Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I said I thought it was an unusual, but smart pick for him.
I also said I wouldn't take the assertion of lacking intelligence as a rule. In my view, the mark of a genius is an applicable expression of intelligence not "book smarts" although he has graduated from a proper education. That's not to say he's a genius, but Donald Trump being a man who has succeeded at what he aimed in life in an unusual capacity, I wouldn't say he's not smart.
I'm not going to research and defend Donald Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Said what?
"Trump doesn't make smart moves so I call this a plan by someone else that isn't Trump."
I'm sure the potential VP was presented to him by campaign advisers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You literally said that lol. Anyway, its hard for me to say the man doesn't have some form of intelligence.
I'd just say he is unqualified for the job and leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well I thought of that too. Donald Trump is actually the moderate and Mike Pence is practically an ultimatum to partisan opposition. They have very different perspectives and personalities. Saying Donald Trump doesn't make smart moves as a rule is bigoted, something that will close you off to the world. The president also needs to be able to deal with people on a regular basis that are smarter than they are, and decide advice is trustworthy or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Joe Biden is still polling higher than the other candidates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Mike Pence is a smart VP pick for Donald Trump. I can't think of another candidate I could say that for. They seem to offset one another in a way that is oddly complimentary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What is it we are progressing from, problems faced by society?I don't honestly find that to be an important question. It is a name, and names of political movements are often designed to advertise rather than describe. Even so, if we are progressing from something, it is probably the past. Progressivism, as a name, implies a steady movement forward.
So doesn't it just designate movement from a myriad of pressure groups?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I doubt it, but there's different sides to the guy and he's been doing what he does for a long time, so he's been able to get away with things other's couldn't swing. The "Trump was right" effect only worked because people got hung up on the way he says lots of little lies in more informal settings that people didn't take seriously, and made his embellishments obvious. I think its more important that he have a professional side that his adversaries may look over but that honest observers will see. He needs to project work ethic, and that energizer bunny attitude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I've been thinking about starting a poll to gauge a more nuanced representation on some questions than what is commonly available. If I get around to it, I would conduct through private message, and post the sum of the results in the forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
That's easy. Reactionary approaches are not rooted in ideological cores. Progressivism is rooted in an ideological core, and thus not reactionary.
In the United States, progressivism began as a social movement in the 1890s and grew into a political movement in what was known as the Progressive Era. While the term "American progressives" represent a range of diverse political pressure groups (not always united), some American progressives rejected social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism and class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated and believed that government could be a tool for change.[20] American President Theodore Roosevelt of the Republican Party and later the Progressive Party declared that he "always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand".[21] President Woodrow Wilson was also a member of the American progressive movement within the Democratic Party.
-Wikepedia
What is it we are progressing from, problems faced by society? There is still the problem of agreeing to "progress".
A "progressive party" I can get behind.
The Progressive Party was a third party in the United States formed in 1912 by former President Theodore Roosevelt after he lost the presidential nomination of the Republican Party to his former protégé and conservative rival, incumbent President William Howard Taft. The new party was known for taking advanced positions on progressive and populist reforms and attracting leading national reformers. After the party's defeat in the 1912 presidential election, it went into rapid decline in elections until 1918, disappearing by 1920. The Progressive Party was popularly nicknamed the "Bull Moose Party" since Roosevelt often said that he felt "strong as a bull moose" both before and after an assassination attempt on the campaign trail.[1]
-Wikipedia
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I think it should be expressed through a liberal framework, not in place of it.
I'm curious how you differentiate progressivism from a reactionary system of thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I have been telling you that you should give pause to the "reactionary railing against the "elite"" narrative. All of your points have been addressed have they not? I have never delved into the idea that it is thought of in the way that liberalism is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
So, logically, you think populism is relevant to every political ideology to gain traction in the last 150 years. Now you have two people giving you the same basic definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Here, taken from a Webster dictionary
A political philosophy directed to the needs of the common people and advocating a more equitable distribution of wealth and power
No boogeyman
progressivism is inherently imperialisticThat doesn't follow either. Progressivism as it manifests today is reliably anti-imperialist, which disproves any "inherent" link.
So, then its a good analogy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Your sources say what none of mine do. I'm going to stick with my books, and common sense which dictates that I don't apply additional nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
You've been given a definitions that makes sense, and you are now claiming that elaborations on historic consequences are the definition of populism.
To help you relate, an equivalent from my standpoint might be to say that progressivism is inherently imperialistic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
No, there is not necessarily a "boogeyman", which is only necessary for you to hold that populist rhetoric is irrational.
There's nothing wrong with saying the family farmer should be on a board discussing the economics of agriculture. There's no "boogeyman" in that either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Acknowledging what you mean by referring to Donald Trump, yes elites are an aspect of Trump's populism since he proports to believe that elites are a problem that needs solving, but that is not what populism is precisely. I have hard sources in front of me at the moment as well, detached from the current political climate. Its important to note, since redefining concerns for common people and advocacy of means through which aspiration is realized as a reactionary railing against the elites by some vague association is something that should bring one to pause and second guess, for obvious reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Donald Trump is a populist insofar as he is advocating for the working class and necessary means of a functional democratic system. The "elites" are not an aspect of populism. The climate whatever it may be is only associative. This is important to note. Populism is not a reactionary system based on backlash against elites, but a reaction may be populist in nature. Elizabeth Warren also has populist tendencies exhibiting what populism actually is without the association.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Populism is about focusing on the needs of common people.
It's not a political strategy against the elites. That would actually be a reflection of someone's worldview.
One of the problems I have with progressivism as a general form of philosophy is that of people coming to agreement on what constitutes "progress".
Created:
-->
@Castin
Here's a wooden one decorated with brass tacks https://i.pinimg.com/736x/df/9a/ec/df9aecd49e559096076733a78edca099.jpg
Created:
-->
@Castin
They bedazzled their assault rifles. I'll repeat that. They bedazzled their assault rifles.
I say don't make them look like toys, but customizing is one of the things people like about "black rifles"
Jesse James made a monster 1911 for #45
Created:
I figure with enough beer I could lure them into just the right place to play my cards against humanity.
House rules, everyone has witnesses and an alibi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Gatorade
Bernie Sanders is my favorite Candidate. However, I have pretty much ruled him out for the presidential elections. Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard get honorable mentions. Andrew Yang is pretty cool too. I remain undecided on the candidates that have a chance at winning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I deplore Biden's version of all this. I feel like he is just reading polls. Donald Trump may be bad for our political discourse, but Joe Biden is actually worse. I don't know how to put it off the top of my head, but he tries to give too much pomp and power to the presidency. He is just a man and his words only have the power people give them. The nation is never going to come together around the president, and that's a good thing. The people should be united in their own right. We should be prepared to check people assuming power.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
As far as I'm concerned we might have a racist in the white house and many more in congress (not because they are white). So, I'm probably biased, but still not biased enough to say something like that when Donald Trump was explicit in that he was not referring to white nationalists. When someone says something that isn't racist, and someone calls it racist, really we can only infer the racializer is a proponent of institutional racism. I thought he was well spoken in that instance, but he's often insensitive and his rhetoric can actually be quite useful that way in that it draws those people out of the woodwork.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
America did not become a super power until WWII. Prior to that event, the armed forces would disband soon after a conflict.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
That's like Trump saying, “There's blame on both sides . . . very fine people on ... there were “very fine people on both sides”at the Charlottesville rally,
In that statement, Donald Trump is actually trying to curb an us and them mentality, and did so in a way that reflects historical efforts to heal the divide between the North and South. There were in fact, fine people who showed up on "both sides", besides bigots, white nationalists, neo-nazis etc... and it should go without saying that there were also indecent people on "both sides". These people were not mentioned in my local news broadcasting, so I would not have been properly informed had it not been for seeing raw footage. It was apparent that there were strange people who came expecting a fight on both sides, and the news broadcasts I was tuned into were building the story all day in anticipation of a climax between the racist idiots and "counter protesters".
Donald Trump was not saying "people are tribal".
He was
A) Not allowing legitimate protest to be overshadowed (probably informed by Steve Bannon at that time)
B) Delegitimizing hate violence and bigotry in all forms.
C) Telling people to calm the hell down
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
We don't treat Mexican-Americans tracing their lineage to natives like Native Americans because they are brown. Our institutions still treat people who cannot trace their ancestry back more than 100 years because They are black. That's the difference between reparations and racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
California has elected Diane Feinstein for over 20 years. Why don't you take it from her?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Usually I like to avoid the "left-right" paradigm all together if I can help it. Its just not particularly useful in most instances. If you say "right wing" or "left lean" that says basically nothing to me, unless explicitly in a toxic atmosphere with people arbitrarily dividing an other from amongst themselves. I've used "left wing propaganda" to describe the world view of propogandists before I think. I pretty much reserve leftist hesitantly in generalized reference to people with personal problems, spiteful partisan hacks, party and personal problems over country. Normally I would associate "leftist" with state worship or kissing up to authoritarians and another term "right winger" as a pejorative reactionary often connotating paranoia, as they are commonly used in my experience.
Created:
-->
@Alec
This will never happen, but it should be legal with parents. Lower the drinking age to 18, with a cap on the tab. Raise the age to buy off-sale to at least the age of 22.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There's another review up now.
Created:
-->
@Christen
This policy is not going to negatively effect 8Chan in the slightest. I don't think I've ever had a search come up with 4Chan. People are referred to it through social media.
Created:
If you don't like Google, don't use it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I said I can relate to the idea that that given a productive and morally upright society a state that is governed best may come to be governed least. Then, I'm explaining disagreement with "A government that governs least, governs best" as a tenable approach. These sound similar, but you see they are two different things, and the former is indicative of a natural progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not aware of any ideological differences on those matters, more so pertaining to institutional integrity in the United States.Do you hold any ideals that are exclusively Conservative?
Probably shouldn't get in the habit of assigning hard labels in complex topics, but I guess I'm kind of a liberal's liberal.
My political sympathies tend to be populist bleeding heart: looking out for the little guy, enabling the people, Pro-Small business, corporate skeptic, equality of opportunity, staunch respect for human rights, promotion of democracy.
I can relate to one idea, that given a productive and morally upright society a state that is governed best may come to be governed least. Personally, I would be inclined to disagree with a popular appeal that the government is always in the way, as political figures will justify all sorts of cuts as the means to such an end. I don't take such a notion to be exclusive of any particular philosophy, except probably those explicitly predicated on submission to the state, state socialism, fascism, communism etc... On another mark, you mentioned Republicans earlier, but conservatism isn't exclusive to a political party. Republican is not synonymous with conservative. I think people can go a bit far sometimes in rhetoric associating traditionalist tendencies of the South with conservatism and Republicans. The Democratic National Committee is not inherently exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Some things that come to mind
- He used the radio to speak to the people, perhaps the most successful at manhandling press in American history. He is the father of a more personal connection many Americans feel with the president to this day. He was extremely popular all over the country.
- Worked to undercut a socialism/fascism worldview which was taking root in the United States during the Great Depression
- Dicey character, a strongman willing to commit Treason
- The Reason 2 terms were mandated by law
- Thankfully was there at the beginning, and not at the closing of WWII, when Truman was in power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not aware of any ideological differences on those matters, more so pertaining to institutional integrity in the United States.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Okay, there are actually two things I have down. One, (Post 27) is about whether it was reasonable to draw a firearm, and detain the man, so it doesn't make sense for the police to press charges on the ex-firefighter (civil suit would be different)The other which you appear to be responding to is relevant to whether it was a reasonable reaction to evacuate Walmart, and also reasonable to press charges against the guy who was the source of the commotion.charges don't mean anything, charges are levied then dropped or the defendant is found not guilty. Just because charges were filed doesn't really mean much. False arrest is a real thing.Do you think it's reasonable for police to stop a person legally open carrying? The Supreme court doesn't seem to think so. Again if what he was doing was legal then there was no reason for the fireman to do anything at all.their laws I posted are pretty clear, you can open carry a long gun which he was doing, you seem to say he was doing something illegal or threatening yet you haven't said what that is. Since yet again the law seems to allow what he did that can't be the excuse. If you are advocating reacting to how someone looks, how they dress etc that is legal....well you may want to rethink that.
When you run through all of the circumstances in context and the order that they occurred everything seems like there could be a reasonable explanation in how people reacted. I doubt anyone is going to be convicted of a crime from this incident based on what I've heard and in humble admission that I don't have all of the information. I can't see much reason to be honest in speculating how everything will turn out and implicating the constitution, so its more of a societal thing, assumption of responsibility and a matter of identifying potential safety hazards to me. I can say that the young man was acting foolishly, and I imagine if I were in his position I'd come to consider myself fortunate not to have been handled initially by the Springfield police just informed by dispatch.
I think its reasonable for police to approach someone who is open carrying, which pretty much is a "stop" if you can relate to that sort of thing. I've been profiled and picked out in unusual circumstances, questioned, and I happen to value that service and think they should be in the habit of talking quite a bit with people in their community.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I should probably say, since you are talking about a legal precedent, that I'm just talking about the charges. I have not been referring to any rulings.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
wow that's a dangerous precedent, imagine organize antifa p.o.s.s organizing to do just that and get people killed, again he had nothing in his hands but a shopping cart, a civil suit will be easy.Have you ever been around something like this? Its not necessarily even that he is threatening himself, but when someone is armed like that out of context, anyone would reasonably assume its for a proximate reason, that a foreseeable threat is in their vicinity.the constitution isn't based on feelings in that way, again he seems to be within his rights so whatever you may "feel" is irrelevant, leave the area, stay home.
Okay, there are actually two things I have down. One, (Post 27) is about whether it was reasonable to draw a firearm, and detain the man, so it doesn't make sense for the police to press charges on the ex-firefighter (civil suit would be different)
The other which you appear to be responding to is relevant to whether it was a reasonable reaction to evacuate Walmart, and also reasonable to press charges against the guy who was the source of the commotion.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Have you ever been around something like this? Its not necessarily even that he is threatening himself, but when someone is armed like that out of context, anyone would reasonably assume its for a proximate reason, that a foreseeable threat is in their vicinity.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you can't pull a gun on someone who is not a threat, if he was within his constitutional rights to open carry then yes the firefighter was in the wrong and broke the law, he's not a cop but a wanna be.Missouri became a constitutional carry state in January 2017. No permit is required to openly or conceal carry a firearm but the state still issues permits on a "Shall Issue" basis for reciprocity with other states. There is no requirement to register firearms or obtain a purchase permit and some specially trained school employees are allowed to carry firearms on school grounds. Permits are issued at the local level by county sheriffs to residents only who must be at least 19 years old.Local governments are allowed to regulate open carry and the discharge of firearms (except in self defense); however, CCW permit holders are exempt from ordinances banning open carry.[5Missouri allows open carry without a permit, so long as the firearm is not displayed in an angry or threatening manner.[20] Some localities prohibit open carry; however, concealed carry license holders are exempted from this restriction.[21]Missouri does not prohibit the open carry of any specific weapon, nor do most of the restrictions in RSMo 571.030 apply to the open carry of a firearm or other weapon. It is not a crime under Missouri law to openly carry a weapon into any place where concealed carry is prohibited, except for a church, school bus, school, or onto the grounds of a school function. According to RSMo Section 571.030, there is no age limit to openly carry a handgun, long gun or any deadlifey weapon.[22]so the question is what where the local restrictions if any about open carry?this issue has really gone quiet it seems, probably because they fk'd up or are you reading something I am not?
If the ex-firefighter sees people fleeing in mass from a heavily armed gunman in Kevlar at a shopping center, it doesn't matter if the person they are reacting to is within the bounds of the law. It matters whether you have reasonable fear of life and limb, or reason to believe a felony is in progress.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Employees pulled the fire alarm, and the an ex-firefighter responded to the source of the commotion just outside of the store, according to my source.
As far as a first responder is concerned he was restoring the peace. There's no reason to charge him. Police responded to this mess.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Okay so I read an article. He was wearing two guns, body armor (which he put on in the parking lot), and its implied he had spare mags. Walmart employees (reasonably) pulled a fire alarm and evacuated the store, and someone on site detained him without further escalation. He was turned over to police several minutes later. No injuries reported.
Created:
The Walmart display cases tend to have a couple nice ones like maybe a Henry lever action, and a great American pump shotgun, an accurate but utilitarian bolt action in 22 and hunting caliber, maybe a Savage. Then the rest are something like a Remington-Marlin lever, a few more bolt actions with synthetic stocks, a cheap foreign double barrel, and a couple super affordable break actions, next to the BB guns and mispriced ammo. They usually put knives under the counter. Its just a little cubby for implements at the counter of the outdoor section.
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
Seriously, if someone totes an M-16 into a Walmart, forget the statistics.
You sound like a friggin leftist who happened to read part of their Constitution. Society isn't oppressing you.
Created:
The manager at Walmart, your cousin Dave, and the local police are probably not working for the federal government.
States can regulate the manner in which firearms are carried. In an outdoor environment, openly carrying arms is often more appropriate and doesn't require any licensing. It has a longstanding precedent as a practical manner when people are traveling, and trekking into the wilderness. Historically, it is sawed off long guns and pocket pistols which are problematic and associated with deviants in most places, and not a whole lot has changed. Concealed carry is more appropriate for people who have to be armed more often in most settings and can't simply have something sitting in their truck or what have you. If nothing else, its just plain rude to walk into a business opened to the public and pose a disruption to the norm, obviously... A manager of a chain store is probably going have someone call the police, attempt to mitigate disruption to their loyal customers, then politely ask them to leave.
I haven't read the article, but it seems stupid to be making a public spectacle of yourself with an assault rifle, because they are friggin expensive.
Created: