Trump and authoritarians

[Malachi256]

The thing that bugs me is the hypocrisy. That they shield their bigotry with religion. I do not think Jesus, or really, any pacifist religious leader would support anything they are saying. So they are giving religion a bad name(or even worse name, depending on your view of religion in general).

Jesus would've never gotten involved in politics. Jesus was always interested in two things - the individual's relationship with God, and the individual's relationship with their neighbor. Hence Jesus' response to "what is the greatest commandment,"

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[Tijuana]

But using a law written for the "rich and famous" to seize property kind of does. (shrug)

People using your name to profit isn't the free market, it's stealing.

[negawonka]

People using your name to profit isn't the free market, it's stealing.

That is more of an opinion (morally) than it is a fact in the opinion of many like myself. I don't believe you can have something stolen that is a concept you were not using. Like someone making www.negawonka.com isn't stealing anything from me. Oh I am sure he had a legal basis, but losing in court doesn't mean your side was the amoral side.

[Tijuana]

Right, and that is his (Ron's) point. We are getting involved in politics with a country when we do not need to. Spending money on fool's errands. The US, and the West in general, has it's own problems it needs to solve first, before we can start telling people, and governments how they should govern. Things like the rising inequality gap, the shrinking middle class, the crumbling infrastructure ( props for Trump for bring that up), the outdated power grid, the really bad public transportation system. Etc, etc... Not that we cannot get involved in international issues, but you have to pick which ones you do choose to act on more wisely.

Uh, nuclear bombs are kind of a big deal. You really do not want those in the hand of people who say they want to wipe Israel off the map.

[Deleted]

Jesus would've never gotten involved in politics. Jesus was always interested in two things - the individual's relationship with God, and the individual's relationship with their neighbor. Hence Jesus' response to "what is the greatest commandment,"

...do you really believe any of that??? Jesus would most likely have been a politician if he was born in this age.

[Tijuana]

That is more of an opinion (morally) than it is a fact in the opinion of many like myself. I don't believe you can have something stolen that is a concept you were not using. Like someone making www.negawonka.com isn't stealing anything from me. Oh I am sure he had a legal basis, but losing in court doesn't mean your side was the amoral side.

I mean specifically your actual real name, as in a famous persons actual real name. But that said, intellectual property rights are a real thing, and it's not unfair at all that they can be trademarked and such.

[negawonka]

I mean specifically your actual real name, as in a famous persons actual real name. But that said, intellectual property rights are a real thing, and it's not unfair at all that they can be trademarked and such.

I did negawonka.com because I did not intend to use my real name. Assume for the point of the argument that my real name is Nega J. Wonka if it helps you. As for it being different than a "famous persons" name, not really sure how famous a person is makes it any more or less moral. If my real name was Bill Gates and I had somehow gotten billgates.com does the famous Bill Gates get to throw me off my domain name because he somehow deserves it more?

I won't go further on IP stuff (don't want to derail the thread) but I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree .

[Tijuana]

I did negawonka.com because I did not intend to use my real name. Assume for the point of the argument that my real name is Nega J. Wonka if it helps you. As for it being different than a "famous persons" name, not really sure how famous a person is makes it any more or less moral. If my real name was Bill Gates and I had somehow gotten billgates.com does the famous Bill Gates get to throw me off my domain name because he somehow deserves it more?

I won't go further on IP stuff (don't want to derail the thread) but I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree .

It's not that it's any more or less moral. The point is nobody wants to use my name. My name cannot be profited from. But other people using your likeness, or your name, to profit without your permission is exploitative.

[Spiffums]

. I would vote for a duck before I vote for Trump, or Cruze.

And basically give a vote to the Democrat candidate. This is why Progressives win. People who are on the same side abate opposite ends of the spectrum can't come together to defeat a common enemy. The other part uses this to their advantage.

[Sunseeker]

The political scale is not Authoritarianism<-------->Libertarianism. So people who don't agree with Trump aren't automatically Libertarian, or even agree with any remote aspects of Libertarian policy.

Trump's supporters aren't authoritarians, and I doubt most of them even understand what Authoritarianism is. Trump hasn't even promoted a particularly authoritarian policy, just a highly xenophobic one. Trump doesn't promote government control of industry, government control over your lives, or really, government control over anything that it doesn't have control over to begin with (namely, immigration). His proposals are just extremes in those areas. Trump is an extremist, not an authoritarian or at least no more of an authoritarian than anyone else running for President at this time.

I'm not going to answer your questions because they are all loaded and based on the false dichotomy that the political spectrum is only from authoritarianism to libertarianism.

This is my typical beef with libertarians, is that they don't seem to understand there's more to government than how much control it has. It's far more important to analyze what a government does with the control it has, rather than how much. A government can have a lot of control and do very little with it, while another government could have very little, but exercise it a lot.

[Kujako]

Trump hasn't even promoted a particularly authoritarian policy...

Everyone will say Merry Christmas. Mexico will pay for the border wall. Stop Muslims from entering the country. Etc. All authoritarian.

[negawonka]

Everyone will say Merry Christmas. Mexico will pay for the border wall. Stop Muslims from entering the country. Etc. All authoritarian.

Not sure any but the first are really authoritarian as I understand the term. With the first I think he was implying that no one would be required to say Happy Holidays rather than forcing everyone to say Merry Christmas.

[BuckSparkles]

Not sure any but the first are really authoritarian as I understand the term. With the first I think he was implying that no one would be required to say Happy Holidays rather than forcing everyone to say Merry Christmas.

That's my interpretation as well. You can say Merry Christmas without some hateful, spiteful progressive try and get you fired / company shamed, w/e.

[Kujako]

Not sure any but the first are really authoritarian as I understand the term. With the first I think he was implying that no one would be required to say Happy Holidays rather than forcing everyone to say Merry Christmas.

'If I'm President, You're Going To See 'Merry Christmas' In Department Stores'. Only works if you force stores to not say Happy Holidays instead. Forcing businesses to not do things you disapprove of seems authoritarian to me.

[negawonka]

'If I'm President, You're Going To See 'Merry Christmas' In Department Stores'. Only works if you force stores to not say Happy Holidays instead. Forcing businesses to not do things you disapprove of seems authoritarian to me.

Again, I don't think he meant that he would force businesses to say Merry Christmas. I think he was speaking in terms of protecting those that chose to say Merry Christmas. Not even really sure what that is an issue people care about but apparently it is.

[Xeones]

Again, I don't think he meant that he would force businesses to say Merry Christmas. I think he was speaking in terms of protecting those that chose to say Merry Christmas. Not even really sure what that is an issue people care about but apparently it is.

Uh... I don't think the people who choose to say it need protection and don't recall hearing anything about that. I remember him being upset about Starbucks cups not being "christmas" enough and being offended that others chose to say "happy holidays" rather than "merry christmas".

[Vizardlorde]

No i believe is ignorance ...

[Sunseeker]

Everyone will say Merry Christmas. Mexico will pay for the border wall. Stop Muslims from entering the country. Etc. All authoritarian.

Only the first one is authoritarian. The rest aren't. They're xenophobic, but they're not exercising government control over something it doesn't already have control over: immigration/national defense. It may be a more aggressive policy, but it's not authoritarian.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah Trump does appeal to Authoritarians, but so did Hitler, Stalin, and the Royal Monarchy's. People like the idea of a leader or leaders with convictions and ideas on how to get things fucking done, or at least get the shit done they want, whether they can deliver it all or not. And according to history all except maybe the Romans did so.

Authority is something that we need, it is the light that guides society, whether it comes in one form or another, which is why I believe the same thing said about Authoritarians on the right can be said about those on the left like Sanders.

[Mormolyce]

There is a segment of the tea party that are Libertarians. But the majority of the ones I have met, personally, are indeed theocratic authoritarians.

I think the Tea Party was run by low-tax, low-government libertarians for about 30 seconds, until Sarah Palin pulled up in a pickup truck full of racist hillbillies and took it over.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump's supporters aren't authoritarians, and I doubt most of them even understand what Authoritarianism is.

I doubt they're even literate.

Sometimes I wonder if Trump is literate.