Hillary-ous. Yes.
K: after dozens of GOP led investigations into the Clinton
during the last 25 year and finding absolutely nothing…
I would say she isn’t hiding anything because all those
investigations would have found something if there
was something to find…
Kropotkin
[quote=“Is_Yde_opN”]
Hillary-ous
Assange the liberal dislikes Hillary, gets info that is leaked by another dissenter in Hillary’s campaign, publishes it because that’s what he does, gets attacked by the ideological suicide squad of the party for abandoning the rat infested sinking ship.
WAHWAAHHH
PUTIN
TRUMPF
BLACKMAIL
TREASON
Bernie selling out his followers is probably also due to some Putin Trump conspiracy, lol.
K: and how exactly did Bernie sell out his followers?
Kropotkin
In my view, the fundamental problem lies precisely in the relationship between Goldman Sachs, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bushes and the Bilderberg agenda. With respect to economic policy and foreign policy, Wall Street and K Street make a mockery of representative democracy. Money doesn’t talk here, it screams. And it screams bloody hell whenever its interest are threatened.
By folks like, say, Bernie Sanders.
So the crucial question for folks like me, is the extent to which Trump is or is not himself thoroughly integrated into the ruling class here in America. And that revolves around the political machinations inherently embedded in crony capitalism. Is he really intent on dismantling this…
Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings. That is why Hillary Clinton’s message is that things will never change.
…from the Oval Office?
On the other hand, I also recognize that my views are but one more political prejudice rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That, in other words, all of our profoundly problematic and subjective opinions here are basically just existential fabrications/contraptions.
Something that I suspect folks like you and uccisore do not give much thought to.
Unless, of course, you would be willing to explore that with me.
My own frame of mind [here and now] is more or less oriented in the direction of folks like Sanders and OWS. I am not a socialist. I see “state capitalism” as basically the best of all possible worlds. And I see that as a glum commentary on the “human condition”. The least dysfunctional social, political and economic interactions seem to be reflected in moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy, the rule of law and the parts that [among others] Marx speculated about.
But it is what it is. Historically. Organically. Here and now.
It’s just that [again] I recognize my own opinions to be but the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Rather than as a self-righteous authoritarian agenda rooted in one or another rendition of moral and political objectivism.
Those Republicans you’re hearing complaining about Hillary as a warmonger are libertarians that USED to vote DNC.
Yeah, it is hilarious. 
This describes it -
If Bernie people were rational and think long-term then they would realise that electing Hillary is only going to damage the perception of leftist politics in the next four years, while if Trump wins then it may be ‘terrible’ but at least they’d have a good shot in four years for some better politics coming from the left.
Hills running mate is the perfect Imam type.
Hillary wins Inshallah.
K: the speeches theory is just a deflection from the real problem…
What do you think is more important???
[/quote]
I: In my view, the fundamental problem lies precisely in the relationship between Goldman Sachs, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bushes and the Bilderberg agenda. With respect to economic policy and foreign policy, Wall Street and K Street make a mockery of representative democracy. Money doesn’t talk here, it screams. And it screams bloody hell whenever its interest are threatened.
K: I agree and I have railed against money in politics for a long time now…
I: By folks like, say, Bernie Sanders.
K: as I have noted before, I voted for Bernie in my primary.
I: So the crucial question for folks like me, is the extent to which Trump is or is not himself thoroughly integrated into the ruling class here in America. And that revolves around the political machinations inherently embedded in crony capitalism. Is he really intent on dismantling this…
K: Herr Trumpfs only allegiance and only love is himself and money and that is it…
He couldn’t give a shit about our political system unless it affects his money
making operations…
I: On the other hand, I also recognize that my views are but one more political prejudice rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That, in other words, all of our profoundly problematic and subjective opinions here are basically just existential fabrications/contraptions.
Something that I suspect folks like you and uccisore do not give much thought to.
K: I never reveal my full views when posting. I keep things hidden and out of sight
unless I need to bring them into an argument… I save things for later arguments
which quite often don’t occur…
I: Unless, of course, you would be willing to explore that with me.
K: sure, where would you like to go?
I: My own frame of mind [here and now] is more or less oriented in the direction of folks like Sanders and OWS. I am not a socialist. I see “state capitalism” as basically the best of all possible worlds. And I see that as a glum commentary on the “human condition”. The least dysfunctional social, political and economic interactions seem to be reflected in moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy, the rule of law and the parts that [among others] Marx speculated about.
But it is what it is. Historically. Organically. Here and now.
K: Despite contrary opinions, my views are quite mainstream and well within the pale…
as I stated I voted for Bernie…I am rather less enamored with capitalism than you
appear to be…my views stem from certain basic principles
One: I believe in majority rules. 50% plus one should dictate our laws and
not only politically but economically…a dictatorship is a dictatorship be
it politically or economically. I believe we might be, might be, in a political
democracy where the majority rules, but economically we are being held
prisoner no less than if we are being ruled by kings or tyrants or dictators.
The wealthy have the same power as if they were dictators of a banana republic,
absolute and complete. To be a free and complete society, we must end this
economic dictatorship over us…
- I believe that we fall into the trap that a system once set in place, must
stay in place as it was when it was set in place… all ideologies must change,
adapt, and move as situations dictate. Capitalism works in certain conditions and
then it doesn’t work and we must adapt… it did work and now it doesn’t and we must
adapt and change to the new conditions. I believe in changing our society and our
laws and our basic systems to adapt to new conditions and we haven’t changed,
and we haven’t adapted to the new current conditions. I live in California and
earthquakes are a problem… what causes an earthquake? the land slides
along each other and no problem, it is when the land becomes stuck in place
while trying to move. The earthquake is when the land suddenly becomes unstuck
and moves suddenly and at a distance. This illustrates what happens in society,
when it can flow and slide, it works and nothing, but when it becomes stuck and in
place when the pressure becomes greater and greater for it to flow. the earthquake is
the French revolution and the Russian revolution and the Arab spring and every time
you have a “sudden” revolution or something like that… It becomes stuck and in place.
the “it” is society and the law and the political systems and the economics.
we are now stuck and in place and the forces trying to move it are growing,
thus we have Bernie and Herr Trumpf trying to move the system…They failed
and the system is now under even greater pressure… The earthquake is coming,
because the system, the ideology failed to move, to adapt, to change to the changing
conditions…How the earthquake will strike, I have no idea, but it is acoming.
that much I can say…
I: It’s just that [again] I recognize my own opinions to be but the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Rather than as a self-righteous authoritarian agenda rooted in one or another rendition of moral and political objectivism.
[/quote]
K: so feel free to express how dasein, being, and conflicting good, and political economy
and I must add, conflicting values, work together?
Kropotkin
K: As for whither Hillary is “Left” or moderate, (and I believe her to be very moderate.
perhaps a shade or two left of Obama, but frankly, Obama is a black republican and
not a liberal)
the Bernie people are not acting much better than a 2 year old with their
temper tantrums… Get over it and move on… they are like someone who
is walking away from 50,000 dollars because they didn’t win the 100,000 dollars.
a half a win is still a win. take it and move on…as for the future of Bernie
types, can’t say. I shall support Hillary and vote for her even though I am a bern kinda
guy…You must accept present realities before you can change future realities…
Kropotkin
That’s not how all of them see it.
They were participating in the Primaries with the understanding that they would get a fair fight.
The cynics among them will take the ‘50.000$’, or the -20.000$ over the perceived -6 Million of a D.J. Trump, depending on how they see it.
No one has ever done more to destroy the credibility of ‘alternative politics’ than Bernie Sanders.
May Allah reward his audacious scheming!
Assange is not a liberal, but regardless, he is sabotaging Hillary’s campaign for 2 reasons: First, because the Obama administration with which she is associated wants to arrest him for treason (not surprising given that he is literally a traitor). Second, because for all his naive, misguided (and often downright stupid) idealism and rhetoric, nothing he has done so far has really changed anything in the US or the rest of the world. i think he really expected that his leaks might foment some kind of revolution and is probably disappointed at the largely tepid reaction to them. i imagine swaying the outcome of a presidential election would be extremely gratifying for him, and allow him some revenge against those people who have the gall to wish to hold him accountable for his crimes.
Of course he is a liberal.
Look at his face, looks unhealthy.
It just so happened that he was anarchoing at the wrong time in the wrong place from a modern American Left establishment perspective.
I think keeping up facades is all that is left for the Democrats.
Here is a good lesson for the cucky Republicans - Never apologise!
In feminised times, feigned righteous indignation works best. - If you want to take the ef-feminiate route.
There are no real “conservatives” and no real “liberals” - there are only liars.
Or this one (posted by Only Humean):
Apparently Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine didn’t get the message.
This may be true. But on the campaign trail the point that he and Sanders made regarding Clinton and crony capitalism seems to be right on the mark. And, with respect to economic policy, trade policy and foreign policy, she clearly does embody the Bilderberg/CFR agenda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_o … _Relations
Does Trump?
Okay, but how is this related to the point I make? You either embrace the liberal agenda in the manner in which uccisore embraces the conservative agenda – as an objectivist – or you don’t.
In this direction of course:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
Sure, folks mock me here for plopping this down time and again throughout my posts. But it reflects the fundamental orientation of my thinking relating to that crucial relationship between identity and value judgments as they evolve for each of us over the years.
In other words, it is an exploration into the organic relationship between the moral values that we champion here and now and the extent to which they are basically fabrications/contraptions rooted existentially in our own personal experiences and ever subject to reconfiguration in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.
To the extent that one understands this is the extent to which they reject all dogmatic, authoritarian, ideological, idealistic, objectivist etc., political agendas.
Peter Kropotkin"] K: the speeches theory is just a deflection from the real problem…
What do you think is more important???
[/quote]
I: In my view, the fundamental problem lies precisely in the relationship between Goldman Sachs, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bushes and the Bilderberg agenda. With respect to economic policy and foreign policy, Wall Street and K Street make a mockery of representative democracy. Money doesn’t talk here, it screams. And it screams bloody hell whenever its interest are threatened.
[/quote]
Apparently Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine didn’t get the message.
K: the fact they are against Citizen united say they did get the message.
I: So the crucial question for folks like me, is the extent to which Trump is or is not himself thoroughly integrated into the ruling class here in America. And that revolves around the political machinations inherently embedded in crony capitalism. Is he really intent on dismantling this…
[/quote]
K: Herr Trumpfs only allegiance and only love is himself and money and that is it…
He couldn’t give a shit about our political system unless it affects his money
making operations…
I:This may be true. But on the campaign trail the point that he and Sanders made regarding Clinton and crony capitalism seems to be right on the mark. And, with respect to economic policy, trade policy and foreign policy, she clearly does embody the Bilderberg/CFR agenda.
Does Trump?
K: who knows with Trumpf? Herr Trumpf seems to be a remarkable stupid human being…
I: On the other hand, I also recognize that my views are but one more political prejudice rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That, in other words, all of our profoundly problematic and subjective opinions here are basically just existential fabrications/contraptions.
Something that I suspect folks like you and uccisore do not give much thought to.
[/quote]
K: I never reveal my full views when posting. I keep things hidden and out of sight unless I need to bring them into an argument… I save things for later arguments
which quite often don’t occur…
I: Okay, but how is this related to the point I make? You either embrace the liberal agenda in the manner in which uccisore embraces the conservative agenda – as an objectivist – or you don’t.
K: as I have changed my political and philosophical stance multiple times over
the last 40 years, I have embraced the liberal agenda as you put it, because it
helps the greatest number of people and I am always for the majority…
I cannot tell you if Ucci has ever changed anything, my guess and it is only a guess
ucci is locked into the same thought pattern now as he was in grade school. conservatives
rarely change unless it is by cause by some event…
[b][i]1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
K: my family at first had wealth and was very liberal. Not church going at all…
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
K: I am handicap so unable to be drafted or to enlist. I came upon my evolution
because of my reading and thinking.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
K: after raygun’s election, I was radicalized and became an anarchist for a decade.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
K: Personal events help shape us, but I place the past where it belongs, in the past.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
K: one of my favorite books of all time.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.[/i][/b]
K: I don’t believe that Marxism/feminism is objectivist anyway. It is subjective
pretending to be objective.
I: Sure, folks mock me here for plopping this down time and again throughout my posts. But it reflects the fundamental orientation of my thinking relating to that crucial relationship between identity and value judgments as they evolve for each of us over the years.
In other words, it is an exploration into the organic relationship between the moral values that we champion here and now and the extent to which they are basically fabrications/contraptions rooted existentially in our own personal experiences and ever subject to reconfiguration in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.
K: a whole lot of fancy words there. I like to keep my statements
to 50 cents words, not $5 words. Ok, let us start with “moral values”
what are these and why are they important?
Kropotkin
Come on, K., on the campaign trail [u][b]every[/u][/b] Democratic candidate is opposed to it!!
But here…
opensecrets.org/politicians/ … =N00000019
opensecrets.org/politicians/ … =N00033177
…the tale is told.
In other words, follow the fucking money.
Again, this may well be true. But he says the right things – things in sync with my own political prejudices – about politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:
Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings. That is why Hillary Clinton’s message is that things will never change.
How is this not basically true? I’m far more intrigued [here and now] by the extent to which Trump 1] actually believes this and 2] if elected will actually make the attempt to change it.
Just came upon this at Slate: slate.com/articles/news_and_ … henry.html
From my frame of mind it tells me everything I need to know about Hillary Clinton’s economic and foreign policy agenda.
Well, Dubya Bush was not much in the smarts department either but he didn’t go around exposing the machinations built right into the manner in which crony capitalism sustains itself of late in the White House and on Capital Hill. It is clearly a bipartisan agenda on Wall Street and on K Street.
And while this may well be the “best of all possible worlds”, I’m always interested in those politicians – Sanders, Trump – willing to actually call it what it is. But not just on the campaign trail.
But: The distinction that I make here is between noting this as a political prejudice rooted subjectively in the life that you have lived or suggesting instead that this frame of mind reflects the most rational manner in which to assess these things.
From my perspective, a political objectivist is someone who has managed to convince himself that his own value judgments do in fact reflect – philosophically, idealistically, ideologically – the most rational frame of mind. Or even the only rational frame of mind.
And uccisore certainly strikes me as one of those.
What’s crucial is that, while acknowledging that someone’s “lived life” can have a profound impact on the values they come to embrace, it is still possible [in a Kantian sense] to “reason” toward that which is said to be the moral obligation of all rational men and women.
In other words, while you seem to have been raised in a very liberal household, I was raised in a very conservative one. And this crucial “existential factor” was clearly an important part of our emerging political views as young men.
But: Is there then a way for the political philosopher, after taking these existential factors into account, to construct an argument that reflects – objectively – the optimal frame of mind? To concoct a set of political ideals that transcend dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Maybe. And the objectivists certainly believe that these “truths” can be defined and deduced into existence.
But I don’t.
Thus the manner in which you encompassed the evolution of your own thinking over the years [above] is in some respects similar to mine and in other respects different. But my point always revolves around the clearly subjective/subjunctive confluence of events and values.
And then I note that, given just how different and diverse our individual lives can be, how – for all practical purposes – would the philosopher and the ethicist take that into account when faced with sets of circumstances in which values do come into conflict?
How would it [or could it] be determined whether the liberal or the conservative agenda reflects the optimal resolution?
I don’t think it can be determined. Nor philosophically. Or scientifically. Instead, the best we can hope for is a willingness on the part of all the players to embrace one or another rendition of moderation, negotiation and compromise.
Perhaps, but over and again I am willing to situate those words “out in the world” of actual human interaction. And, over the years, I have illustrated the text with any number of examples – particular contexts – such that others might more clearly understand what I mean by dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And, in turn, how they become entangled in our indoctrination as children — and then intertwined in our actual experiences and relationships as adults.
In my view, all that moral values really are is the embodiment of a simple biological fact: that we come into the world bursting at the seams with wants and needs.
And, culturally, historically and experientially, these wants and needs take the form of any number of means and ends. And these means and ends then come into conflict over and over and over again. And, thus, “for all practical purposes”, every human community is obligated to come up with a set of rules that both prescribe and proscribe certain behaviors.
And this either comes to revolve around 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] democracy and the rule of law.
It is said that Adolf Hitler once also said "Guten Abend“ („good evening“), so now every "Abend“ („evening“) has to be "evil“.