What's new

Never Trump

As always, rhetoric needs context. Words need definitions, too.

You are a pretty absolute materialist, you believe "Science" can properly only be applied to the material universe, and since other dimensions of existence have no vector in the plane of this dimension, you choose to ignore the mathematics that suggests there are other possibilities.

An ideologue is someone who believes in a system of ideas constructed in a certain way. You are an ideologue as a materialist.

I don't even know WTF you're talking about. I believe that the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics to be an elegant and plausible look at the mathematics, but I remain agnostic about its validity as it does not meet the criteria for science. But since godists don't like MW interpretation because it messes up with how they want the universe to be, I'll assume you're talking about something else.

So point out this mathematics to me so I can properly ignore it.

Also, you're right about the materialism part. I am wholly materialist, and I don't understand what immaterialism even means.


Materialism is foundational to a number of political theories, including Marxism, Progressivism, Secular Humanism, and Fascism. All deny "God", the theory of of a sovereign all-powerful relevant ruler of the universe that applies some absolute set of moral values and executes judgment on the world. Without such a theory, we poor humans get to make up our own rules, and there is no one who can stop us if somehow we assert and maintain the necessary force of power.

This is like when I'm with my atheist friends, and they bring up Christianity and the middle ages, or Islam and the current age, to show what a rotten thing religion inherently is. It's boring and cliche when they bring it up, and it is the same when you do. As for rights, I question if morality has any meaning at all from the religious perspective. After all, if some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then gods are unnecessary, and we can make those discoveries ourselves. If what is right and wrong are only so because they are deemed so by a god, then power is the only right. Morality has no meaning if we poor humans are not free to make our own rules.

A world managed by a super government staffed by hordes of very expert authorities on every possible issue, rather than on the will of humans possessed of innate rights including the right to displace governments in times of governmental bad behavior. .. . could be an oligarchy, or any form of statism. Marx at least theorized that governments would die someday in the hallowed twilight of errant humanity. . . . when we all become sufficiently evolved to not care about anything, and when the resources of the world would just assemble themselves into the stuff we need. yep. AI just might do all that work for us. lol.


I don't believe in fairy tales. I think you do.

The part where I see you wanting "things to stay the same" is as in under present global management. Which is fascist because it's corporate interests that are meaningful, and the little people really don't get meaningful votes for their government.

You might have a lot of ideas about how we can make things better. That's progressive. Progressivism today refers to a specific vision of progress that some very influential folks subscribe to and talk about in "The Club", and in general in various elite circles. I haven't seen you objecting to that vision.

You're arguing with the caricature you created of me in your head. I don't care about government, as you define it, at all. I'd happily vote for a Utah, or any other state's, to secede from the US. I like the Brexit decision. But I am not attached to either ideal. A global government with certain limitations is fine too. I don't know how every scenario would play out, and there many advantages/disadvantages to any system. What I actually am, is a humanist. I do believe in global camaraderie and cooperation, and I do want to "progress" toward that. I want human lives to be better, and I can't help but see "better" the way I see it, being an individual and all.

The ironic thing is, so do you. Your idea of better is just different. It's about god and inherent rights and whathaveyou. You just pretend to be above it all. But no one is.
 
As always, rhetoric needs context. Words need definitions, too.

You are a pretty absolute materialist, you believe "Science" can properly only be applied to the material universe, and since other dimensions of existence have no vector in the plane of this dimension, you choose to ignore the mathematics that suggests there are other possibilities.

An ideologue is someone who believes in a system of ideas constructed in a certain way. You are an ideologue as a materialist.

Materialism is foundational to a number of political theories, including Marxism, Progressivism, Secular Humanism, and Fascism. All deny "God", the theory of of a sovereign all-powerful relevant ruler of the universe that applies some absolute set of moral values and executes judgment on the world. Without such a theory, we poor humans get to make up our own rules, and there is no one who can stop us if somehow we assert and maintain the necessary force of power.

A world managed by a super government staffed by hordes of very expert authorities on every possible issue, rather than on the will of humans possessed of innate rights including the right to displace governments in times of governmental bad behavior. .. . could be an oligarchy, or any form of statism. Marx at least theorized that governments would die someday in the hallowed twilight of errant humanity. . . . when we all become sufficiently evolved to not care about anything, and when the resources of the world would just assemble themselves into the stuff we need. yep. AI just might do all that work for us. lol.

I don't believe in fairy tales. I think you do.

The part where I see you wanting "things to stay the same" is as in under present global management. Which is fascist because it's corporate interests that are meaningful, and the little people really don't get meaningful votes for their government.

You might have a lot of ideas about how we can make things better. That's progressive. Progressivism today refers to a specific vision of progress that some very influential folks subscribe to and talk about in "The Club", and in general in various elite circles. I haven't seen you objecting to that vision.

In the absence of God a people can justify any action.
In the presence of God a people can justify any action.
Progressives fail to realize morals slide. There grandchildren (if they are sane enough to have children in the first place) will be embarrassed of there current political positions.
I wonder how liberals here will feel about there grand childs embarrassed of them?
 
LOL - good luck to him!

homeless4prez_zpssssawhsi.jpg


homeless4prez.jpg

hope this works
 
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/poli...-letter-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html

Washington (CNN)Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts -- many veterans of George W. Bush's administration -- have signed a letter denouncing Donald Trump's presidential candidacy and pledging not to vote for him.

The letter, first reported by The New York Times Monday, warns: "We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history."

Its signatories include former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Eric Edelman, who was Vice President Dick Cheney's national security adviser and has worked closely with Michele Flournoy -- a candidate for secretary of defense in a prospective Clinton administration -- to forge a centrist group of defense experts on key military issues.

It also includes two Homeland Security secretaries under Bush, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and Robert Zoellick, a former World Bank president, U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state.
The Trump campaign could not immediately be reached for comment.

Many of the same leaders wrote an open letter in March during the Republican primaries condemning Trump and pledging to oppose his candidacy, at a time when other GOP candidates remained in the race.

The letter acknowledges that many Americans "have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us."

"But Donald Trump is not the answer to America's daunting challenges and to this crucial election," it says.

In the new letter, the group warns Trump "lacks the temperament to be President."

"He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior," the letter claims. "All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."

Trump has met with other GOP foreign policy bigwigs, including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and James Baker. Neither signed the letter.

Yeah, I feel pretty similarly.
 
I wonder if a hit would be put on Trump if this election even looks close.

Then he needs to reverse the current trends. The Ds are pulling away in CO, NV, FL, PA, MI, VA and FL. If he looses most of those than this race is over.
 
He's embracing fundraising now, but not transparency:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-fundraising-bundlers-226803

"It is a sharp departure from the primary, when Trump claimed he couldn’t be bought and his decision to pour tens of millions of his own money into the race was central to his image as a selfless billionaire sacrificing for the betterment of the nation. But now that both he and Clinton are leaning on big donors to fund their fall campaigns, it is Clinton who is more open about her own finances and where the money is coming from.

“The fact that he has not released his bundlers is very upsetting,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “This is a basic piece of information that the voters need: Who is bankrolling the campaign? And who are the bag men who are holding out the bags collecting the contributions?”

Clinton has voluntarily released the names of nearly 500 bundlers who raised at least $100,000 for her, and her campaign shares with the press the location of all fundraisers that she or vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine attends, including whose home it is, the price of admission and the approximate number of attendees. She has released decades of her tax returns.

Trump, in contrast, has so far refused to release any of his taxes, justifying the break with historic precedent by claiming he is under audit. Trump’s campaign has also not disclosed the names of his bundlers, and it did not respond to multiple inquiries about whether it intends to do so. Nor does the Trump campaign systematically disclose when he attends fundraisers, who is hosting, or the price of admission."
 
Then he needs to reverse the current trends. The Ds are pulling away in CO, NV, FL, PA, MI, VA and FL. If he looses most of those than this race is over.

Julian Assange loathes Hillary. I can't imagine what his October surprise will be, but we can be certain the Clinton campaign is planning for the worst case scenario. Whatever it will be, seems likely to give Trump a bump just before the election. I'm speculating, but Assange said he has more, and maybe from the treasure trove hacked by the Russians.
 
Julian Assange loathes Hillary. I can't imagine what his October surprise will be, but we can be certain the Clinton campaign is planning for the worst case scenario. Whatever it will be, seems likely to give Trump a bump just before the election. I'm speculating, but Assange said he has more, and maybe from the treasure trove hacked by the Russians.

Well he will need it. But he needs momentum before then as well I think.

This thing is a long way from over but right now the momentum is all in her favor.
 
Well he will need it. But he needs momentum before then as well I think.

This thing is a long way from over but right now the momentum is all in her favor.

does your inner-political-analysis-brain ever get tired pumping this stuff out?
 
Back
Top