Trump's Tantrum

MoonFlier said:
This has nothing to do with party as I'm neither straight blue nor red in my support...

I'm still having a hard time understanding how half the country would think electing/re-electing a narcissist sociopath to office was a good idea. I can see a few people being fooled, but nearly half the country?
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
MoonFlier said:
I'm still having a hard time understanding how half the country would think electing/re-electing a narcissist sociopath to office was a good idea. I can see a few people being fooled, but nearly half the country?
Click to expand...

Misty said:
Agreed
Click to expand...
From a distance, this looks like it's at the heart of the problems in America - as long as people who oppose each other politically don't understand the motives and objectives of the opposing side, there can only be further division and and a block on the possibility of reconciliation. The tragedy of human history is that, in the extreme, this can only end in violence and the imposition by force of one faction's viewpoint over the others. It's vital to understand why people voted for Trump and still came out to support him in large numbers - if Trump is taken out of the equation those needs will still be there and they need to find a legitimate and rational way to be expressed and satisfied in some form of political compromise that is the hallmark of civilised society. It's a two sided coin of course, not a one way street and the understanding and compromises need to come from both sides.

The imperative has never been greater because the rivals to democracy as a way to run a state have never posed such a successful challenge to it as they do today. If things continue to go wrong, then in a few decades China will replace America as the role model for a successful political system - unlike the USSR they have made the transition to a materially successful economy and are now gaining plenty of international influence and respect in the way America has done traditionally, through the power of its economic beneficence.
 
John K said:
From a distance, this looks like it's at the heart of the problems in America - as long as people who oppose each other politically don't understand the motives and objectives of the opposing side, there can only be further division and and a block on the possibility of reconciliation. The tragedy of human history is that, in the extreme, this can only end in violence and the imposition by force of one faction's viewpoint over the others. It's vital to understand why people voted for Trump and still came out to support him in large numbers - if Trump is taken out of the equation those needs will still be there and they need to find a legitimate and rational way to be expressed and satisfied in some form of political compromise that is the hallmark of civilised society. It's a two sided coin of course, not a one way street and the understanding and compromises need to come from both sides.

The imperative has never been greater because the rivals to democracy as a way to run a state have never posed such a successful challenge to it as they do today. If things continue to go wrong, then in a few decades China will replace America as the role model for a successful political system - unlike the USSR they have made the transition to a materially successful economy and are now gaining plenty of international influence and respect in the way America has done traditionally, through the power of its economic beneficence.
Click to expand...
I think the biggest problem lies in the notion that @acd mentioned earlier, which is in the lack of compromise. But therein lies the actual problem. On major hot button issues, those of the heart & morality there often can be no compromise because one side feels abortion ( in example ) is murder whilst the other side not. You can't really compromise on such yes or no issues of literal life and death importance. More issues hit the same wall, even if not over life and death.. they have life and death importance to the people behind them. And more often than not there isn't an option that satisfies both parties.

Cast a radical sociopathic narcissist as world leader and let him rev up one side that "at last" their beliefs are going to be heard... and voila..
we have the Capital riots and dissension in the ranks.
 
I think the biggest problem lies in the notion that @acd mentioned earlier, which is in the lack of compromise. But therein lies the actual problem. On major hot button issues, those of the heart & morality there often can be no compromise because one side feels abortion ( in example ) is murder whilst the other side not. You can't really compromise on such yes or no issues of literal life and death importance. More issues hit the same wall, even if not over life and death.. they have life and death importance to the people behind them. And more often than not there isn't an option that satisfies both parties.

Cast a radical sociopathic narcissist as world leader and let him rev up one side that "at last" their beliefs are going to be heard... and voila..
we have the Capital riots and dissension in the ranks.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly
 
Misty said:
I think the biggest problem lies in the notion that @acd mentioned earlier, which is in the lack of compromise. But therein lies the actual problem. On major hot button issues, those of the heart & morality there often can be no compromise because one side feels abortion ( in example ) is murder whilst the other side not. You can't really compromise on such yes or no issues of literal life and death importance. More issues hit the same wall, even if not over life and death.. they have life and death importance to the people behind them. And more often than not there isn't an option that satisfies both parties.

Cast a radical sociopathic narcissist as world leader and let him rev up one side that "at last" their beliefs are going to be heard... and voila..
we have the Capital riots and dissension in the ranks.
Click to expand...
I know that compromise sounds initially like an attempt to square the circle. I don't think it means abandoning, or diluting the values that each side holds dear, but tolerating them side by side, accepting the sincerity of the other side's convictions, finding peaceful ways of championing and pursuing them - and giving each side the space to follow their own values as far as is possible peacefully.

The alternative leads all too easily to the sort of horror that we had in Northern Ireland, which blighted the lives of people for a generation and spilled over into the wider UK and beyond - the atrocities and violence that destroyed local democracy, killed thousands and ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands. It was only when the opposing sides decided to find a compromise political framework and tolerate each other that a stable peace was established. A key part of this was that they stopped seeing each other as the devil incarnate and decided to work together to run their community. It's not perfect because the conflicting values run deep, but it's a million light years better than before. This wasn't at the cost of either side abandoning their dearly held convictions - though they have been less vehemently held as the years go by and as younger generations take over from the old - but they do have to accept that the other side has the right to follow their own star unless it destroys the peace again.

I guess there are examples of other political systems in the world that solve the problem in different ways. For example, there are theocracies, and near theocracies, particularly in the Moslem world, that pretty well dictate the values that people are expected to commit to. The states like China and North Korea are very similar but are rooted in (pseudo?) communist-related values rather than religious ones. These all use force to make people conform, and the consequences of dissent on the fundamental issues are pretty unpleasant. This is certainly a way to resolve the issue for the lucky faction that holds absolute control, but personally I think it's better to find a way for groups with differing values to live together in a tolerant, free democracy. I think it's the least ethically indefensible of the alternatives.

Like you, I find this is a hard thing to handle in a way, being brought up from childhood as a Roman Catholic - from pre-Vatican II days as well, when the Church was far more dogmatic, indoctrination-al and introspective than it is now. I think a good way forward for anyone with these sort of values is to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'. This works both ways too, and I'd hope for the same tolerance from people who believe that Christianity brings great evil, not good.

Mind you we could always try and bring the known world under a Roman dictatorship again ;) :D
 
John K said:
I know that compromise sounds initially like an attempt to square the circle. I don't think it means abandoning, or diluting the values that each side holds dear, but tolerating them side by side, accepting the sincerity of the other side's convictions, finding peaceful ways of championing and pursuing them - and giving each side the space to follow their own values as far as is possible peacefully.

The alternative leads all too easily to the sort of horror that we had in Northern Ireland, which blighted the lives of people for a generation and spilled over into the wider UK and beyond - the atrocities and violence that destroyed local democracy, killed thousands and ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands. It was only when the opposing sides decided to find a compromise political framework and tolerate each other that a stable peace was established. A key part of this was that they stopped seeing each other as the devil incarnate and decided to work together to run their community. It's not perfect because the conflicting values run deep, but it's a million light years better than before. This wasn't at the cost of either side abandoning their dearly held convictions - though they have been less vehemently held as the years go by and as younger generations take over from the old - but they do have to accept that the other side has the right to follow their own star unless it destroys the peace again.

I guess there are examples of other political systems in the world that solve the problem in different ways. For example, there are theocracies, and near theocracies, particularly in the Moslem world, that pretty well dictate the values that people are expected to commit to. The states like China and North Korea are very similar but are rooted in (pseudo?) communist-related values rather than religious ones. These all use force to make people conform, and the consequences of dissent on the fundamental issues are pretty unpleasant. This is certainly a way to resolve the issue for the lucky faction that holds absolute control, but personally I think it's better to find a way for groups with differing values to live together in a tolerant, free democracy. I think it's the least ethically indefensible of the alternatives.

Like you, I find this is a hard thing to handle in a way, being brought up from childhood as a Roman Catholic - from pre-Vatican II days as well, when the Church was far more dogmatic, indoctrination-al and introspective than it is now. I think a good way forward for anyone with these sort of values is to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'. This works both ways too, and I'd hope for the same tolerance from people who believe that Christianity brings great evil, not good.

Mind you we could always try and bring the known world under a Roman dictatorship again ;) :D
Click to expand...
Lol! Oh don't worry, I only know one devil.. ;) But jokes aside, I get what you mean.. I do. It just feels like in the literal sense it won't work on kill or no kill issues.. unless we just meet in the middle and maim the babies. O.O
 
John K said:
From a distance, this looks like it's at the heart of the problems in America - as long as people who oppose each other politically don't understand the motives and objectives of the opposing side
Click to expand...
The current purge of Trump and his supporters off Twitter YouTube and Facebook should help immensely to heighten that cognitive divide. I spend most of my time now in political conversations having to clarify and re-clarify my positions because people hallucinate my opinions as being something else.
 
@Reason
Would you agree that Republicans need to fix their party then? Where does it go from here? Because it seems the party wrecked itself over Trump for this. Or is the future Trumpist? And I do think the US needs a viable Republican party. Conservatism has a place in the US clearly. There should be debate and compromise among the parties. There must be compromise.

Trump is fomenting an insurrection and has been for months if not years. Everything that happened at the capitol is what his critics said would happen. But we were all the crazy ones. And I can understand feeling a patriotic duty to "save" your country. But Mitt Romney said it best when he said if you want to show respect to voters who doubt the results of the election then tell them the truth. Because the truth is that Trump lost fairly. And political clout isn't worth undermining American democracy. The party is at a cross roads. Do Republicans disavow Trump and Trumpism and get back to their conservative roots or do they continue with demagoguery? Personally I'd like to see the Trumpism tossed out of the party and sane Republicans return. But the base might be too big for that. It just makes you question, was Trump worth it? I think Lindsay Graham was correct in 2016 when he said "If we nominate Trump we will get destroyed and we will deserve it.". I really hope there is a national lesson learned in this and that both parties will remain vigilant for the next opportunist like Trump. I don't think he will be the last.
 
Last edited:
acd said:
Would you agree that Republicans need to fix their party then? Because the majority wrecked themselves over Trump for this. Or is the future Trumpist?
Click to expand...
The majority? A few Republicans in congress tried to contest the election and the majority voted with the democrats. Unless you mean the majority of Republican voters in which case i'd need a little more clarity as to exactly what you're asking.

As for is the future Trumpist? Probably not. Unless the internet is ruined by regulations meant to fight "conspiracy theories" it will likely be populistic though. Either from the left or right. Possibly one then the other.
acd said:
And I do think the US needs a viable Republican party. Conservatism has a place in the US clearly. There should be debate and compromise among the parties. Trump is fomenting an insurrection and has been for months if not years. Everything that happened at the capitol is what his critics said would happen. But we were all the crazy ones. And I can understand feeling a patriotic duty to "save" your country. But Mitt Romney said it best when he said if you want to show respect to voters who doubt the results of the election then tell them the truth. Because the truth is that Trump lost fairly. And political clout isn't worth undermining American democracy.
Click to expand...
Is questioning election results inherently insurrectionist in your opinion?
 
Reason said:
The majority? A few Republicans in congress tried to contest the election and the majority voted with the democrats.
Unless you mean the majority of Republican voters in which case i'd need a little more clarity as to exactly what you're asking.
Click to expand...
147 Republicans voted to object. And I guess I'm also thinking of the voters who rallied for them to object. I'm saying that objecting wasn't a fringe idea among Republicans.

Reason said:
As for is the future Trumpist? Probably not. Unless the internet is ruined by regulations meant to fight "conspiracy theories" it will likely be populistic though. Either from the left or right. Possibly one then the other.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what I think about this. I see how toxic these conspiracy theories are. But I know that could be a slippery slope.

And I also think it's just that what is now passing as "conservative" is far right extremism and conspiracies that espouse violent ideology that violates TOS. Private companies aren't required by the first amendment to give people space to plan the second civil war on their platform.

Reason said:
Is questioning election results inherently insurrectionist in your opinion?
Click to expand...
It's not. Trump or anyone in office can legally contest or ask for recounts. But after 60 plus cases tossed out for not having merit, including at the supreme court, multiple recounts AND Trump continuing to refuse to concede, but calling and asking for the SoS of GA to look for enough votes to put him over the edge-- he took it too far. Right up until the riot at the capitol he blamed Mike Pence for not overturning the results. And members of congress knew it wasn't a constitutional option.

He told people to fight to save America and it's all based on a self serving conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
We can't get around the fact that humans in general are selfish. All of us are, some more than others.
Trying to put only good people with only the best hearts for all of mankind in positions of power is nearly impossible. Even then those people can, and probably will, be corrupted somewhere along the line to sign something, push some company's agenda or just take a "thank you" gift that they never should have.

The only way around humanity is AI and then you have the programmers, hackers and it's own internal learning system to deal with. We'd be screwed the moment it becomes self aware.
 
MoonFlier said:
We can't get around the fact that humans in general are selfish. All of us are, some more than others.
Trying to put only good people with only the best hearts for all of mankind in positions of power is nearly impossible. Even then those people can, and probably will, be corrupted somewhere along the line to sign something, push some company's agenda or just take a "thank you" gift that they never should have.

The only way around humanity is AI and then you have the programmers, hackers and it's own internal learning system to deal with. We'd be screwed the moment it becomes self aware.
Click to expand...

To be honest AI isn't the way forward but in fact a Pandora's box where at first the positives are easily seen however it won't take long for the negatives to surface and with current society we are already seeing some of that with big tech. As for humanity it has always been like this and it will blow itself to hell again only to crawl back from extinction as it always have done.
 
acd said:
I'm not sure what I think about this. I see how toxic these conspiracy theories are. But I know that could be a slippery slope.

And I also think it's just that what is now passing as "conservative" is far right extremism and conspiracies that espouse violent ideology that violates TOS. Private companies aren't required by the first amendment to give people space to plan the second civil war on their platform.
Click to expand...
How often have you inspected a conservative who has been banned off a platform to see what the specific cause of the banning was for? I've seen people banned over the past four years for things that have nothing to do with violence or anything close to conspiracy theories.
acd said:
147 Republicans voted to object. And I guess I'm also thinking of the voters who rallied for them to object. I'm saying that objecting wasn't a fringe idea among Republicans.
Click to expand...
Yes a lot of people have questions and concerns over the election. I don't think its about keeping Trump in office, it's mainly about the future at this point.
acd said:
It's not. Trump or anyone in office can legally contest. But after 60 plus cases tossed out for not having merit, including at the supreme court, multiple recounts AND Trump continuing to refuse to concede, but calling and asking for the SoS of GA to look for enough votes to put him over the edge-- he took it too far. Right up until the riot at the capitol he blamed Mike Pence for not overturning the results. And members of congress knew it wasn't a constitutional option.

He told people to fight to save America and it's all based on a self serving conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
What changes were made to the electoral system over the last four years that made voter fraud go from being possible to being impossible?
 
MoonFlier said:
What can we do to fix it?
Click to expand...
Personally I feel breaking the larger companies into pieces might suffice. I've never been fond of their influence though and that's a sure bias on my part.


Reason said:
What changes were made to the electoral system over the last four years that made voter fraud go from being possible to being impossible?
Click to expand...
Couldn't we ask that same question in reverse? What changes happened over the last four years that made voter fraud go from being impossible to "it absolutely happened"? (not to suggest you've settled on such, only that that's the atmosphere).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top