Trump Suggests "Animals" are Despicable

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't think its fair to say that all conservatives think along the same lines as D Trump, Ten oz, or even all Republicans.

Not all. 87% as of last Gallup poll.

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why I should change my views.
(  Phi has tried )

Probably because I was actually trying to convince you that fiscal conservatism is meaningless. It's an easy phrase to manipulate. Is it conservative fiscally to get more bang for your buck, or to not spend the buck in the first place?

[MigL]

To answer your question...

The biggest argument against fiscal conservatives is that they want to cut funding from social programs.
I live in Ontario, Canada where we have a large debit. So large that 12.5 billion of every annual budget goes towards servicing the INTEREST on the debit ( the principal must still be paid by our kids in the future, because we choose to live so large ).

You see that 12.5 billion as a necessary evil to fund our social programs.
I see it as money that could be spent on social programs but is, instead, wasted paying interest on an unmanageable debit.
It is in effect, a 12.5 billion CUT to our social programs.

Incidentally, tonight we elected a Conservative government in Ontario, after a decade and a half of Liberal rule.
Not too happy about that as their leader is D Ford, the brother of the late  R Ford; the famous crack smoking, outspoken and forced to quit, Toronto mayor.
( what can possibly go wrong ? )

Edited June 8, 2018 by MigL

[YaDinghus]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing any conservative wing in operation today, that I am aware of, advocates for anything new

Of course they don't. Conservatism is all about using time-honored methods.

I was not talking about the the conservative ideology being right as a whole, but that select ideas are worth keeping for the time being.

Keeping a small military for defensive purpouses for instance seems prudent. When people ask me why self defense is sensible, I tell them that as long as not everyone is a pacfist, every pacifist needs to know how to defend themselves.

A market economy is also a conservative principle - or at least the conservatives claim this principle for their portfolio. Whether or not this is the case - I am for remaining in a market economy, just not a natinal one, and I am also in favour of some strong government oversight and strong social measures to ensure a good life for everyone. But work still needs to be done, and people need to want to work, so the redistribution can't be so strong that it makes no difference whether you work or not. This is also a conservative concept, and it will be usefull for as long as human work is needed. Once fully automated factories and harvesters take that away from us, and we are left with science and culture, this can be abandoned, and perhaps even a market economy, because I could do science and culture all day long for fun

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't think its fair to say that all conservatives think along the same lines as D Trump, Ten oz, or even all Republicans.

Than you must not understand how political affiliation works.

 

10 hours ago, MigL said:

That is a broad brush generalization which you have often railed against, but somehow you see fit to use that brush to paint people who you don't agree with or like.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why I should change my views.

I do not suspect you to change your view. Your position often seems to be that while you don't agree with Trump, White Supremacists, Nazis,  and etc it is important not lump those who enable them together. You have enough sense to know such people and groups are beyond defense so you passively tug toward some imaginary point where all these competing ideas merge. However the tug is always in the same direction and only every benefits one ideology. From all your posts I have read your concept of centrism has a very strong bias. You could say the exact same about me only I do not put up the facade of being a centrist. I acknowledge I am a progressive and accept the good and bad which goes along with that. 

This gets to what this thread is about. The way language is used in an attempt to manipulate political discussions. Conservatives do not speak in concise language which outlines political ideas but rather code their speak as a means of influencing and manipulating matters.  I feel you do this often. You'll quote me or someone else who has criticized Conservatives with an appeal not to lump everyone together while positioning yourself as a "fiscal conservative" imply some significant difference among types of Conservatives. Such posts are empty. They defend Conservatism as a whole yet fail to every actually justify a policy or action by the Conservatives which are the subject of discussion.  You are providing all conservatives cover broadly by arguing the can't be all criticized broadly. 

You can say all you want that when Trump calls someone an "Animal" you don't hear it as racial. Good for you.The Bigots with legions of followers like David Duke make no secret that they are hearing Trump loud and clear. I am not going to ignore the torch burning mob chanting racial slurs in my streets or the families being separated at the border just because you make a plausible deniability argument. 

16 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Though they are mostly on the liberal-labour end of the political spectrum, so a tory would say my perspective is somewhat biased. I would hold against that the fact that I grew up in the military and you get plenty of conservative there.

 

9 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Of course they don't. Conservatism is all about using time-honored methods.

I was not talking about the the conservative ideology being right as a whole, but that select ideas are worth keeping for the time being.

Seems to me that you were referencing perspective. Either way I think what is right vs wrong matters more. No one every come into these threads and argues that there are good and bad things about Dictatorships and that we can't lump all Authoritarians together. That an anti Dictator position is bias less it includes voices from with their regimes. No, we are able to use their history of abuse and failure to form an opinion about them. Likewise I am capable of form opinions about conservative policies in Western Democracies without myself being one. 

You it is about "time-honored methods". I challenge you to list what those are specifically as policies. It is off topic for this thread but feel free to do so in the thread I created asking for examples of successful Conservative policies.

[MigL]

I just gave you an example in my previous post, Ten oz.

Maybe you should read other people's posts before prejudicially assuming racism , hate and intolerance.
Must be tough living in your world, where everyone is evil and you are the only one who's seen the light.

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

To answer your question...

The biggest argument against fiscal conservatives is that they want to cut funding from social programs.
I live in Ontario, Canada where we have a large debit. So large that 12.5 billion of every annual budget goes towards servicing the INTEREST on the debit ( the principal must still be paid by our kids in the future, because we choose to live so large ).

You see that 12.5 billion as a necessary evil to fund our social programs.
I see it as money that could be spent on social programs but is, instead, wasted paying interest on an unmanageable debit.
It is in effect, a 12.5 billion CUT to our social programs.

I don't see any of that as "necessary", especially in a country that acknowledges the importance of the health of its citizenry enough to invest heavily in it. I would suggest that your debt implies some other forces at work other than the differences between fiscal policies. If you were in the US, I would suggest you look at where your publicly-managed services intersect with your privately-owned contractors -- that's traditionally where the corruption lies. Some of our extremist capitalists love pointing out how our social programs can't stand on their own, especially after lobbying to make them so weak. These are the kind of people who don't think twice about stirring up fringe hatreds with their words, then holding themselves up as the only solution.

[CharonY]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

To answer your question...

The biggest argument against fiscal conservatives is that they want to cut funding from social programs.
I live in Ontario, Canada where we have a large debit. So large that 12.5 billion of every annual budget goes towards servicing the INTEREST on the debit ( the principal must still be paid by our kids in the future, because we choose to live so large ).

You see that 12.5 billion as a necessary evil to fund our social programs.
I see it as money that could be spent on social programs but is, instead, wasted paying interest on an unmanageable debit.
It is in effect, a 12.5 billion CUT to our social programs.

Incidentally, tonight we elected a Conservative government in Ontario, after a decade and a half of Liberal rule.
Not too happy about that as their leader is D Ford, the brother of the late  R Ford; the famous crack smoking, outspoken and forced to quit, Toronto mayor.
( what can possibly go wrong ? )

I am not familiar with Ontario politics, but obviously the control between inflow and outflow is a crucial element. I am sure the recession in 2007/8 had a big role and while not universally accepted, there are good reasons (including semi-empiric studies) to believe that strict austerity measures would tanked the economy even worse (i.e. the restriction of outflow would have a disproportionate limitation to future inflow). I have no expertise in economics, but I imagine striking the right balance is difficult.

Regardless of political affiliation I do believe that this balance should not be based on ideology but should be based on the best available evidence. What Phi mentioned is for example a talking point of many free-marketeers that privately run systems are inherently more efficient, but there is of course evidence that in many cases this is not true. And again, in my mind research is needed to understand why it works (or not). Unfortunately parties often have strict limitations in what they can say or do and not offend their base. As such I suspect that most are unable to come up with coherent plan and rather muddle their way through. Some the US side of things are tax cuts, without any good evidence that it will not increase debts (the opposite is more likely from what I am reading).

I have tried to check up on the PC platform and boy is it difficult to find substance there.

Edited June 8, 2018 by CharonY

[MigL]

Both our federal Conservative government and our provincial Liberal government invested heavily in the economic recovery following the 2008 crash; and our economy had one of the fastest comebacks in the world.
However the federal Conservatives made an effort to return to balanced budgets and were booted out of office, the provincial Liberals did not, and continued spending like drunken sailors.
I'm glad that our health care system is envied by Americans, Phi, but it can be quickly rendered ineffective, either by massive cuts, as Conservatives are claimed to want, or, if money has to be diverted from health care because its needed to service a massive debit, as the Liberals have done.

I will agree that privatizing certain services is detrimental. Hydro in Ontario is private now, and the PCs have promised to change that ( we'll see if it actually happens ). The CEO earns 6 million ( don't get excited, its Canadian dollars ) and we have exorbitant prices for hydro. On the other hand our liquor and beer are under provincial control and heavily taxed; we pay $40 for a case of 24 beer. The PCs have also promised 'buck a beer' prices, i.e. $24 for a case of beer ( we Canadians like our beer )

[Phi for All]

I still say this is all opportunistic extremism, whipping up the mobs, divisively fomenting hatred wherever he can, taking credit for anything good that happens, and blaming his failures on his opponents. I want to believe that conservative folks have better values than this, that this flimflam conman isn't their idea of an American leader, but 87% approval among Republicans is pretty damning. That's higher than anyone except Bush right after 9/11. That's higher than Reagan, ffs. Are these the same people? Were they always in support of pussy-grabbing, ruthless, egomaniacal fascism? 

[iNow]

I’m trying to avoid hyperbole. I like to consider myself reasonable.

I’m hardly some easily scared uninformed worrywart. 

Despite all of this...

I keep thinking of nazi Germany and the lead up to the death camps and the parallels I’m seeing in the US today.

What are we ACTUALLY doing to address what’s happening? How have we allowed the UN to condemn the US for human rights violations?

[Ten oz]

On 6/7/2018 at 10:36 PM, MigL said:

To answer your question...

The biggest argument against fiscal conservatives is that they want to cut funding from social programs.
I live in Ontario, Canada where we have a large debit. So large that 12.5 billion of every annual budget goes towards servicing the INTEREST on the debit ( the principal must still be paid by our kids in the future, because we choose to live so large ).

You see that 12.5 billion as a necessary evil to fund our social programs.
I see it as money that could be spent on social programs but is, instead, wasted paying interest on an unmanageable debit.
It is in effect, a 12.5 billion CUT to our social programs.

Incidentally, tonight we elected a Conservative government in Ontario, after a decade and a half of Liberal rule.
Not too happy about that as their leader is D Ford, the brother of the late  R Ford; the famous crack smoking, outspoken and forced to quit, Toronto mayor.
( what can possibly go wrong ? )

Cutting social programs isn't the biggest problem I have with "fiscal" conservatives. Rather it is in the insincere way the speak about what they want. There is no political middle ground with liars. When out of power debt is treated as a national tragedy stealing away the hopes and dreams of future generations. When in power debt ceases to matter and everything becomes about tax cuts. Here in the U.S. we just saw it (yet again) with "fiscal" conservatives. During 8yrs of Obama the bemoaning about debt was never ending from the right. Soon as they got control of the govt they increased debt even further and cut taxes. Just as "Animal" in conservative emphasizes race the word "Debt" is used to emphasize who is doing the spending and not spending as a whole. 

In Ontario Ford has already conceded that budgets will be large as the liberals budgets were projected to be over the next couple years. Conservatives promise is to balance the budget at some yet to be announce point in the future through some yet to be announced plan. What Conservatives do want and have a plan for in real time is - Tax Cuts. The amount of interest Ontario pays on debt does not change when taxes are cut. The amount of money the govt has to pay interest is changed. This just leads to more debt and the interest on that debt taking away larger percentage of available funds. Even if services do get cut the savings will only help pay for the tax cuts and not actually improve the debt situation. 

Quote

 

Ford has promised to balance the budget in “a reasonable timeframe,” although the party didn’t release a fully costed election plan. Kavcic estimates the deficit will likely track into the C$5 billion to C$6 billion range by fiscal 2020-21. That was in line with Liberal plans.

Uncertainty about the deficit will persist until the new government tables its first budget, but “the mandate sets up a clear tack away from higher taxes and big program spending, to tax relief, leaner government and competitiveness, and could be a first indication that Canadians’ appetite for deficit spending has peaked,” Kavcic wrote.

Ford has promised to cut the corporate tax rate to 10.5 percent from 11.5 percent, reduce personal taxes for middle-income earners by 20 percent along with cuts to gasoline and diesel taxes. Ford also pledged to scrap the province’s cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, setting up a showdown with Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has vowed to ensure every Canadian province adopts some form of carbon tax.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-08/tax-cuts-pledge-blunts-deficit-worry-in-ontario-after-election

 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Ten oz

[MigL]

I don't really label myself, Ten oz; I have voted liberal, conservative and even socialist ( yes, we have more than two parties in Canada ), depending on the issues of the day.
But I suppose most people on this forum would consider me a fiscal conservative because of my stance on excessive borrowing and runaway debit.
You seem to think that invites a comparison to American Republicans and even D Trump ( in your previous post ).

Maybe I should make a few comparisons of my own...

Your American President has recently called our Prime Minister 'dishonest and weak'.
Your former President R Nixon called P Trudeau ( father and former PM ) an 'asshole"

Should I assumes that says something about the character and integrity of all Americans ?
( you are American are you not ? )

[iNow]

https:/twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/1005614491768360960

[YaDinghus]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

https:/twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/1005614491768360960

I'm not saying McCain is an imbecile, but even an imbecile should see how insensibly Trump is acting.

[swansont]

Unfortunately, McCain and Flake (who tweeted a related sentiment) have done little to check the actions of the president, when it is their power to do so. Calling for the fainting couch and your smelling salts is theater. These are people in a position to actually do something, and they have failed.

[Ten oz]

On 6/7/2018 at 8:37 PM, MigL said:

We have strayed a little off-topic from the OP.
The biggest problem with a perceived offence is the fact that it is based on subjective perception.
If a normal person compares a group of people with animals, the common interpretation is that they have no morals, are barbaric and don't get along well in society.
When someone like D Trump says it, because of his history of intolerance for immigrants, the perception is that he is comparing them to animals.
Whether that's factual or not, that is the general perception because that's the bed he's made for himself.

I don't think its fair to say that all conservatives think along the same lines as D Trump, Ten oz, or even all Republicans.
That is a broad brush generalization which you have often railed against, but somehow you see fit to use that brush to paint people who you don't agree with or like.
I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why I should change my views.
(  Phi has tried )

 

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't really label myself, Ten oz; I have voted liberal, conservative and even socialist ( yes, we have more than two parties in Canada ), depending on the issues of the day.
But I suppose most people on this forum would consider me a fiscal conservative because of my stance on excessive borrowing and runaway debit.
You seem to think that invites a comparison to American Republicans and even D Trump ( in your previous post ).

Maybe I should make a few comparisons of my own...

Your American President has recently called our Prime Minister 'dishonest and weak'.
Your former President R Nixon called P Trudeau ( father and former PM ) an 'asshole"

Should I assumes that says something about the character and integrity of all Americans ?
( you are American are you not ? )

You do label yourself. You have repeatedly called yourself a "fiscal conservative". Not just in this thread but several others. If you don't like the company which that invites stop calling yourself that. 

[Scott of the Antares]

To think that there is only one type of conservatism; would that be a false dilemma according to that much touted list of wiki fallacies?

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

To think that there is only one type of conservatism; would that be a false dilemma according to that much touted list of wiki fallacies?

In the context of the discussion, probably not. The "conservatives" in congress have been (for the most part) quite content to advance Trump's agenda. Whatever their differences, they seem to be small enough not to matter, in many cases.

Trump is not an aberration. He is what the GOP wanted. He is enacting their wishes.

[Sensei]

It has nothing to do with skin color, or human race.

Far right conservatives, extremely religious people, creationists, are believing in superiority of human being. Animal for them is something worser, far less worth than human.. In their opinion, by calling other human per "animal", they are downgrading them..

For creationists, literally believing in Bible words (e.g. creation 6k years ago, direct creation of human by God etc.) one of the worstest thing somebody can say to them is that they're ancestors of monkeys..

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Trump is not an aberration. He is what the GOP wanted. He is enacting their wishes.

87% of the GOP approve of his actions. They've already torn down the Reagan statues. They lie when they act offended.

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

87% of the GOP approve of his actions. They've already torn down the Reagan statues. They lie when they act offended.

Reagan started the push toward this, and it has continued over the years. The GOP ended up at Trump because that's the alignment they chose. 

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

The GOP ended up at Trump because that's the alignment they chose. 

It's almost like they did it for a bet, much like "Trading Places" and we all know how that ended.

The only question is, how far does the pendulum swing before its return?

Edited June 11, 2018 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Reagan started the push toward this, and it has continued over the years. The GOP ended up at Trump because that's the alignment they chose. 

They've taken duplicity to such a high level! They've always used the accuse-the-other-guy-of-the-bad-things-you're-doing tactic, and the it's-good-when-we-do-it-but-bad-when-you-do-it tactic. For the last couple of years we've seen the we'll-pretend-to-be-scandalized tactic, denouncing the worst Trump offenses vocally while supporting them strongly with their approval of his performance.

I have no other word but hypocrisy. I'm so disappointed so many of my fellow humans are behaving so cravenly, so hatefully. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I have no other word but hypocrisy. I'm so disappointed so many of my fellow humans are behaving so cravenly, so hatefully.

And that is why the pendulum returns, whatever the direction of travel.

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

87% of the GOP approve of his actions. They've already torn down the Reagan statues. They lie when they act offended.

Conservatives (Fiscal, Religious, Nationalist, etc) all vote shoulder to shoulder and lean on each other to get their agendas passed. Racism, Sexism, Anti Political correctness, and etc are  tools used to appeal to different conservative leaning groups but the end goal always seems to be deregulation and tax cuts.