• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump just won

I'm not 'projecting' anything, the human body/mind has biological limitations, that is fact regardless of your beliefs or mine.

We seem to have different beliefs regarding how much stress the human body can take. Also, remember that people walked around a hell of a lot more back in the day. Regular physical protects both the body and mind from the effects of stress.

I have no 'belief.' I go with research (quoted), evidence and experience with physical limitations associated with working long hours



I don't think you understand how they looked at children back then. "Childhood" is a fairly new concept. They used to see children as adults who just sucked. They had no qualms about putting children to work. It was seen as a non-issue.

I know what the attitudes of the time were. It being clear that they understood that conditions were so bad that they would not put their own children into that situation, yet had no qualms when they put other peoples children to work in dangerous conditions with no social welfare, low pay, no security, no health and put to the scrapheap if they got ill.

As you say, it's a matter of attitude. A near complete disregard for the welfare of others in the pursuit of maximum gain for themselves and their own family.
 
This part is important: The concern comes from a single interview February 28. Other than all the secret messages and dog whistles, the only thing you really have is a single interview on February 28th.

The part that's actually important, which you seem unwilling or unable to understand is that he didn't repudiate the white-nationalists when it actually mattered.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated

Ever since the Tea Party’s peak, in 2010, and its fade, citizens on the American far right—Patriot militias, border vigilantes, white supremacists—have searched for a standard-bearer, and now they’d found him. In the past, “white nationalists,” as they call themselves, had described Trump as a “Jew-lover,” but the new tone of his campaign was a revelation. Richard Spencer is a self-described “identitarian” who lives in Whitefish, Montana, and promotes “white racial consciousness.” At thirty-six, Spencer is trim and preppy, with degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago. He is the president and director of the National Policy Institute, a think tank, co-founded by William Regnery, a member of the conservative publishing family, that is “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States and around the world.” The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Spencer “a suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old.” Spencer told me that he had expected the Presidential campaign to be an “amusing freak show,” but that Trump was “refreshing.” He went on, “Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. We’re moving into a new America.” He said, “I don’t think Trump is a white nationalist,” but he did believe that Trump reflected “an unconscious vision that white people have—that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably aren’t able to articulate it. I think it’s there. I think that, to a great degree, explains the Trump phenomenon. I think he is the one person who can tap into it.”

...

As the debate wound down, Trump, in his final statement, recited his mantra of despair. “Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t win anymore,” he said. “We can’t do anything right.” Matthew Parrott, a Web developer who was sipping coffee from a cup adorned with a swastika, said, “He was sassy without being comical. He struck exactly the tone he needed to give the people supporting him exactly what they want more of.” He went on, “The political system hasn’t been providing an outlet for social-conservative populism. You had this Ron Paul revolution, and all the stuff about cutting taxes, small government, and that’s just not the electrifying issue that they were expecting it to be. Simple folks, they want the border secure. They want what Donald Trump is mirroring at them. I think he’s an intelligent businessman who identified what the people want to hear. He’s made a living finding these sorts of opportunities.”

And after the election Pierson is out thanking /pol and now there's a nutbag talking about Japanese internment during WW2 being legal precedent for setting up Muslim registries. The core issue is that in Trump winning, these groups who he wouldn't distance himself from during the election also think they're winning. I think the term of art here is 'emboldening the terrorists'.
 
I know what the attitudes of the time were. It being clear that they understood that conditions were so bad that they would not put their own children into that situation, yet had no qualms when they put other peoples children to work in dangerous conditions with no social welfare, low pay, no security, no health and put to the scrapheap if they got ill.

But the reason they didn't put their own children to work in those places still wasn't because it was dangerous. General parenting advice at this time was to not get attached to your kids. Not to develop love for them until they're adults, because they're not likely to survive. Rich people typically only met their own children a couple of times a year. Parents were mythical and strange people to kids.

As you say, it's a matter of attitude. A near complete disregard for the welfare of others in the pursuit of maximum gain for themselves and their own family.

As is standard in high birth rate and high death rate societies. If people tend to die randomly from whatever anyway there's less of an incentive to make efforts to keep people alive, or care about their feelings.

I still think you're looking at this from an incredibly limited scope.
 
But the reason they didn't put their own children to work in those places still wasn't because it was dangerous. General parenting advice at this time was to not get attached to your kids. Not to develop love for them until they're adults, because they're not likely to survive. Rich people typically only met their own children a couple of times a year. Parents were mythical and strange people to kids.

Do you have evidence that this is in fact the reason why the children of the rich were not sent by their parents to the mines or the factories to work 12 hour days for a few pennies?


As is standard in high birth rate and high death rate societies. If people tend to die randomly from whatever anyway there's less of an incentive to make efforts to keep people alive, or care about their feelings.

I don't know how this could justify the treatment of other peoples children being mercilessly exploited while obviously understanding that they would never put their own children to work under remotely similar conditions, regardless of high death rates for children (which they themselves contributed to) That they would not want for their own children to end up in a place where they willingly put other children in order to raise company profits.

I still think you're looking at this from an incredibly limited scope.

In turn, I think that you are rationalizing. As were the industrialists who exploited children, including workers in general.
 
Do you have evidence that this is in fact the reason why the children of the rich were not sent by their parents to the mines or the factories to work 12 hour days for a few pennies?

Are you aware of the concept of "social class"? What more evidence do you need? Rich people's kids just didn't do certain things. They weren't even allowed to play with the poor kids, even if there were no other children around.


I don't know how this could justify the treatment of other peoples children being mercilessly exploited while obviously understanding that they would never put their own children to work under remotely similar conditions, regardless of high death rates for children (which they themselves contributed to) That they would not want for their own children to end up in a place where they willingly put other children in order to raise company profits.

Well... it happened. I'm not sure what more to say? History is just things that happened. It happened regardless of us understanding why it happened.


In turn, I think that you are rationalizing. As were the industrialists who exploited children, including workers in general.

They thought it was just right and proper that the poor and weak (who only have themselves to blame) were to be mercilessly exploited to teach them the lesson of not allowing themselves to become poor. It was popular back then to blame, pretty much, everything on the victim. The rich dictated the story narratives and public discourse. This did't change until the rise of socialism.
 
The part that's actually important, which you seem unwilling or unable to understand is that he didn't repudiate the white-nationalists when it actually mattered.

Even though he did it immediately afterwards. Repeatedly.

And even though this single instance stands in stark contrast to position she has held consistently for 20 years before.

Since to you a single non-answer overrides 20+ years of consistent plainly stated positions, that again makes Hillary even more racist by the standards of those crying Wolf.
 
The part that's actually important, which you seem unwilling or unable to understand is that he didn't repudiate the white-nationalists when it actually mattered.

Even though he did it immediately afterwards. Repeatedly.

Yeah, after he was cheered (for years) for expressing his honest fondness for white supremacy as a principle, he got a whiff of the political baggage that came with his actual position so he loudly disclaimed it. Repeatedly. Even though he didn't believe the disclaimer he was spewing... Kudos to Trump for elevating political expedience above his own heartfelt position, eh?

And Kudos to his white supremacist "supporters" for being willing to tolerate his pandering to those who might be offended by his white supremacist views. At least they are smart enough to pick up on the *wink, wink* aspect of his disclaimer.
 
Even though he did it immediately afterwards. Repeatedly.

Yeah, after he was cheered (for years) for expressing his honest fondness for white supremacy as a principle, he got a whiff of the political baggage that came with his actual position so he loudly disclaimed it. Repeatedly. Even though he didn't believe the disclaimer he was spewing... Kudos to Trump for elevating political expedience above his own heartfelt position, eh?

And Kudos to his white supremacist "supporters" for being willing to tolerate his pandering to those who might be offended by his white supremacist views. At least they are smart enough to pick up on the *wink, wink* aspect of his disclaimer.

Where the hell did that come from? When he attempted to get the Reform Party nomination in '00, Trump called Pat Buchanan anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-black, and a "Hitler lover." Trump has had a public persona for over 35 years. People now making him out to be literally Hitler are duplicitous or have their heads stuck up their asses.
 
The part that's actually important, which you seem unwilling or unable to understand is that he didn't repudiate the white-nationalists when it actually mattered.

Even though he did it immediately afterwards. Repeatedly.

And even though this single instance stands in stark contrast to position she has held consistently for 20 years before.

Since to you a single non-answer overrides 20+ years of consistent plainly stated positions, that again makes Hillary even more racist by the standards of those crying Wolf.

He wasn't silent in a single instance - it was throughout the runup to the election. You're focusing on a single instance, specifically the Duke comment in Feb, and ignoring everything else because it's inconvenient for your argument.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfxwPBmpsv4[/YOUTUBE]
 
Yeah, after he was cheered (for years) for expressing his honest fondness for white supremacy as a principle, he got a whiff of the political baggage that came with his actual position so he loudly disclaimed it. Repeatedly. Even though he didn't believe the disclaimer he was spewing... Kudos to Trump for elevating political expedience above his own heartfelt position, eh?

And Kudos to his white supremacist "supporters" for being willing to tolerate his pandering to those who might be offended by his white supremacist views. At least they are smart enough to pick up on the *wink, wink* aspect of his disclaimer.

When he attempted to get the Reform Party nomination in '00, Trump called Pat Buchanan anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-black, and a "Hitler lover."

It is not some kind of news flash that his "ideals" are made of jello, dude.

People now making him out to be literally Hitler are duplicitous or have their heads stuck up their asses.

I tentatively agree - after 35 years of a public persona whose track record completely falsifies it, you'd have to be some kind of moron to think that Trump has any core beliefs that can't be sacrificed to the need of the moment. Maybe that will make him a Great President, a Tremendous one even. I kinda doubt it, but I'm open to being wrong about that.
 
Even though he did it immediately afterwards. Repeatedly.

Yeah, after he was cheered (for years) for expressing his honest fondness for white supremacy as a principle, he got a whiff of the political baggage that came with his actual position so he loudly disclaimed it. Repeatedly. Even though he didn't believe the disclaimer he was spewing... Kudos to Trump for elevating political expedience above his own heartfelt position, eh?

And Kudos to his white supremacist "supporters" for being willing to tolerate his pandering to those who might be offended by his white supremacist views. At least they are smart enough to pick up on the *wink, wink* aspect of his disclaimer.

You need to actually look into what he did for decades before you start making statements about what he did for decades. The blogger I quoted, and also Trausti, pointed out his attitude with regards to the 2000 Reform Party.

So, the liberal blogger I quoted, saying "stop crying 'wolf wolf' all the time", is talking directly to you. No wonder you don't like it.
 
Yeah, after he was cheered (for years) for expressing his honest fondness for white supremacy as a principle, he got a whiff of the political baggage that came with his actual position so he loudly disclaimed it. Repeatedly. Even though he didn't believe the disclaimer he was spewing... Kudos to Trump for elevating political expedience above his own heartfelt position, eh?

And Kudos to his white supremacist "supporters" for being willing to tolerate his pandering to those who might be offended by his white supremacist views. At least they are smart enough to pick up on the *wink, wink* aspect of his disclaimer.

You need to actually look into what he did for decades before you start making statements about what he did for decades. The blogger I quoted, and also Trausti, pointed out his attitude with regards to the 2000 Reform Party.

So, the liberal blogger I quoted, saying "stop crying 'wolf wolf' all the time", is talking directly to you. No wonder you don't like it.

It is likely that I've been aware of Trump's antics since before you were born Jason. Cast first the mote from thine own eye and all that. Blinding oneself to the facts by subscribing to the blind obeisance recommended by your sacred article is not my idea of how a "real" American citizen should behave. Yes, the author has a shred of a point. It would gain a little heft if only someone could come up with ONE statement of principle uttered by the Orange Oligarch that he himself has not directly contradicted in his own words.

Face it dude - Trump has only one core value; more money for Trump. Never once has that principle been abandoned. He will never realease his taxes, will never place his businesses in a blind trust, and will flout every law designed to prevent conflicts of interest by federal employees. He WILL take full advantage of every facet of executive immunity though.
I bet you LOVE how he is showing his plans to "drain the swamp" by installing the worst pieces of refuse ever to dwell therein. Apparently he plans to replace "the swamp" with one gigantic cesspool.
* In 1986, Sessions became only the second nominee in 50 years to be denied confirmation as a federal judge
* In February Flynn took to Twitter to say "Fear of Muslims is rational", and is known to have made several blatantly racist remarks.
* Pompeo - probably the best of the lot, having done little of note other than perpetuate the failed efforts to implicate HRC in the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi (while ignoring the hundreds killed in the numerous Embassy attacks that occurred under Bush). Just another piece of flotsam retrieved from the swamp that Trump promises to "drain"...
 
Last edited:
Do you have evidence that this is in fact the reason why the children of the rich were not sent by their parents to the mines or the factories to work 12 hour days for a few pennies?


As is standard in high birth rate and high death rate societies. If people tend to die randomly from whatever anyway there's less of an incentive to make efforts to keep people alive, or care about their feelings.

I don't know how this could justify the treatment of other peoples children being mercilessly exploited while obviously understanding that they would never put their own children to work under remotely similar conditions, regardless of high death rates for children (which they themselves contributed to) That they would not want for their own children to end up in a place where they willingly put other children in order to raise company profits.

I still think you're looking at this from an incredibly limited scope.

In turn, I think that you are rationalizing. As were the industrialists who exploited children, including workers in general.
You continue to project your sense of normalcy onto others, assuming that people held your beliefs and what you think “ought” to be is what they thought. Your sense of normalcy has been shaped mostly by how society has changed over the last hundred years. Your sense of normalcy is not only in conflict with the “normal” of a hundred years ago but even in conflict with the “normal” in many areas of the world today.
 
Do you have evidence that this is in fact the reason why the children of the rich were not sent by their parents to the mines or the factories to work 12 hour days for a few pennies?




I don't know how this could justify the treatment of other peoples children being mercilessly exploited while obviously understanding that they would never put their own children to work under remotely similar conditions, regardless of high death rates for children (which they themselves contributed to) That they would not want for their own children to end up in a place where they willingly put other children in order to raise company profits.

I still think you're looking at this from an incredibly limited scope.

In turn, I think that you are rationalizing. As were the industrialists who exploited children, including workers in general.
You continue to project your sense of normalcy onto others, assuming that people held your beliefs and what you think “ought” to be is what they thought. Your sense of normalcy has been shaped mostly by how society has changed over the last hundred years. Your sense of normalcy is not only in conflict with the “normal” of a hundred years ago but even in conflict with the “normal” in many areas of the world today.

I'm not projecting, I'm saying that industrialists at the time had sufficient information and intelligence to understand that they were exploiting children, and workers in general.

Not everyone did, or wanted to, of course, some people are just plain arseholes who cannot see the world from the perspective of others. It goes beyond social conditioning and the beliefs of their times to the point of Sociopathy.

Or too far up their own arses to see that they are causing needless misery and suffering while it is within their ability to change their business practices. That of course would not be in their own interest.

That the misery exploitation was indeed understood by at least some of the people of that period is reflected in the efforts of those who actually fought and struggled for better pay and conditions...so the rationale that 'this was the attitude of the time' is nonsense.
 
Do you have evidence that this is in fact the reason why the children of the rich were not sent by their parents to the mines or the factories to work 12 hour days for a few pennies?




I don't know how this could justify the treatment of other peoples children being mercilessly exploited while obviously understanding that they would never put their own children to work under remotely similar conditions, regardless of high death rates for children (which they themselves contributed to) That they would not want for their own children to end up in a place where they willingly put other children in order to raise company profits.

I still think you're looking at this from an incredibly limited scope.

In turn, I think that you are rationalizing. As were the industrialists who exploited children, including workers in general.
You continue to project your sense of normalcy onto others, assuming that people held your beliefs and what you think “ought” to be is what they thought. Your sense of normalcy has been shaped mostly by how society has changed over the last hundred years. Your sense of normalcy is not only in conflict with the “normal” of a hundred years ago but even in conflict with the “normal” in many areas of the world today.

DBT is actually pretty on-point here.

If all those slave owners prior to emancipation just believed intrinsically that people have the right to own one another and that this was just the attitude of 'the times' then why bother spending any time trying to justify it? Why bother spending all that time trying to falsely link chattel slavery to Biblical slavery, or why perpetuate the idea that the human species is separated into 'races' some of which are inherently lesser? If the people of the times legitimately believed that what they were doing was perfectly fine then there would have been no need to justify it morally. They would have done as the Greeks and been satisfied with "The weak must endure what the strong demand."

As this applies to the industrial era, there's something to be said for how children were treated was definitely different in the 19th century, in that what we consider 'children' today were 'young men and women' more than a century ago, and that the advent and spread of laws dedicated to child well fare represent a change overtime in how we regard children.

With that said however, how people of the 19th century treated children ultimately doesn't matter since the industrial machine of the age possessed such callous disregard for human life that goes well beyond the people they employed. It wasn't just that they used cheap labor in horrible working conditions regardless of age and then spat out destitute cripples when their usefulness ended. They also provided consumers with dangerous products that regularly killed people. What's more, you can't simply say it was the prevailing attitude of 'the times' because this shit STILL HAPPENS to this day, around the world.

Bottom line: The industrial robber barons were not Andrew Ryan-esque Nihilistic Objectivists. They were god-fearing men with families of their own who definitely had an understanding of 'right' from 'wrong' same as the plantation-slavers. Thus in order to avoid having to come to terms with the horrible things they committed on their fellow man for personal benefit, they created an entire system of justifications meant to absolve the capital owner by way of "Don't hate the player, hate the game." It's not OUR fault that you're all poor and starving, the free market provides to those who deserve it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
You need to actually look into what he did for decades before you start making statements about what he did for decades. The blogger I quoted, and also Trausti, pointed out his attitude with regards to the 2000 Reform Party.

So, the liberal blogger I quoted, saying "stop crying 'wolf wolf' all the time", is talking directly to you. No wonder you don't like it.

It is likely that I've been aware of Trump's antics since before you were born Jason. Cast first the mote from thine own eye and all that. Blinding oneself to the facts by subscribing to the blind obeisance recommended by your sacred article is not my idea of how a "real" American citizen should behave. Yes, the author has a shred of a point. It would gain a little heft if only someone could come up with ONE statement of principle uttered by the Orange Oligarch that he himself has not directly contradicted in his own words.

Face it dude - Trump has only one core value; more money for Trump. Never once has that principle been abandoned. He will never realease his taxes, will never place his businesses in a blind trust, and will flout every law designed to prevent conflicts of interest by federal employees. He WILL take full advantage of every facet of executive immunity though.
I bet you LOVE how he is showing his plans to "drain the swamp" by installing the worst pieces of refuse ever to dwell therein. Apparently he plans to replace "the swamp" with one gigantic cesspool.
* In 1986, Sessions became only the second nominee in 50 years to be denied confirmation as a federal judge
* In February Flynn took to Twitter to say "Fear of Muslims is rational", and is known to have made several blatantly racist remarks.
* Pompeo - probably the best of the lot, having done little of note other than perpetuate the failed efforts to implicate HRC in the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi (while ignoring the hundreds killed in the numerous Embassy attacks that occurred under Bush). Just another piece of flotsam retrieved from the swamp that Trump promises to "drain"...

All of that, and not one word about race. Almost as if you concede but want to get the last word. If the last word is "even though I can't say anything about race he's still a bad guy." I don't disagree with that.
 
It is likely that I've been aware of Trump's antics since before you were born Jason. Cast first the mote from thine own eye and all that. Blinding oneself to the facts by subscribing to the blind obeisance recommended by your sacred article is not my idea of how a "real" American citizen should behave. Yes, the author has a shred of a point. It would gain a little heft if only someone could come up with ONE statement of principle uttered by the Orange Oligarch that he himself has not directly contradicted in his own words.

Face it dude - Trump has only one core value; more money for Trump. Never once has that principle been abandoned. He will never realease his taxes, will never place his businesses in a blind trust, and will flout every law designed to prevent conflicts of interest by federal employees. He WILL take full advantage of every facet of executive immunity though.
I bet you LOVE how he is showing his plans to "drain the swamp" by installing the worst pieces of refuse ever to dwell therein. Apparently he plans to replace "the swamp" with one gigantic cesspool.
* In 1986, Sessions became only the second nominee in 50 years to be denied confirmation as a federal judge
* In February Flynn took to Twitter to say "Fear of Muslims is rational", and is known to have made several blatantly racist remarks.
* Pompeo - probably the best of the lot, having done little of note other than perpetuate the failed efforts to implicate HRC in the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi (while ignoring the hundreds killed in the numerous Embassy attacks that occurred under Bush). Just another piece of flotsam retrieved from the swamp that Trump promises to "drain"...

All of that, and not one word about race. Almost as if you concede but want to get the last word. If the last word is "even though I can't say anything about race he's still a bad guy." I don't disagree with that.

I dunno, refusing to condemn white supremacists until after he won the election for reasons we can only speculate on doesn't do him many favors. While I wouldn't necessarily call Trump a racist himself, I would say he has allowed some pretty volatile and caustic fringe elements safe harbor in his campaign without considering the consequences of doing so. (Which I guess sort of goes without saying)
 
He repudiated the Duke non-endorsement repeatedly, and not just "after the election" but also before. That's why he asked if he had to repudiate it a twelfth time, because he had done so before and was being asked again.

This is why the author I quoted was saying "quit crying wolf". The cry of "wolf" is worn, tired, ineffective. That's why it really didn't work this time around.
 
He repudiated the Duke non-endorsement repeatedly, and not just "after the election" but also before. That's why he asked if he had to repudiate it a twelfth time, because he had done so before and was being asked again.

This is why the author I quoted was saying "quit crying wolf". The cry of "wolf" is worn, tired, ineffective. That's why it really didn't work this time around.

Sure he did, in a wimpy, half-hearted, non-committal fashion.
 
Ah, you have emotionally decided that he wasn't emotionally involved enough in his repeated repudiations. I guess that's proof he is a secret extreme white nationalist white supremacist racist.

And you see wolves approaching, we must call the villagers.
 
Back
Top Bottom