The Glade 4.0

Trump et al vs administrative state

Will one crumble.
Will they lock into each other unmoving and achieve a sort of parity?
Will the friction create heat and ignite a fire?

Either way the administrative state spends energy attacking it's own creation.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Trump loves a good feud, politics loves some good mud slinging, and the media loves an excuse to lecture about alt-left morality drivel.

This dance being danced gives everyone what they want. I don't expect it to change any time soon.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Yes.

Well, except for the citizenry that would much prefer to have a functional government working for the betterment of society.

But **** those people right?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Pretty much. Those people need to start learning they're better off taking care of themselves rather than demanding a caretaker.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Evidently. You keep saying **** those people every time you post.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, it does seem to be y'all's default position on anyone not a rich, white male. So there's precedent.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

It's almost as if you're just reciting from playbook.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It isn't just rich white males. Its anyone who thinks they should be a rich white male and is taking the attitude before achieving the goal.

Similar reason as why many thousands of poor southern men fought the people who wanted to end slavery, even though slavery was keeping them poorly paid wage slaves.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Is it also a similar reason to why people make wildly oversimplified historical analogies? Do you know what desertion rates were like in the Confederacy? Poor whites in the South largely did not want to be fighting, they just had to.

Anyhow, the attitude you and Mus are arguing against doesn't really exist. It's a caricature you tell yourself exists so you can pretend you care more about your fellow man than those you disagree with.

Here's a clue - you **** don't. The hate you think exists is a security blanket you use to avoid admitting that the victim groups you think exist are morally no better than their oppressors. They're just as shitty people, just as entitled, and just as dishonest, they just have less money to do it with.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And I believe it is you who are in denial about the reality of the situation Diamondeye, and that you will continue doing your usual posting until the other person gives up strategy so that you can think you've won an argument the other person walked away from.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Conservatives don't hate "black people" in a genetic sense, no. They don't think black people are subhuman or actually have fundamentally inferior genes. However, just like the left likes to blanket stereotype rural whites as a bunch of ignorant inbred racists, the right will also blanket stereotype the entire black community as violent, irresponsible, hypocritical leeches on society.

BLM is just the left's equivalent of sovereign citizens, the main difference is they have the majority of the media on their side and thus their supporters have a bigger mouthpiece. If you listen to talk radio you'll find plenty of people supporting the sovcit hypocritical bullshit in exactly the same way BLM gets support.

The fact remains, however, that Trump's stance on immigration, namely that he seems to oppose all forms of it, is fundamentally hostile to the entire progressive agenda. Liberal politics just aren't viable without robust immigration, even the non-controversial stances.

It's interesting that in my class, it's mostly the religious students (1-2 notable exceptions) that are out organizing health fairs for the town's poor, smaller neighboring towns, and the Amish community. It's the liberal ones organizing "political climate" and health care legislation discussions. If more people spent their own time and money (beyond the taxes they're jacked for) providing relief to others rather demanding charity of everybody, our communities would be a lot better off.

_________________
The Dude abides.

It's not just rich, or white, or male. It's everybody. Liberals KNOW conservatives don't care about anyone but themselves, down in their bones they know it.

When a conservative says they think people shouldn't rely on the government to take care of them and they should develop self reliance, a liberal hears "**** those that can't take care of themselves". "We need strong borders" = "**** immigrants", "less regulations" = "**** the environment", "taxes should be lower" = "**** the poor".

I have no idea why it is that way, but that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Yes you do. It's because that's what everyone on television and everyone in their echo chamber is telling them.

speaking of echo chambers, this was fun http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 23441.html

1 million views and "hundreds of thousand" folks fooled? Shoot, that ain't nuttin!

You know what was really fun? The 2016 election. How many folks believed the fake news about Hillary's chances of winning the election vs Trump's chances?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Me. ;/

Progressives have to identify an other as evil.

If they don't they can't believe themselves to be good by mere act of stating opposition to the evil.

This way they build up their ego and they don't have to get off their *** to do anything.

They are good because they make YOU pay to help X.

It doesn't matter if X is actually helped, just that their intentions are good, that is why they don't investigate the consequences of their actions.

The consequences don't matter at all, only the intent to be good matters.

The only thing that matters is the story they tell themselves that they are good people.

Because they aren't, and deep down they know they arent.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Perhaps if the exact same language wasn't used to justify actual attempts to **** over the poor, the environment, etc.

Elmarnieh, what you have done there is a phenomenon I am well aware of. It is called Transferance.

Quick steal of definition - Transference is a phenomenon characterized by unconscious redirection of feelings from one person to another. One definition of transference is "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood".

In this case you are transferring the conservatives inner knowledge that they are not good people to their opponents. They find ways to excuse their heartlessness to others by directing blame at the ones who try to help.

Nice try. You are falling into that trap.

I'm not saying all progressives are angels, but many are trying to help their fellow humans. Tearing at that because not all programs work well, and not all progressives are sincere is a weak argument.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I'm sure there are some that are but those would be the followers not those who push it, not the ones that if a position they just came up with on the spot is critiqued in anyway whatsoever they react if not violently then with the most shocking attacks on the character of the one offering the critique. It's obviously an emotional reaction and one of a degree of which one only finds when one believes themselves to be under attack. They have so closely aligned their own sense of goodness to their opinion, and to an opinion so small it has been in existence for mere seconds, that it is an attack on their own goodness and self worth.

This isn't transference its a conclusion drawn from years of activity and of testing of this theory (I've abandoned many others because reality of observation didn't match the hypothesis). I'll note out you're statement assumes conservatives think themselves as not good people deep down, and if it is transference to fit that model I would have to think of myself as a conservative - I don't.

Lets examine this hypothesis you've stated as fact " many are trying to help their fellow humans."

I don't believe that it could be many, it may be some, and those that it would be could not stay progressives for very long.

1. A person who wants to help people cares about the end result - helping people.
2. Thus a person who wants to help people would examine the consequences of their proposed or realized action.
3. Thus such a person would be open to and may even seek out critique of proposed actions in order to scrutinize the results.
4. This never happens with progressives.

Conclusion:


Talk to a progressive. They will tell you how much they care and why they want this...they talk about intents and their imagined outcomes of policies born of that intent. What they don't talk about is data, possible failures, or anything else. They assume good consequences because they have a good intent. People who want an actual good intent wouldn't do this because their focus is on real consequences to the people they wish to aid. Thus their offered story is false, they don't want to help people. So what purpose is their telling you that they want to help people serving? It's informing you of what moral view of them they would like you to have of them. They are telling you think so you believe they care. They disregard outcomes because they don't actually care, the telling you that they care was all that mattered, when that happens there isn't need for them to investigate further.


The only other option that makes sense is that no progressive believes in objective reality, they honestly believe that the intents of their actions manufacture good outcomes.


So they are selfish bastards or they are children.

Take your pick, I at least had the expectation that they were adults falling into a deep well of layers of defense mechanisms due to their apathy being a socially unacceptable position. They could be people living in a fantasy world constructed in their mind and reacting like spoiled children when that fantasy construct is threatened as well. Perhaps I was being too charitable?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No, they are not. Many are trying to force other people to help them rather than spending their own time and money directly helping people in their immediate community. Young progressives would rather participate in protests than lift a finger to help the impoverished. Middle-aged progressives are itemizing their tax returns to maximize their refund while they demand people with more money pay their fair share.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Really helping someone is hard.

There's a chance that your help will be enough to make a difference, resulting in those you've helped being able to take it from there and move forward.

There's a chance your help will deny them a much needed lesson.

In either case, those you have tried to help will not have accomplished what was needed on their own, and you've just reinforced a lesson that they can't do what's needed on their own. You've made them dependent on someone else for a successful outcome for that problem.

As a parent, my goal was to raise my kids so that as adults, they could make it on their own, and sometimes the hardest thing was to say no to them when they came asking for help. As much love as I have for my kids, I decided long ago that the default answer would be no, unless I knew without a shadow of a doubt that my help was really going to help. They had to convince me that they had a plan and that my help wasn't enabling a bad habit or preventing them from learning a harsh lesson. I cried after my adult daughter came to me and asked for a co-sign for a loan for a new car and she left in tears when her mother and I told her no, totally afraid that she would misunderstand. It took some time, but the message we gave her got through.

So, no, not helping isn't the same as not caring. I'll never be able to convince a bleeding heart liberal that because I'd rather someone fall than learn to lean on the government, it isn't because I don't care. Getting back up is a hard lesson but incredibly valuable, and I won't deny them that value.

No, I've tried. In their bones they know I only care for myself. I'm at peace with that now. I still don't understand how liberals can't make that connection though.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure
Cruel to be kind, it's a very good sign

_________________