'right', "simplifies things and makes them easier to understand". You don't seem to possess the self-awareness to realise how revealing that admission was to the rest of us. Which is why I compared your thought to a child's when they feel comforted by the lack of complexity their understanding is required to grasp.

"This is also why I could be quite anxious, and also frequently worried about my health at small signs. But I've learned to train my judgement - to take a decision and stick to it - trust my judgement instead of doubt it. Now I'm very rarely if at all troubled by anxiety for example."

Do you not see what is starring you right in the face? If you define and think about the world in such a way that it's inherent complexity is deliberately removed, you're going to sleep easier at night because you feel you understand what is going on around you.

Us and them, them and us. It's like a child fitting together on a board two basic shapes that only have one possible arrangement and feeling comforted by the simplicity because he can understand it. Like a jigsaw puzzle with one piece black and one piece white. Your view of the world is so grossly oversimplified and abstract that it bears no relation to reality.

I meant alpha males, by definition, do not need to sexually assault women. Because by definition they're the kind of man a woman would want to have sexual contact with. Neither do they need to brag about it actually, because any 'alpha male' would not be insecure enough to feel the need to convince others of their status. They're confident and their actions speak for themselves. If you even believe this alpha male rubbish, that is.

I even hated writing that because there is obviously no such thing as one kind of man that all women want to sleep with. And it's so insulting to women to suggest that they'll be willing to sleep with any man because he's good looking, or that they'll let a man like Donald Trump grope them because he's rich and powerful. Which is why I think the term alpha male is so ridiculous.

It is also so painfully obvious that sexual assault has nothing to do with progressivism. Sexual assault has always existed as long as there have been people who cannot control themselves sexually when in a position of power over others. Are you going to say that someone sexually abusing a woman in the 6th century was a progressive?

It has nothing to do with being alpha male, either. Alpha males, which is a stupid bloody term, do not need to molest women against their will. That's the definition of being alpha male. It just makes you a disgusting human being.

Trump is not an alpha male. Jimmy Savile was not an alpha male. Bill Cosby is not an alpha male.

Think about it, Agustino. Donald Trump looked at a 10 year old girl and thought of making her into a sexual conquest when legal. He saw sexual potential in a 10 year old. You are defending that persons chances of becoming president. I would ask you how you became that sort of person, but I'm afraid I've already tried to make sense of it. I get you want some grand shift in American morality, however nonsensical that sounds to me, but maybe not by electing a potential child rapist and self confessed sexual predator to do it? Trump doesn't deserve what you want to give him. Wait another 4 years and see who can do it next time round. This evil you seem to see all around you isn't going anywhere. But that's because you put it there with this good vs evil mindset of yours.

It's amazing how the most vocal moralisers often have the fewest moral principles. — Michael

This is really the heart it it. For all the moralising that Agustino does, he still doesn't understand what every normal, decent person so obviously gets without these grand moral theories of sexual sin. It's so warped. You don't knowingly elect a sexual predator to president. Trump should be put on trial, not into the fucking oval office. You don't give him the success and power he wants.

The two are the same thing.

I'll quote the letter published by the New York Times in response to Donal Trumps lawyers accusing them of libel after publishing claims that he sexually assaulted two women: "Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms [the girls were aged between 15 and 19]. He acquiesced to a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a "piece of ass." Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself. We publish newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees... we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight."

That about sums it up I think.

But if that wasn't enough, he also said about a 10 year old girl that he "will be dating her in 10 years". Donald Trump is literally looking at 10 year old girls and thinking he can't wait to shag them when they're legal.

He also said if he were not married, and not her father, that he would date his daughter. What the fuck is that about?

He also has said he kisses her "with every chance [he] gets".

Howard Stern, on his show said to him: "You know about sexual predators, right?" A woman off-screen interjects, "you are one!" Trumps response was to shrug his shoulders, laugh, and mouth the words "it's true".

There is also the accusation that he made inappropriate advances towards a reporter; "look at her, look at her words, you tell me what you think. I don't think so". His defense is that he didn't sexually assault this woman because she's not attractive enough for him to sexually assault.

And these are just the things he has said. But of course, Trumps defense is tantamount to "how dare you claim I did the things I claimed I did!"

There are also specific court claims made by two women that he has sexually assaulted them.

He will also face child rape charges in court.

And to top it off, we now have video and audio evidence of Trump saying you can get away with grabbing women by the pussy if you're rich and famous. We're seeing this movie all the more frequently with historic sex crimes committed by rich and powerful people.

One of the most disgusting parts of that video, beside the most obvious part, is how, after having this gross conversation behind closed doors, they step off the bus into public and his friend Billy Bush tells the woman who greets them to hug Trump. It should send a shiver down the spine of any decent person.

I understand that people are (legally) innocent until proven guilty, but the larger picture is becoming pretty clear. Anyone who defends him at this point needs to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves how exactly they become that person. And some people still think he's fit to be president, even after knowing all this.

I honestly think you will be massively well served by reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, providing you don't.. judge it too hastily.

This isn't really a choice between the lesser of two evils anymore. It's a choice between a bog-standard career politician and a self-confessed sexual predator. If anyone has any doubts about how Jimmy Savile could get away with what he did, take a look at a Trump supporter who has heard his admissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus fucking Christ you actually would.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has the right attitude. — Agustino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A PhD doesn't make you smart. — Agustino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. — Agustino

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?

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. — Agustino

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?

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.

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. There are 320 million people in America right now, who will live on for decades and decades, and you think Donald Trump is going to exert a significant enough influence over the choices they make over the course of their entire lives after a minuscule four years in office?

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. There is no causal link there. You seem to think, divorce is bad, republicans are against divorce, therefore I'll support a republican. I can't see any deeper reasoning behind it.

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.

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. — Agustino

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?

If I can't get you to agree that Obama's terms have not been a complete and utter failure (think for a minute how much worse America would look if that were the case, considering how you think Donald Trump can have so much influence) in spite of the empirical evidence, 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.

It sounds like you're parroting all the standard memes of the republican party, even down to the Obama ones. 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.

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.

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. — Agustino

You made me use the term "effective administration" because you used it. So stick to it. You might not be saying Trump's will be a great presidency, as you said earlier, but you are most certainly saying his administration will be effective (whatever that difference amounts to), because of the support network he surrounds himself with. So far you've said you'd vote for Trump because of who he surrounds himself with, and that will make his administration effective. You say it's not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition. Let's remember that. I'll leave aside the parts about Obama and Clinton, because I want to know why you support Trump, not why you don't support the progressives.

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? If not, can you elaborate on what exactly this does involve, and can you show some evidence of Trump (and his socially conservative support network) actually having it?

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

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?

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?

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. — Agustino

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? 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?

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

So, let me understand this. It's not a sufficient condition, but a necessary one. But at the same time is "not any help" with respect to unrelated areas of government? Does it have anything to do with (hint) unrelated areas of government, or does it not? And if being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc is a necessary condition for success in other areas of government, how do you explain Obama's success in some of these areas despite being a cancerous progressive?

So far, Agustino, I can't honestly fathom how on earth you could support Trump.