Not sure how your rant relates to what I wrote, fishfry, but there's one point I'd like to clarify.

Obama built the cages that he kept kids in as he separated them from families or turned them over to traffickers. It's all a matter of public record. — fishfry

Politifact [gotta love politifact!] claims:

Obama and Biden in 2014 saw an influx of children arriving at the border without a parent or guardian, and reporting from 2014 by the Arizona Republic referred to a chain-link enclosure holding children as cages.

Trump’s administration implemented a policy that led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents. Obama did not have that policy.

Can you point out public records that help to substantiate your version? Most curiously, the part about Obama turning kids over to human traffickers.

only leftists equate wanting border control with racism — Judaka

I equate what might be described as ‘excessive or inefficient’ border control with an effort to mobilize political support by exploiting a natural conservative tendency. The racism adds fuel to the fire, so to speak, and is expressed in imbuing the target of racism with inherent negative qualities. Observe the video that I posted earlier:



The snake can’t help itself, it’s its nature to bite. Maybe poetic license excuses blatant racism.

Atheism is just another religion; at worse it’s just Nihilism. — 3017amen

This alone indicates that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I've read some theories that art is a reproductive value: showing that you have the extra calories and resources to invest in art makes you attractive to a mate since it suggests a greater ability to provide for offspring. — Artemis

Analogous to a peacocks feathers. I’ve seen that theory debunked but I don’t recall how exactly.

Do you tend to find artists sexy, by the way?

I think what a lot of people are suggesting is that this continued branding is self-defeating. Moving forward, a narrative that extends some dignity across the aisle may be a better plan.

Trump

Obama

Of course this requires some trust in politifact, which you may not have.

I think Clinton totally lost it when she spoke of a 'basket of deplorables'.
Her contempt and disdain in this generalisation of voters was clear. It was not clever. — Amity

And yet she is clever. Maybe she thought that she had it in the bag so why not have some fun. The audience laughed. Pure hubris.

The only real difference to me is that Trump speaks with no filter, which admittedly has its faults but at least I know he is being honest — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Not sure how to interpret this. You realize that he’s not what you’d call an honest man, don’t you?

If you read the actual facts about Trump's character, career, history and politics, there is no way you could support him, but of course, neither he nor his supporters read anything much, let alone anything critical. So we're supposed to recognise that wilful ignorance and mendacity constitute a 'tectonic shift'.

I don't think so.
— Wayfarer

This is exactly the kind of attitude that the video is targeting. They knew all that and still voted for him, and I don't think you care why. — jamalrob

Highly doubtful “they knew all that.” In any case, mendacity and willful ignorance is the normal state of affairs in the USA. A tectonic shift has occurred in the economic landscape though, and unfortunately the so called “rust belt” remains rusty. Trump still visits these places, even going so far as reciting poetry to inspire goodwill for all.

Regarding the Erie Pennsylvania Obama-Obama-Trump voters, manufacturing jobs have not returned and there's no indication that they will ever return. The horizon looks like ever increasing automation. So will they still vote for him in 2020? If so, will that be a rational choice, or a choice consistent with what they claim to be the reason for supporting him?



Regarding populism, some believe that right-wing populism can carry an element of racism in that those experiencing a fall in status (deplorables) may resent falling to an equal or lower status as minorities. This could be why tactics like the NFL anthem controversy worked so well for Trump.

The legislative moves that he has been most successful at making have largely been those of the Republican party at large - McConnell's agenda, and not his. — StreetlightX

Whether or not this was on Trump's todo list, I'm sure he's thrilled about it.



From what I understand, the growing disparity between rich and poor is not good for democracy or economic stability. A small coalition of power and a downtrodden populace works well for an autocracy, however.

Maybe the enhanced intelligence could be powerful enough to prevent hacking. It’s all highly speculative at this point, as far as I know.

If Trump were actually serious about consolidating his power, he might start by, oh, I don’t know, consolidating his power. ... [Instead, Trump] has failed to fill 85% of the positions in the executive branch that he needs to fill in order to run the government to his specifications. It’s a strange kind of authoritarian who fails, as the first order of business, to seize control of the state apparatus: not because there’s been pushback from the Senate but because, in most instances, he hasn’t even tried.

The instinct to have as small and loyal a staff as possible is something you might expect from a dictator wannabe though. Who could be more loyal than family, for instance.

Obamacare wasn’t blocked.
— praxis

Parts of it were, and the result was a system that never quite worked correctly. — Echarmion

Millions more Americans with health insurance was a correct result.

It's not a coincidence that repubilcans are at the forefront of efforts like gerrymandering and voter suppression. — Echarmion

It seems to me that both parties have their strengths and weaknesses, or perhaps access to power based on their unique characteristics.

I thought I remembered Musk saying something to the effect that human intelligence enhancement might help keep us in the game (of life) once true AI was developed.

Another empty threat?

some factions of philosophy have a somewhat religious devotion to denying any resemblance to a religion. — unenlightened

The God Punishers, I think they’re called.

Another point about Buddhism, is that its model is one of 'imparting an understanding' rather than 'laying down the law'. The first element in the Buddhist eightfold path is 'samma ditthi' meaning 'right view' or 'right understanding'. That is subtly different to the Christian 'orthodoxy' which means 'right belief' or 'right worship'. This is because it contains a cognitive element, i.e. the aspirant needs to arrive at a correct understanding, not simply recite articles of faith and believe in them (although in practice there are many convergences). — Wayfarer

There’s no difference because in both the Eastern and Western traditions the subjects of ‘understanding’ cannot be understood. No one can explain how rebirth works, for example. There are countless questions that you could ask about it that no one could answer. It must be taken on faith, and only a religious authority can say what needs to be believed. It’s excusable that they don’t know because they’re just the middleman, not God, Buddha, or whatever.

There is also a majority support in America for many "left wing" policies such as public healthcare or increased gun control. Yet not only do republicans succeed in blocking such efforts, they also get re-elected regardless. — Echarmion

Obamacare wasn’t blocked. It also wasn’t repealed and replaced, despite a republican administration and a majority in both the house and senate. Granted the work to dismantle it continues.

I said “supposedly,” but if all you can do is focus on that, fine.

I wish he could come back just so I could call him The God Punisher. So cool :cool:

‘S’ was misotheistic. — Wayfarer

Inflicting punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them.

He really was a mean bastard.

It's not really "the left" holding these positions. Academia may, in general, be more left-leaning than other sectors of the economy, but that's not a new phenomenon. What looks like "the left" holding power is actually just the mainstream having shifted to the left, especially on social issues. — Echarmion

Now that I think about it, conservative speakers, even those as far right as Richard Spencer, routinely visit college campuses to influence young minds. So it’s not like there’s nothing direct and deliberate happening, to some degree.

at least we wouldn't have to put up with the ceaseless anti-Trump rhetoric. — Janus

I’ll miss the endless deluge of comedic Trump satire. So much material, so little time left, hopefully.

Nose4 has corrected one misconception I’ve had, that he’s thin-skinned. Sociopathically immune to ridicule perhaps, but not thin-skinned.

The idea that main stream media and the entertainment industry have been taken over by "the left" is actually somewhat laughable. It could only look that way if you were way over on the right. — Echarmion

The perception is easily understood with celebrities appearing to be overwhelmingly liberal, and so many of the narratives expressing liberal values.

In any case, I’ve yet to see an explanation for why conservatives, with their power position prowess, have failed to dominate these areas.

How did they lose the majority in the House of Representatives in the midterms, for that matter.

We all have rituals. It’s also common to have explanations for things that can’t be scientifically proven.

It wasn’t clear if you meant that one individual could do both simultaneously. It appears that you don’t.

That standard (being crystal clear about what's important) is determined, established, and met exclusively by what they believe at any specific time. I do think it needs further quantification/qualification. — creativesoul

People can be easily mislead about what’s important, by appealing to base impulses, if not other methods. If this were not true then advertising and salesmanship would be completely ineffectual.

I agree that this could use further elucidation.

In your response to my question you generally claim that the Left doesn’t take advantage of these positions for various reasons or that they don’t actually hold them. This doesn’t address why the Right doesn’t hold them, and demonstrate their skill at taking and maintaining positions of power. No one is going to buy that conservatives ‘despise the intellectual and the artistic’, if that’s supposed to be a reason.

Regarding Mark Fisher's writings, at a glance you seem to be suggesting that Liberals are somehow anti-capitalist or anti-rational?

Or maybe your conception of how this all comes together is false.

The question was how did the Right fumble those positions if they’re so much better at taking and maintaining positions of power. To me it suggests that the picture you’ve painted is largely fictional.

That’s funny, coming from a Trump supporter. It’s all about branding and speaking to a specific audience. Trump is good at that, but he’s a one trick pony with minority support and a growing opposition. This despite a good economy. That’s remarkable.

It’s like the Russian influence canard. — NOS4A2

The intelligence community seems to think that it was influential to some degree. Trump has proved to be a destabilizing force and accommodating to Russia in many instances, so, worth the effort, apparently.

It makes me wonder if the power of propaganda and indoctrination is vastly overstated in a world of decentralized information. — NOS4A2

That’s funny, coming from a Trump supporter. It’s all about branding and speaking to a specific audience. Trump is good at that, but he’s a one trick pony with minority support who’s “strategy” seems to now only be growing opposition. This despite a good economy. That’s remarkable.

there can be people doing both things simultaneously. — Pfhorrest

That’s easy to say, but what does it mean exactly?

Regarding power positions, the Left has supposedly taken higher education, the arts and entertainment industry, most news networks.

How did the Right fumble those positions?

The point is that the right understands that politics is about power - taking control of institutions, putting 'their man' or men in positions to exert that power, legislating, using the courts, etc. — StreetlightX

This will sound terribly obvious but it appears to be the case that the Left is just as adept at taking control of institutions, getting their leaders in positions of power, etc.

Your point is unclear.

you've also got those people in old Greek temples reciting prayers to the Form of the Good, doing ritual shadow puppet shows to reenact the Allegory of the Cave, and listening to sermons that recite passages from the Republic... in that world, is Platonism a philosophy or a religion? — Pfhorrest

In this case it sounds like it’s functioning like a religion.

The Buddhist attitude of ‘take it or leave it’ leaves no room for questioning, critique, or least of all, reform.
— praxis

Buddhism has been in a continuous state of evolution and reform since its inception. — Wayfarer

So has every other religion.

If you read the Buddhist suttas, many are in question-and-answer format. — Wayfarer

Indeed, and the Buddha supplies all the answers.

It rather seems to be some kind of misguided western idea that Buddhism revolves around a "Buddha". Seriously, it doesn't. — alcontali

I suppose we got the silly notion because it’s called Buddhism and not, say, Tom, Dick, or Harryism.