Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

wayneL said:

Nup, and you wouldn't say that if you understood most of my points.

Click to expand...

Ok, so how are your views on freedom of speech any different to Chomsky's?

wayneL said:

And as much as I may agree with many of his points, Chomsky simply must be recognised as such.

Click to expand...

Why does he need to be recognised as anything? Really, and I've said it before, all I'm telling you is that the left/right distinction is fairly pointless if you are serious on engaging in debate in a serious matter. The dichotomy is nothing more than a silly label to distract the masses and give them a team for which to cheer.

What if Hilary Clinton won ? Lets imagine an alternative world where the candidate with the most votes and the best looks was now Prez (Your allowed to get a couple of double Scotchs or a spliff to help this trip...)

Anyway some bright spark has been constructing a satirical website on the premise that Hilary Clinton is now Prez. Lots of juicy"stories" based on what has happened to date and Hilaries original policy statements.
Just one story as a fun example.

Fox News says accusations of racism are distracting viewers from its primary journalistic mission, protecting sexual predators
Domestic Policy

MANHATTAN -- On Tuesday, Fox News spokeswoman Irina Briganti angrily denounced media organizations for labelling Bill O'Reilly, the network's biggest star, a racist, calling accusations of racism, "a distraction from Fox News' primary journalistic mission: protecting sexual predators."

In an interview with the New York Times, Briganti acknowledged The O'Reilly Factor host contributed to the media firestorm by making a series of flagrantly racist comments about Rep. Maxine Waters last week.

"But O'Reilly can't defined by racism. That's just how he pays the bills. His real passion is sexual predation," she said, pointing to the five Fox News employees who have sued O'Reilly for sexual harassment.

Briganti said Fox News' misogyny "extends far beyond O'Reilly." She insisted that the importance of exploiting, harassing, punishing and sexually assaulting women who work for Fox News, "is a value shared by men at every level of the company, and one that's fiercely defended by every old white man at the very top of the organization." She pointed to Fox News's longtime chairman Roger Ailes, whose unparalleled career of sexual predation "ensured four generations of young women at Fox never had access to the feminist gateway drug: the sensation of physical safety."

Finally, Briganti pointed to the network's unflagging support of failed GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying "he basically confessed to being a serial rapist on TV, and no one here gave a damn. Except for Megyn Kelly. And that's why she had to die."

https://www.hillarybeattrump.org/ho...rnalistic-mission-protecting-sexual-predators

Tisme said:

A Narcissist, a Psychopath and a Machiavellian Walk into a Bar.

The bartender asks, ‘who has the darkest personality out of you three?’ The Narcissist says ‘me’, the Psychopath says, ‘I don’t care’ and the Mach says ‘it’s whoever I want it to be’.

Click to expand...

That's quite a clever put down there McGee. Too bad it's taken out of context seeing how I did define what I meant by a Machiavelli and Machiavellian.

As you certainly know, being a historian and such, Machiavelli get to be that prince of re'al politik because he show the world as it is, not as it ought to be.

Which btw, he's some 1,700 years behind the Chinese Legalist political philosopher Han Fei Tzu. Whose treatises on law, order, politics and statecraft was distilled from his studies of some 500 years of the Spring and Autumn, and the Warring States period after the fall of the Zhou empire.

Han's work was similar to Machiavelli's Discourses on the first ten books of Livy about the rise and fall of the Roman empire, but was done earlier and slightly more superior, if you ask me But that's probably due to the rich histories and incredible strategies the warlords he studied demonstrated. Enabling his contemporary (and conqueror) - Chin Shi Huang Di - to use it to unified and establish Chin'a.

Where was I... never mind.

Ves said:

The stupid thing about your comment is that you actually (not realising it of course) agree with his views on freedom of speech. Also with your views about "Fabian media control" you are also agreeing with his views on how he believes political groups use the media to manufacture consent and for silencing/marginalising contrary viewpoints.

It just goes to show, if you read something (I'll just believe you read it because it's easier) with the purpose of disagreeing it you will actually miss some or a lot of the actual content.

Click to expand...

Now how did you work that out?....The left media in the USA are also riddled with Fabian indoctrinated goons just as the ABC in Australia.

You certainly work on a lot on assumption which in many cases will get you into trouble.

Control the media and you control the naive who swallow the BS.

Ves said:

Ok, so how are your views on freedom of speech any different to Chomsky's?


Why does he need to be recognised as anything? Really, and I've said it before, all I'm telling you is that the left/right distinction is fairly pointless if you are serious on engaging in debate in a serious matter. The dichotomy is nothing more than a silly label to distract the masses and give them a team for which to cheer.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, I might be losing the train of discussion as i check in between jobs. They're probably not different but I never argued that they were.

My point was that Chomsky's logic stems from a particular leftist ideology, the appeal of which does not reside in the reality of the spectrum of human psychology, the sophistry introduced in the argument that it does.

wayneL said:

My point was that Chomsky's logic stems from a particular leftist ideology, the appeal of which does not reside in the reality of the spectrum of human psychology, the sophistry introduced in the argument that it does.

Click to expand...

And by you making this statement with absolutely no reference to his body of work or any of his ideas (not even in general!!!), could one not argue that you yourself are using a kind of sophistry (or empty rhetoric)?

So again what's the difference?

noco said:

Now how did you work that out?....The left media in the USA are also riddled with Fabian indoctrinated goons just as the ABC in Australia.

You certainly work on a lot on assumption which in many cases will get you into trouble.

Control the media and you control the naive who swallow the BS.

Click to expand...

There you go again. Another example of my observation!!

Ves said:

And by you making this statement with absolutely no reference to his body of work or any of his ideas (not even in general!!!), could one not argue that you yourself are using a kind of sophistry (or empty rhetoric)?

So again what's the difference?

Click to expand...

His body of work is well known Ves.

I'm not going to teach people to suck sausages.

Ves said:

There you go again. Another example of my observation!!

Click to expand...

LMAO. What observations?

noco said:

LMAO. What observations?

Click to expand...

That without realising it, you actually share some views with Chomsky.

That's the problem with bandying around terms like "Lefty" "Fabian" "Communist" without due consideration.

Ves said:

That without realising it, you actually share some views with Chomsky.

That's the problem with bandying around terms like "Lefty" "Fabian" "Communist" without due consideration.

Click to expand...

"Lefty" "Fabian" "Communist......They are all the same including the Green/Labor socialist left coalition....They can't live with each other and they cannot live with out each other.

Have a look at the list as who are Fabians right here in Australia including Bill Shorten.

wayneL said:

Forgive me, I might be losing the train of discussion as i check in between jobs. They're probably not different but I never argued that they were.

My point was that Chomsky's logic stems from a particular leftist ideology, the appeal of which does not reside in the reality of the spectrum of human psychology, the sophistry introduced in the argument that it does.

Click to expand...

Come on Sifu.

The man is just an honest scholar. He study history, original/declassified state planning documents, then tell us what was said, what was done.

There's no Left or Right agenda. Just facts, with plenty of reference to original documents for those who want to check and challenge him. And trust me, most of the stuff he said about the US are so ugly and unbelievable that any mistake or dishonesty on his party will be jumped on like white on rice.

He tells us the world as it is. Not giving excuses or glossing over details to side one way or the other.

The only thing "Left" about him, if we can call it Left, is his sense of justice, his respect for civil liberty, human rights and that thing call Democracy. He's in that tradition of people like Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Howard Zinn...

With his level of intellect and knowledge of how the world works, he could very easily work for the US gov't, advising and consulting to it. Much lesser "mind" have done it and they're all filthy rich and mighty powerful. Take a look at Kissinger and the likes of Alan Derschsowitz [?] - a bunch of amoral war criminals and servants to power and privileged.

The fact that no Democrats or Republican ever ask for his service tells you something about him.

"With his level of intellect and knowledge of how the world works, he could very easily work for the US gov't, advising and consulting to it. Much lesser "mind" have done it and they're all filthy rich and mighty powerful. Take a look at Kissinger and the likes of Alan Derschsowitz [?] - a bunch of amoral war criminals and servants to power and privileged.

The fact that no Democrats or Republican ever ask for his service tells you something about him."

That is dangerously perceptive luutzu. He is too clear and too honest to be acceptable to either political party.

basilio said:

"With his level of intellect and knowledge of how the world works, he could very easily work for the US gov't, advising and consulting to it. Much lesser "mind" have done it and they're all filthy rich and mighty powerful. Take a look at Kissinger and the likes of Alan Derschsowitz [?] - a bunch of amoral war criminals and servants to power and privileged.

The fact that no Democrats or Republican ever ask for his service tells you something about him."

That is dangerously perceptive luutzu. He is too clear and too honest to be acceptable to either political party.

Click to expand...

He was lucky he got tenure at MIT else he'd been fired and have all his political critiques completely disappeared long before he got serious into it. What a great lost to humanity that would be.

In one of this Q&A on media and propaganda, he gave a warning to young idealists who want to take on the state and speak truth to power. It's quite an incredible story.

There's this young fellow by the name of Norman Finklestein. A real intellectual. Smart as heck. And he was interested in everything about Israel and its history.

The guy was doing his PhD and came over this book on Jewish history that was widely praised by every "intellectual" and media in the country. The book basically "prove" how there's no such thing as the Palestinian people, how the Jews have always been living in what was historical Palestine.. and proves it with facts, history, archaeology etc. etc. All to justify a greater Israel where the West Bank and Gaza and such are all theirs.

So young Norman went through the book... and actually turn to the references page... then actually go look up each reference.

He went through half the book and found it's a fraud. Wrote a draft of his findings, sent it to all the established intellectuals on the subject he could find, and only one replied to him - Chomsky.

He asked if what he found is right; what should he do. Should he continue with it.

Chomsky said he is right, he should continue with his work because it is important and it will save lives. BUT... but know what he's up against. Know that he's going to be screwed. So it's up to him.

The guy kept at it, bugging everyone, upsetting everyone. Then found out that his PhD supervisor wouldn't speak to him; the university wouldn't even read his thesis so they wouldn't be granting him his doctorate.

They eventually gave in because he won't stop bugging them... So they sign off on his doctorate but didn't bother to read his thesis.

So with that doctorate, a massive intellect and all round honesty... the guy couldn't find any work, anywhere. He ends up moving back home with the folks, work part time as some assistant teaching at a nursing home for the mentally challenged.

But being smart and idealistic, he kept on with his analysis, sending it to all newspaper and publishers etc. until one day "they" call him in.

Made an offer that if he quit this crusade about this one stupid book, they'll offer him tenure, a proper job with good pay.

He told them to screw themselves.

Eventually found a job at some uni that haven't heard about his crusade. Was about to be given tenure when the Israeli lobby, through Alan Dersherwitz [?], speak to the uni and he was pretty much cast aside, no tenure and eventually "quit".

Contrast that to what's her face.

luutzu said:

Come on Sifu.

The man is just an honest scholar. He study history, original/declassified state planning documents, then tell us what was said, what was done.

There's no Left or Right agenda. Just facts, with plenty of reference to original documents for those who want to check and challenge him. And trust me, most of the stuff he said about the US are so ugly and unbelievable that any mistake or dishonesty on his party will be jumped on like white on rice.

He tells us the world as it is. Not giving excuses or glossing over details to side one way or the other.

The only thing "Left" about him, if we can call it Left, is his sense of justice, his respect for civil liberty, human rights and that thing call Democracy. He's in that tradition of people like Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Howard Zinn...

With his level of intellect and knowledge of how the world works, he could very easily work for the US gov't, advising and consulting to it. Much lesser "mind" have done it and they're all filthy rich and mighty powerful. Take a look at Kissinger and the likes of Alan Derschsowitz [?] - a bunch of amoral war criminals and servants to power and privileged.

The fact that no Democrats or Republican ever ask for his service tells you something about him.

Click to expand...

I'm not doubting his honesty or even being critical, Grasshopper. Merely stating his political ideology, social libertrianism, and remarking that one must see his work through that filter.

In fact I think social libertarianism is laudable and would be a lovely system to live in, but that ain't gonna happen. The reason is that there are always totalitarian ideologues, such as we see with the likes of basilio, that will transmogrify true vine socialism (as argued by Chomskey) into a Soviet or Maoist Hell.

wayneL said:

In fact I think social libertarianism is laudable and would be a lovely system to live in, but that ain't gonna happen. The reason is that there are always totalitarian ideologues, such as we see with the likes of basilio, that will transmogrify true vine socialism (as argued by Chomskey) into a Soviet or Maoist Hell.

Click to expand...

Libertarianism whether "Left" or "Right" always has its foundations in a distrust of authority or power. That's my whole point here. I'm sorry if I'm preaching to the choir, but I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread yet. One of the major differences is how the power is distributed or coerced on an economic basis. Socialist systems fall more and more into abolishing private ownership in favour of more co-operative or communal approaches to controlling the means of production. The alternate capitalist approaches are generally laissez-faire and have a very strong focus on private property rights. Both of these fit into anarchist philosophies that eschew central government.

The only reason I mentioned this in the first place is because it appeared Noco didn't understand this. I don't really care if he doesn't want to understand it, but I feel like the whole 'right' vs 'left' thing on this forum is a bit overdone at times.

Ves said:

Libertarianism whether "Left" or "Right" always has its foundations in a distrust of authority or power. That's my whole point here. I'm sorry if I'm preaching to the choir, but I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread yet. One of the major differences is how the power is distributed or coerced on an economic basis. Socialist systems fall more and more into abolishing private ownership in favour of more co-operative or communal approaches to controlling the means of production. The alternate capitalist approaches are generally laissez-faire and have a very strong focus on private property rights. Both of these fit into anarchist philosophies that eschew central government.

The only reason I mentioned this in the first place is because it appeared Noco didn't understand this. I don't really care if he doesn't want to understand it, but I feel like the whole 'right' vs 'left' thing on this forum is a bit overdone at times.

Click to expand...

How wrong you are.....I understand it a lot more than you give me credit.

It is your attitude that no one else is allowed an opinion but you....It is your way or the hyway.....When you don't like my opinion you resort to the socialist trait of name calling and ridicule to silence your opponent so you can dominate the scene.

Time to change your attitude to others on this Forum.

noco said:

Time to change your attitude to others on this Forum.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to change just because you are demanding it.

It sounds like you're trying to silence my dissenting opinion more than I'm trying to silence your own. You can post what you want and how you want, but I'm well within my rights to reply in any way I see fit.

Ves said:

Libertarianism whether "Left" or "Right" always has its foundations in a distrust of authority or power. ..............


The only reason I mentioned this in the first place is because it appeared Noco didn't understand this. I don't really care if he doesn't want to understand it, but I feel like the whole 'right' vs 'left' thing on this forum is a bit overdone at times.

Click to expand...

It's an implicit core that Australians have a distrust and distaste for authority given its roots. i.e goes without saying.

Many of us are wandering around in a disoriented state looking for landmarks so we can chart a course for the home we once new. It's hard to get a clear view because there are so many foreign attitudes and so many misere ouverts gambling our freedoms obscuring the retreat. It's like a minefield of don't hurt people's feelings and puppy pampering.

It takes someone intellectually brilliant like me to understand this, but there is a belligerent few who are too busy looking for an arcane enemy to blame instead of in their own backyard veggie garden.

Tisme said:

It's an implicit core that Australians have a distrust and distaste for authority given its roots. i.e goes without saying.

Click to expand...

It's not really an inherent Australian trait, it's part of the human condition. However different ideologies and cultures do deal with it differently, perhaps that is what you mean.

It's part of the Oedipal dilemma. Civilisation and its Discontents explains it better than I ever will.