This is much more human than the old description. I absolutely love it. I agreed with everything, except this:
They may be at the maturity level of a toddler (re: Donald Trump) yet will still guide them nonetheless.
He doesn't appear that way to me.
The educated elite are inundated with Ne/Si values in school. Abstract information and history is revered while real-world application is undervalued. Those who did not go to Ivy League schools and earn endless degrees were more likely to understand and vote for Trump because he deals with common, hands-on problems. People who have worked with their hands, worked in business, worked in moment-to-moment deal making and big decisions - can often appreciate his genius. The reasons and intricacy behind his decisions are spelled out in his book, "The Art of the Deal."
I believe that his Fi ideals are about the integrity of the old America, the way he envisions it - and he sacrificed a lot of money and time, and put up with a lot of hatred and slander - in order to PROTECT it. This fits with what you have posted. However, I don't see his values as being 'poorly thought out.' He may lie about this or that - because to him, the end justifies the means - but he is extremely consistent with his values and definitely knows what they are. Since the MSM misrepresents him, he does everything in his power to communicate directly with the public, through twitter - and of course his haters mock him for it, but it is an intelligent way to bypass the media slander. That said, people who are looking for an intricate verbal delineation of abstract premises will never be satisfied with his portrayal of his values. TeNi's don't speak Alpha. 😀
By contrast, to me, Obama appears like a fantasizing child - all talk but the action didn't match. His resume was full of degrees but his experience in the world was minimal compared to many presidents. His campaign of promises and lofty ideals was bound to fail. He seems like a self-important little boy who smiles about his idealistic daydream and waits for everyone to applaud. "Hope and Change" is quite vague, whereas Trump's slogan, "Make America Great Again" - depicts his values clearly. Boom.
I believe that his Fi ideals are about the integrity of the old America, the way he envisions it – and he sacrificed a lot of money and time, and put up with a lot of hatred and slander – in order to PROTECT it. This fits with what you have posted. However, I don’t see his values as being ‘poorly thought out.’ He may lie about this or that – because to him, the end justifies the means – but he is extremely consistent with his values and definitely knows what they are.
I see. Well at the very least I personally protest to his values as well as his methods. And if what he has is a fully internally consistent set of values/opinions-- then I find his personality quite reprehensible as a whole. I do aspire to expand my acceptance of the human spectrum as far as possible, at the emotional level, but he's a little outside my present range.
That's addressing his values themselves and my opposition to them. But as for the question of his immaturity --I don't think this is really contestable. Let me just source some quotes from firsthand accounts of those in the Oval office who actually say what he's like:
January 2017, http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/01/trump-aides-cant-stop-blabbing-about-how-hes-a-madman.html?gtm=top
The president is a 70-year-old child whose TV time must be closely monitored — because any news story that upsets his ego will trigger a temper tantrum followed by irrational demands that his indulgent, overwhelmed guardians will be helpless to refuse.
Or so Donald Trump’s aides keep confiding to the nearest available reporter.
On Sunday, one of the president’s confidantes told Politico that his staffers have to “control information that may infuriate him,” a task made difficult by the fact that the leader of the free world “gets bored and likes to watch TV.”
That same day, some Trump aides provided the New York Times with a portrait of the president as a moody adolescent.
There are many perks that come with a high-profile post in the Trump administration; job security does not appear to be among them.
Six weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency, one key member of his inner-circle has already been tossed overboard, and a second is facing noisy calls for resignation. Meanwhile, a recent spate of buzzy insider news stories portrays a chaos-gripped White House filled with aides desperately clinging to their jobs while the president spirals into fits of rage over their incompetence. Trump went “ballistic” on senior staffers, says ABC News; the “knives are out” for chief-of-staff Reince Preibus, reports Politico. And just for good measure, here’s some footage of chief strategist Steve Bannon gesticulating angrily during a recent Oval Office meeting.
How to get fired by the president of the United States
Chaos has been an organizing principle of Donald Trump's young presidency. And from what we know of the White House's inner workings, it applies as much to personnel as policy.
While it's not unusual to see turnover inside a new administration, the departure of national security adviser Michael Flynn on Monday night is unique for the when -- only 25 days in -- and why.
I could dig up more but I'll stop there. These accounts from those who work with him, all reveal a strong consensus about his personality. His personality, nevermind his politics. He has a short fuse, he's used to getting his way, he'll throw tantrums and resort to name-calling and play poop-throwing games with others. This is childish behavior. So I don't really see a case for saying Trump isn't immature ---even putting aside his values/methods.
Or maybe I'm missing something?
I understand. I feel it's inappropriate for me to get into a debate about his specific values here - especially when not all of them are amenable to me, nor is his attitude toward women. I didn't even vote for him. I just wanted to show that there's another way of looking at it, and clearly a lot of the country does not see it the way you do. Which is fine.
And I think it makes more sense that you say you don't agree with his values, rather than saying he doesn't know what they are - though I'm not sure if you were referring to him with that statement anyway. It seems clear to me what he stands for (especially since I consider 'actions' to be a statement of values) - but it would take time to make lists of which stances I agree with and which I don't, and why... and it's extraneous to the point. The point being, someone's presentation of values may or may not be amenable to you, and may or may not be clear to you, but that's a personal feeling rather than a fact about him, such as 'he doesn't know what his values are' or 'he's immature.' Compared to what? What is maturity anyway? Do you consider yourself mature? Obama? Peterson? Me? Is there any Republican politician you consider mature? What's the difference between comical and immature? Could a case be made that it's mature of him to endure all this hatred for the sake of his vision? Is it mature that he makes a joke out of the slander he endures, laughs at the political fiasco, entertains the world as if he's still hosting a talk show, since the modern world responds best to entertainment? Etc.
That's a whole discussion, and if there were a thread about it, a lot of people might have a different idea of what constitutes maturity or 'knowing what your values are.' And each person might have their own interpretation of what Trump's inner values are. The most you can state as a fact is that you personally have different values than what you perceive him standing for.
Examples of this can be seen in Trump all over the place. From his fits of rage at his own cabinet members and Oval office comrades, to his inability to cooperate with them and resorting to firing instead, to his more serious inability to cooperate with other ethnic groups, and so forth. And I haven't even mentioned his narcissism.
Just let me give you some quotes:
^ His need to boast about his wealth.
^ More need to boast (thinly veiled.. actually, not even that)
^ Unashamedly sleazy. We all know what "take advantage of" means here, lets not pretend. He means using loopholes for things that benefit the financial wealth of his companies.
And what's his response to it?
He's a self-motivated, narcissistic, opportunistic capitalist who uses lies to get his way and lied his way into the Oval office by leveraging the (albeit real) anger of the American people, and speaking some good rhetoric (that people wanted to hear and that resounded with the grief of the American people) just like Obama, but then ultimately turning around and making a profit for himself.
He said he was gonna change the corruption in politics, but he's the epitome of it and he appointed big (oil) corporation buddies as his cabinet members and essentially worked to grant them their wishes.
Is this comical? Is this supposed to be written off as comedy? Also, what does it say of someone who laughs at these sort of things:
This is just plain meanness. He's a mean-spirited person.
And again, I have not said anything about his policies or values-- just him as a personality.
He resorts to name-calling, put-downs, he's boastful, self-centered, he lies through his teeth, he's got a deprecating view of women (and minorities), he's rageful, short-tempered and the list goes on. I can understand having policy differences, but I wonder why you stand up for his character?
What positive character traits do you see in him? And do they outweigh the faults?
(p.s. - and no, I don't think other republicans are like him. Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney seemed emotionally mature to me, even though I disagree with their politics too.)
@Auburn - I appreciate the elaboration and the thread to explore it more deeply. Thanks for splitting it 🙂
It will take me time to answer this thoughtfully, and I don't want to wing it with a half-assed response. It is actually a rather complex question and one that deserves consideration.
To be clear though, I'm not, per se, defending his character. I said there were other ways to look at things, and that to me, it appears he knows what his values are - but I did not say he's wonderful and great. Notice that in my first post, I mentioned that he lies, which obviously is not something most people would consider "good." In my second post, I said not all of his values are amenable to me, nor is his attitude toward women.
I do believe he's a narcissist - but most presidents are narcissists and, in fact, the modern consensus, if I'm not mistaken - is that 3-5% of people are narcissists. I need to make sure that's true and research more what is behind that idea - but estimations like this have turned up repeatedly in my recent readings on the topic of narcissism.
He brings some good to the table, though, and I appreciate that you made it about his character and not policy, since policy is a huge ordeal to unpack and distracts from the subject at hand. I will come back to this when I'm able, but in the meantime I'm very curious to see other responses. 🙂
To be honest, I know this is really mean but I laughed at some of those quotes. :))) It is a destructive energy, I know it so well. A drive to make fun of the holy. Because at a lower level, at heart level, you lost the holy. So everything can go to hell.
My question is - how come such an immature and awful person was elected President of the United States? There must be some qualities he has. Like maybe knowing how to connect to people, to present his views, good organization and leadership skills etc. I never liked him but he got elected and he has lots of people who support him. These things don't happen by chance.
Immature behavior can be pretty close to showing vulnerability/being honest. Maybe he is not honest, I have no idea, I don't follow US policies at all. But just to me, a person in a foreign country, after reading all these quotes, he seems like someone who is just saying what he is thinking, which seems...honest. And this simply makes him look less dangerous than a politician who would act in a completely diplomatic way, never say anything inappropriate, never show flaws. Which of course could be wrong but people go very much with general impressions without digging very deep.
It's quite amazing this strategy worked so well...or maybe it's not. People just assume all politicians are corrupt - he seems the more blunt/open version of this. And then they think, he just says it like it is. He is "real". :)) At least he doesn't pretend to be what he is not.
Again, I am not trying to defend Trump here :))) I'm just trying to say what I think people can see in him and why he can be likable.
I just don’t trust what the media or what a lot of political operatives have to say about him given that so many of them, including Republicans, used every power they had to prevent him from ascending to power. He poses a threat to many of their Establishment priorities, and so they have reasons to try to prevent him from succeeding.
In the primaries, the Republican party did whatever they legitimately and sometimes illegitimately could to quash his candidacy. There was a concerted collaboration among the mainstream candidates to bring him down as lilliputians against Gulliver. But the fact is that he didn't care what the media or Republican or Democratic operatives has to say about him. He just kept doing what he needed to do to get elected, and that was following his longstanding views on everything from trade to foreign policy to cultural issues at home. He didn't kowtow to anyone, and this threatened the Republican and Democratic establishments, as well as the corporate wings of both parties. He didn't buy into fads about diversity, nor did he buy into their views on continuing to build Pax Americana. This is a threat to International Liberal business and their ability to continue to expand rapaciously across the globe. These are the same people who fund the media and think tanks and support their efforts to criticize Trump. Ignoring the interests of the media and business establishments to bring him down while citing their hit pieces on Trump really is taking one side over the other. You can see this when, even when they report on possible upsides of Trump's presidency, there is usually a tone of chagrin.
Remember, this is the same media that allowed voice after voice to compare an American president to Hitler, even knowing that his demographic are the ones who fought against Hitler and descended from veterans of WWII. This is the same media that said Hillary Clinton was virtually certainly going to win. The NYT had her at over a 90% chance of success. Even Nate Silver, whom liberals still criticized, still had her winning by a lot. This is the same media that said Trump is going to lose bigly against China, when even CNN had to report on his success in the trade war. This is the same media that told the Establishment Line over and over again regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, as well as Saudi Arabia, and now we see the chaos and utter devastation of vast swathes of the Middle East that has unfolded under their wise appraisal. Trump is less warlike than the last four American presidents, and yet commentator after commentator continues to act like he's the most dangerous president ever.
This leaves severe doubt in my mind about the ability of our political and media class accurately to report on Trump in general, including his potential character defects. How can we not take into account the interests of bureaucrats and establishment operatives in taking Trump down when he threatens the agenda of the Establishment, per the will of the American people? How is it possible to ignore these factors and contexts when evaluating what the media and political elite say about him? Time after time, I have heard Progressives level the same criticisms of the media and political operatives when the Establishment criticizes actual leftists. But Progressives can't use the same lens when thinking about how potential media and political biases can infect reporting on Trump? This double-standard beggars belief and cannot hold. It is completely one-sided and can only exist when someone has only believed Trump was evil and all of his critics were full of righteousness. This seems like a real case of psychological splitting on the part of his critics.
We said he was Hitler? Oh, let us ignore what we said yesterday. This is the newest line!
A few things to say.
Imo the campaign team is often the biggest factor that gets U.S. candidates elected; the work that Trump's campaign team was able to streamline so effectively (the points they had Trump hit and the effectiveness of their key linguistics) is no different in that regard, unfortunately those were some brilliant motherfuckers with no sense of ethics, which is quite common in fields like political science and marketing psychology. Trump is certainly an ad-libber and says many unscripted things, but with that being said his campaign team most certainly did not ad-lib the key points of their campaign, though undoubtedly like every campaign it was periodically chaotic and must have often felt off the rails to those on the ground floor. I also suspect that the reason the campaign was so brilliant on its psychological points was due to the immense treasure trove of data that Cambridge Analytica was able to illegally harvest from Facebook, and was likely the primary service that they offered to their clients.
What the candidate brings is really their energy and their composure. They are expected to maintain both on the grueling campaign trail and Obama and Trump both did their jobs very well in this regard. The campaign team largely tells the candidate where and how to direct their energy in order to have the best chance of winning, the candidate is expected to always have that energy ready.
Anyway, when we get into the nuts and bolts of what counts for "Presidential Achievement" in the American Political System you're mostly looking at large, wide-ranging pieces of landmark legislation; as the President's "legacy" to the country after they are out of office. Many presidents never even achieve one such bill. Obama had one (the ACA) and Trump has had one so far (Tax "Reform"). Both are telling psychologically I think, both rely on the magic number of 60 lemmings in the Senate wearing your party's colors. Obama and the Democratic legislators working on the Healthcare (ACA) bill did so in the open and with any Republican who would work with them (only a few Republican Senators initially, but they were eventually brought into the party line by Mitch McConnell). Once the stonewalling was complete by the Republicans and there was no chance of cooperation, the Democrats moved behind closed doors and then the Republicans adopted the narrative: "We didn't have anything to do with it. No bipartisanship, no Republican votes (this part is true in terms of final vote count), this is a Democrats' bill, d'you hear that America!" Standard political fare, I personally find Republicans to be widely more effective and psychologically astute in their use of propaganda (and often for causes I find even more corrupt than their Democratic counterparts). FOX News is imo something of a tour de force of propaganda, especially if one examines where many of our present-day threads in media started, and where FOX News originated (examine Richard Nixon's campaigns).
Trump's Tax "Reform" Bill was always crafted behind closed doors without Democratic support, pushed as a "people's tax bill" that would help the lower class and the middle class. What the bill actually did was give corporations a nice tax cut to put them at 20%, continued to tighten the vice on middle class income the U.S. has been unhealthily relying on for decades, and left things much the same for lower incomes, though likely a net negative given that so many useful deductions were eliminated for individuals. Thankfully the Estate Tax was repealed though, that affects a truly microscopic portion of the wealthiest of the U.S. population, and will ensure that even less money could find its way into the destitute public coffers. Trump never even attempted to behave "Democratically" with the Tax Bill, it was always his bill and he was always going to do it his way (mainly delegate all the real work to staff, make periodic, sometimes very unreasonable demands, and then take credit for his favorite/perceived parts, which is common of bad bosses in general I find).
Now, the Senate relates to Trump's other major achievement, actually one of the most important things any modern president can do: appointing Supreme Court Justices. So, when the Constitution was crafted and judges weren't ever expected to last more than 20 years on the bench, it made perfect sense to do lifetime appointments. The system today can must now be seen: Millions clutching their breath as Ruth Bader Ginsburg clutches her hip in agony and Trump waits for the call that Ginsburg's health has declined to the point she can no longer function as a Supreme Court Justice. Then he will appoint another 40-year old arch-conservative and ensure that the public (which is now more left-leaning than ever before) must remain under the judicial rule of corporate-laced conservatism for decades to come. I find it impossible to believe that this situation could be at all compatible with the Founding Fathers' vision for governance.
Obama appointed two Supreme Court Justices, and his third (Merrick Garland) was blocked by Mitch McConnell; the Democratic leadership was too afraid to "go nuclear" and abolish the filibuster rule that forces the ruling party to have 60 votes in the Senate if the opposition leader filibusters. Then Republicans waited out the presidential election for a year while Merrick Garland just sat there nominated but doing nothing. Trump won and Republicans took control of the White House, House, and Senate and abolished the filibuster anyway so that they could get Neil Gorsuch through and ensure Merrick Garland never took his seat. I certainly understand how the Democrats and Obama have received reputations for being weak; when your opponent is being savage and you are being democratic and conciliatory, from a power perspective the democratic position there is objectively the weak one. That being said, the Republican definition of strength seems to mostly be: do what suits a conservative, elite corporate agenda, justify it to our voter base (that we consistently weaken with policy action, but glue to us through propaganda), then point the finger across the aisle. Again, largely a more effective, corporatized version of the also heavily corporatized Democratic agenda. So, through Mitch McConnell's ploy from 2016 to block Merrick Garland from taking his seat, Trump in three years has now appointed the same number of Supreme Court Justices as Obama in his eight years, and if he is elected again will likely be able to cement an arch-conservative majority on the Supreme Court as RBG's health will most probably not be able to last another four years.
The only feasible starting point and workable solution to the sick state of American Politics is to remove Dark Money from political campaigning.
One more thing that must be said of Trump; for all his talk of being a self-made man (which is certainly part of his appeal to working class voters), he started with one of the best opening hands you could ask for: New York real estate. His father was a known real estate profiteer (also known as defrauding the U.S. government), but somehow always managed to just barely avoid the hangman's axe. Father and son are very much alike.
“It has not been easy for me,” Trump, as a presidential candidate, said at a town hall in New Hampshire in October 2015. “I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars. I came into Manhattan, and I had to pay him back, and I had to pay him back with interest. But I came into Manhattan and I started buying properties, and I did great.”
According to the Times’ reporting, Fred Trump loaned his son at least $140 million in today’s dollars. Most of it was never repaid.
“By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year,”
I just don’t trust what the media or what a lot of political operatives have to say about him given that so many of them, including Republicans, used every power they had to prevent him from ascending to power.
I am not a fan of the mainstream media either but for once I actually don't think this argument works with Trump, because we don't have to do anything but quote his own words. It's almost all first-hand. He writes his own headlines. So this isn't about the media blowing it up.
Where is there room for story-twisting when his own words/tweets could hardly be made more audacious? He's the creator of his own hateful speech, not a victim to others distorting his words.
So if we want to bypass media bias, I'm fully in favor. Why not address what he actually says? He's not shy about it, and what he says is terrible; no need for paraphrasing.
@bera - Yes but honesty is hardly a virtue when you say to someone "I'm going to rob you" and then proceed to do it. Honesty about him being a corrupt politician doesn't change the facts of his corruption. Having peace of mind in knowing that your king is running away with the coins makes you no better off. It should be grounds for his removal, not a cause for praise.
"Oh look, this corrupt politician is actually honest about his misogyny, prejudice and corruption--lets elect that one."
It seems to be the epitome of stupidity, so I have a hard time understanding the appeal. But maybe I can try, since I don't think you guys are bad people. I wonder why does he appeal to you guys?
Because I think he was elected due to collective anger built up with the facade of politics, and as a refreshing unveiling of the bullshit--- or really the false promise of it. I don't see how his election was motivated by positive drives.
And to me it's possible for a collective to manifest/elect a leader that reflects their collective anger --in such a way that is destructive. So I don't immediately think his election is any proof or sign of good virtues that I am not seeing, but can equally be a result of a national political cynicism that's reached a breaking point.
I'm sorry if I sound a little flustered. I really just wish to understand the other side-- because it makes no sense to me from any rational place I examine it.
I don't see what's wrong with most of those quotes. He boasts about being a successful businessman capable of screwing people over. This is what so many of his supporters, including me, believe happens pretty often in business in general. He's just being honest about it. And people appreciated that honesty over the fakery of our politicians. And you know what? He's actually doing something against some of the corporations and businesses that launch us into depraved situations. More than at least the last four presidents in terms of operating against the business and political elite that have taken over our country and vast swathes of the entire world. And for that, and his dogged insistence on following through on the same vision he's been talking about for decades, I am grateful. Because no other politician seemed anywhere near capable of even posing a threat to the Establishment.
I really don't care that he's boastful. Other people keep their mouths shut while taking vast sums of money as a result of their subservience to activist and business donors. He doesn't have to. I try to keep as much money away from the IRS just as Trump does. Don't you? Are you willingly paying more in taxes than you could? Why would you place yourself, your family, and your business at a disadvantage? He's telling us exactly how it is, and his supporters, including me, respect that a hell of a lot more than our mediocre political cowards running the same political script, a deception meant to cover up so many back-room deals and acts of subservience. I would much rather my politicians buy others instead of being bought by others. Lincoln did the same thing, including to Free the Slaves. Didn't you watch that movie about Lincoln at that moment in history?
Yes but what if I told you:
On what grounds would you believe that a known chronic liar who is also unambiguously sleazy, would be on your side and not do these things to you too?
He’s actually doing something against some of the corporations and businesses that launch us into depraved situations.
could you give some examples?
It seems to be the epitome of stupidity, so I have a hard time understanding the appeal. But maybe I can try, since I don’t think you guys are bad people. I wonder why does he appeal to you guys?
I really appreciate this question, and your willingness to listen.
But it also reminded me of the many people (including friends) who accused me of being a 'bad person' and stupid, when I talked about the possibility - and later, the actuality - of losing healthcare due to Obamacare. They called me 'racist,' 'idiot,' 'ignorant,' 'internalized misogynist,' 'republican' etc - I wasn't a republican let alone the other things - I simply preferred Romney's policy proposals.
Although I had endless reasons for this preference, there was one that nobody could tell me was 'fake news,' - which was that Romney advocated for Chronic Lyme patients being allowed to get treatment when nobody else would. Doctors were losing their license as a punishment for treating Lyme patients because insurance companies would sue them, and we were growing in numbers and getting desperate. The leftist media slandered Romney for this and called him a fake. Of course, my friends completely ignored those articles when I posted them, and then hurled accusations at me - how could I dare be so STUPID as to consider voting for a Republican?! These were healthy people who yacked on about privilege - but were ableist toward the person in front of them who directly suffered because of the policies they demanded I should vote for.
I continued posting my thoughts, and people wrote to me - complete strangers - thanking me for my posts. They told me they were afraid to like my posts, to friend me, or to defend me to the masses - because they might lose their own friends, their relationships, their jobs -- but that my posts gave them hope that someone else saw what was going on with the left, and refused to back down. Multiple people called me a hero. For writing facebook posts!!! But I have to admit, standing up to a crowd of people (especially friends) telling me that I'm stupid, bad and racist - because I know it's right to do so - was kind of heroic after all. 😉 Especially considering people quit my band, stopped coming to my shows, and excluded me from artistic freelance efforts that I was depending on to pay rent. Most people aren't willing to endure this kind of hatred for the sake of defending their morals - but I feel that if I give up my integrity willingly, I have no good reason to keep on fighting this illness and survive. The fight is only worth it when I pursue my dreams, stand up for what I believe and defend what is sacred. It's sad that so many people felt they could not utter a peep about their beliefs, lest the liberal horde rip them apart. This was nothing less than a national crisis, an abuse culture.
The idea that people are a 'bad person' if they vote for a Republican - or even if they question a Liberal politician - started long before Trump. Sarah Palin's 15 year old daughter was ousted as a slut by liberal feminists, just because of who her mother was. Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin were photoshopped over nude bodies and called 'slut, bitch, cunt' by the supposedly feminist left- just because they were Republicans. You could say "well they're horrible, here's why" - but they still don't deserve to be subject to sexism, especially by people who claim to be feminist and who blame Republicans for a 'war on women.'
This kind of attitude toward anyone who disagreed is what got Trump elected. I will share something I wrote offhandedly around that time. It was not originally intended to address the topic of Trump's "goodness" - but I really cannot cover that without explaining why I believe he is fighting the good fight, for a cause that really needed to happen. This is essential to any discussion I might have about my assessment of his character, so please bear with me.
The “oppression olympics” mindset is a real threat to our safety and the integrity of our society. It has already eroded our morals, self respect and respect for others, so our moral integrity is going down fast due to the effects of this mindset taking hold over the last century. Yet people take for granted what we DO still have.. freedom to choose our job, sexual freedom, freedom of choice in many areas.. people won’t realize how important these liberties are until they take them away by trying to force everyone into “equality.”
What equality really means is oppressing the strong citizens so they can be brought down to the level of the weak, and the only people with real power are those in government. So it ends up being a divide between the well-to-do government and everyone else.
What we want to improve is OPPORTUNITY, but we cannot fool ourselves into believing this can ever be equal without forcing everyone to be the same at the cost of their personal choices.
The sentiment underlying the current “apologize for your advantages” type of social pressure is that the strong must be made weak so that everyone is equal..except the government, the great Big Brother savior. If you read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” he outlined the path for this type of ideology to become mainstream: by infiltrating the schools, the media, the government. Hillary Clinton trained with him and his influence is all over Obama’s speeches. What is happening now is not some “stupid accident,” but rather, the result of almost a century of radical leftist indoctrination.
In the 1920s, Woodrow Wilson changed a lot of information in our history books to underline how horrible slavery was , our horrible slaughter of the Natives, etc. While these incidents ARE GENUINELY awful, slavery and conquest lies at foundations of every country but the other countries teach their children national pride. Here we have been taught for a century to be ashamed of ourselves. And this is why Lincoln’s prediction – that America cannot be defeated from outside, but that we will destroy ourselves from within – is coming true.
Did anyone ever notice that there are no black heroes in our history books? Looking back at paintings and documentation there were plenty of black war heroes, the first self-made female millionaire in the country was black, and there were black governors early on.. and they used to be in the textbooks. They were taken out so that black people would feel like they were never given a chance and white people would feel like blacks contributed nothing of value to the country (of their own volition anyway), and whites would also feel guilty for looking down on blacks and oppressing them. This would create an us vs. them divide that would become impenetrable.. and that is what we’re seeing today.
And the problem is, people are now feeling they aren’t entitled to the things they earn. Is this true… well, I understand the logic behind it: not everyone had the same opportunity. That’s a very easy sell. Problem is, have the radical leftists (meaning, modern liberals).. thought about the effects of this message that we are seeing right before our eyes? People aren’t willing to work hard anymore, to do the hard labor and discipline that it takes to improve.. because they can get more sympathy and empathy – not to mention government privileges, ranging from health benefits to lower taxes to welfare – by having less, and they don’t feel entitled to improve anyway.. everyone will hate them and they’ll have to give giant chunks of their income to a government that spends it on bullshit like war and governors using our tax money to pay off women who they assault to keep them from complaining.
Motivation has been sucked out of our society, and we are made guilty for feeling entitled to our own earnings. This is the RESULT of the mindset which lead to shaming people for their advantages, earnings and privilege, regardless of the merit underlying the complaint. And people love to complain about what’s wrong, and fix it by shaming other people.. but they don’t stop to think about where this is leading and what good could possibly come of this mindset becoming mainstream. We are seeing the effects, divisiveness, anger, hatred, violence and poverty among the citizens rising up now.. and if that isn’t enough proof that their shaming ploy didn’t work, I don’t know what is. Trump won because people were so sick of being silenced, shamed and belittled for having anything good in their lives or disagreeing with leftist jargon.. people were so relieved to hear “grab her by the pussy” and other such “I don’t give a fuck what you think” attitude, that they voted for this person to be our president. The left wants to believe it’s about racism, and there is definitely a percentage of racists on any side and arguably a higher percentage voting for Trump… but if they actually make people feel like they can be HONEST like I do, they would talk to a lot of people who tell them directly (in secret) that they voted for Trump, but they’re not telling their friends, but the reason is they’re sick of being silenced. It’s not just me either – some major media personalities, including major leftists like Russel Brand, have postulated the same thing and some have even done some research into statistics backing this up.
The left has gotten too complacent since the 60s.. too complacent about their rightness and the “obviousness” behind what they’re saying, without looking at the EFFECTS their mindset has reaped. They need to listen to people respectfully, stop hating and putting down the “other side” and actually WATCH the right wing media they’re cursing at (even though they’ve never actually given it a chance)… they need to wake up.
Now don’t get me wrong.. I’m not claiming that the right, the conservatives or the republicans are “The Answer” either. I had more hope for the left, but at this point it’s a cesspool of ignorance, shaming people for seizing opportunity, creating and honoring divides between people, and applauding weakness. I am not a fan of either “party” or mass mindset, and from the outside, it all looks quite ridiculous.
To be clear, I don’t judge the left for being heartfelt about the have-nots, but I notice that they aren’t thinking about the real living consequences of their “morals” and how they are enacting them and pushing them on society. The problem with unbridled morality is that people aren’t thinking about the consequences of seeing them through. If there were more careful distinctions being made about the society that would REALISTICALLY result from a certain mindset playing out in full, many people would address these problems in a different way than they do now. The problems are real, but they are calling out problems and hates and blames and shames instead of sitting down to think about solutions.
Either that or they are busy thinking about who is right and who is wrong (morally) which isn’t as much the question as who is getting hurt and how do we fix that? And a quick-fix solution, like force-taking money from one guy and force-giving it to another, may put a band-aid on the issue but in the long term the consequences of this turn to loss of motivation as a society , expansion of government, more rules, laws and regulations, and less trust in ourselves to pull ourselves up, and more riots.
We would benefit from stepping back and thinking about what has worked historically; what mindset pans out in a timeless way, among people, to lead to social productivity long-term.
Over time, I will explain more intricately why this is important to me in assessing his character - but one point that is easy to address is the issue of him boasting about his wealth. He was trying to reach the people who shared sentiments like the one in my blog post. Trump wanted to show those people that he was not one of the Obamas, Clintons or Bushes, and he was not going to cowtow to leftist abuse or 'goodthink' - he was going to boast about having his own money if he damn well wanted to. This showed them "I am like you, I earn money, I keep it, I say what I want, no one can silence me, and that's that." The message underneath was: "If you elect me, you won't be silenced and oppressed by the left anymore."
He also showed that he was willing to endure hatred and ridicule in order to "be himself," and considering I had given up so much to retain my own integrity, I could not help but find this relieving - even if I disagree with him on many counts. I was too exhausted to continue taking on this fight all alone. There was no Peterson, no Milo, no Sargon - just me vs. the horde telling me I'm stupid, misinformed and malevolent for thinking the way I do, their candidate and media telling me those who think like me are "deplorables," and terrified people writing me letters in secret. But after Trump got elected, people with points of view similar to mine, finally felt free to speak. At this point this movement has rallied so many followers that right-leaning commentators are being banned from major media outlets, so the silencing of the opposition has become increasinly blatant - which is a good thing. The media is in cahoots with facebook, google, etc - and it is all being exposed for what it is - a liberal ideology pumping machine which won't accept a challenge - because if it must rely on actual facts instead of silencing tactics, it will lose.
The left was operating under the premise that it was socially acceptable to forsake basic empathy toward anyone who disagreed with them - for a very long time. Now that Trump came stomping in like a wild boar, forsaking the elite leftist standards for political correctness in such an extreme way - the rest of us have a little more leeway to utter a peep about our beliefs. In this context, Trump's actions take on a different meaning. He took the abuse that no one else could endure, to set the rest of us free.
Nothing does more to enrich and concentrate more power in the very few than two major issues:
Liberal interventionism, of which Neoconservatism is a certain subset (in clear academic terms), does so much more to allow big corporations and activist organizations to run the world than Trump's vision. Why have international corporations financed so much opposition to him? Why have activist organizations pushed so much opposition to him? These are the most well-connected organizations on the planet, with connections to the UN, the EU, NAFTA, and so forth. Why has our EU and NAFTA partners viewed him as such a threat? Maybe because he threatens international finance and international business from growing and growing until the whole world is their playground. Trump has been the only president for decades even to come close to threatening the massive monolithic growth of these institutions. The American, British, and German media have all gone on tirade after tirade about how threatening Trump is to the international order, especially helping to inspire nationalist-populist ascendance in Europe. Corporations oppose this ascendence. All of these powerful people find him threatening to them. Why aren't you as sure as they are? If we ever agree on anything Trump's critics say, it would have to mean that Trump is threatening their power as well. They say as much. Trump can't be blamed for threatening international institutions and corporations without accepting that he's doing something about them.
Another thing is illegal immigration, and indeed immigration in general. Liberal activist after liberal activist complains about how badly we treat Mexicans and Central Americans when they get here. Sometimes they suffer conditions of indentured servitude. So, by their own logic, illegal immigrants are a servant class for business here. Business after business has access to a population they can control and treat terribly. Sometimes people say Hispanics are harder-workers than Whites, but is this race to see who can work the hardest for the least really what we want for our country? The two other alternatives are either allowing all of them equal rights to American workers, which would continue to place burdens and competition against a native labor force, or enforcing the law, which the Establishment has been resisting for decades. The Republican Party wants to keep the class of servants, while the Democratic Party wants a whole new class of voters. I know Democrats want this because they say it so much when I visit my liberal relatives. Both parties therefore look at these immigrants as a boon to their power bases and want immigration to continue without stopping. Why do corporations donate so much money to causes to keep immigrants here? Why do we want more and more consumers to give them more and more people to target in their crass marketing efforts? Why do corporations celebrate "diversity" so often? Why do corporations want more and more "diversity" instead of a united people able to stand up against them? Progressive commentators are the first to suspect that corporations do what they do to keep their money and weaken resistance towards them. How are corporations not doing that here when they support "diversity" and immigration?
But maybe I can try, since I don’t think you guys are bad people. I wonder why does he appeal to you guys?
Oh, he doesn't appeal to me. I wrote in my post I don't personally like him.
This was just an attempt to see why some people support him. Like...how does this work? Why does it work? Is there something to learn? If so, what? What does he do that made people vote for him? What is it about him that outweighed his flaws?
The focus was not on him as much as on how I or anyone could use this information to improve his/her life. And I was not thinking we should start doing the less nice things Trump does but just trying to extract something that can be useful from this situation. Maybe this is Te trying to see how things work or an attempt to come up with some Ni aphorisms for my collection. Maybe it's Se opportunism. 🙂 Anyway this is my general way of thinking - if I see a situation, I try to extract a lesson from it. Something I can apply in my own life. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure. But it's not Trump support. 🙂
Therefore, objectively speaking, pollution, gas powered cars and something as innocuous as plastic bags (to use one random example) kill thousands of times more American citizens per year than terror attacks.
If the political goal of electees was to protect America, efforts would be directed towards -- turning to a renewable source of energy to stop the pollution of our cities, to electrification and automation of transport, to prevent unnecessary fatalities, and so forth.
What happens: Myopic focus is directed towards a few allegedly hostile international groups and they are provoked, giving us a reason to go to war. But not just any groups; groups that we have some political advantage in attacking --while framing it under the pretense of stopping a deadly global threat ("War On Terror").
Speculation about True Aims:
The sensible conclusion to come to is that the political electees are not really interested in the American people's wellbeing, but are motivated by power and economic directives. Why? Because the behavior of the USA is perfectly in line with such an outcome, and utterly out of line with a strategy that would be in favor of the American people. The wars overseas don't benefit the American people, and they aren't the real threats.
Therefore, the oil industry is invested in lobbying for bills and laws to pass that benefit their continued success, and have close ties with governments due to their immense concentration of wealth. The automotive industry is also closely allied.
Facts on Immigration:
On GDP: https://ir.citi.com/FBbeXUKehK94DM2ktog5Yjj4Eh9MKmlJH34Poe7ZhEFhORbQvjK8I1BVlhg%2BCNS4WRzN1yW9UoM%3D
Our overriding conclusion is that migration is conducive to native and aggregate prosperity, especially over longer time frames. Throughout this report, we explore much of the recent literature on migration and present new estimates of some of the recent growth effects of migration. We find that migration is likely to generate greater prosperity on an aggregate, per capita and per worker basis, though the associated distributional effects of this may be uneven.
On Job Displacement:
Politicians, the media, and the public express concern that immigrants depress wages by competing with native workers, but 30 years of empirical research provide little supporting evidence to this claim. Most studies for industrialized countries have found no effect on wages, on average, and only modest effects on wage differentials between more and less educated immigrant and native workers. Native workers’ wages have been insulated by differences in skills, adjustments in local demand and technology, production expansion, and specialization of native workers as immigration rises.
One wonders to what extent anti-immigration sentiment is driven by a warped understanding of reality. Right off the bat, a new economic research review by Citi and Oxford-Martin points out that Americans think nearly 40 percent of the country are migrants. The reality is 13 percent, a misperception gap also found across advanced economies.
But the lack of understanding probably doesn’t stop there. The study, “Migration and the Economy,” goes to great length in explaining the unappreciated beneficial impact from the global movement of our fellow humans. The headline stat is that without migration, US economic growth would have been roughly 15 percentage points lower than it actually has been. Or to put it another way: “While not quite putting the US in recession, this is enough to cancel out the majority of post crisis gains.”
Immigration is a net positive to the financial growth of a nation. It is a boost to the GDP. Immigrants contribute to the supply/demand of goods, and to the economy. There is no strong evidence for job displacement over a 30 year research period.
Donald Trump was elected not by reason but by appeal to emotion. His platform was based on lies that "felt" right to an American group who, while meaning well, were severely misinformed about the actual state of the world and reality. His platform included things such as:
I could go on but it suffices to say that I believe the American people were swoon over by words that resounded with their felt grievances and what they felt were the "culprits" -- but this was all misdirection.
And instead, Trump's election represents yet another billionaire corporatist lobbying for his friends, as they collaborate to increase the wealth of oil companies -- further harming the planet, continuing to slowdown the transition to renewable energy, hampering the progress towards electrification of vehicles (because that would mean less gas cars and less oil industry), etc.
These corporations started off as a necessary part of the economy, but have now become too big to fail, and are no longer subservient to the population -- but are acting to overwrite the democratic process and run away with the coins. And meanwhile the American people are blaming immigrants and terrorism, because that's a clever diversion and story they've written.
That is what is objectively happening, insofar as I can tell. You can facts check me if you'd like.
This, as far as I can tell, is a bipartisan issue. The temperamental difference between republicans/conservatives and democrats/liberals is a necessary one. But neither party is truly in favor of undermining the democratic process -- and the primary issue should be to fix this runaway corruption. Donald Trump is NOT on board with this solution, despite some lip service, but is perhaps one of the most explicit demonstrations of that very same corruption to date.
Well, technically the comparison between deaths due to terrorism and due to plastic bags is pretty meaningless: it's like deaths due to sharks and deaths due to dogs. Deaths due to dogs are much more but does it make dogs more dangerous/aggressive than sharks? Absolutely nope. So why is that? Simply because we are more often exposed to dogs rather than to sharks. We are more exposed to plastic bags rather than to terrorists (fortunately). About climate change there are still lots of speculations and nobody actually knows whose fault it is and how much the parts play for it (both humans and simple nature). A point of conversation here would be the poisonous pollution due to human industrialization which is an evident thing. Much less evident is the climate change which, as far as my knowledge goes, has for sure some contribution by human hand but, as said before, it has to be seen how much it actually has an effect. Climate change has been a thing since the earth exists and scientists still don't know how this works because many factors come into play (the atmosphere, volcanos' activity and the activity of the Sun), as far as we know, all of this could be a funny coincidence with some weird period of the solar activity. Said this, if you tell me that, while in doubt, we should reduce pollution (even because it is toxic - actually especially because it is toxic), I shake your hands but if you tell me it is an objective fact that climate is screwing up because of us, meh, need to think about it