Politics_Observer wrote:This isn't the first time stuff like this has happened in our country's history.
As a country, America is based on its state and federal constitutions. People lament Trump as some sort of racist. He is positively tolerant compared to almost all of our past presidents. While Wilson was excessively harsh on immigrants because of their immigrant status, he was also right that America faced serious risks from within by adopting so many people so fast--mostly from Europe. Immigration was effectively suspended until 1965. Since then, the makeup of America has shifted dramatically, and again we have foreign born and first generation Americans calling for radical changes to the American system. If it is to survive, the globalism and mass immigration has to stop until social cohesion is restored.
Politics_Observer wrote:I guess we like to think we are somehow "different" or "exceptional" to everybody else, but at the end of the day, we are no different or "exceptional" than anybody else around the world. We like to see ourselves as "freedom loving people" and I think we are, but so is everybody else around the world and we have the same problems with tyranny and oppression as everybody else does around the world.
America's founding was peculiar in global politics. The colonies were populated with religious outcasts--Catholics, Puritans, Quakers, etc. who didn't toe the line of the Church of England; and, prisoners whether criminal or debtors. It also had a lot of second born sons of nobility who would not inherit title or land, but were educated and had some means--often taking clerical positions in government or commissioned officers in the military. So all of those people were fond of freedom for totally different reasons. Of the latter of that group, they were particularly interested in property rights. England had probably the most democratic system in Europe at the time, but it was nothing like universal suffrage. Britain had indentured servitude up until the 1920s. That's only 100 years ago. Europe as a whole had a nobility/aristocracy, a small middle class of clerks, bureaucrats, men at arms, scholars, merchants and tradesman, and pretty much everyone else was poor with little or no real property (mostly no real property) and modest personal property. The conquest of America gave all of those people a real shot at land ownership and political franchise that they didn't have in Europe. In that sense, America offered something very different from what Europe had to offer.
Tainari88 wrote:That is why being a racist, a class conscious idiot and thinking that Americans (who come from every race, creed and ethnic group known to the planet) are not the exception to anything in human history.
America in that sense isn't based on race at all. It's based on meritocracy and private property.
Tainari88 wrote:What makes change happen for the positive is the value system you choose to implement and not allowing something innately unfair and self destructive to be the guiding principle of your economy or your social structures.
What you consider unfair is something many people in the world have adopted, much of which was born in America or in the UK.
Tainari88 wrote:No attempts at an advanced and fair society can ever be achieved.
Advanced and fair are entirely different concepts. iPhones are advanced, but it's not fair that they are made by underpaid Chinese labor. These things coexist.
Tainari88 wrote:You got to give people security
Fledgling America could not do that, but it gave people the right to keep and bear arms and provide for their own personal security as well as collective security.
Tainari88 wrote:got to give them good values
America was founded by Christians of various stripes. America made the decision to maintain a separation of church and state. However, the founders expected people to have a moral character, which is largely discouraged by today's government.
Tainari88 wrote:the government needs to be always criticized and checked at all times for abuses of power.
It really didn't need that in the past, because it was a very minimal government. By today's standards, we'd be firing about 85% of government workers and cutting taxes by about the same to be where they were. Excise taxes were uniform and capitations apportioned. Rich and poor paid the same tax and had the same interest in government. Today, the rich pay overwhelmingly more than anyone else, and are therefore the most interested in government. You may think that it is "moral" for the rich to pay more than the poor, or for the rich to help the poor. Enacting that "fairness" via a graduated income tax creates people who are interested in government and people who are not.
Tainari88 wrote:I love an episode of that Netflix series "Cooked" in which the host Bitterman (I am not sure about the name) but he examines how Americans started accepting bad diets in which the food industry wanted to get people to buy more fast food to make more money. They painted the idea of cooking at home as laborious and drudgery, woman's work, sexist, boring, difficult, etc. Because the end goal was to get people to eat fast food and high profit food that is easy to make, consume and buy and boost their profits. To hell if it created diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc in large quantities....the thing was make MONEY.
Part of that is because there were large pockets of America where people were poor. When you think about value for money, a McDonald's hamburger is an amazing value. It's just not the ideal meal to be eating for breakfast, lunch and dinner. After getting e-coli and norovirus simultaneously at Thanksgiving, I'm a little leery of salads right now. However, I've taken up making soups. It is a bit of labor if you're doing it for one meal and one person, but soup lasts quite some time and you can vacuum pack it too. It's a great way to get all your veggies.
Tainari88 wrote:They do a thorough analysis of why bread has been the staff of life for many civilizations for centuries and why now it is becoming intolerable for many people to digest. Because they have changed the way they make bread. They have not respected the way it should be made to cut corners and choose to disrespect that wheat process in order to make a fast buck. They 'betrayed' the process nature has of dealing with food.
See? Deep inside of Azuquita is a conservative just waiting to come out. He he he!
Tainari88 wrote:I studied a lot of ancient civvies, all of them had a very interesting component. They had a perfect food source and could store that food source well for many months and could dedicate themselves to building all their civilizations because the hours in the day were freed up by the stored food processes.
This is exactly right. As I've said before, you'll notice that the harsher the environmental conditions, the more people had to rely on stored foods--particularly in the harsh winters of the North.
Tainari88 wrote:Respecting food as a source of life? Respecting not polluting the water sources one has in this world because it is a source of life?
It's not all about respect and disrespect. Much of it is about science and industrialism. Reducing all food down to sugars, proteins and fats as a chemical abstraction, scientists don't see or respect culture. However, that's not their teaching. A lot of industrialists were nakedly careless, but a lot of them were frankly just ignorant. For example, we've learned recently that copper kills germs. If our hospitals had door handles, faucet handles, etc. plated or anodized with copper, it would kill germs over time--making hospitals safer. Yet, copper miners didn't have the foggiest idea about it. So mining for copper and leaving tailings, it never occurred to them that copper would poison plant life. In my back yard, in lieu of sprinklers, I have copper covered drip tubes under my lawn. It uses about half the water of sprinklers. Why the copper? It prevents the roots from binding to the drip tubes and clogging them. Roots "know" to stay away from copper.
One of the things I don't like about scientists and progressives is that they cannot admit that we are not as smart as we think we are. We have a great deal to learn and with AI and machine learning evolving, things are going to continue to change quickly. However, there are similar struggles happening now that are similar to the industrialization/urbaniztion process that we're going to be facing now.
Tainari88 wrote:Because their lives are isolated, empty without friends, lovers, spouses or meaningful things to make them feel they are doing something worthy of their efforts?
The answers lie in the value systems people emphasize and accept in their lives.
Indeed. Feminism takes women out of the homes and away from children. Latch key kids like me that ended up doing well became natural conservatives, because we were self-reliant at perhaps too young an age. Kids that don't do as well have no role models, no one to guide them, and naturally feel isolated and alienated. 70 years ago, you could trust a 16 year old kid with some training with the possession of a gun. Today, it would raise a lot of eyebrows, because of the cultural shift. Harry Harlow did a lot of work on the effects of maternal deprivation in Rhesus monkeys. It should have been a forewarning of what would happen in the embrace of feminism and pushing women into the workforce immediately after child birth. Values. It can't be all about money.
Tainari88 wrote:It is not a society worthy of imitation Politics Observer...because it doesn't promote respect for other societies'ways of doing things...they believe in dominaton and imposition.
You mean like how we don't respect societies that throw homosexuals off the top of buildings or preventing women from learning to read? Should we learn to have respect for these kinds of differences?
Tainari88 wrote:You can't do that in human history.
You've studied human history quite a bit. It is certainly a component of history.
Tainari88 wrote:You know Blackjack21 when you wax historical I really like it! LOL.
If you knew me personally, you'd like me a lot more than you think you would. ;-)
Tainari88 wrote:But Trump's issue is being unpredictable my man.
That's why we like him. That's what we think is needed at this time.
Tainari88 wrote:No one disciplined that man child to be predictable and be able to give some kind of predictability to the deep state people to keep on doing what they do in comfort and security.
First, that confuses the relationship. They are their to serve Trump, not the other way around. That is the legal nature of the situation. They like to wax poetic and say, "We serve the American people." Actually, they implement the policies of politicians, not their own ideas. Second, at this point, we do not want them to keep on doing what they are doing (like coming up with food pyramids that are not based on human dietary needs, or starting more wars in the Middle East).
Tainari88 wrote:A serious flaw of Trump's. For sure.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Trump is a disrupter, and it is much needed in government. The private sector has been dealing with disruption since the mass adoption of computers and cell phones, followed by the internet, followed by smart phones and cloud computing. Yet, government employees live in a little bubble that's 50 years behind the times. It's good that they're getting shaken up.
Tainari88 wrote:Unlike you I don't think that pig is going to save your Republic at all.
I don't see Trump as El Salvador. I see him as Nemesis. Look at the difference between the pathetic pleas of Adam Schiff to the United States Senate, and contrast that with a Trump rally. Trump has the pulse of the nation, and it's not because he's some fountain of virtue. It's because he's taking on the establishment. If he's the only one willing to do it, he wins by default. In the Kingdom of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King.
Tainari88 wrote:or you Indy fail to realize that the two major parties just pay lip service to 'real differences'. They are both bought off corrupt freaks drunk on power plays and fail to serve the American public.
The two parties are facing huge struggles. That's why I championed AOC winning her primary, even though I disagree with much of what she supports politically. Impeachment is about some of the establishment trying to save themselves, but Trump has torpedoed their Titanic and they are taking on water. As they try to impeach Trump, they ultimately get the country asking why, and people start getting interested in what Biden was doing. Biden is a sinking ship now, not Trump. Warren is not their to pick up the pieces. Bernie supporters remember the unfairness from the DNC and Hillary. They just witnessed how CNN and Warren tag teamed Bernie. It backfired big time. Now Bernie Sanders is in the lead. I think that's awesome. I disagree with everything he stands for, but it's this kind of outcome that's necessary for the establishment to develop any sense of reflection or introspection. While they were able to bring Nixon down, they ended up with Carter followed by two Reagan terms and a Bush term. It was Bill Clinton that pretty much saved the Democratic party, and they've scarcely thanked him for it, because he's a rapist.
Tainari88 wrote:When that happens you deep eighty six both parties and either have a total cleansing or you will wind up with a failed state with embedded weak willed spineless cowards who sell their nation out to the highest bidder...but the ones thinking those wealthy repulsive liberals are the only ones on the take?
They aren't. However, Trump isn't even close to a problem in that respect. The Clintons certainly were, but what made their situation so much worse is that not only were they able to operate above the law, they relished in rubbing people's noses in that fact. That was very clear to me when the Rose Law Firm billing records mysteriously appeared in the White House residence. I said here way back in Obama's second term that Hillary would never be prosecuted for the email fiasco, but that it would be politically significant. Here we are today...