US Election 2016, part II

[Namutree]

 

Anyway, what does the notion of left-right seem to mean to you?

Left = anti-property/right = pro-property. It makes sense because it is a binary quality you can't waffle on. The issue with your interpretation of the left/right dichotomy, aside from what constitutes adherence to tradition, is that anything from insurrectionary anarchism to Keynesian reformism to monarchism would be considered left-wing in liberal republics. It doesn't convey anything about the goals of said ideologies other than they weren't the prevailing ideology of the founding powers of a state, where as the property distinction has a more universal meaning and doesn't require context of current states founding ideologies to label an ideology.

 

It seems to me that you're making the case that is what the left-right conflict should be rather than what it is.

 

Being a conservative does not make some one pro-property; merely a traditionalist. Being a revolutionary does not make some one anti-property; merely some one who seeks to destroy the current system in favor of a new one. Yet these terms are associated with the left and right. Why do you think that is? 

 

Again, the notion comes from the French revolution and some of the people associated with the left were more pro-property than the monarchists were. The uniting factor for the "right" was not being pro-property. It was their support of monarchy, and the "left"'s ideas on property varied wildly. To label the left as strictly anti-property is just silly, to me at least. 

 

I think the left-right conflict was more meant to represent a state of mind than any specific positions. Conservatives want today to be like yesterday, and tomorrow to be like today. Or are notions of conservatives and radicals irrelevant to the left-right dichotomy?

[Oerwinde]

I always thought the left/right divide was more about centralized vs decentralized government.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well ****, as expected Shillary got the nomination. Unless we all die or the FBI party van comes knocking the next POTUS will be Thatcher 2.0 or a reality star with ****ed up hair.

 

Being a conservative does not make some one pro-property; merely a traditionalist. Being a revolutionary does not make some one anti-property; merely some one who seeks to destroy the current system in favor of a new one. Yet these terms are associated with the left and right. Why do you think that is?

Because Capitalism has been the global economic system since industrialization and revolutionary movements over the last century have been socialist.

 

Again, the notion comes from the French revolution and some of the people associated with the left were more pro-property than the monarchists were. The uniting factor for the "right" was not being pro-property. It was their support of monarchy, and the "left"'s ideas on property varied wildly. To label the left as strictly anti-property is just silly, to me at least.

I'd say the left-right dichotomy has evolved past it's origin, particularly concerning ideology. It's not very clear outside of philosophy circlejerks and would probably make more sense labeled as pro/anti property, but I don't have the means to change that.

 

I think the left-right conflict was more meant to represent a state of mind than any specific positions. Conservatives want today to be like yesterday, and tomorrow to be like today. Or are notions of conservatives and radicals irrelevant to the left-right dichotomy?

I'd say it's irrelevant, because radicalism and traditionalism are contextual. They don't tell us much about what an ideology is about, and in different contexts radicalism becomes the traditionalism of another. A dichotomy based on support or opposition to property is clear in identifying what an ideology is about, and as such more useful outside of context than traditional or radical.

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/

 

Guys what an amazing night, it must be so exciting to be a US citizen and to be part of this historical moment 

 

 

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!

   

[Vaeliorin]

I'd been planning to vote for Bernie over Trump, but now...

 

Honestly, it's enough to make me not want to vote (though I'll admit, the freaking anti-Trump political ads we're getting slammed with almost make me want to vote Trump out of spite.)  Probably end up going with Gary Johnson as something of a protest vote, barring a country-saving indictment.

[Meshugger]

I am looking forward to Hillary's humiliating defeat in November.

[BruceVC]

I am looking forward to Hillary's humiliating defeat in November.

You still think Trump can beat Hilary?

 

There is no chance of that ...I thought we were all in agreement on that political reality ?

[Longknife]

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!

   

 

 

The history books are gonna look so great when the first woman to make it this far gets indicted.

[HoonDing]

"The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!"

 

Ivanka can be president after Drumpf's death

[Oerwinde]

 

I am looking forward to Hillary's humiliating defeat in November.

You still think Trump can beat Hilary?

 

There is no chance of that ...I thought we were all in agreement on that political reality ?

 

 

Johnson may be the wild card here. If he gets more media attention and hits that 15% in the polls which gets him into the debates he might draw off voters from both sides, as he's small government and socially liberal. Since generally the winner in the normally 2 way race wins by around 1%, which voters he draws could decide the election.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Oerwinde

[Meshugger]

Ross Perot got 18,9% of the popular vote, 19,7 million to be more exactly, and got none of the delegates in 1992.

 

Clinton won that year.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Meshugger

[Namutree]

 

Again, the notion comes from the French revolution and some of the people associated with the left were more pro-property than the monarchists were. The uniting factor for the "right" was not being pro-property. It was their support of monarchy, and the "left"'s ideas on property varied wildly. To label the left as strictly anti-property is just silly, to me at least.

I'd say the left-right dichotomy has evolved past it's origin, particularly concerning ideology. It's not very clear outside of philosophy circlejerks and would probably make more sense labeled as pro/anti property, but I don't have the means to change that.

It probably would. 

 

 

I always thought the left/right divide was more about centralized vs decentralized government.

Nah. Plenty of right wing movements have pushed for centralized government. Heck the original right-wingers were freaking monarchists. Can't get much more centralized than that.

[Meshugger]

KP is right in a material sense between the left and the right. There is no one on the right outright denying private property.

 

Property gives us indirectly wealth, power and the opportunity to fill our base needs, like sleeping, eating and procreating. But as we all know, life is much more than that. We human beings crave meaning, beauty and consolation, and i think conservative people like Edmund Burke of old and Roger Scruton of new answers those questions better than anyone from the left:

 

http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles2/burke.htm

http://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/8-art-and-music.html?start=8

 

A small example if I may:

 

 

You don't have to be a philosopher, given to abstruse reflection on concepts, to recognise that pleasure and happiness are not the same. There are wicked pleasures, destructive pleasures, addictive pleasures, despicable pleasures: but there is no such thing as wicked, destructive, addictive or despicable happiness. The happy person is in possession of the chief human good; happiness makes no inroads into our freedom; it brings love for others and joy to all who encounter it. It is as far from pleasure as health is from intoxication. And its root is self-approval – the knowledge that what you are it is also good to be. Hence Aristotle's definition of happiness, as 'an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue'.

 

Pleasures are of many kinds; but those most dangerous to us come from consumption. When you consume a thing you also destroy it. For a brief moment you are pleased to hold it in your hands, but your pleasure spells its doom. Down goes the hamburger or the glass of wine and in its place there comes the stale feeling of satiety – or, if you have reached the stage of addiction, the slavish craving for more. People have always recognised that, to exalt the pleasures of consumption into the goal of human life is to deprive human life of its goal. Yet the great mistake continues. And there are other pleasures too which, while they do not consume their cause, involve a momentary reward the aftermath of which is either staleness or addiction. The screen in every hotel bedroom tempts the guest to these easy pleasures – easy to feel, hard to escape. And all around us in our society we see the price that people pay for their addictions: a sense that no pleasure is forbidden, but all pleasure is stale.

 

Out of this feeling there comes the celebrity culture. The illusion arises that someone, somewhere, must be having real fun, not just the illusory fun that fizzles out as soon as it is lit. And we turn our eyes to those places where this real fun seems to be most evident – places where fame, wealth, good looks and sexual excitement abound. And we are filled with envy. Here is the meaning of life, and it is they, not I, who possess it. Hence people in the grip of 'celebritis' begin to hate the people who obsess them. They look for the proof that the celebrity is, after all, the broken, wretched, unloved creature that they wish him to be. And that way they come to experience another kind of pleasure – the pleasure in another's willed misfortune, which is about as unsatisfying a pleasure as any we know. St Augustine reminds us that envy and malice have a sword: but it reaches its target only if it first passes through the body of the one who wields it.

 

Wherever we find the cult of celebrity, therefore, we find deep unhappiness. 'Fun' has become the highest good, but fun is always out of reach, available only in that other and unattainable world where the stars are dancing. Meanwhile envy and resentment colour the world below, and there is no relief save the pleasures of consumption.

 

If you want proof that our world is like that, then you should look at modern art – the thousand by-products of Duchamp's famous urinal that have ended up in Tate Modern, and which are proof of the celebrity status of the people who produce them. Here are the monuments to a world from which beauty has been banished, and in which sensation rules in its stead. This is not art but packaging: loud supermarket colours, shocking themes and gross images like the deformed and spat-upon humanoid dolls of the Chapman brothers – all telling the same story that there is no meaning in the world, but only fun, and fun is a bore. Here is the proof that there is no such thing as real fun; fun is an illusion in all its forms.

 

For all those who share my scepticism towards the life of consumption and the cult of celebrity, and who turn away from fun, I recommend a visit to Tate Modern. It is a sobering reminder of the things that the gallery does not contain, such as happiness, beauty and the sacred.  Those are things that we value, but which we cannot consume. And because we cannot consume them they offer us consolation and a lasting refuge. Consider beauty – the beauty of flowers and landscapes, of birds and horses, of the things we see, touch and smell as we walk in the countryside. We are entirely at one with these things. We have no desire to consume or destroy them. We look on them with gratitude, and they reflect our emotions back at us, seeming to bless us as we bless them. This is an elementary experience which we find hard to put into words. But we know that it is not fun, that it does not depend on fame or wealth or self-indulgent pleasure. It involves reconnecting to our core humanity, finding ourselves at peace in the world and at home here.

 

Beauty has many forms, of course, and natural beauty is only one of them. There is the beauty of art and architecture, of music and the human form. But in all its varieties beauty has a remarkable quality, which is that it offers consolation without consumption: your enjoyment does not destroy the beautiful object but simply amplifies its power. The enjoyment of beauty is never addictive, however intensely it affects us. And when we come back for more it is not out of craving or need, but rather as a homecoming to ourselves, and in order to understand what we are.

 

The beautiful and the sacred are connected in our feelings, and both are essential to the pursuit of happiness. I think it is no accident that, in a life of consumerist pleasure and trumpeted 'fun', the habit arises of desecrating the human form and the life that inhabits it. The cult of celebrity is a substitute for religious faith, and also an inversion of it. It offers desecration in the place of sanctity, envy in the place of reverence, and fun in the place of bliss. But it satisfies no-one. The odd thing is that the avenue to happiness lies open before us and yet so many people do not take it.

[Malcador]

A country saving indictment. Ah, dramatics.

[Guard Dog]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/

 

Guys what an amazing night, it must be so exciting to be a US citizen and to be part of this historical moment 

 

 

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!

   

Exciting? The next president will be a big government authoritarian who respects neither the limits of their office nor the rights and individual liberties of the citizens. I don't give a flying f--k on a rolling doughnut the race, religion, or ethnicity of the person elected to lead this country. I do very much give a f--k about what they see the proper role of the government both here and abroad. And with a choice between Clinton or Trump is a choice of on kind of bad, one kind of oppression or another. No sir. This is not exciting. Far from it.

[Namutree]

 

KP is right in a material sense between the left and the right. There is no one on the right outright denying private property.

 

 

That isn't entirely true. I consider the DPRK to be ruled by right-wingers. They'll go to any lengths to defend their crappy system. They are ultra-conservative, but are extremely opposed to property rights.

[Meshugger]

Trump agreeing with Sanders on foreign trade deals (TPP, etc) are bad for the US and will work to abolish them or renegotiate them.

 

 

Not a bad try to persuade recently dissapointed Sanders-voters.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

You don't have to be a philosopher, given to abstruse reflection on concepts, to recognise that pleasure and happiness are not the same. There are wicked pleasures, destructive pleasures, addictive pleasures, despicable pleasures: but there is no such thing as wicked, destructive, addictive or despicable happiness. The happy person is in possession of the chief human good; happiness makes no inroads into our freedom; it brings love for others and joy to all who encounter it. It is as far from pleasure as health is from intoxication. And its root is self-approval – the knowledge that what you are it is also good to be. Hence Aristotle's definition of happiness, as 'an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue'.

 

Pleasures are of many kinds; but those most dangerous to us come from consumption. When you consume a thing you also destroy it. For a brief moment you are pleased to hold it in your hands, but your pleasure spells its doom. Down goes the hamburger or the glass of wine and in its place there comes the stale feeling of satiety – or, if you have reached the stage of addiction, the slavish craving for more. People have always recognised that, to exalt the pleasures of consumption into the goal of human life is to deprive human life of its goal. Yet the great mistake continues. And there are other pleasures too which, while they do not consume their cause, involve a momentary reward the aftermath of which is either staleness or addiction. The screen in every hotel bedroom tempts the guest to these easy pleasures – easy to feel, hard to escape. And all around us in our society we see the price that people pay for their addictions: a sense that no pleasure is forbidden, but all pleasure is stale.

 

Out of this feeling there comes the celebrity culture. The illusion arises that someone, somewhere, must be having real fun, not just the illusory fun that fizzles out as soon as it is lit. And we turn our eyes to those places where this real fun seems to be most evident – places where fame, wealth, good looks and sexual excitement abound. And we are filled with envy. Here is the meaning of life, and it is they, not I, who possess it. Hence people in the grip of 'celebritis' begin to hate the people who obsess them. They look for the proof that the celebrity is, after all, the broken, wretched, unloved creature that they wish him to be. And that way they come to experience another kind of pleasure – the pleasure in another's willed misfortune, which is about as unsatisfying a pleasure as any we know. St Augustine reminds us that envy and malice have a sword: but it reaches its target only if it first passes through the body of the one who wields it.

 

Wherever we find the cult of celebrity, therefore, we find deep unhappiness. 'Fun' has become the highest good, but fun is always out of reach, available only in that other and unattainable world where the stars are dancing. Meanwhile envy and resentment colour the world below, and there is no relief save the pleasures of consumption.

 

If you want proof that our world is like that, then you should look at modern art – the thousand by-products of Duchamp's famous urinal that have ended up in Tate Modern, and which are proof of the celebrity status of the people who produce them. Here are the monuments to a world from which beauty has been banished, and in which sensation rules in its stead. This is not art but packaging: loud supermarket colours, shocking themes and gross images like the deformed and spat-upon humanoid dolls of the Chapman brothers – all telling the same story that there is no meaning in the world, but only fun, and fun is a bore. Here is the proof that there is no such thing as real fun; fun is an illusion in all its forms.

 

For all those who share my scepticism towards the life of consumption and the cult of celebrity, and who turn away from fun, I recommend a visit to Tate Modern. It is a sobering reminder of the things that the gallery does not contain, such as happiness, beauty and the sacred.  Those are things that we value, but which we cannot consume. And because we cannot consume them they offer us consolation and a lasting refuge. Consider beauty – the beauty of flowers and landscapes, of birds and horses, of the things we see, touch and smell as we walk in the countryside. We are entirely at one with these things. We have no desire to consume or destroy them. We look on them with gratitude, and they reflect our emotions back at us, seeming to bless us as we bless them. This is an elementary experience which we find hard to put into words. But we know that it is not fun, that it does not depend on fame or wealth or self-indulgent pleasure. It involves reconnecting to our core humanity, finding ourselves at peace in the world and at home here.

 

Beauty has many forms, of course, and natural beauty is only one of them. There is the beauty of art and architecture, of music and the human form. But in all its varieties beauty has a remarkable quality, which is that it offers consolation without consumption: your enjoyment does not destroy the beautiful object but simply amplifies its power. The enjoyment of beauty is never addictive, however intensely it affects us. And when we come back for more it is not out of craving or need, but rather as a homecoming to ourselves, and in order to understand what we are.

 

The beautiful and the sacred are connected in our feelings, and both are essential to the pursuit of happiness. I think it is no accident that, in a life of consumerist pleasure and trumpeted 'fun', the habit arises of desecrating the human form and the life that inhabits it. The cult of celebrity is a substitute for religious faith, and also an inversion of it. It offers desecration in the place of sanctity, envy in the place of reverence, and fun in the place of bliss. But it satisfies no-one. The odd thing is that the avenue to happiness lies open before us and yet so many people do not take it.

 

 

spoken like a true untermensch

[Meshugger]

^I never took you for a Nietzschean. How's the nihilism today?

[Leferd]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/

 

Guys what an amazing night, it must be so exciting to be a US citizen and to be part of this historical moment 

 

 

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!

   

Apparently, these boards are not quite a representation of the general and diverse American voting public.

[BruceVC]

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/

 

Guys what an amazing night, it must be so exciting to be a US citizen and to be part of this historical moment 

 

 

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!

   

Apparently, these boards are not quite a representation of the general and diverse American voting public.

 

It appears that way, when do you think Sanders will throw in the towel?

 

I hear he will be meeting Obama this week

[Leferd]

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/

 

Guys what an amazing night, it must be so exciting to be a US citizen and to be part of this historical moment 

 

 

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!    

 

Apparently, these boards are not quite a representation of the general and diverse American voting public.

It appears that way, when do you think Sanders will throw in the towel?

 

I hear he will be meeting Obama this week

Emotions are running high. Clinton's margin of victory was greater over Sanders than Obama's over Clinton in 08.

 

Sanders will meet with Obama and party leadership and negotiate over his lists of demands and how he will fall back in line, especially if he wants the prime committee roles when the Dems are in position to taking back the Senate in November.

[Bartimaeus]

Here's to hoping he tries to torpedo the Party instead, .

 

...although I very much doubt he will.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Meshugger]

A friendly reminder that Hillary won in California with the following figures:

 

2016

- Clinton 1.8 million votes

- Sanders 1.4 million votes

 

2008

- Clinton 2.6 million votes

- Obama 2.1 million votes

[Leferd]

A friendly reminder that Hillary won in California with the following figures:

 

2016

- Clinton 1.8 million votes

- Sanders 1.4 million votes

 

2008

- Clinton 2.6 million votes

- Obama 2.1 million votes

Obama inspired record breaking first-time voter turnouts. Voter mobilization was a thing of beauty. We won't see these type of numbers again for a while.

 

Still early but the indicator metrics has Clinton as a resounding favorite over Trump.