Trump Part 14

[vuk]

Traditionally, the first priority of government is the safety and security of its citizens.

that may sound great in (some ancient) theory, but what it actually means is a lot of defense spending that has pretty much nothing to do with the safety and security of citizens. most americans want safety and security via proper health care (or living wage) and neither big party will give them that, but is glad to increase the pentagon budget (democrats voted pro-trump on this).

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

that may sound great in (some ancient) theory, but what it actually means is a lot of defense spending that has pretty much nothing to do with the safety and security of citizens. most americans want things proper health care and neither party will give them that, but is glad to increase the pentagon budget (democrats voted pro-trump on this).

No argument from me on any of that. The problem really boils down to 'how do we get there from where we are now?'

 

[vuk]

No argument from me on any of that. The problem really boils down to 'how do we get there from where we are now?'

theoretically, we know how to get there or at least have a few ideas, practically, given the state of media and general political ideology (religious, patriotic and economic dogmas), it is not altogether clear, but it would be nice to have a more informed public*. making trump's antics the center of all attention is probably not the way.


*along those lines, i am annoyed when people here post knee-jerk condemnation of almost anything from left-leaning, independent press -- and almost obviously without reading/watching any of it. as i have written before, if max is so wrong, then the same goes for very intelligent journslists like: thomas frank, glenn greenwald, chris hedges, john pilger, aaron mate (welcome to the list), etc. not to mention william binney, former NSA superstar who, by the way, has not changed his mind on the DNC server hack being a local/inside job.

 

[avole]

Fully agree with the above. We should focus on Putin's and Xi Jinping's antics as well.

 

[gordon]

vuk, i agree with what you said, but i don't see how, for example, supporting trump over clinton gets us any closer to your/my idea. in fact, it moves us further from it. at least clinton supports improved heath care for all. trump is the crisis at hand. the US is not gonna move in any positive direction, until the immediate crisis is solved. hence, the focus on trump. you and max are looking for wholesale changes, as am i, but, in reality, minor change is the best we can do in the short run.

 

[vuk]

vuk, i agree with what you said, but i don't see how, for example, supporting trump over clinton gets us any closer to your/my idea.

not sure why you've brought that in -- i didn't say anything about supporting clinton over trump. i am speaking about the post-election reactions (in the USA and this thread).

 

[Tony L]

not sure why you've brought that in -- i didn't say anything about supporting clinton over trump. i am speaking about the post-election reactions (in the USA and this thread).

Unfortunately debate here has been tainted as MaxF and to a slightly lesser extent yourself were cheer-leaders for Trump, Assange, Putin, Assad etc, and railed at the admittedly imperfect Democrats at every conceivable opportunity. As such it is very hard to ‘unsee’ that and frame debate afresh with the same people in a more intelligent way, especially when the same rather hysterical internet media or TV channels created to promote Russian interests etc are cited as sources.

 

[vuk]

Unfortunately debate here has been tainted as MaxF and to a slightly lesser extent yourself were cheer-leaders for Trump, Assange, Putin, Assad etc, and railed at the admittedly imperfect Democrats at every conceivable opportunity. As such it is very hard to ‘unsee’ that and frame debate afresh with the same people in a more intelligent way, especially when the same rather hysterical internet media or TV channels created to promote Russian interests etc are cited as sources.

of, the sources i cited above, who fits this hysterical description (maybe pilger)?

thomas frank writes for the guardian these days. was an editor at harper's magazine prior to that.

glenn greenwald is at the intercept.

aaron mate, possibly the least hyterical, most mild-mannered journalist in history, is with "the real news network".

chris hedges -- i thouhgt we all agreed we liked him a lot?

 

[droodzilla]

I thik vuk conceded, just before election day, that Clinton was the lesser of two evils. Wimp!

 

[Tony L]

of, the sources i cited above, who fits this hysterical description (maybe pilger)?

thomas frank writes for the guardian these days. was an editor at harper's magazine prior to that.

glenn greenwald is at the intercept.

aaron mate, possibly the least hyterical, most mild-mannered journalist in history, is with "the real news network".

chris hedges -- i thouhgt we all agreed we liked him a lot?

I wasn’t necessarily thinking of those, more the likes of Young Turks, Dore or clowns for hire like Galloway or Assange.

 

[vuk]

I wasn’t necessarily thinking of those, more the likes of Young Turks, Dore or clowns for hire like Galloway or Assange.

so you are bringing up your own list which has nothing to do with what i said or who i have linked to in this thread?

anyhow, i am not sure why the young turks are there -- they are a perfect fit for your version of identity-sensitive, moderate liberalism (not to mention russia-gate enthusiasts). i can barely stand them these days.


p.s. assange's record as publishing journalist (via wikileaks) is of 100% accuracy and 0% hysteria.

 

[Tony L]

anyhow, i am not sure why the young turks are there -- they are perfect fit for your version of identity-sensitive, moderate liberalism. i can barely stand them these days.

It just isn’t the sort of program I’d ever watch so to be honest I’ve never sat through a whole one, I found them hugely irritating. I’m far more inclined to read a Guardian article or whatever than sit through hours of YouTube junk when I could be listening to Miles Davis! A lot of the stuff you link to is just so long and slow-moving I can’t be bothered with it. I seldom make it beyond the first 10-20 minutes as, well, Miles...

 

[Yank]

By national security presumably you mean the US policy and self-granted right to dominate the world economically, politically and militarily?

Don't forget space, we must dominate there too!

 

[Seeker_UK]

Don't forget space, we must dominate there too!

The US already does.

 

[gordon]

not sure why you've brought that in -- i didn't say anything about supporting clinton over trump. i am speaking about the post-election reactions (in the USA and this thread).

not directly, no. but this jumped out at me, "if max is so wrong, then the same goes for very intelligent journslists like: thomas frank, glenn greenwald, chris hedges, john pilger, aaron mate (welcome to the list)", and by extension, you. in my view, max can be wrong (i gave one example), without the journalists that you list being wrong. i pretty sure thomas frank would not cite ron paul as some sort of moral authority, as max has done, and would strongly disagree with paul's (hence max's) political stances. you're also, in this post and others, aligning yourself with max's viewpoint (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly), thereby tainting it (your viewpoint), imho.

 

[avole]

theoretically, we know how to get there or at least have a few ideas, practically, given the state of media and general political ideology (religious, patriotic and economic dogmas), it is not altogether clear, but it would be nice to have a more informed public. making trump's antics the center of all attention is probably not the way.

Fully agree with the above. We should focus on Putin's and Xi Jinping's antics as well.

Just restoring the post to which I replied.

 

[merlin]

• 
  Avoie, I don't disagree at all. My point is that those citing RT are no worse than those citing the NY Times or Daily Mail, Fox News or CNN. Hell even the Beeb appears to have a serious agenda these days.
  
  Only a fool discounts all others and trusts the opinions of one "purveyor of the truth". My other point was that I find it somewhat ironic that people easily point the finger at their old cold war adversary whilst lapping up the pages of a newspaper that overtly supported Oswald Moseley.
  
  On a separate note, and hopefully without breaking any of Tony's regulations, a quote from the Oxford English Dictionary.
  
  apartheid
  
  
  Pronunciation /əˈpɑːtʌɪd/
  NOUN
  mass noun historical
  • a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
    
    
    I'm sadly not allowed to post this where the OED correction is probably required - in order for the site to remain factual rather than partisan. I trust it will be acceptable to clarify the facts here in order for some semblance of intelligent debate to be allowed.
  
  
  
  

 

[Tim Jones]

But if you're taking that line, all humans are just apes with a thick layer of cultural flavour moderating our animal instincts (ok, some have a thinner layer than others).

Don't get vuk banging on about Dan Dennett again, please. It strikes me that, as a form of Flinn-lite, vuk's posts are really about demonstrating his superiority to the rest of us mortals. And actually he's been like that for years.

 

[maxflinn]

not directly, no. but this jumped out at me, "if max is so wrong, then the same goes for very intelligent journslists like: thomas frank, glenn greenwald, chris hedges, john pilger, aaron mate (welcome to the list)", and by extension, you. in my view, max can be wrong (i gave one example), without the journalists that you list being wrong. i pretty sure thomas frank would not cite ron paul as some sort of moral authority, as max has done, and would strongly disagree with paul's (hence max's) political stances. you're also, in this post and others, aligning yourself with max's viewpoint (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly), thereby tainting it (your viewpoint), imho.

I have not cited Ron Paul as some sort of moral authority. I have said that in my view, he's a great man, because of his life-long, very vocal anti-war position.

I do not share all of his political stances. In fact I doubt I share any, bar the most important (to me) aforementioned anti-war policy.

You should know these things because I already stated them clearly.

I preferred Trump to Clinton solely from an anti-war perspective, given one was stating intent to end regime change wars, and the other - who already had form for warmongering - was talking more of the same. There could only be one choice if - like me - warmongering was your primary concern.

Sadly though, many people here misrepresent what I say, and attribute to me positions not based on what I've said. Some just fling long-winded reams of hyperbolic nonsense.

I don't know why that is. I mean what I say, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm not shy about saying what I think.

 

[gordon]

Ron Paul is anti-war only because he’s anti-government, anti-tax. He’s anti-anything that involves money coming out of his pocket to help someone other than himself. Great man, as you said.