Donald Trump

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

You wouldn't have an iota of freedom if it weren't for the baseless convictions brought about by religion, specifically the Christian religion, and you wouldn't have any science to speak of either.

I admit my knowledge of history is lacking, but I find this very hard to believe since the church has a history of persecuting the early scientists when their findings did not match the christian teachings. It seems more plausible to me that science developed not thanks to religion, but despite it.

I otherwise agree that freedom of religion is important for any free society as it falls under freedom of belief, I only wish that freedom wouldn't be so readily abused. If you're going to make life harder for someone you'd better have a good reason for it, and "It's my faith, so suck it" ranks among the worst.

Short version - so I don't push anyone's buttons:

It wasn't an intentional goal of the Catholic church to assist science - it was rather the dogmatic outlook that there was one God and He did not lie and whatever methods He used to create the universe were unvarying. Boiled down - there was an underlying conviction that there was an underlying unchanging truth behind all of the physical world. Results that conflicted or changed could not be correct.

Th aspect you mention of persecuting findings that did not match up with the church's interpretation of the Bible is also very true, and that portion stymied science to a degree as well, slowing down progress.

The short version of freedom aspect is that as church fought with monarchs for control, both relied on a divine right to rule the people and as power structures wobbled, they appealed more and more to the principles of Christianity to show that the divine rights were invested in one or the other more prominently and thus one or the other was more fit to rule. Out of those principles, came a whole slew of rights for the people and leadership wrongs for the leaders that led to the modern concept of freedom for all. The concept of freedom for nobles and citizens was well known and understood before.

Chinese emperors used a similar concept, with their "mandate of heaven" but it was entangled with Confucianism as its underpinnings.

Where this relates to Trump and the current conversation is specifically on topic. We are talking about whether Trump, or whether his opponents are fit to rule based on moral principles of equality.

That may have eventually come to pass as society matured, but the way it actually did happen is what I refer to.


The following article doesn't delve into specifics, but expresses my overall view that we are eroding and possibly eliminating some of the things we rely on by failing to understand their historical underpinnings and concepts.

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2016/02/res-idiotica/

FWIW - I absolutely detested history growing up. I couldn't think of anything that was a bigger waste of time, or more boring to study. Over time, as pieces began to fall into place, and I could see how things related to previous events long ago, it began to feel far more important. I certainly don't expect most people to have enthusiasm for such a dry subject.

The last part you wrote on using faith to justify any kind of action is certainly true. I do think there is a way to sit down, talk with various parties, find out what their complaints and concerns are and arrive at a compromise that lets both sides feel as if they are valued and doesn't trample rights.

I think that entire concept of valuing differing opinions and finding a compromise is what is tearing our political world apart. The chemistry has become completely basic or completely acidic and no pH variances in between.

People in RL can discuss issues and find reasonable agreements. Why can't our leaders do this as well? Treat people as human beings, not as opponents and the obstacles are no longer insurmountable.

As long as he keeps taxes low thats all I care about. I pay 75K a quarter just in SS taxes for my employees. Not including workmans comp, insurance, w2 withholdings, to pay for all the dead beats.

Im voting republican for that reason, whom ever it is. fuck all deadbeats and socialist (aka known as democrats in USA).

Have you ever seen the true face of socialism, exile?

PS: Artist threatened with lawsuits if she sells nude Donald Trump painting. The Donald gets offended easily. I wonder what would happen if he discovered that South Park chapter with the canadian wall.

Also, I found this paper about the drug decriminalization in Portugal, for those wondering about how to deal with the drug problem (if you take a wall as a wasteful endeavor).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Have you ever seen the true face of socialism, exile?

+1

Only rich & privileged university students in the West are in love with socialism. Because they never experienced it. (no, going to a yacht trip to Cuba is NOT experiencing socialism)

If I was a Murican, I'd vote for Trump. He's a loud-mouth showman, but at least he's not an establishment puppet, and might actually improve the economy & lives of working people.

From a point of view of anyone living anywhere else than USA, I'd vote for Sanders. Not because I like his policies, but because he's the least likely candidate to create more overseas wars (overseas = in my neighbourhood). Esp. in the ME, which was wrecked in the last 16 years of Bush & Obama reign of terror.

(thanks Obama for all the refugees and islamic extremists flooding EU. Can't wait to pay taxes for all the welfare asylum seekers from ME and Africa)

"

morbo wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Have you ever seen the true face of socialism, exile?

+1

Only rich & privileged university students in the West are in love with socialism. Because they never experienced it. (no, going to a yacht trip to Cuba is NOT experiencing socialism)

If I was a Murican, I'd vote for Trump. He's a loud-mouth showman, but at least he's not an establishment puppet, and might actually improve the economy & lives of working people.

That comment wasn't because of a sheltered student, it was because Aim Deep doesn't seem to know what's socialism anyway (something something public ownership means of production, also, I think he called his employees deadbeats). The ignorance goes both ways. Some people call any type of safety net socialism.

I'm very skeptical of Trump economic policies after having found them by accident. Too much air, too little substance (he is a protectionist that would cut taxes to the rich and add more militar spending at the same time, nothing really new, and probably a bad thing...then his deportation scheme, without any explanation of how to compensate for the removal of 11 million of persons from the economy...).

PS: about refugees, it sucks. I wonder why the world doesn't pressure US a lot more given that they are half responsible for that mess. It was hilarious when they tried to pressure ME countries like Saudi Arabia.

politician gets indicted for financial crimes, said politician then makes a motion for impeachment of the president which passes, which is potentially going to put the indicted politician in the seat of interim president, proceeds to blame liberalism policies for problems in the country. sometimes you are just scratching your head in wonderment of the shenanigans.

"

morbo wrote:

If I was a Murican, I'd vote for Trump. He's a loud-mouth showman, but at least he's not an establishment puppet, and might actually improve the economy & lives of working people.

They're all establishment puppets. Trump included, or perhaps even most of all; he's like the WWE wrestler with a public feud with Vince McMahon, it's drama as entertainment. The establishment is far too entrenched to leave anything to chance.

Our votes won't change anything in the event of a direct disagreement between the establishment and the people. At best, it's some mild feedback. Our votes aren't much different from those surveys they have at Burger King where you say how much you enjoyed your Whopper; no guarantee it'll change anything, but it does say something.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

The ignorance goes both ways. Some people call any type of safety net socialism.

That's true. EU countries are highly capitalistic, despite having a fat welfare state system. But too much state handouts, without responsibility, is also not good (look at Greece, lol)

Anyway, all the US presidential candidates suck.

Sanders - I 100% agree with his "money out of politics" stance, but not much else. Free this, free that, mhm... ofc people are delirious about him, esp. young university students :)

Trump - an oaf, but at least he's not bought (or so he appears)

Cruz - too conservative / religious

Hillary - the worst possible option. She's a corrupt politician and a manipulative liar. People scream Trump is a fascist and what not, but Hillary is the real danger. She will work for corporate interests in the country and foreign enemies abroad (Saudi / Turkish interests & money). Don't vote for this harpy!

Greece is a mix. Wasteful welfare state until...I think 2010, but then things went to shit with austerity measures by the EU, a mere debt crisis was converted to a great depression.

About Sanders: I think it makes a disservice to talk about free college and universal healthcare as "free things", that being said, his economic policies are stupid too.

Also, I think the worst from the bunch is Cruz (and I disagree Hillary is worse than Trump, even if I think what you said is true). She may be a corporate whore, but Trump is hot air (and probably a corporate whore too, see his tax plan).

hard to get on board with republicans pretending to be "conservatives". Just check out some of the state happenings under complete control of republicans.


http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2015/12/22/changes-ahead-for-unc-system-with-margaret-spellings-as-new-president/

I loved the part where they held a secret vote to raise select chancellor's pay by 19%