TRUMPISM EXPLAINED IN TWO WORDS

[Lacewing]

Might our explosive political climate be diffused somewhat if Biden steps aside and Trump goes to prison? Or has too much track already been laid down to send us over a cliff?

[Iwannaplato]

Might our explosive political climate be diffused somewhat if Biden steps aside and Trump goes to prison? Or has too much track already been laid down to send us over a cliff?

Only if some candidate arose who somehow managed to at least make the gap less severe. IOW not Biden 2. Trump 2 would be harder to find, but Bush 2 is not going to do it. (well, Bush 3 - not thinking of a specific Bush brother, but more as a category).

I think the good cop bad cop game has been played about as far as it can go. (one cultural groups good cop is the other group's bad cop).

So, either there is a slight dulling down of the tensions with a more bland middle of the road president OR the system has a breakdown.

I think we have been seeing signs of desperation on the part of those in power for a while.

[promethean75]

"one cultural groups good cop is the other group's bad cop"

With the exception of Danny Glover this may be true. But as Kant said, where there is an exception there ceases to be a rule.

[henry quirk]

And they don't think he's actually a very good guy who will help them and support their interests?

As I say: these voters have voted harder over and over and it got them nowhere. They have no faith in the system except as a waning bulwark against the very folks who are supposed to represent them. They see no alternatives. Trump is sugar in the enemy's gas tank for these voters. They don't care about the man or his fitness for office. He's a Big Middie Finger. And while ORANGE MAN takes heat and riles up the enemy, the enemy is largely leavin' these voters alone.

Why would you do that? You have no values that make the choice to do it better than the choice to not do it? sounds very odd.

As I say elsewhere: becuz (I) choose to demonstrate (to [my] child) the value of honoring obligations that inconvenience. And, I must add, I do so with no guarantee the lesson is takin' root. You may say, I'm doin' what I want to; I say I'm doin' what seems best. Not the same thing at all.

[Lacewing]

I say I'm doin' what seems best.

I think most people are doing what they think seems best. Even people with very polarized or limited views who don't consider broader factors/views. If we cannot agree on what is best, what can we agree on and/or how do we share a country or planet?

[henry quirk]

what can we agree on and/or how do we share a country or planet?

Can we -- we as in everyone -- agree on what seems to me a most minimal thing? Can we each agree the other guy's life, liberty, and property are his and we have no say about it?

It does not seem to me -- even as we all, every last one of us, assert our own exclusive claim to our own individual lives, liberties, and properties -- that we can agree on this.

So, if we can't agree on what seems to me such a basic, minimal thing, there's not a snow ball's chance in Hades we can agree on anything more complex.

It's a War World.

[Lacewing]

what can we agree on and/or how do we share a country or planet?

Can we -- we as in everyone -- agree on what seems to me a most minimal thing? Can we each agree the other guy's life, liberty, and property are his and we have no say about it?

It does not seem to me -- even as we all, every last one of us, assert our own exclusive claim to our own individual lives, liberties, and properties -- that we can agree on this.

Yes, I think because each person might have a different interpretation about what their life, liberty, and property should be allowed to do, which very well may impose or cause something unwanted for another... so the rule is broken. Yes?

[henry quirk]

Yes, I think because each person might have a different interpretation about what their life, liberty, and property should be allowed to do, which very well may impose or cause something unwanted for another... so the rule is broken. Yes?

It doesn't seem so, no. Consider what means it when a person, any person, asserts or believes his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. He's sayin' it's wrong for the other guy to slave him or murder him or rape him or steal from him or defraud him. Even the slaver, the murderer, the rapist, the thief sez this. It's, as I say, the one universal: everyone, no matter where or when, recognizes, understands, his life, liberty, and property are his and no one else's.

What isn't universal is recognizing and respecting the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you have to yours.

It's not different interpretations. It's the flat out refusal to recognize the other guy as a person. It's the commodification of the other guy.

[promethean75]

It does not logically follow that becuz we know our own right to life and liberty we should therefore not commodify the other guy.

And if it does, please show your proofs sir.

[Lacewing]

Yes, I think because each person might have a different interpretation about what their life, liberty, and property should be allowed to do, which very well may impose or cause something unwanted for another... so the rule is broken. Yes?

What isn't universal is recognizing and respecting the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you have to yours.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. I think that's an essential agreement as well.

Just for fun... how do you deal with issues that are not targeting you personally, but affect you, such as...

Some one or group thinking their rights and freedom allow them to...
...toss garbage onto public space in front of your house
...pollute your neighborhood air or water supply with toxic elements
...shoot off a gun all night, keeping you awake
...limit access (for their own religious reasons) to certain supplies or services you want or need

How do we agree with those who have no consideration for anything other than themselves and their religious directives?

[henry quirk]

It does not logically follow that becuz we know our own right to life and liberty we should therefore not commodify the other guy.

And if it does, please show your proofs sir.

It's common sense. If I, a person, am my own, then you, a person, are your own. You have absolute say over your life, liberty, and property; I have absolute say over my life, liberty, and property. Neither of us, without just cause, have a jot of say over the other's life, liberty, or property.

The only other option: neither of us has an exclusive moral claim to our individual lives, liberties, and properties.

Does it seem to you you don't have an exclusive claim -- a natural right -- to your life, your liberty, your property?

[henry quirk]

I think that's an essential agreement as well.

Just for fun... how do you deal with issues that are not targeting you personally, but affect you, such as...

Some one or group thinking their rights and freedom allow them to...
...toss garbage onto public space in front of your house

Well, I have to ask myself: is this mess demonstrably infringing on my life, liberty, or property? If the garbage is McDonald's paper waste, I'd say no, it isn't. I'd ask 'em to not do it. If they continued, I'd clean it up myself, ignore it, or wait for the city to do it. It's unsightly, but not a legit infringement.

But if it were feces -- human or animal -- they were dumping, or caustic chemicals, or some other hazardous material? Those things demonstrably can injure the health of me and mine and my neighbors. I'd have just cause to stop them, either thru law enforcement or personally.

...pollute your neighborhood air or water supply with toxic elements

See above.

...shoot off a gun all night, keeping you awake

The noise is a pain but not a demonstrable violation of my life, liberty, or property. I can ask them to stop, if they refuse, I can proof my house against the noise. The falling bullets are another matter entirely. Each is a threat to someone. I have just cause to stop them.

...limit access (for their own religious reasons) to certain supplies or services you want or need

If those supplies and services belong to them, then who they give access to is their business. If those supplies and services aren't theirs then they're thieves.

Yours are fairly generic problems; my answers too are fairiy generic.

How do we agree with those who have no consideration for anything other than themselves and their religious directives?

You don't have to. It's not required either side agree on such stuff. But, again, as I say: if we we can't agree on what seems to me such a basic, minimal thing (the other guy's life, liberty, and property are his and we have no say about it), there's not a snow ball's chance in Hades we can agree on anything more complex.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yeah, and it's ALWAYS McShitolds waste that you see lying in gutters, in the middle of the road, biffed out of car windows.
People who frequent McShitolds are kunts. The evidence is everywhere.
And litter affects everyone's enjoyment of their surroundings and environment. But you don't have to worry your prettty little head about it Henry, it makes no difference whether it's against the law or not. Kunts are going to be kunts no matter what. When you go to a civilised country and the people have pride in themselves and their home you don't see that.
Law enforcement is politically motivated and driven by social trends, which is why you will soon see many people being charged with the 'hate crime' of 'misgendering' and very few with theft and even murder. That's politicians for you.

[henry quirk]

you don't have to worry your prettty little head about it Henry,

Yeah, she asked me how do you deal with issues(?), not how should a community deal with issues(?).

I told her what I would do.

Your answers -- which you have yet to offer -- may differ.

[Immanuel Can]

Some one or group thinking their rights and freedom allow them to...
...toss garbage onto public space in front of your house
...pollute your neighborhood air or water supply with toxic elements
...shoot off a gun all night, keeping you awake
...limit access (for their own religious reasons) to certain supplies or services you want or need

That would be normal life today in San Fran, LA, Seattle, Chicago, or any other of the Dem-run hellholes that used to be some of America's great cities.