President Donald J. Trump, Globalist.

[Felya]

Oh god. People still pretend pragmatism is a thing?

Your fear of it, does not mean it's like a monster under your bed.

[crewskater]

A politician flip flopping being treated as the norm is definitely a learning experience. I don't think I have ever seen people preach ignorance, as learning experience. Typically, or something you would learn from pre-Trump history, flip flopping wasn't treated like a norm. Heck, it might get a flip flop tossed at your podium and be a rallying call against Kerry.

So, thank you for the lesson of flip flopping being the norm, in Trump era. I believe it's a something learned from experience. As, I don't think history books have a chapter on Trump's normalization of government ills... just yet.

Politicians flip flopping isn't anything new or surprising. I'm not saying it's ok, just pointing out the reality.

[Dextroden]

Your fear of it, does not mean it's like a monster under your bed.

Lolwat.

Either way, it's a joke. Hence the shuttering of everyone that didn't vote for Clinton.

[Theodarzna]

If you can trust Democracy to do one thing, it's oust people that think Democracy is dead or tainted if they don't win.

Nah son, the highest form of Democracy is picking between two identical bean counters who will carry out policies already decided upon by various think tanks and the Pentagon ages ago. /s

[NED funded]

As someone who typically likes pragmatism more than ideology, I really can't understand this line of thinking.

How do you define what is pragmatic? It seems like a pretty loaded word.

[Theodarzna]

How do you define what is pragmatic? It seems like a pretty loaded word.

The issue with the term pragmatic is that it is effectively a cipher for status quo support. "We could go with a new policy or direction, but that is hard and ruffles important peoples feathers so lets just not change anything."

Plus it is a mistake to describe the current political system and project as simple "Without ideology" and I hate to invoke a Zinn quote here but it is a bit hard to claim neutrality on a moving train.

[crewskater]

Flip flopping happens, sure. However, this would be about the same as if Bernie Sanders had been elected and then came out in favor of free market capitalism. While with Trump we can't quite be sure what it means, it's definitely an irresponsible thing to say regardless and in any normal politician would constitute a flip from the original position to what is essentially the mortal enemy of that position. It's not necessarily surprising, given that Trump tends to not really stand for anything except his own benefit from moment to moment, but his voters should not be pleased.

Your point would be valid if Trump was ever consistent, which has never been the case. Bernie has been for the most part consistent in his views over the years.

[Thepersona]

The issue with the term pragmatic is that it is effectively a cipher for status quo support. "We could go with a new policy or direction, but that is hard and ruffles important peoples feathers so lets just not change anything."

Plus it is a mistake to describe the current political system and project as simple "Without ideology" and I hate to invoke a Zinn quote here but it is a bit hard to claim neutrality on a moving train.

if i'm correct, being pragmatic is not that. i mean:
"Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

it's like, saying, that some changes arent good, and the statu quo is sometimes better than a change for the worse, also that you must see the problems in tha grand scheme of things. I concur that it's not the best thing for the small man, but for athe survival of a continuous political system, sometimes is necessary. pragmatism is about using the head in regard of a problem, no the heart.

- - - Updated - - -

Completely wrong, as usual. Much of the status quo has nothing to do with pragmatism.

obviously...
Pragmatism =/= maintaining the statu quo.

[Theodarzna]

if i'm correct, being pragmatic is not that. i mean:
"Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

it's like, saying, that some changes arent good, and the statu quo is sometimes better than a change for the worse, also that you must see the problems in tha grand scheme of things. I concur that it's not the best thing for the small man, but for a continuous political system, sometimes is necessary

Is one pragmatic in a vacuum? In this context we must also ask "Good/Bad according to whom and in what way?"

Also, care to elaborate on the "It's bad for the small man" point? Should the "Small Man" willingly walk to his own slaughter in defense of "The System?" And what does this say about you that your definition of Good/Bad for is related to a system and not a flesh and blood person.

[Allerius]

As someone who typically likes pragmatism more than ideology, I really can't understand this line of thinking.

There's no such thing as pragmatism in politics. What you think is pragmatism is just an ideology you personally agree with so your bias makes it seem somehow objectively practical.

Every word is "loaded" if you want to refuse to use the least bit of sense or understanding of the language in order to tie yourself in epistemic knots over what a word "really" means. There is no final authority on what is or isn't pragmatic, but how pragmatic something is or isn't is based on how the rational and empirical case for a given solution stacks up against the alternatives in attempting to achieve some end or another. If two people, one a pragmatist and one an idealist, accept a few propositions–welfare spending should go down, substance abusers do not deserve welfare, drug testing welfare recipients is a net increase in cost even if you deny welfare to the substance abusers–the pragmatist will choose the practical outcome of saving money over the more ideologically pure outcome of kicking drug users off of welfare, while those that are more driven by idealism will choose to suffer the consequences of increased spending in order to achieve ideological purity, likely even if there's no benefit to doing so aside from feeling good about it.

This is just convoluted nonsense. The fact you can't actually describe what pragmatism is should clue you in that the point is bullshit. Your example is just two ideologies clashing - one focused on maximizing utility of public funds versus one focused on punishing abusers. You labelling the former one as pragmatic is just your bias towards your own positions making you think they're somehow objective.

Also, all of politics and probably human activity is doing stuff to feel good about. Some people feel good about utilitarianism, and some people feel good about pieces of shit getting what's coming to them. Welcome to subjectivity.

[NED funded]

Every word is "loaded" if you want to refuse to use the least bit of sense or understanding of the language in order to tie yourself in epistemic knots over what a word "really" means. There is no final authority on what is or isn't pragmatic, but how pragmatic something is or isn't is based on how the rational and empirical case for a given solution stacks up against the alternatives in attempting to achieve some end or another. If two people, one a pragmatist and one an idealist, accept a few propositions–welfare spending should go down, substance abusers do not deserve welfare, drug testing welfare recipients is a net increase in cost even if you deny welfare to the substance abusers–the pragmatist will choose the practical outcome of saving money over the more ideologically pure outcome of kicking drug users off of welfare, while those that are more driven by idealism will choose to suffer the consequences of increased spending in order to achieve ideological purity, likely even if there's no benefit to doing so aside from feeling good about it.

- - - Updated - - -



My post plainly accounted for Trump's inconsistency.

- - - Updated - - -



Completely wrong, as usual. Much of the status quo has nothing to do with pragmatism.

You should be studying for finals.

Either way, working within an ideology I'm sure is not what people refer to when they subcribe to pragmatism.

- - - Updated - - -

if i'm correct, being pragmatic is not that. i mean:
"Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

it's like, saying, that some changes arent good, and the statu quo is sometimes better than a change for the worse, also that you must see the problems in tha grand scheme of things. I concur that it's not the best thing for the small man, but for athe survival of a continuous political system, sometimes is necessary. pragmatism is about using the head in regard of a problem, no the heart.

- - - Updated - - -



obviously...
Pragmatism =/= maintaining the statu quo.

How do you define a good outcome?

[Theodarzna]

There's no such thing as pragmatism in politics. What you think is pragmatism is just an ideology you personally agree with so your bias makes it seem somehow objectively practical.

To Quote Howard Zinn on this "You cannot be neutral on a moving train."

The problem with "Pragmatism" is that it is effectively just that, pretending to be neutral on a moving train. There is already an ingrained ideology within the establishment, the claim of pragmatism is effectively just "Let us go along with what the Think Tanks and power brokers want" because it is simply the path of least resistance and preserve, or may preserve a current system.

Heck the person you quote even admits it sucks for the smaller people with less power but somehow defense of a system over people is the choice we are asked to make.

[Spiffums]

Look at all the people who are shocked that a politician lied. Now go crawl back under the rock you've all been under for your whole life.

[Allerius]

So did you like not read the post...?

Point out what important point you think I didn't read, I could use a laugh.

[Edge-]

Look at all the people who are shocked that a politician lied. Now go crawl back under the rock you've all been under for your whole life.

It's more the scope and scale of his lies, which are unprecedented. It's not shocking any longer in a sense, but that doesn't make it any less disturbing and terrible.

No need to be shitty about it.

[Dextroden]

It's more the scope and scale of his lies, which are unprecedented. It's not shocking any longer in a sense, but that doesn't make it any less disturbing and terrible.

No need to be shitty about it.

"Unprecedented"

People really don't remember Bush anger.

[Edge-]

"Unprecedented"

People really don't remember Bush anger.

Many probably don't, but plenty do. Trump is off to a far faster start than Bush though, Bush wasn't quite so braggadocios as Trump, which meant that he wasn't putting his foot in his mouth quite as often or tripping up on his own lies.

Bush just made sure that if you fooled him once, shame on you. But fool him twice? Well, you won't fool him a second time : P

[Dextroden]

Many probably don't, but plenty do. Trump is off to a far faster start than Bush though, Bush wasn't quite so braggadocios as Trump, which meant that he wasn't putting his foot in his mouth quite as often or tripping up on his own lies.

Bush just made sure that if you fooled him once, shame on you. But fool him twice? Well, you won't fool him a second time : P

Can't get fooled again. Get it right.

No. You guys are over selling this shit. Hyperbole is not your friend when it helped you fall short in the first place.

[Macaquerie]

Many probably don't, but plenty do. Trump is off to a far faster start than Bush though, Bush wasn't quite so braggadocios as Trump, which meant that he wasn't putting his foot in his mouth quite as often or tripping up on his own lies.

Bush just made sure that if you fooled him once, shame on you. But fool him twice? Well, you won't fool him a second time : P

Trump certainly deserves all the hatred he receives, but I still don't think it's really healthy. Just like reality TV, the Trump presidency feeds people's inherent superiority complexes, but obviously the fact that we have an idiot for a president who is an easy target for mockery doesn't really make any of us more intelligent or accomplished than we actually are.

[Edge-]

No. You guys are over selling this shit. Hyperbole is not your friend when it helped you fall short in the first place.

What hyperbole? Trump can't go a day without making a patently ludicrous claim or demand (now asking South Korea to pay for the missile defense system we're deploying...you know, after the fact), lying through his teeth (I'll be too busy to go golfing or even leave the White House!), or generally coming off as a complete buffoon (I didn't know the job would be this hard!).