Presidential cognitive issues

GREEN 2.0 wrote:

You're one of the people on vital i like we've had our differences but yet I know how smart you are

 

Dont suffer TDS

APLMAN99 wrote:

No worries. I can’t imagine ever being delusional enough to unconditionally support trump!!!!!!

R66 wrote:

Regardless of whether or not you like President Trump, if one doesn’t think the priorities of the Republican party are superior to those of the femocrat...

Regardless of whether or not you like President Trump, if one doesn’t think the priorities of the Republican party are superior to those of the femocrat party, they are delusional. Look at what democrats do to the cities (like Chicago) and states (like California) they run. Failure to make this admission is TDS. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Imagine the nerve of a president putting his country's needs before that of other countries. 

cheesehead420 wrote:

We should think of the state as illegitimate because it needs and uses violence to enforce its authority. It’s a hierarchical structure where we have less...

We should think of the state as illegitimate because it needs and uses violence to enforce its authority. It’s a hierarchical structure where we have less than or in some cases no power to control what it ultimately decides is best for us. It assumes that it knows better than I as to what I need for my life. And It has monopolized violence in order to enforce this concept.  A good example of this would be Social Security in America and the idea that THEY know better then I, as to how to save MY money and they have the legal (though illegitimate imo) backing of the law to enforce this using violence. 

I do not want a State at all. And it is not competent in any way. It does not allow us to pursue our interests because it fundamentally does not allow for individuals to take full responsibility for their lives and actions and therefore does not allow us to utilize all of our functions and utilities as human beings. It is illegal to take full responsibility for oneself. Requiring car insurance in order to drive on the road would be a good example of this. 

I do not want a State. I do not want a nation. I have zero nationalistic tendencies, though different regions and cultures are certainly valued and would be appreciated even more so for their differing qualities in a would without nations. 

As far as Hobbes goes, are we not already pitted against each other in a solitary, nasty, brutish and short life?  This is already the world we live in and it can be seen throughout the pages of this very thread. Also, I believe Hobbes to be wholly incorrect and I’m not the only one. 

I believe that most people are mostly good and will choose to do the right thing most of the time as long as it does not jeopardize their own existence. In this modality peoples existence and quality of existence is largely based on money and so of doing the right thing means jeopardizing your existence most won’t act in a just way. Doing the wrong thing and acting in the wrong way is actually rewarded in our society. Lazy people on welfare getting paid to be lazy. Or individuals like king leopold of Belgium committing atrocities beyond belief in order to exploit and control the natural resources of the Congo are good examples of doing bad pays. 

The alternative. I don’t have all the answers. And I openly admit that it will take a sort of leap of faith on our part to make it happen. We’ve been so conditioned over many generations to believe in and defend our masters. Just look how quickly (though I welcome the discussion) all of you guys responded from an apologist position defending the status quo. 
Asking me this is like asking a blind man to describe a color he’s never seen. It is like asking me to prove that love exists. 

I don’t have all the answers but I can provide a compelling case that what we have now is not working! The absolute incompetency of government on every level proves this every day. 

Could I do better? Yes I could! Just like if I had all the same resources available to me that say Chevrolet has, I could in about 2 weeks and without using any sort of new technology (that may or may not exist) design and begin to manufacture a vehicle that could easily get twice the gas mileage, last easily 100 years, be at least half the price and 10 times easier to maintain and cheaper to fix. 

Things are not functioning to be efficient because efficiency is not what pays. See what I’m saying? 

MPJC wrote:

I've written extensively on the topic of legal authority. I'd be happy to make this paper available as a PDF if you're interested. It spells out...

I've written extensively on the topic of legal authority. I'd be happy to make this paper available as a PDF if you're interested. It spells out the theory of authority that I think is right and how it applies to what I call "the circumstances of politics", where there is lack of agreement about which laws to enact but the need to make a choice anyways. I think that you probably gathered that I do think that political and legal authorities can be legitimate. I'm not going to get into the details of it here or I'd be writing a dissertation. There's much I could say, and whether we ultimately agree or not is unimportant - I enjoy reading your thoughts on this topic as they are novel and interesting (I'd rather read something that I think is wrong but interesting vs right but banal). 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-law-and-jurisprudence/article/abs/authority-of-law-in-the-circumstances-of-politics/0E4C9423524BC522B631EB250498D6EE

cheesehead420 wrote:

https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.htmlTake a look at this my friend. There is a lot there, a lot that I don’t agree with, and a lot I don’t quite...

https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html

Take a look at this my friend. There is a lot there, a lot that I don’t agree with, and a lot I don’t quite understand to be honest. But it’s a great resource. 

Most of my thoughts I don’t see as novel within anarchism except for maybe my insistence that society on global scale, pre and post revolution, will need to have a sort of spiritual or philosophical underpinning. Undisputed and accepted by all through logic and reason, not by force. Similar to what was discussed yesterday. This would really just need to be something as simple as living by The Golden Rule, or for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or karma. All three are the same thing. They’re indisputable laws of nature. Nature, in the pantheistic sense, is a positive, eternally expanding and creative entity. 

As far as your offer to make your paper available on PDF. I will take you up on that, although after reading the excerpt in the link you provided it’s definitely very dense stuff. I’ll try my best. 

I did look up a couple of those names. It seems to me that their ultimate goal is a good one and they seek to provide the most amount of people with the most amount of freedom? 
Their faulty logic stems from their idea that the modern institutions of government/state/society which are based on hierarchy, exploitation, and violence can somehow be reconciled with freedom. The basis' and philosophical underpinnings of these modern institutions are antithetical to the principles of freedom. 

I believe absolutely that the system will not be reformed and fundamental change cannot come from within the pre existing hierarchical structures of society. It must be made anew organically from the outside. From the bottom up. Freedom cannot be forced upon or even given to people. They must take it for themselves.

MPJC wrote:

I looked at the website. It’s advocating what is essentially extreme anti-capitalist egalitarianism. This quote makes the extreme egalitarianism very clear:“All anarchists view profit, interest and...

I looked at the website. It’s advocating what is essentially extreme anti-capitalist egalitarianism. This quote makes the extreme egalitarianism very clear:

“All anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.”

It’s the disparities that result from profit that seems to motivate the opposition to it - this violates the commitment to equality that’s inherent in this view. I’ll say more about this later. 

There’s an opposition to the idea of anyone having coercive power over anyone else, and that seems to imply opposition to the idea of punishment. All associations would have to be voluntary and nobody could be subjected to anything to which they don’t consent. 

I was thinking that maybe having some sort of direct democracy where everyone gets an equal say in what policies the group adopts could be acceptable - but as soon as you have dissent, you can’t do anything about it, given the unacceptability of coercion. The dissenter becomes untouchable by any regulation thus far agreed to. So you can vote to establish rules and terms of association, but why bother if, by definition, nothing is binding in an anarchic system (binding implies coercion if you change your mind)?

The question of when consent is required is central to establishing whether or not this is a complete nonstarter or could work to some extent. The traditional view is that we generally consent to a social contract in which we each sacrifice some of our freedom (we are subject to the coercive power of law and the punishments it prescribes for transgressions) in exchange for the security of the state (those who would harm us are punished if they do in fact harm us - providing deterrence and safety by removing transgressors from society). We don’t necessarily explicitly consent; rather, we tacitly consent through our participation in civil society and by benefiting from it. The anarchist view expressed in the website seems to have the view that consent is required for each and every interaction since coercion is rejected. So those people who scream “I don’t consent to this” when being arrested (currently police don’t care if they consent or not) would, in fact, would be giving whoever is trying to enforce anything a reason to stop what they are doing and back off. It wouldn’t come to that since arrests wouldn’t be a thing since no coercion is permitted. 

So, this view aims to take freedom and equality to their logical conclusions. The main thing I’ll say is that while we all want freedom and equality , that’s not all we want. Equality in the basic sense of treating each person as having equal dignity and intrinsic value is compatible with pretty much any political philosophy anyone takes seriously. On the other hand equality in the distribution of goods doesn’t strike me as a basic, intrinsically valuable objective. What we really care about is the suffering that inequality can cause. So that’s the basic, intrinsically valued objective (alleviating suffering) and distributional equality is valuable in so far as it reduces suffering). This doesn’t require absolute equality.  This anarchism seems to think it does, which is why it rejects capitalism. I think that’s mistaken.  

As far as freedom goes, it’s obviously something we care about  - none of us like being unduly interfered with. But freedom without autonomy is pointless. Autonomy involves being able to choose our own goals, based on what we find valuable and worthy of pursuing, and having the means to pursue them. What we need to ask is: What are the conditions for the possibility of autonomy? It’s quite conceivable that an array of constitutional arrangements could result in a society with the requisite security, stability, and ranges of industry and other activities to provide those conditions. But security and stability are surely necessary. If nobody is subject to law, security is a problem. If all associations and rules need constant consent and can be rejected at any time, stability will be difficult to achieve. 

 

MPJC wrote:

I looked at the website. It’s advocating what is essentially extreme anti-capitalist egalitarianism. This quote makes the extreme egalitarianism very clear:“All anarchists view profit, interest and...

I looked at the website. It’s advocating what is essentially extreme anti-capitalist egalitarianism. This quote makes the extreme egalitarianism very clear:

“All anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.”

It’s the disparities that result from profit that seems to motivate the opposition to it - this violates the commitment to equality that’s inherent in this view. I’ll say more about this later. 

There’s an opposition to the idea of anyone having coercive power over anyone else, and that seems to imply opposition to the idea of punishment. All associations would have to be voluntary and nobody could be subjected to anything to which they don’t consent. 

I was thinking that maybe having some sort of direct democracy where everyone gets an equal say in what policies the group adopts could be acceptable - but as soon as you have dissent, you can’t do anything about it, given the unacceptability of coercion. The dissenter becomes untouchable by any regulation thus far agreed to. So you can vote to establish rules and terms of association, but why bother if, by definition, nothing is binding in an anarchic system (binding implies coercion if you change your mind)?

The question of when consent is required is central to establishing whether or not this is a complete nonstarter or could work to some extent. The traditional view is that we generally consent to a social contract in which we each sacrifice some of our freedom (we are subject to the coercive power of law and the punishments it prescribes for transgressions) in exchange for the security of the state (those who would harm us are punished if they do in fact harm us - providing deterrence and safety by removing transgressors from society). We don’t necessarily explicitly consent; rather, we tacitly consent through our participation in civil society and by benefiting from it. The anarchist view expressed in the website seems to have the view that consent is required for each and every interaction since coercion is rejected. So those people who scream “I don’t consent to this” when being arrested (currently police don’t care if they consent or not) would, in fact, would be giving whoever is trying to enforce anything a reason to stop what they are doing and back off. It wouldn’t come to that since arrests wouldn’t be a thing since no coercion is permitted. 

So, this view aims to take freedom and equality to their logical conclusions. The main thing I’ll say is that while we all want freedom and equality , that’s not all we want. Equality in the basic sense of treating each person as having equal dignity and intrinsic value is compatible with pretty much any political philosophy anyone takes seriously. On the other hand equality in the distribution of goods doesn’t strike me as a basic, intrinsically valuable objective. What we really care about is the suffering that inequality can cause. So that’s the basic, intrinsically valued objective (alleviating suffering) and distributional equality is valuable in so far as it reduces suffering). This doesn’t require absolute equality.  This anarchism seems to think it does, which is why it rejects capitalism. I think that’s mistaken.  

As far as freedom goes, it’s obviously something we care about  - none of us like being unduly interfered with. But freedom without autonomy is pointless. Autonomy involves being able to choose our own goals, based on what we find valuable and worthy of pursuing, and having the means to pursue them. What we need to ask is: What are the conditions for the possibility of autonomy? It’s quite conceivable that an array of constitutional arrangements could result in a society with the requisite security, stability, and ranges of industry and other activities to provide those conditions. But security and stability are surely necessary. If nobody is subject to law, security is a problem. If all associations and rules need constant consent and can be rejected at any time, stability will be difficult to achieve. 

 

plowboy wrote:

Smarty pants.🙃

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Imagine the nerve of a president putting his country's needs before that of other countries. 

T-MAC wrote:

This makes it quite clear you suffer from TDS yourself if you think he's putting his countries needs first, and not his own...Did you see all...

This makes it quite clear you suffer from TDS yourself if you think he's putting his countries needs first, and not his own...Did you see all the things his country needs that he already defunded, or removed altogether? We need to reduce our deficit, and his big beautiful bill will increase it tremendously.

Did our country need his big beautiful birthday parade? Does our country need a new jet from Qatar? He headed to Scotland to golf, and open another course. How do we benefit from this? Let me guess, he deserves it because he works hard, right?

He ran on ending Ukraine War day 1, and releasing Epstein files, draining the swamp etc. He has not ended Ukraine War (and actually just gave them more money and gear since Putin humiliated him), he has not released Epstein files, and he has filled the swamp with largely non-violent immigrants. He is great at sewing division though, which keeps the swamp people in Washington quite happy as they continue to erode the fabric of our Republic.

The news isn't helping anyone, start thinking critically, and objectively...This will help a lot of us.

EDIT - I'm not saying CA has done the best job managing itself, but it still contributes substantially more than most states to the Fed...CA is the worlds 4th largest economy, why do you think Donny is stoking the fire here? CA has made it expensive to do business here because we have a ton of people to support, and big business is excellent at avoiding this support, and then cry foul.

 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or...

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or right voters. His opposition like to call him a tyrant ,there has never been a more tyrannical leader of this country then Joe Biden. I didnt forget how he closed small businesses, forced hospital staff and military personnel to inject garbage into their body or lose their job. He stood on stage multiple times and tried to guilt Americans to take that shot so he could continue to collect off his personnel investments in the medical community and funnel billions of dollars to big pharma. I will never forget all the decisions that were made to restrict Americans rights while pretending to be saving the day.

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Imagine the nerve of a president putting his country's needs before that of other countries. 

T-MAC wrote:

This makes it quite clear you suffer from TDS yourself if you think he's putting his countries needs first, and not his own...Did you see all...

This makes it quite clear you suffer from TDS yourself if you think he's putting his countries needs first, and not his own...Did you see all the things his country needs that he already defunded, or removed altogether? We need to reduce our deficit, and his big beautiful bill will increase it tremendously.

Did our country need his big beautiful birthday parade? Does our country need a new jet from Qatar? He headed to Scotland to golf, and open another course. How do we benefit from this? Let me guess, he deserves it because he works hard, right?

He ran on ending Ukraine War day 1, and releasing Epstein files, draining the swamp etc. He has not ended Ukraine War (and actually just gave them more money and gear since Putin humiliated him), he has not released Epstein files, and he has filled the swamp with largely non-violent immigrants. He is great at sewing division though, which keeps the swamp people in Washington quite happy as they continue to erode the fabric of our Republic.

The news isn't helping anyone, start thinking critically, and objectively...This will help a lot of us.

EDIT - I'm not saying CA has done the best job managing itself, but it still contributes substantially more than most states to the Fed...CA is the worlds 4th largest economy, why do you think Donny is stoking the fire here? CA has made it expensive to do business here because we have a ton of people to support, and big business is excellent at avoiding this support, and then cry foul.

 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or...

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or right voters. His opposition like to call him a tyrant ,there has never been a more tyrannical leader of this country then Joe Biden. I didnt forget how he closed small businesses, forced hospital staff and military personnel to inject garbage into their body or lose their job. He stood on stage multiple times and tried to guilt Americans to take that shot so he could continue to collect off his personnel investments in the medical community and funnel billions of dollars to big pharma. I will never forget all the decisions that were made to restrict Americans rights while pretending to be saving the day.

lappedrider wrote:

Do people really not remember that the lockdown and development of the “shot” all happened under President Trump? 

lappedrider wrote:

Do people really not remember that the lockdown and development of the “shot” all happened under President Trump? 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

You saying he’s the most tyrannical leader in our history really shows how little you know about our history. 

lappedrider wrote:

Do people really not remember that the lockdown and development of the “shot” all happened under President Trump? 

T-MAC wrote:

This makes it quite clear you suffer from TDS yourself if you think he's putting his countries needs first, and not his own...Did you see all...

This makes it quite clear you suffer from TDS yourself if you think he's putting his countries needs first, and not his own...Did you see all the things his country needs that he already defunded, or removed altogether? We need to reduce our deficit, and his big beautiful bill will increase it tremendously.

Did our country need his big beautiful birthday parade? Does our country need a new jet from Qatar? He headed to Scotland to golf, and open another course. How do we benefit from this? Let me guess, he deserves it because he works hard, right?

He ran on ending Ukraine War day 1, and releasing Epstein files, draining the swamp etc. He has not ended Ukraine War (and actually just gave them more money and gear since Putin humiliated him), he has not released Epstein files, and he has filled the swamp with largely non-violent immigrants. He is great at sewing division though, which keeps the swamp people in Washington quite happy as they continue to erode the fabric of our Republic.

The news isn't helping anyone, start thinking critically, and objectively...This will help a lot of us.

EDIT - I'm not saying CA has done the best job managing itself, but it still contributes substantially more than most states to the Fed...CA is the worlds 4th largest economy, why do you think Donny is stoking the fire here? CA has made it expensive to do business here because we have a ton of people to support, and big business is excellent at avoiding this support, and then cry foul.

 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or...

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or right voters. His opposition like to call him a tyrant ,there has never been a more tyrannical leader of this country then Joe Biden. I didnt forget how he closed small businesses, forced hospital staff and military personnel to inject garbage into their body or lose their job. He stood on stage multiple times and tried to guilt Americans to take that shot so he could continue to collect off his personnel investments in the medical community and funnel billions of dollars to big pharma. I will never forget all the decisions that were made to restrict Americans rights while pretending to be saving the day.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

You saying he’s the most tyrannical leader in our history really shows how little you know about our history. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or...

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or right voters. His opposition like to call him a tyrant ,there has never been a more tyrannical leader of this country then Joe Biden. I didnt forget how he closed small businesses, forced hospital staff and military personnel to inject garbage into their body or lose their job. He stood on stage multiple times and tried to guilt Americans to take that shot so he could continue to collect off his personnel investments in the medical community and funnel billions of dollars to big pharma. I will never forget all the decisions that were made to restrict Americans rights while pretending to be saving the day.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

You saying he’s the most tyrannical leader in our history really shows how little you know about our history. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Please give some actual examples and dont use cherry picked results from CNN. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Please give some actual examples and dont use cherry picked results from CNN. 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

You saying he’s the most tyrannical leader in our history really shows how little you know about our history. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Please give some actual examples and dont use cherry picked results from CNN. 

lappedrider wrote:

Well, by your logic, Trump 45 presided over the lock down, and harming small businesses.  He also started the mandatory shot for a lot of people...

Well, by your logic, Trump 45 presided over the lock down, and harming small businesses.  He also started the mandatory shot for a lot of people.  But yet you only blame Biden? 

For the record, I believe President Trump was correct in starting lock down.  And his overall handling of the pandemic, including developing the vaccine was admirable.  Defunding a few critical agencies before hand aside.  

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or...

I never said he was perfect, if he does something I dont like I'll speak up . Im not a blind follower like extreme left or right voters. His opposition like to call him a tyrant ,there has never been a more tyrannical leader of this country then Joe Biden. I didnt forget how he closed small businesses, forced hospital staff and military personnel to inject garbage into their body or lose their job. He stood on stage multiple times and tried to guilt Americans to take that shot so he could continue to collect off his personnel investments in the medical community and funnel billions of dollars to big pharma. I will never forget all the decisions that were made to restrict Americans rights while pretending to be saving the day.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

You saying he’s the most tyrannical leader in our history really shows how little you know about our history. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Please give some actual examples and dont use cherry picked results from CNN. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Please give some actual examples and dont use cherry picked results from CNN. 

RichieW13 wrote:

It doesn't get much more tyrannical than suing the media because you don't like the way they edited an interview with your opponent, or sending masked...

It doesn't get much more tyrannical than suing the media because you don't like the way they edited an interview with your opponent, or sending masked men to kidnap people off the streets. 

Austin Keyfinger wrote:

Please give some actual examples and dont use cherry picked results from CNN. 

RichieW13 wrote:

It doesn't get much more tyrannical than suing the media because you don't like the way they edited an interview with your opponent, or sending masked...

It doesn't get much more tyrannical than suing the media because you don't like the way they edited an interview with your opponent, or sending masked men to kidnap people off the streets. 

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Sending an incursion squad (complete with a CNN crew) to a former President's home to preform a pre-dawn raid is cool though.

Loam Ranger wrote:

What you meant to say was that after Trump had spent a year and a half obfuscating, lying and refusing to return classified documents FBI agents...

What you meant to say was that after Trump had spent a year and a half obfuscating, lying and refusing to return classified documents FBI agents were sent to Mar-a-Lago to conduct a legitimate search warrant approved by a Magistrate Judge at 8:30am.

Zucchini Nibs wrote:

It could just be rage bait but the White House’s response to South Park was hilariously off the mark