Trump's belief that he can change the 14th amendment by executive order, may well be the most dangerous thing I have ever heard a president ever say, and it had a 3 sec news cycle. — Rank Amateur

Didn’t Nixon say something to the effect that if the President does it then it’s not illegal?

The dividing line between the right and left, typically comes down to three major beliefs: 1. Tribalism: The left likes foreigners and minorities, while people on the right, don't. 2. Inequality. People on the right are unconcerned about inequality, while people on the left are greatly concerned about it. 3. Human nature. People on the right view a person's wealth or poverty as being due to their own efforts in life, while people on the left look at institutional causes, outside the person's control.

So, it makes sense for Trump to attack foreigners and make fearful claims about a foreign invasion, if his goal is to motivate his base. However, it will turn off everyone else who does not share that view, so it's not a policy position with broad appeal that all Americans can join in on.

So, it makes sense for Trump to attack foreigners and make fearful claims about a foreign invasion, if his goal is to motivate his base. However, it will turn off everyone else who does not share that view, — LD Saunders

The biggest danger is letting Trump define the opposition position, which the left is letting him do right now. The opposition is characterized as wanting open borders, though hardly anyone actually wants that. The Democrats need a coherent, comprehensive plan that applies both compassion and practicality. A good start would be the 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Trump's claim that he can with a stroke of his pen overrule the US Constitution is the very definition of authoritarianism. — LD Saunders

Good point. But I think political fanatics on both sides would gladly see their kind of tyrant trample over the 'red tape' in the way of what they just 'know' is right.

https://jacobinmag.com/2011/03/burn-the-constitution

'Popular sovereignty' can be a real nice paint job on mob rule that has no respect for individual rights.

Relativist: The Democrats have basically imploded for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they nominated Hillary Clinton again for 2020, which would basically hand the election to Trump. I think they have some message on medical care --- basically preserving coverage for pre-existing conditions, but even on that issue, Republicans are pretending that they support coverage for pre-existing conditions, although Trump has a suit going right now trying to wipe out that protection. The Dems need a clear message and someone who isn't so timid that they cannot stand up to the far-right rhetoric of the current GOP candidates and Trump. They have a few people who look promising, but, they have been a very weak party for years. They basically handed the election to Trump in 2016 by rigging their primary in favor of Hillary, by handing her a bunch of superdelegates, which was basically a message to the members of the party not to bother running against her. I blame the Dems for Trump's victory as much as anything else.

As far as Trump wanting people to call him a fascist, how is that true? That's the last thing he and his fellow-travelers want. — LD Saunders

I disagree. They (Trump and his supporters) just love when some "pinko-liberal snowflake SJW" goes into a 'Trump is Hitler'-rant. What better example is there than calling Trump supporters fascists? It's just like when Hillary made the stupid error of accusing Trump supporters being "basket of deplorables", they just loved it. And they are using this approach now. Just look at this GOP add of "Jobs not Mobs". It's evident that they do want this.



Never underestimate the hatred of the democrats of the most ardent Trump supporters. And it's all about feelings, nothing about facts. The real question is how many are there left in the Trump echo chamber.

News sources that attempt to expose Trump's absurdity with facts add to the problem because 1) his supporters aren't interested in facts, they cheer Trump because they agree with his sentiments 2) his detractors keep the discussion going; the more absurd his behavior seems, the more we react, the more we pump up his supporters - especially when our reaction is hyperbolic. — Relativist

This is the problem when handling misinformation or pure disinformation. To think that disinformation can be corrected by showing it's false is the wrong idea. Just to start talking about the disinformation is wrong, it just gives it more credibility as you are talking then about it. And as if people loving Trump would correct their views by listening to the hated "fake news" that is constantly vilified.

Now it is good to show what is disinformation, but that typically needs time and then it has already been forgotten.

I don't fullly agree with your descriptions of left/right thinking because I think the true picture is more nuanced and mixed up.

"1. Tribalism: The left likes foreigners and minorities, while people on the right, don't."

Isn't it more of a case that the left accept others for what they are - or indeed reject them for what they are..? (should be anyhow)

"2. Inequality. People on the right are unconcerned about inequality, while people on the left are greatly concerned about it."

Ordinary not well off right wingers turn a blind eye to billionaires' wealth but are angry that salaried middle class earn twice as much as them (reflecting an envy bias towards people who are in the same ball park).

Leftwing people make lots of statements about redistributing wealth and yet ......

"3. Human nature. People on the right view a person's wealth or poverty as being due to their own efforts in life, while people on the left look at institutional causes, outside the person's control."

People on the left tend to be meritocrats, and strongly advocate the competitive nature of education (while also claiming that education is really all about the love of learning).

Kippo: Just think how many times you actually agreed with me on how the left and right are divided?

"1. Tribalism: The left likes foreigners and minorities, while people on the right, don't."

Isn't it more of a case that the left accept others for what they are - or indeed reject them for what they are..? (should be anyhow)"


Isn't that an admission that the left accepts foreigners and is less xenophobic than the right, exactly what I stated?

"2. Inequality. People on the right are unconcerned about inequality, while people on the left are greatly concerned about it."

Ordinary not well off right wingers turn a blind eye to billionaires' wealth but are angry that salaried middle class earn twice as much as them (reflecting an envy bias towards people who are in the same ball park)."

Leftwing people make lots of statements about redistributing wealth and yet ....
Here are the facts: people on the right, support inequality, even the poor do. People on the left support equality, even wealthy people on the left, like Warren Buffet, for example. How many Trumpers are poor yet fully support tax cuts for the wealthy and a reduction in social insurance policies for the poor? Almost all of them. In fact, economists and political scientists have puzzled for years over why people seldom vote according to their class economic status. It's because political affiliation is more about psychological personality traits than it is about maximizing utility in any economic sense.

You can also get on almost any social media site and just read the comments between the people on the right and left, and you'll see, over and over again, how each group breaks into the patterns I mentioned.

Now, I'm an independent. For example, I believe that a poor or rich person had some personal responsibility for their failure or success, but also that institutional factors were involved as well. I am okay with inequality that is generated by what a person lawfully earned and achieved, but am against inequality driven by such underserved things like inheritance. I am okay with foreigners, but don't want so many of them in my country that it alters our liberal democracy. So, you may find people like me who don't fall within the right and left divide, but my point was that those who do adhere to the right, largely think in the way I described, and likewise for those who identify with the left.

I think the biggest factor that shakes out "left" and "right" is psychological profile. Rightwingers are not as trusting as leftwingers. Rightwingers are more inclined to pessimism. I think it's well documented by psychological research. I would say that rightwing thinking reflects our evolutionary past more than leftwing thinking, with the latter involving more novel intellectualisation and risk taking.

As regards opinions on taxation, it all depends on how issues are phrased. One thing everyone has in common is a strong sense of fairness - alas coupled with a generous dose of hypocrisy self delusion.

Kippo: The left-wing values are just as consistent with our evolutionary past as our right-wing calues. It largely depends on the specific ecology our ancestors faced. In areas where it was difficult to survive outside the group? Greater inequality was accepted. In areas where people could more easily leave a group and survive? Less inequality was accepted. The idea that people on the left are somehow smarter, or have higher social values than those on the right, has no basis in reality. It's certainly not the case that one set of political beliefs is more evolved than others, or less evolved.

It looks like Trump is living a life of pure fantasy and delusion. After losing the House last night, he claims a major victory for the GOP and his policies. About two months ago, Trump was claiming he was not going to lose the House. In numbers very similar to George W Bush's mid-term election loss, where Bush called the numbers a "real whuppin," Trump clings to some delusion about having a great victory. And it seems like he really believes this falsehood, as he is today, stoking up the flames. He forced Sessions to resign, presumably to get an attorney general to terminate the investigations against him. When a reporter asked him if he felt he emboldened white nationalists by calling himself a nationalist, he called the question "racist." He's continuing to refer to media outlets that are critical of him as being the "enemy of the people," slogans used by both Hitler and Stalin.

Apparently, Trump knows so little about the operations of the federal government, that he doesn't realize that the House can investigate him, and prevent him from passing any legislation. He lost an enormous amount of power last night, but is too dumb to realize it.

Can the American president and his followers get any more comical?

The backlash on the Sessions firing will be interesting.

Let's see when Trump goes after Mueller if the US still has some remains of rule of law and a justice state or if it has turned into a banana republic.

It's certainly not the case that one set of political beliefs is more evolved than others, or less evolved. — LD Saunders

There is no such thing as "more" evolved! Honest. (OK I suppose you are saying that yourself).

There is however emergence.....

The backlash on the Sessions firing will be interesting. — ssu

It will have a very positive effect on the nations' legal attitude towards cannabis both medical and recreational. Following Canada's lead of course. :wink:

Kippo: I was referencing a moral value judgment -- and just saying from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no way to tell that the left-leaning values are better than the right-leaning ones.

I also don't think biology determines morality or all of our beliefs. I think it gives us a framework and for some people, a preference for accepting certain ideas as opposed to others, but that is not the same thing as determining them.

I was referencing a moral value judgment -- and just saying from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no way to tell that the left-leaning values are better than the right-leaning ones. — LD Saunders

I wasn't making any "moral" judgement by pointing out that the right wing mentality served us well over the time scale of evolution. A good dose of sceptism, pessimism distrust and so forth are potions that can still usefully protect. However, there is a journey to be made in modifying our emotional intuitions which served us well in the past. because of the explosive nature of human technology and culture which require the "journey" to be made to make the most of them. This journey is evident historically in the sense that what was once deemed "liberal" is now accepted by "mainstream" conservative. But as world politics clearly demonstrates, it is still an ongoing battle.

Some people are able to embark on the journey more easily than others.

Remember when gay marriage was legalized throughout the country that was awesome

Trump has found his crowd. He taunts them to taunt the others. Pretty simple, really.
Existentially, the choice is about finding who will support you or cut you down.
Once you do that sort of thing, the question is open by default. Trump wants everything to be fought out in a cage.
Just step in.

It still is?

You all seen the guy who’s replacing Sessions? 6’4”, shaven head, looks like a cage fighter. Trump wants to sick him on Mueller. It’s about the only level that he can understand it on.

It’s about the only level that he can understand it on. — Wayfarer

Hardly surprising as Trump picked his defence secretary because he had a nickname of "Mad dog". Likely was dissappointed when the former general wasn't at all like colonel Nathan Jessup (played by Jack Nicholson) in A few good men.

Apparently Mattis hates that nickname, and actually he's been a beacon of sanity in the schemozle of the Trump White House.

Apparently Mattis hates that nickname, and actually he's been a beacon of sanity in the schemozle of the Trump White House. — Wayfarer

The generals typically have been so. A telling anecdote (that Trump himself told to reporters) is when Trump interviewed Mattis for the job. Trump asked the marine general what he thought about torture. Mattis replied that giving a bottle of beer and cigarettes to prisoners are far more effective tools in interrogation than torturing people. What is telling was that Trump disagreed with this and said that he was in favour of torture because his supporters favour it.

I might be wrong, since I I´ve never been in the U.S., but I think many people see "white supremacism" as less an issue than "non-white supremacism", since whitle supremacistd are not that many and more often than not they kill themselves with their guns and do not seize urban areas violently.
While black supremacism on the other hand is a lot more present in society and affects cities in a very dramatic way, with violence and crime in the name of race, attacking any ethnicity. Society realizes that KKK is way less of a security concern nowadays than BLM, becouse events such as the horrible killing in the sinagogue are a fraction of the massive killing being produced by gangs all over the country.

Moreover, KKK thinking is criticized and marginalized and dealt with, while BLM thinking and Muslim supremacism are not subjected to real criticism in most media or censored or their funding controlled. If ALL supremacist, tribal, non civilized ideas were equally treated by both right and left media and administrators, there would be no more reason for concern among voters depending on what colour the supremacist creed claims.

Trump, if he is as smart as he claims, surely can learn from the army that real torture is no longer useful, and belongs to the past or barbaric regions of the world. Drugs and motivation can do the job nicely, and we are probably not that far from reading prisoners´minds with artificial intelligence. Torture is part of scapegoating dynamics, more a business for islamists or gangs than for professional intelligence. I might be entirely wrong on all this.

we may not even have a presidential election in 2020. — LD Saunders

One thing is for sure--if Trump wins reelection in 2020, no Democrat will believe that he won in an above-board manner.

To equate BLM with fringe groups of violent blacks is analogous to equating the Republican party with the KKK.

Diego T: I live in America, and can definitely state that you have a very, very, distorted view of what is going on in the USA. Also, basic mathematics can help you see the error in what you've alleged, as I have the feeling you've gotten most of your information from social media "memes" being tossed about in echo chambers. Here are the facts:

1. White supremacy is a definite problem in the USA, and is not merely confined to fringe groups. The fringe groups want to rid all non-whites, including very white-looking Jews, from the nation, but even the non-fringe elements on the right often engage in racism and have used racism for years to manipulate public policy. Why does the USA have the fewest social safety nets for the poor among all industrialized nations? Because poor white people support reducing social benefits when they believe that it hurts minorities more than it does white people. This has been going on for decades and decades in the USA. Trumpism is simply the latest version of this. Ronald Reagan, for example, talked about a "welfare queen" who bought food with food stamps and then drove away in her brand new Cadillac. He never once mentioned her skin color, but everyone knew he was speaking of a black woman. When the GOP has stated for years that they want "small government," that was simply code for we want to reduce welfare benefits for black people. After all, the GOP typically increased the size of government when it came to military and prisons. So, white supremacy has had a huge impact on national poiitics in the USA for a long, long time.

2. Black lives matter is only a terrorist group in the eyes of racists who live on social media. Sure, there are some hateful elements in BLM, but, it is not the majority view, or what the movement is about, and, unlike David Duke, the alt-right, the KKK, neo-Nazis, they do not condone violence.

3. Even if we assumed that blacks were as racist as whites, this would still mean white racism was the more serious problem, based solely on math. Since whites are the majority, a black person is far more likely to be the victim of a white racist than a white person is likely to be a victim of a black racist, even if both groups are equally racist. Ask any mathematician.

I might not be well informed about Black Lives Matter then. I thought they had a racial, victimist, whites are to blame, approach to social issues. Exactly what is different between BLM and gang terror. From outside it looks like related phenomena, as riots promoted in the name of BLM are usually linked to pillage, burning and violence. Please explain to the outside world what BLM stands for and what makes it a separate thing from the violence provoked by gangs.