Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 121 to 160 of 161

Thread: Is Trump turning liberals into conspiracy theorists?

  1. #121
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    And if Trump is the first pro-gay marriage president why would Trump choose Mike "government should fund gay conversion therepy" Pence and Jeff "descrimination against gays is not a crime" Sessions in top government positions?
    Trump is pro-voters in general, you know!
    http://static.pokemoninfinity.com/im..._forum_sig.png

    trooper? recruit an army and get two recruits from me for your army...

    teacher?
    first five would receive 50 extra coins don't miss the chance...

  2. #122
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    Trump is pro-voters in general, you know!
    Except the ones who don't vote for him.

  3. #123
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    Except the ones who don't vote for him.
    I meant saying stuff that the voters like in different subjects in general, in a controversial way, to be the star of the show!
    http://static.pokemoninfinity.com/im..._forum_sig.png

    trooper? recruit an army and get two recruits from me for your army...

    teacher?
    first five would receive 50 extra coins don't miss the chance...

  4. #124
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    Except the ones who don't vote for him.
    This is hilarious considering the actions of the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  5. #125
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    He chose to be hetero?
    Did you even read what I wrote?

  6. #126
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,035

    Default

    People care too much about Obama's sexual orientation!

    http://static.pokemoninfinity.com/im..._forum_sig.png

    trooper? recruit an army and get two recruits from me for your army...

    teacher?
    first five would receive 50 extra coins don't miss the chance...

  7. #127
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Would you consider VP Mike Pence and AG Jeff Sessions bigots?

    And if Trump is the first pro-gay marriage president why would Trump choose Mike "government should fund gay conversion therepy" Pence and Jeff "descrimination against gays is not a crime" Sessions in top government positions?
    Only if they have unironically called others that do not support gay marriage bigots.

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    People care too much about Obama's sexual orientation!

    According to the bio, Barack Obama would be the Q in LGBTQ, neither gay nor bi. cofc is totallly wrong again.

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Only if they have unironically called others that do not support gay marriage bigots.
    So you agree that Pence and Sessions are bigots.

  9. #129
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    So you agree
    They have unironically called people bigots for not supporting gay marriage?

  10. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    They have unironically called people bigots for not supporting gay marriage?
    You called Barack Obama a bigot for opposing gay marriage prior to 2012.

    So by your criteria, Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence are bigots, for the reasons that Jeff Sessions who is not only opposed to gay marriage but believes that discriminating against gays is ok. And Mike Pence who also opposes gay marriage and believes the government should fund conversion therepy.
    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    All the time. He was even an anti-gay marriage bigot until 2012 (which you were fine with). Actually, the first openly pro-gay marriage president was Donald J. Trump. How mad are you right now?
    So you should agree that Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions are bigots.

  11. #131
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    You called Barack Obama a bigot for opposing gay marriage prior to 2012.
    Obama unironically calls people bigots for not supporting gay marriage.

  12. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Obama unironically calls people bigots for not supporting gay marriage.
    You called Obama a bigot for not supporting gay marriage prior to 2012. Why won't you admit that Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump who placed these men in high government positions as bigots as well?

  13. #133
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    You called Obama a bigot for not supporting gay marriage prior to 2012.
    Because Obama unironically calls people bigots for not supporting gay marriage

  14. #134
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Because Obama unironically calls people bigots for not supporting gay marriage
    So, it's all clear then. Cofc thinks those who don't support gay marriage are bigots. Maybe he's evolving.
    Last edited by Rokchick; 05-14-2017 at 04:31 AM.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  15. #135
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So, it's all clear then.
    You are definitely a bigot.

  16. #136
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Because Obama unironically calls people bigots for not supporting gay marriage
    so you say pre-2012 obama is a bigot according to post-2012 obama who changed his bigotry, even though he was considering to drift from straightness in college?

    http://static.pokemoninfinity.com/im..._forum_sig.png

    trooper? recruit an army and get two recruits from me for your army...

    teacher?
    first five would receive 50 extra coins don't miss the chance...

  17. #137
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    so you say pre-2012 obama is a bigot according to post-2012 obama who changed his bigotry, even though he was considering to drift from straightness in college?

    You don't get consistency from gnomes.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  18. #138

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,214

    Default

    I'm finding the title of this thread a touch ironic, considering how the discussion has evolved.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  19. #139
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    I'm finding the title of this thread a touch ironic, considering how the discussion has evolved.
    I am finding your post a touch ironic, considering you did not read any of the thread.

  20. #140
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    I am finding your post a touch ironic, considering you did not read any of the thread.
    http://forum.travian.us/showthread.p...60#post2807060
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  21. #141

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    I'm finding the title of this thread a touch ironic, considering how the discussion has evolved.
    Heck, I find it ironic given how many of Trump's supporters are conspiracy theorists.

    I don't understand why American conservatives are so quick to project their own flaws onto everybody else.

  22. #142
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Heck, I find it ironic given how many of Trump's supporters are conspiracy theorists.
    Alex jones, believe in Trump, as well as campaigned hard for him!

    http://static.pokemoninfinity.com/im..._forum_sig.png

    trooper? recruit an army and get two recruits from me for your army...

    teacher?
    first five would receive 50 extra coins don't miss the chance...

  23. #143
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Heck, I find it ironic given how many of Trump's supporters are conspiracy theorists.
    Which makes your post double ironic given your latest thread is literally a conspiracy on moron crack sprinkled with childish wishcasting.

  24. #144
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    I don't understand why American conservatives are so quick to project their own flaws onto everybody else.
    I have actually been wondering for a while about whether we can start talking about a new Conservatism -- we had the Goldwater/racist version, then we had the Reagan/"Christian" version, and now we have the Trump/psychological projection version.

    My feeling is that it didn't used to be like that. I don't remember thinking "damn Bush's speech sounded like sheer psychological projection" at any point. I do feel that way when Drumpf talks though. To borrow from Colbert -- he's always the squash calling the pumpkin orange.

  25. #145
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    we can start talking about a new democrat party -- we had the LBJ/racist version, then we had the obama/"drone murder is peace" version, and now we have the Bernard Clinton/psychological projection version.
    I am game for that discussion.

  26. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I have actually been wondering for a while about whether we can start talking about a new Conservatism -- we had the Goldwater/racist version, then we had the Reagan/"Christian" version, and now we have the Trump/psychological projection version.

    My feeling is that it didn't used to be like that. I don't remember thinking "damn Bush's speech sounded like sheer psychological projection" at any point. I do feel that way when Drumpf talks though. To borrow from Colbert -- he's always the squash calling the pumpkin orange.
    I think the term Reactionary sums up the Trump supporter.

    So basically, Reactionaries differ from Conservatives as conservatives wish to maintain the status-quo, Conservatives rely on traditions when faced with challenges. On the contrary Liberalism is open to new ideas, understanding challenges and open to untraditional meathods to resolve challenges. Reactionary thought is this kind of arcane yearning for nostalgia and often times reactionaries did not live in the 'simpler time' they yearn for, the reactionary aim is to oppose liberalism and by peeling away liberal aspects of social and economic policy, reactionaries hope to restore nostalgic traditions.

    The term Reactionary is from the time around the French Revolution, Conservatives wished to uphold the monarchy and traditional systems of ties between church and state, while the Liberals embraced ideals of secularism and ideals of a democratic republic, the compromise between the two branches is the charter or constitution, regal laws and the legislature chosen by the public. So then comes the Reactionaries, after the French Revolution and when the monarchy was replaced, things in France were not so great, there were riots, poverty, national insecurity both domestically and the fact that the newly French Republic was not well liked by the monarchies of Britain, Austria, and Spain. So the Reactionaries came in force, they became ultra religious, they wanted to restore a type of monarchy at least to restore the chaos of the battling political factions, and the Reactionaries yearned for the 'peaceful' times of the ancien-régime. Unlike Conservatives that look towards tradition, Reactionaries lack traditional guiding principals and their political ideology is restoring the past by deteriorating systems and institutions of Liberalism.
    Last edited by Summer; 05-17-2017 at 12:40 AM.

  27. #147
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I think the term Reactionary sums up the Trump supporter.

    So basically, Reactionaries differ from Conservatives as conservatives wish to maintain the status-quo, Conservatives rely on traditions when faced with challenges. On the contrary Liberalism is open to new ideas, understanding challenges and open to untraditional meathods to resolve challenges. Reactionary thought is this kind of arcane yearning for nostalgia and often times reactionaries did not live in the 'simpler time' they yearn for, the reactionary aim is to oppose liberalism and by peeling away liberal aspects of social and economic policy, reactionaries hope to restore nostalgic traditions.

    The term Reactionary is from the time around the French Revolution, Conservatives wished to uphold the monarchy and traditional systems of ties between church and state, while the Liberals embraced ideals of secularism and ideals of a democratic republic, the compromise between the two branches is the charter or constitution, regal laws and the legislature chosen by the public. So then comes the Reactionaries, after the French Revolution and when the monarchy was replaced, things in France were not so great, there were riots, poverty, national insecurity both domestically and the fact that the newly French Republic was not well liked by the monarchies of Britain, Austria, and Spain. So the Reactionaries came in force, they became ultra religious, they wanted to restore a type of monarchy at least to restore the chaos of the battling political factions, and the Reactionaries yearned for the 'peaceful' times of the ancien-régime. Unlike Conservatives that look towards tradition, Reactionaries lack traditional guiding principals and their political ideology is restoring the past by deteriorating systems and institutions of Liberalism.
    This analysis is meh.

    It's in vogue, sure. The idea that "Trumpism" is "anti-enlightenment" or somesuch.

    Meh argument is meh. It's not even slightly self-critical. Like... are you really gonna say that a vote for Hillary would have been a vote for the "institutions of liberalism"? Pls. She's corrupt, she represents an existing power bloc, and she represents the corporatism that makes the Democratic party look so similar to the GOP. And, she won the most Democratic votes.

    I don't buy that "Trumpism" is as well-thought out and ideological as all this. I don't buy that it's "anti-enlightenment" by design or by accident.

    It's angry and frustrated, and in my view misguidedly so, but as I said,

    meh argument is meh.

  28. #148
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    On the contrary Liberalism is open to new ideas, understanding challenges and open to untraditional meathods to resolve challenges
    But you are not a liberal, nor was there a liberal running for office.

  29. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    This analysis is meh.

    It's in vogue, sure. The idea that "Trumpism" is "anti-enlightenment" or somesuch.

    Meh argument is meh. It's not even slightly self-critical. Like... are you really gonna say that a vote for Hillary would have been a vote for the "institutions of liberalism"? Pls. She's corrupt, she represents an existing power bloc, and she represents the corporatism that makes the Democratic party look so similar to the GOP. And, she won the most Democratic votes.

    I don't buy that "Trumpism" is as well-thought out and ideological as all this. I don't buy that it's "anti-enlightenment" by design or by accident.

    It's angry and frustrated, and in my view misguidedly so, but as I said,

    meh argument is meh.
    The purpose of my post was to allign a political ideology to Trump and the Trump supporter, in the realm of political ideologies, Reactionary seems to allign best with say Trump or cofc.

    The definition of Reactionary is "(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform."

    here is an expanded wiki page on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

    To a further point, a conservative would not support Trump, he was married three times, for instance, the way he conducts himself, using profanity and bragging about grabbing women - to conservatives this behavior would be unacceptable. Reactionaries don't really care about tradition, they care more about undoing anything regarded as liberal.

  30. #150
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    The purpose of my post was to allign a political ideology to Trump and the Trump supporter, in the realm of political ideologies, Reactionary seems to allign best with say Trump or cofc.
    The definition of Reactionary is "(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform."[/qupte]
    I don't agree that this accurately represents Trump's (few) policy proposals. His tax policies and immigration policies -- the ones he's stated and proposed, anyway -- are revolutionary.

    You just don't like the direction of the revolution.

    But that doesn't make it not revolutionary.

    Also, I haven't read a cofc post in months, so... idk what he's been peddling recently.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    To a further point, a conservative would not support Trump, he was married three times, for instance, the way he conducts himself, using profanity and bragging about grabbing women - to conservatives this behavior would be unacceptable. Reactionaries don't really care about tradition, they care more about undoing anything regarded as liberal.
    To a further point, many conservatives did and do support Trump, so..........
    ...
    ......

    I don't think you're entirely wrong, I just think you're presenting a view that's overly simplistic, so I'm pointing out flaws in such a simple analysis. The fact of the matter is, many "conservative" icons and iconoclasts have had all kinds of sexual abuse allegations levied against them, from Clarence Thomas to Bill O'Reilly. And as for the "undoing anything regarded as liberal" line, I don't think that does justice to what the other half of the country believes. My grandparents voted for Trump in FL, and I have an aunt and uncle who voted for him in OH, and out of the 4 of them, not a-one of them would agree with your characterization of their beliefs. (And I don't, either.)

    EDIT:
    To be clear, here's the start of a better analysis --

    Capitalism is the problem.
    Trump is a symptom.
    Socialism is the solution.

  31. #151
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Also, I haven't read a cofc post in months
    You literally responded to one a week ago. Why lie about something so obviously false?

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    wikipedia
    Wikipedia is not a source.

  32. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    The definition of Reactionary is "(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform."[/qupte]
    I don't agree that this accurately represents Trump's (few) policy proposals. His tax policies and immigration policies -- the ones he's stated and proposed, anyway -- are revolutionary.

    You just don't like the direction of the revolution.

    But that doesn't make it not revolutionary.

    Also, I haven't read a cofc post in months, so... idk what he's been peddling recently.

    To a further point, many conservatives did and do support Trump, so..........
    ...
    ......

    I don't think you're entirely wrong, I just think you're presenting a view that's overly simplistic, so I'm pointing out flaws in such a simple analysis. The fact of the matter is, many "conservative" icons and iconoclasts have had all kinds of sexual abuse allegations levied against them, from Clarence Thomas to Bill O'Reilly. And as for the "undoing anything regarded as liberal" line, I don't think that does justice to what the other half of the country believes. My grandparents voted for Trump in FL, and I have an aunt and uncle who voted for him in OH, and out of the 4 of them, not a-one of them would agree with your characterization of their beliefs. (And I don't, either.)

    EDIT:
    To be clear, here's the start of a better analysis --

    Capitalism is the problem.
    Trump is a symptom.
    Socialism is the solution.
    Trump's immigration and tax policies allign well within the framework of Reactionary ideology.

    Reactionaries yearn for a nostalgic time, when America was great and less diverse, the Reactionary would undo what they see as liberal immigration policies, building a wall, deportations, and limiting visas is allignd perfectly in the Reactionary mind. As for taxes, Reactionaries view a secular government as inherently bad, an institution of liberalism, lower taxes lowers revenues and in effort deprives the state from functioning.

    Why would conservatives support reactionaries? Some conservatives view that traditions have been so degraded, i.e. gay marriage, more diversity - conservatives view diversity through a lens of zero-sum thinking e.g. the more diversity = less tradition, therefore diversity is bad. When conservative traditionalists lose ground, they look towards the reactionaries to undo liberalism.

    Bernie Sanders knows what I'm talking about:
    Sander's Statement on Trump's reactionary agenda.
    https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsr...tionary-agenda

    There is also the 'book that predicted Trump' written in 2012 by Corey Robin titled correctly "The Reactionary Mind"
    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cul...redicted-trump
    Last edited by Summer; 05-17-2017 at 01:52 AM.

  33. #153
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Trump's tax policies allign well within the framework of Reactionary ideology.
    Less taxes is reactionary? Are you sure you reads that Wiki correctly?

  34. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Less taxes is reactionary? Are you sure you reads that Wiki correctly?
    Yup.

    In traditional Conservative thought, taxes support the well-being of the nation, public schools, health care, and public welfare alligns with conservative thought, as conservatives in other nations support public welfare as it maintains the state and the status-quo so taxes = ok.

    In Liberalism taxes are used to preserve the state and allows the nation to as liberals would say progress, liberals view taxes as investment for the future so taxes=ok.

    To the Reactionaries the state is bad, they yearn for nostalgia and embrace the idea to 'starve the beast' the beast being government and starving it by means of cutting revenue i.e. cutting taxes. So for reactionaries taxes= bad, very bad.

  35. #155
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Trump's immigration and tax policies allign well within the framework of Reactionary ideology.

    Reactionaries yearn for a nostalgic time, when America was great and less diverse, the Reactionary would undo what they see as liberal immigration policies, building a wall, deportations, and limiting visas is allignd perfectly in the Reactionary mind. As for taxes, Reactionaries view a secular government as inherently bad, an institution of liberalism, lower taxes lowers revenues and in effort deprives the state from functioning.
    Let me take these 1 at a time.

    1) There never was a time when the USA was less diverse. Yeah, it was less diverse when it was 100% Native American, I guess, but even Creek != Chocktaw != Cherokee. The South has had blacks from the beginning, and so has the North. Asians built the West. What you're terming "a return to the past" is not, even if the people you're trying to characterize think that's what they're doing. They're not arguing for a return to some past time, they're arguing for a positive vision of the future, by which I mean that their vision of the future is different from any time in the past. The bottom line is that the social goal of the immigration policy is aspirational towards something new, and the analysis that casts it as a "return" to some "darker historical period" is deeply flawed, because it imagines that the past was actually this dark historical period that has been fundamentally broken from the present by some positive social revolution. Actually, no such social revolutions have occurred.
    2) The idea that there is a deeper thought about why to lower taxes that goes deeper than "but muh tax bill will be lower" is deeply implausible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Why would conservatives support reactionaries? Some conservatives view that traditions have been so degraded, i.e. gay marriage, more diversity - conservatives view diversity through a lens of zero-sum thinking e.g. the more diversity = less tradition, therefore diversity is bad. When conservative traditionalists lose ground, they look towards the reactionaries to undo liberalism.

    Bernie Sanders knows what I'm talking about:
    Sander's Statement on Trump's reactionary agenda.
    https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsr...tionary-agenda

    There is also the 'book that predicted Trump' written in 2012 by Corey Robin titled correctly "The Reactionary Mind"
    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cul...redicted-trump
    You did ignore my point -- that many conservative figures do, in fact, have problems keeping their traditional hands to themselves. I also know what you're talking about, Summer. I'm just pointing out that as a final analysis of Trumpism, it's not the best. And yeah, that analysis is in vogue right now. (For the whole lot of good that it has done actually preventing the rise of Trumpism...)

  36. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Let me take these 1 at a time.

    1) There never was a time when the USA was less diverse. Yeah, it was less diverse when it was 100% Native American, I guess, but even Creek != Chocktaw != Cherokee. The South has had blacks from the beginning, and so has the North. Asians built the West. What you're terming "a return to the past" is not, even if the people you're trying to characterize think that's what they're doing. They're not arguing for a return to some past time, they're arguing for a positive vision of the future, by which I mean that their vision of the future is different from any time in the past. The bottom line is that the social goal of the immigration policy is aspirational towards something new, and the analysis that casts it as a "return" to some "darker historical period" is deeply flawed, because it imagines that the past was actually this dark historical period that has been fundamentally broken from the present by some positive social revolution. Actually, no such social revolutions have occurred.
    2) The idea that there is a deeper thought about why to lower taxes that goes deeper than "but muh tax bill will be lower" is deeply implausible.


    You did ignore my point -- that many conservative figures do, in fact, have problems keeping their traditional hands to themselves. I also know what you're talking about, Summer. I'm just pointing out that as a final analysis of Trumpism, it's not the best. And yeah, that analysis is in vogue right now. (For the whole lot of good that it has done actually preventing the rise of Trumpism...)
    Right, nostalgia or yearning for a perceived past is not often accurate. Nor does nostalgia equal accurate history.I agree that America was always a diverse nation and American identity from it's inception was quite liberally open to plurallirity of religions for instance or ethnic backgrounds. Never did race nor language, nor religion ever defined Americans. To the Reactionary, they yearn for a past, they view changes as a threat and would accept policies that target immigration to fulfill their nostalgic idea of the past.

    A lot of the anti-tax movement is about the perception that social programs benefit immigrant communities or liberal causes like, protecting the environment, or paying for regulations. Reactionaries hate that taxes fund planned parenthood for instance. The anti-tax movement is more about starving perceived liberal causes than about saving a percentage of a individual's personal income.

    it's not that it's in vogue, Reactionary is an ideology, it's neither Conservative nor Liberal.

  37. #157

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    There never was a time when the USA was less diverse.
    And your point is...? There's a reason he kept using the term "nostalgia" (which often has an implication of inaccurate positive memories). And there most definitely are people who think the past was far better than it actually was, and want to "return" us to those times without even having the slightest understanding of the ripple effects of such an attempt.

  38. #158
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    And your point is...? There's a reason he kept using the term "nostalgia" (which often has an implication of inaccurate positive memories). And there most definitely are people who think the past was far better than it actually was, and want to "return" us to those times without even having the slightest understanding of the ripple effects of such an attempt.
    My point is that whether it's a mirage or a history is unimportant -- it's still a revolutionary vision for the future. It's unimportant whether the story makes sense -- what's important is that there is a story.

    Put another way, only people who already don't believe in the revolutionary vision for the future think that pointing out that "the past never was like that" is even a relevant point. They don't actually yearn for the past; they have a vision for the future that they yearn for. (A dangerous, bad vision for the future...) In the final analysis, forcing their view to be "about social regress" is not accurate -- it's about something they would definitely think of as social progress, and idk how you can explain the yearning for social change within a framework of "regression."

    All I mean to establish is that the simplistic categorization that Summer proposed is not an excellent analysis. I don't even mean to say that it's entirely false -- there are lots of ways that it is accurate. It's just not the best available analysis, in my opinion.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 05-17-2017 at 11:53 AM.

  39. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    My point is that whether it's a mirage or a history is unimportant -- it's still a revolutionary vision for the future. It's unimportant whether the story makes sense -- what's important is that there is a story.

    Put another way, only people who already don't believe in the revolutionary vision for the future think that pointing out that "the past never was like that" is even a relevant point. They don't actually yearn for the past; they have a vision for the future that they yearn for. (A dangerous, bad vision for the future...) In the final analysis, forcing their view to be "about social regress" is not accurate -- it's about something they would definitely think of as social progress, and idk how you can explain the yearning for social change within a framework of "regression."

    All I mean to establish is that the simplistic categorization that Summer proposed is not an excellent analysis. I don't even mean to say that it's entirely false -- there are lots of ways that it is accurate. It's just not the best available analysis, in my opinion.
    It perhaps wouldn't be wrong to say that Trump and Trump supporters embrace a revolutionary thinking, but there is nothing revolutionary about Reactionaries nor Trump's policies and calling Trump revolutionary may murk the concept of what revolutions are. I'd define Trump supporters as espousing a perceived nostalgic restoration as opposed to a revolution.

    Revolutions tend to establish themselves as breaks from tradition, an alternative to present systems or way of life. Reactionaries are on the other end of the spectrum, they view that changes have already happened and they feel the need to undo the changes, Reactionaries are in essense a reaction to social and political revolutions.

    I'll expand with real-life Trump examples and how his policies are not revolutionary and are reactionary.

    On economics, Trump stands to deregulate, he opposes minimum wage and legal protections from discrimination. Trump favors undo existing trade agreements in favor of returning to a time before they existed. Revolutionary would be to adopt a global currency, reactionary would be to deregulate.

    On energy, Trump has appointed Rick Perry to lead the department of energy. Trump favors fossil fuels, including coal, more drilling and more pipelines. Trump aims for a return to a grand fossil fuels era and aims to deregulate air and water quality laws in order to return to a time of economic prosperity through cheap traditional energy. Revolutionary would be to rid traditional methods of energy from fossil fuels and instead embrace renewables or even fusion energy - reactionary would be a return to fossil fuels and deregulate any laws that impede the extraction or use of fossil fuels.

    and the list could go on.
    Last edited by Summer; 05-17-2017 at 03:47 PM.

  40. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •