Contrast In the Political World

[I Am Hugh]

It comes down to choosing the "lesser evil".

Yeah, the lesser "evil" ideology. Either side would vote for an eggplant if it was their party, convincing themselves the eggplant is the lesser evil eggplant so long as it's their political party.

 

[rocala]

The real idealists are forbidden from entering politics because they don't belong in the sewer of barrators.

Certainly true regarding national level in the U.K. at least. As a student, a part of my course dealt with the process termed 'socialisation'. There were numerous examples of people joining a party and then if those chose to attempt progression were either weeded out or forced to compromise. By the time they get near the top they are fully domesticated.

 

[Estro Felino]

Certainly true regarding national level in the U.K. at least. As a student, a part of my course dealt with the process termed 'socialisation'. There were numerous examples of people joining a party and then if those chose to attempt progression were either weeded out or forced to compromise. By the time they get near the top they are fully domesticated.

Once I told to my professor of economics, after a heated debate: you think greed is sacred, I believe man is destined to evolve himself, and the natural selection will make the greedy disappear, winking at him.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yeah, the lesser "evil" ideology. Either side would vote for an eggplant if it was their party, convincing themselves the eggplant is the lesser evil eggplant so long as it's their political party.

So you're claiming that both platforms are equally bad? That both would cause precisely equal amounts of damage? Absolutely no variation in proportion, etc.? Looking at what happened to women's reproductive rights, I don't buy it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

..... I would like to debate whether or not a proposed negative generalization of human behavior is confirmed by that same behavior as demonstrated by the one with the counter argument even .... if it hurts their feelings or is contrary in some way to their idealistic tyrannical projections.

Sooo. You are wondering if anyone here would argue that there are some presidential candidates (current or past) who contested for the job of POTUS, based upon a desire to do good for the people and the nation, ... rather than purely out of greed.?

As a quick aside note, I would inform you that most of the wealth developed by former presidents (especially in the last 60 years), has not derived "suspiciously inciteful" investments, but rather by the men playing on their own popularity. Speeches (for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars - for one hour of "work"), as well as book sales. $$$
Column: How the White House became a path to obscene riches for ex-presidents
Just like most celebrities.

Although I do agree with you regarding the apparent investment insider information trading, as well as influence peddling seen in Congress and the former POTUS tRump (as I outlined above).


I would disagree with the hypothesis. I think that most candidates are reaching to be POTUS, to gain power. Usually, power to fix problems as they see them, existent in the USA. Again, for most, this is not a narcissistic despotism they are trying to satisfy; but instead, a desire to set right what is wrong.
The money comes to them after their retirement from the Oval Office.

 

[Spice]

Yeah...Clinton has been the cunningest.
He surely love $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Not as an excuse, since I have no idea how any of them make their wealth, but IMO Clinton must know quite a bit about how to handle finances as he has been the only president to balance the national debit. And right along with that goes Trump who lost personal wealth (if we can believe his disclosed finances) and also the president who ran the national debt through the roof, which does not make him financially suave.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not as an excuse, since I have no idea how any of them make their wealth, but IMO Clinton must know quite a bit about how to handle finances as he has been the only president to balance the national debit. And right along with that goes Trump who lost personal wealth (if we can believe his disclosed finances) and also the president who ran the national debt through the roof, which does not make him financially suave.

Considering what the Hillary emails revealed...I feel like vomiting, thinking of how those millions were made.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Sooo. You are wondering if anyone here would argue that there are some presidential candidates (current or past) who contested for the job of POTUS, based upon a desire to do good for the people and the nation, ... rather than purely out of greed.?

No, I was wondering if anyone here would argue that any presidential candidate (current or past) wasn't a liar, knowing that he or she had to lie in order to appease the masses. In the past that sort of thing was more unwise than it is today because the media was less politically biased and would call them out on it. On both sides. Today people tend to be of the opinion that everyone lies, and disagreement is deception. What you believe and feel is much more important than facts.

As a quick aside note, I would inform you that most of the wealth developed by former presidents (especially in the last 60 years), has not derived "suspiciously inciteful" investments, but rather by the men playing on their own popularity. Speeches (for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars - for one hour of "work"), as well as book sales. $$$
Column: How the White House became a path to obscene riches for ex-presidents
Just like most celebrities.

If there is a conflict of interests and the speaking engagement is ridiculously overpaid or extremely large donations are made to a "charitable" foundation in return for political favors or insider trading is obviously apparent your point is moot. Only the lame excuse of a political ideologue. Celebrities don't make the kind of money on speaking engagement that those with political power do. They may make something approaching that through endorsement but that sort of thing doesn't take place in politics. Yet.

Although I do agree with you regarding the apparent investment insider information trading, as well as influence peddling seen in Congress and the former POTUS tRump (as I outlined above).

I would disagree with the hypothesis. I think that most candidates are reaching to be POTUS, to gain power. Usually, power to fix problems as they see them, existent in the USA. Again, for most, this is not a narcissistic despotism they are trying to satisfy; but instead, a desire to set right what is wrong.
The money comes to them after their retirement from the Oval Office.

No.

 

[I Am Hugh]

So you're claiming that both platforms are equally bad? That both would cause precisely equal amounts of damage? Absolutely no variation in proportion, etc.? Looking at what happened to women's reproductive rights, I don't buy it.

I wouldn't say precisely equal amounts of damage. It varies from time to time and depends upon the circumstances. In this country (US) the Republicans are primarily rich white men who think that anyone can get as rich as them through hard work and dumb luck, the Democrats are rich white landowners who dreadfully fear the power of the poor but want a manageable slave class. Who has to lie the most and who is poorer than a slave? Who was for slavery, Jim Crow, and against anyone other than rich, white landowners from voting?

Womens reproductive rights? The conservatives believe abortion to be murder and the liberals believe they can procreate free from accountability of the obvious results. Use birth control instead of murdering, that is literally chopping to pieces the fetus. Conservatives are practical while liberals are idealistic. The Republicans happen to be allegedly conservatives and the Democrats happen to be allegedly liberal. The thing about abortion is that states differ in how the laws should or should not be implemented, the federal laws wrongly dictated the state laws, forcing an interpretation that was or wasn't reflected of the constituency of individual states. The liberal ideologues politicized the issue further complicating the issue. Liberals are socialists. A constitutional republic is supposed to protect the liberty of individuals, not groups. Republicans are for that. Democracy always denigrates into socialist tyranny. We know what is best for you and no matter how crazy it may seem you have to accept it. Democrats only protect the liberty of groups who further their agenda which are so destructive they have to lie more than the conservatives.

I am apolitical. I don't "buy into" any of it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

No, I was wondering if anyone here would argue that any presidential candidate (current or past) wasn't a liar, knowing that he or she had to lie in order to appease the masses. In the past that sort of thing was more unwise than it is today because the media was less politically biased and would call them out on it. On both sides. Today people tend to be of the opinion that everyone lies, and disagreement is deception. What you believe and feel is much more important than facts.

While it does occur 'On both sides', as you say. Lies (i.e. "alternative facts") are MUCH more prevalent from the right than from the left. In fact it is obvious and undeniable to anyone who cares to review speeches, claims, policies, etc.... that most the the platform from the right is based upon sheer plutocratic/nobility vs peasant thinking that is even more detached from reality today as it was in 18th century France.
Please do not fall for the childish whines and False Equivalency from the right, with their tosh "Well, they started it!", or "They do it as much as we do!"
Your mind is a terrible thing to waste.

If there is a conflict of interests and the speaking engagement is ridiculously overpaid or extremely large donations are made to a "charitable" foundation in return for political favors or insider trading is obviously apparent your point is moot. Only the lame excuse of a political ideologue. Celebrities don't make the kind of money on speaking engagement that those with political power do. They may make something approaching that through endorsement but that sort of thing doesn't take place in politics. Yet.

Why would you consider the facts that I presented as 'moot', just because "the speaking engagement is ridiculously overpaid"? That is in fact the point of celebre. Being given wealth and importance for no other reason than for being who one is. (One of many failures of humanity. )

I agree about donations for charity or political favors (which would occur before or during a term in office). But again, for most of the politicians (as the citation I supplied does indicate) the wealth comes after the term in office.

No.

Yes.


Your two-letter-response here nullifies your entire reason for creating this thread.
It tells us that your not actually wondering about anything. You're just trying to preach/proselytize your personal grumpy political outlook onto other forum members.

But, shockingly, some of us have different outlooks.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I wouldn't say precisely equal amounts of damage. It varies from time to time and depends upon the circumstances. In this country (US) the Republicans are primarily rich white men who think that anyone can get as rich as them through hard work and dumb luck, the Democrats are rich white landowners who dreadfully fear the power of the poor but want a manageable slave class. Who has to lie the most and who is poorer than a slave? Who was for slavery, Jim Crow, and against anyone other than rich, white landowners from voting?

You are falsely equating the extremely conservative-minded people who were titled "Democrats" 160+ years ago, with the slightly progressive-minded "Democrats" who exist in the USA today.
To alleviate this common mistake, it is better to simply refer to parties, people, and mindsets; from now or the past; as "Conservative" vs "Progressive".

Womens reproductive rights? The conservatives believe abortion to be murder and the liberals believe they can procreate free from accountability of the obvious results. Use birth control instead of murdering, that is literally chopping to pieces the fetus. Conservatives are practical while liberals are idealistic.

Sorry. No.
This may be a horrible surprise to you, but both conservative and progressive people actually have sex.
As a result of this rampant human coitus; women (from all political views) get pregnant, and utilize abortions.


Okay. Take a moment to recover. We'll wait.



.


While Progressive do tend to utilize birth-control more than Conservatives, these techniques are NOT 100% effective; and so the women (often with the knowledge and approval of their lovers) choose to have their own uterus emptied of any parasitic and non-aware growths (you might call an early term fetus). The US Conservatives wish to deny women any rights to self-determination (and thus return them to the rank of chattel reproductive slaves for men, as they had been in centuries passed).
In rare and very unfortunate situations, it isn't until later in the pregnancy that a terrible fetal or maternal prognosis is diagnosed, warranting an abortion.
Of course these facts don't even address rapes resulting in pregnancies (>30,000 per year in the US) and socioeconomic influences which the pregnant woman and her doctor should be allowed to consider, unmolested and unhindered by government intervention into her very personal life.

The Republicans happen to be allegedly conservatives and the Democrats happen to be allegedly liberal. The thing about abortion is that states differ in how the laws should or should not be implemented, the federal laws wrongly dictated the state laws, forcing an interpretation that was or wasn't reflected of the constituency of individual states. The liberal ideologues politicized the issue further complicating the issue.
Liberals are socialists. A constitutional republic is supposed to protect the liberty of individuals, not groups. Republicans are for that. Democracy always denigrates into socialist tyranny. We know what is best for you and no matter how crazy it may seem you have to accept it. Democrats only protect the liberty of groups who further their agenda which are so destructive they have to lie more than the conservatives.

Utter rubbish. Contrary to your claims, you wish for a large and personally VERY invasive and controlling government (i.e. Fascist. i.e. a Conservative government - as represented by modern-day Republicans in the USA).

You are most distinctly NOT "apolitical" as you falsely claim below.

Meanwhile, in keeping with our freedoms and rights, as encapsulated in the US Constitution, the Progressive viewpoint is that such intimately personal matters must never be controlled by any level of government. In this way, Roe v. Wade, prior to its abolishment by anti-Constitutional Conservative SCOTUS judges, did in fact allow for individual women, and not government, to handle their own personal lives.
Thank you very much.

I am apolitical. I don't "buy into" any of it.

.




.


PS - Historically speaking. Every civilization, throughout every culture, throughout all of human history..... has eventually denigrated into unregulated capitalistic tyrannies. Sorry, not sorry to pop your bubble. Every single one of them, in every single nation, has always resulted in an elite/aristocratic 'upper class' (the 0.1%) and a second 'lower class' (the 99.9%) of peasants/servants/slaves.
Ancient Egypt.
The Hindu Caste system.
Every country in Europe, the Middle East (Persia), and Africa since writing was developed (and in some cases since cave drawings were developed).
The former communist USSR.
Ancient China, Korea, Japan.
Modern "communist" China.
And now (over the last 50+ years), the USA is leaning .....


ALL of them eventually became Aristocracy vs Peasants --- Conservatives vs Progressives.
This was in fact the reason the Founding Fathers of the USA were considered so daring. They dreamed, fought, and died for no aristocracy; not a government for the nobility; but rather a government "OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people".

 

[I Am Hugh]

While it does occur 'On both sides', as you say. Lies (i.e. "alternative facts") are MUCH more prevalent from the right than from the left.

And let me guess which side you're on . . .

In fact it is obvious and undeniable to anyone who cares to review speeches, claims, policies, etc.... that most the the platform from the right is based upon sheer plutocratic/nobility vs peasant thinking that is even more detached from reality today as it was in 18th century France.

Well, at least they haven't started stringing them up. Yet.

While I think they both lie, the greater degree is astonishingly clear to anyone not ideologically fixated with that side, but that doesn't matter. Even though that side is doing all of the politicalization of the DOJ, censuring on social platforms, in control of the obviously biased media I think you would have to be completely stupid not to see that. I think they do see it but they don't care. They would vote for Stalin or Patrick Starfish from Sponge Bob Square Pants if they were of that political party. Conservatives not so much, but both parties are responsible for the suppression of the independents or even the ones that aren't corrupt to the bone in their own party. That's why they hated Ross Perot, Ron Paul and Donald Trump. Very few people vote for the best candidate. Dementia? Debilitating stroke? Brain dead socialist? No problem. Come right on in puppet.

The rest of your post is just an insult to the intelligence of the reader. Your side or the other side can't gaslight me. Sorry. Tell me something real. Tell me something that isn't political ideological bull****. Like on fake news, or the political pundits on the other side on YouTube, Rumble, Bit-chute, and Odysee.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You didn't watch the video.
If you had, you would have seen that Clinton gained hundred of millions of dollars .
Trump lost billions.

Well we know how the money is actually made. These things always speak for itself.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

And let me guess which side you're on . . .

No need. I'm a centrist independent. I have been forced to vote for Democrats over the last 45 years simply because, even though they are too Conservative for our nation's good, they aren't the arrogant fascists littered through the ranks of the Republican party (as it exists after Ronald Reagan's entry).

Well, at least they haven't started stringing them up. Yet.

Ooohh! Sorry. Turns out that you just cited .....

....wait for it.....



another right wing lie!

Reality check please! --> Kamala Harris did not vote for a bill that would tax tips.

While I think they both lie, the greater degree is astonishingly clear to anyone not ideologically fixated with that side, but that doesn't matter.

Oh. But it does matter.

Even though that side is doing all of the politicalization of the DOJ, censuring on social platforms, in control of the obviously biased media I think you would have to be completely stupid not to see that. I think they do see it but they don't care. They would vote for Stalin or Patrick Starfish from Sponge Bob Square Pants if they were of that political party. Conservatives not so much, but ....

It matters because, as you clearly represent, the current Republican party is a voting example of how, if lies are told often enough, then the people will accept them as truth.
Your words above and your words below demonstrate time and again, a complete loss of touch from what is really happening in the USA; as each of your claims is not just false, but in fact the exact opposite from the truth. And you believe your "news sources" because they keep telling you over, and over, and over again how evil and deceptive the others all are.

both parties are responsible for the suppression of the independents or even the ones that aren't corrupt to the bone in their own party. That's why they hated Ross Perot, Ron Paul and Donald Trump. Very few people vote for the best candidate. Dementia? Debilitating stroke? Brain dead socialist? No problem. Come right on in puppet.

People in the center and the left are willing to have anyone OTHER than tRump, because (as you utterly fail to see) he is a treasonous piece of ****, who only wants the office for the money and the power. He doesn't give a rat's *** whether the US is destroyed or not, just as long as he alone profits.

---- Huh, ironic that that was how you started this thread.
Yet now you espouse the opposite, and willfully support
the greediest despot in American presidential history ----

​

The rest of your post is just an insult to the intelligence of the reader. Your side or the other side can't gaslight me.

Too bloody late.

 

[I Am Hugh]

another right wing lie!

Fascinating! And is this brand of deception different than the other brand or just ideology that makes it difficult to impossible to distinguish any truth?! Show me a left wing lie. Otherwise, you're just another political ideologue.

It matters because, as you clearly represent, the current Republican party is a voting example of how, if lies are told often enough, then the people will accept them as truth.

It doesn't matter because for every link you provide to do your thinking and work for you there are countless others contradicting it.

Your words above and your words below demonstrate time and again, a complete loss of touch from what is really happening in the USA; as each of your claims is not just false, but in fact the exact opposite from the truth.

Now you're getting it, you're halfway there.

And you believe your "news sources" because they keep telling you over, and over, and over again how evil and deceptive the others all are.

I don't believe anyone; I just watch the bickering mice people.

People in the center and the left are willing to have anyone OTHER than tRump, because (as you utterly fail to see) he is a treasonous piece of ****, who only wants the office for the money and the power.

No, because they've been brainwashed by the legacy media which no one with any sense any longer believes a word of because he is the only one of either party not to be corrupt enough to support their obvious agenda. Big pharma, military industrial complex, technocracy, oiligarchy, etc.

He doesn't give a rat's *** whether the US is destroyed or not, just as long as he alone profits.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Fascinating! And is this brand of deception different than the other brand or just ideology that makes it difficult to impossible to distinguish any truth?! Show me a left wing lie. Otherwise, you're just another political ideologue.

The irony is killing my liver. I claim, and I support with evidence. If you have a claim, then you must support it with evidence. If YOU cannot support your argument with evidence, then you are demonstrating to all who view your posts, that YOU are the “political ideologue”.
Please try again.

It doesn't matter because for every link you provide to do your thinking and work for you there are countless others contradicting it.

Then show some.

I don't believe anyone; I just watch the bickering mice people.

And yet you’ve clearly thrown in with one side.

No, because they've been brainwashed by the legacy media which no one with any sense any longer believes a word of because he is the only one of either party not to be corrupt enough to support their obvious agenda. Big pharma, military industrial complex, technocracy, oiligarchy, etc.

Hmm… then it is odd that the higher one’s education level, the more likely that that person sides with the centrists/left.

Also, scammers, in general, have always targeted older audiences, due to failing memories, and a tendency to place their trust into the hands of charismatic fast-talkers, rather than delving into the evidence to figure out who to trust. The Fox News is known for their pretty faces and high skirts, and their audience is largely older than all other news source audiences. Food for thought, eh?

Yet you suggest that the docile and brainwashed populous tend to be the energetic, young professionals and academics, who seek out multiple and multivarient news, and who additionally research evidence that might back up claims even their own preferred sources supply them with.
Interesting.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The irony is killing my liver. I claim, and I support with evidence. If you have a claim, then you must support it with evidence. If YOU cannot support your argument with evidence, then you are demonstrating to all who view your posts, that YOU are the “political ideologue”.
Please try again.

Then show some.

And yet you’ve clearly thrown in with one side.

Vice President Kamila Harris: "And I will work to pass the first ever federal ban on price gauging food." That's right, she said "price gauging." Why? Because someone wrote it for her, but with the word "gouging" instead of "gauging." She has no idea what it means because she never intends to do anything of the sort. She reads that to the idiots in order to get elected. The idiots "feel" like it's a good thing to support, so they clap and if she gets elected it's all forgotten about because it wasn't real in any sense in the first place. The people who told her to say that want her to say it because they know that she won't do anything of the kind. They, with their wealth, don't want anything to change. She's a high-priced puppet. The people are idiots. They are ideologues who operate on a knee jerk reaction or, like you, an ideological opposition, both based on something other than the facts or data. So, history repeats itself just to make people feel comfortable with their ideology. Of course, they never do as long as their ideas have competition. (Source)

Hmm… then it is odd that the higher one’s education level, the more likely that that person sides with the centrists/left.

Are they the ones writing Kamila's speech? The ones with the wealth? The ones with power? How are they doing? Let me guess, they just can't get anything done because of those other pesky educated other sides, huh? Gotta has a scapegoat, someone to blame for all of the things making them rich and keeping everyone else poor. Lots of educated nonsense. Lots of educated idiots.

Also, scammers, in general, have always targeted older audiences, due to failing memories, and a tendency to place their trust into the hands of charismatic fast-talkers, rather than delving into the evidence to figure out who to trust. The Fox News is known for their pretty faces and high skirts, and their audience is largely older than all other news source audiences. Food for thought, eh?

Not really. It pales in comparison to what's really going on. Dime store hustlers operating in India have nothing on the American elite controlled government. Comparable to a TV evangelist and the Roman church.

Yet you suggest that the docile and brainwashed populous tend to be the energetic, young professionals and academics, who seek out multiple and multivarient news, and who additionally research evidence that might back up claims even their own preferred sources supply them with.
Interesting.

I do? No. Try thinking without your ideological blinders.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I feel like vomiting...whenever I think that what drives most politicians is greed.

The real idealists are forbidden from entering politics because they don't belong in the sewer of barrators.

I also think inflated egos and real or implied granduer is a factor. Sad politics attracts these people more than others who don't partake in the shark frenzy.

 

[Estro Felino]

I also think inflated egos and real or implied granduer is a factor. Sad politics attracts these people more than others who don't partake in the shark frenzy.

Yes....and Trump does it because he wants to save his country, and is basically disposed to lose millions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes....and Trump does it because he wants to save his country, and is basically disposed to lose millions.

Trump had been saying that from the start and hadn't waiverd from that train of thought since.

Make America Great Again is not a derogatory remark as some like to spin it, but a real and genuine hope inspired by a long past strong generation of a patriotic and proud people that is noticeably lacking today. A real pity.