Lurkalot wrote:I don't see him as a socialist as most this side of the pond would understand the word but from the speeches or rather bits of speeches I seen he does seem to make some sense. I won't pretend to really understand the American political system . I can't in all honesty see him in the White House I just don't think America is ready for his style of politics although I would wish him well. I can see Trump getting in , and perhaps Boris getting in over here too. Brave new world that will be?
You are correct in that the labels have quite different meanings on opposite sides of the pond. Say socialist to an American over 40 and what comes to mind is the second S in USSR and the Berlin wall.
That's not what Bernie is talking about and he would fit in to your Labor party with hardly a ruffle.
Direct causation is dealing with a problem via direct action. Systemic causation recognizes that many problems arise from the system they are in and must be dealt with via systemic causation. Systemic causation has four versions: A chain of direct causes. Interacting direct causes (or chains of direct causes). Feedback loops. And probabilistic causes. Systemic causation in global warming explains why global warming over the Pacific can produce huge snowstorms in Washington DC: masses of highly energized water molecules evaporate over the Pacific, blow to the Northeast and over the North Pole and come down in winter over the East coast and parts of the Midwest as masses of snow. Systemic causation has chains of direct causes, interacting causes, feedback loops, and probabilistic causes — often combined.
Direct causation is easy to understand, and appears to be represented in the grammars of all languages around the world. Systemic causation is more complex and is not represented in the grammar of any language. It just has to be learned.
Empirical research has shown that conservatives tend to reason with direct causation and that progressives have a much easier time reasoning with systemic causation. The reason is thought to be that, in the strict father model, the father expects the child or spouse to respond directly to an order and that refusal should be punished as swiftly and directly as possible.
Many of Trump’s policy proposals are framed in terms of direct causation.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back in WWII Rommel had to explain why he was being pushed back by Patton's 3rd Army. His answer was that battle was chaos and that the Americans practiced chaos every day.
I just watched Trump attacking Mitt Romney, who'd accused him of "lacking the temperament and judgement to be President." And, well, Romeny is correct, but I think Trump is likely to end up as President anyway.
If Trump is becomes the next President of the United States I think it is probably going to be the most extra-ordinary political event of my lifetime. If he's capable of saying and doing the things he's currently saying and doing, and not only get away with it but win the Presidency, then what the f*** is he going to say and do when he takes office?
Is he actually going to try to ban all muslims from entering America?
Is he going to talk about his political opponents in the sort of language he's currently talking about Romney and his rivals for the Republican nomination? How's he going to deal with Putin? Or delicate situations in the Middle East? How is he going to deal with the Saudis, for example?
It is going to be quite something to watch, if it happens.
And this business of expelling illegals is a joke at best, totally unworkable. The jobs they do - who's going to do them? The economy they churn - who's or what's going to do that?
Apart from that pre-election crap, answer me this: why would a member of the 1% (once president, that is) give a shíte about the 99%?
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
biffvernon wrote:And where would it end? Will the native Americans expel the pale-faces?
Only certain ones, in keeping with what would be Trump's real actions if he gets the chance.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:why would a member of the 1% (once president, that is) give a shíte about the 99%?
It is possible that somebody born into enormous wealth might actually be motivated more by "glory" or his "place in history" than amassing more wealth. He may genuinely believe he can "make America great again".
emordnilap wrote:why would a member of the 1% (once president, that is) give a shíte about the 99%?
It is possible that somebody born into enormous wealth might actually be motivated more by "glory" or his "place in history" than amassing more wealth. He may genuinely believe he can "make America great again".
Oh, I grant that; I hope it's the case with DT. And look at Chuck Feeney. He can't get rid of money fast enough. But CF's the exception that proves the general rule about the 1%. I am not hopeful.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:And this business of expelling illegals is a joke at best, totally unworkable. The jobs they do - who's going to do them? The economy they churn - who's or what's going to do that?
Apart from that pre-election crap, answer me this: why would a member of the 1% (once president, that is) give a shíte about the 99%?
You are correct that deporting them all is unworkable just from the numbers you have to deal with 12,000,000 total and 8,000,000 in the work force. But an active deportation program that starts with the criminal element and the welfare cheats would be a good start and give the most return for the money spent while leaving the ones that are hard at work alone for years.
Of course to really work you have to effectively close the border to prevent the return of the felons deported.
emordnilap wrote:And this business of expelling illegals is a joke at best, totally unworkable. The jobs they do - who's going to do them? The economy they churn - who's or what's going to do that?
Apart from that pre-election crap, answer me this: why would a member of the 1% (once president, that is) give a shíte about the 99%?
You are correct that deporting them all is unworkable just from the numbers you have to deal with 12,000,000 total and 8,000,000 in the work force. But an active deportation program that starts with the criminal element and the welfare cheats would be a good start and give the most return for the money spent while leaving the ones that are hard at work alone for years.
Of course to really work you have to effectively close the border to prevent the return of the felons deported.
With regard to closing the border between the US and Mexico, do you think that Trumps wall would would be useful or will Mexican civil engineers specialising in building tunnels suddenly find they have a lot of work on their hands?
They are illegal immigrants - they shouldn't be in America.
Thats the bottom line.
Now we know, as trump 'off the record' told the NYT, that it is totally impractical to expel 11 million illegals, but what pisses of ordinary Americans who follow the rules is why can't America deport at least the worst elements of the mass illegal population who don't follow the law!
And we know why some many of America's 1% don't want any real deportation of illegal immigrants - because it keeps wages down for working Americans. Funny how progressives don't want to admit that fact!
Even more taboo in the corporate media in the States is that Trumps economic programme will lead to higher wages for working class Americans and will materially benefit them economically.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
