I could ask that question on a psychology forum but that doesn't mean it requires a psychological answer does it? It was a simple question so it's a bit dubious you can't make yourself clearer than vague. If don't want to say 'no', I can understand the dissonance. You don't need to deflect, or go on about subjectivity and interpretations. Do you think he has a good understanding of them?

'something something liberal media etc!' incoming.

Case in point Wayfarer just now: "Who, Obama? No, he never lied! How could there possibly be evidence of that?! He was just an innocent little dove in the White House!" — Thorongil

I never said Obama 'told no lies', but I see zero evidence that Obama was the spectacularly mendacious bullshit artist that Trump is. Obama was also demonstrably competent and effective in his role, where even Trump's closest supporters are obliged to continually make excuses for his incompetence, like that ridiculous statement from Paul Ryan, saying 'poor Donald can't be expected to understand all the nuances of statecraft'. After all, he's only the POTUS. Doesn't know he supposed not to demand loyalty from the head of the FBI! Must have skipped that particular class.

One of Trump's techniques is to tell so many lies, to generate so much bullshit, is that everyone is tarred with the same brush - it all seems like bullshit. Hey it's effective too.

Doesn't know he supposed not to demand loyalty from the head of the FBI! Must have skipped that particular class. — Wayfarer

Common man, be real now. Wouldn't you have done the same? I would. When you lead a country, everyone needs to know who the boss is - loyalty is the most important trait, otherwise you can't even have a functioning team. Trump is more of a bully than Obama and does this openly, not behind closed doors, and using political manipulation techniques as Obama did. That's the only difference so far.

Of course you're not taught this stuff in class. Of course. What were you thinking? These are things you learn on the street. Of course the boss of the secret service needs to be loyal to you. Why do you think Trump is appointing an FBI boss with no previous experience in the FBI now? So he can be at ease that that guy doesn't try to cook something on him - obviously.

Real politics is different than what you imagine, and what the media is telling you.

Wouldn't you have done the same? I would. — Agustino

Which is why I have decided it's better never to debate politics with you - because your politics seems basically fascistic. Which is why I think you like 'strong leaders', Trump and Putin.

Which is why I have decided it's better never to debate politics with you - because your politics seems basically fascistic. — Wayfarer

Okay, let's discuss political theory then, not concrete politics. Why do you think that the boss of the secret service shouldn't be loyal to the President? You are aware that secret services have access to a lot of information right? Do you think it's impossible for a secret service to dig up information on a President and then use it to keep him in the leash?

Wouldn't you have done the same? I would. When you lead a country, everyone needs to know who the boss is — Agustino

Absolutely not. The president is the head of the executive branch - not Emperor. It was at least inexcusably inappropriate (and possibly obstruction of justice) for Trump to demand loyalty from the man who may be investigating him, given the fact that he has the power to fire Comey at will.

This is a perfect example of why I asked Thorongil if he thinks Trump has a good understanding of the law, the constitution, and the meaning of the presidency (I won't even go into Trumps relationship with the truth). Trump doesn't have a bloody clue. He doesn't even have the basic common sense to see the massive, blatant conflict of interest involved in his actions. 'Oh but it's all highly subjective! There are interpretations you see! Policies are all that matter! The Presidents new clothes are magnificent!' Politics melts peoples fucking brains.

Of course you're not taught this stuff in class. Of course. What were you thinking? These are things you learn on the street. — Agustino

I can't believe you say this unironically :-!

I can't believe you say this unironically :-! — WhiskeyWhiskers

?

Absolutely not. The president is the head of the executive branch - not Emperor. It was at least inexcusably inappropriate (and possibly obstruction of justice) for Trump to demand loyalty from the man who may be investigating him, given the fact that he has the power to fire Comey at will.

This is a perfect example of why I asked Thorongil if he thinks Trump has a good understanding of the law, the constitution, and the meaning of the presidency (I won't even go into Trumps relationship with the truth). Trump doesn't have a bloody clue. He doesn't even have the basic common sense to see the massive, blatant conflict of interest involved in his actions. 'Oh but it's all highly subjective! There are interpretations you see! Policies are all that matter! The Presidents new clothes are magnificent!' Politics melts peoples fucking brains. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay, stop citing theories to me. Reality is reality. Any President out there wants to maintain his power, and prevent himself from being abused. You know how easy abuse is? What if secret serv. director comes to the President and says one day "We've received information that media group XX has compromising information about XXXX regarding you, but we've managed to stop them from releasing it. However we're not in absolute control of it, but we currently have sufficient leverage for the time being, just wanted to inform you Sir." In a couple of days will come the order too "Sir, I think doing XXX can save a lot of trouble, I'd really advise you for it"

There. It's that easy. There's nothing blatantly illegal going on there. But the President will get the message that he must obey. You really think democracy, bullshit, etc. can stop things like this? Of course loyalty matters. Stop being a kid. At least Trump is smart enough to know this. How do you think he made it in the business world? By being an idealistic kid? >:O "uh this is how things are supposed to go, uh uh"

The FBI is supposed to be independent.

The FBI is supposed to be independent. — Mongrel

Yes. So what? Does that really mean they'll be independent, because "they're supposed to"?

The use and application of power is governed by one thing only. Leverage. Have leverage, and you can control what others will do. Politics is all about leverage. To succeed in politics, whether you're Hitler or Ghandi, you need to wield leverage over others, and prevent them from wielding leverage over you. The rules are secondary. Humans are still humans, regardless of the rules surrounding them.

Why do you think that the boss of the secret service shouldn't be loyal to the President? — Agustino

Did you grow up in Eastern Europe?

Did you grow up in Eastern Europe? — Wayfarer

Part of the time yes. What does that have to do with anything?

Right. Well, the story is, Trump instructed everyone else to leave the room, and then said 'I expect loyalty'. This is the behaviour of a dictatorship, right? Loyalty is 'you do what I say above all else'.

Comey was appointed to obey the law. That is what 'rule of law' means, right?

This is what is frustrating speaking to you about these matters. The world is dealing with someone in the Oval Office who is literally threatening the very institution of democracy, and you don't seem to fathom why that is a problem. Or put another way, the reason the problem exists, is because there's enough people who don't grasp why this is a problem.

Imagine living in Egypt or Turkey right now. I bet their Presidents get 'unswerving loyalty' from their equivalent Head of FBI. And if this conversation were going on in Egypt or Turkey, then you or I might get a knock at the door, and never be seen again. Just lke Russia under the communistsm, or East Germany, back in the day.

But - that's not a problem, right? Strong leadership, isn't it?

Well, the story is, Trump instructed everyone else to leave the room, and then said 'I expect loyalty'. — Wayfarer

Actually no, that's not the story. The story is Trump instructed everyone else to leave the room and said, I paraphrase "I hope you can let things go. I hope you can let Flynn go. He's a good guy".

The loyalty thing was said over dinner.

The world is dealing with someone in the Oval Office who is literally threatening the very institution of democracy, and you don't seem to fathom why that is a problem. — Wayfarer

The institution of democracy is a sham. Never existed. Power always played by the same rules. Trump is not as refined as Obama, and other leaders have been. He's more raw and brutal, but he's using the same tactics they've been using, just less refined (and hence more OBVIOUS).

And if this conversation were going on in Egypt or Turkey, then you or I might get a knock at the door, and never be seen again. Just lke Russia under the communists. — Wayfarer

The truth is, even in the West we may get a knock on our door and never be seen again. But that's not always necessary. Why would anyone bother if you can be cast out as a fool, a madman? Why would anyone bother if you wield no influence? If you're not a political player? Why would anyone bother if they could instead turn you to their cause? J.F.K got shot, but that's not the only form of control. Sun Tzu exemplifies actually that violence is the WORST form of control - the least likely to work. Effective control is hidden, and you don't even realise it. If it gets to the point where someone has to knock on your door and make you disappear, then things aren't working very well at all, and the people in charge are quite dumb.

The mass media becomes an element of guiding public opinion in democracies. If someone says something they shouldn't be saying, the media shuts them out - casts them as insane, lacking sensibility, lunatics.

But - that's not a problem, right? Strong leadership. — Wayfarer

Whether it's a problem or not is irrelevant. That's the cold truth of the matter.

Actually I do get it Agustino - and this is not an ad hominem, but a sincere appraisal. You are actually a fascist sympathiser, or proto-fascist, or something of that ilk. But, to all intents, fascist. So, that is why I won't discuss this matter with you. So long, and have a nice life.

You are actually a fascist sympathiser, or proto-fascist, or something of that ilk — Wayfarer

No, but unlike you I will not refuse to see the truth of the matter because you're too scared, and refuse to accept things as they are. I'm just saying how things are - naturally. It's fine if you want to change things - but notice that changing things entails going against nature, and therefore it requires effort. Just like, for example, the natural tendency in terms of sexuality is towards promiscuity. That doesn't mean promiscuity is right, but to remedy it, requires to be aware that this is the natural tendency. "Be wise as serpents" as the Bible says. You have to be wise - know the truth - in order to alter and change things.

My question to you is why do you think people wouldn't behave naturally in a democracy? Or wouldn't tend towards natural behaviour? My further question is how do you plan to change this natural human behaviour? What would prevent it from happening? These are the questions you need to answer.

Without answering it, you can go from dictatorship, to plutocracy, to democracy, etc. and nothing will change, except the external ceremonies.

unlike you I will not refuse to see the truth of the matter because you're too scared, — Agustino

So the fact that I can say that 'there's a liar in the White House', but you cannot, is because I'm scared?

Pull the other one, Agustino.

So the fact that I can say that 'there's a liar in the White House', but you cannot, is because I'm scared? — Wayfarer

Who told you I can't say it? I absolutely say there's a liar in the White House. But I'm not surprised by it like you. That's what I'd expect. It seems you think Obama wasn't a liar. Because his lies and tactics were more refined - they were "diplomatic". That's what has got you fooled - a profound misunderstanding of politics. You think some good, some bad - I think all bad.

And by the way, you're scared because you refuse to see politics for what it is. Why? Because you're scared of living in such a world, evidently.

That's what I'd expect. — Agustino

That's what you would like to see, is more like it. I think Obama was world's ahead, he did a lot to protect the people, the environment, the economy. Of course, to you, it doesn't matter, because it's all shit, that is all you expect, right? Anyway, it's pointless discussing it with you, for the umpteenth time.

That's what you would like to see, is more like it. — Wayfarer

Nowhere have I stated that. It's just your assumption. Trump isn't my ideal President for that matter, so no, it's not precisely what I'd like to see.

But yes, Trump - precisely because he lacks diplomacy - is to be preferred over Crooked Clinton, who would've done the same and worse behind closed doors. But alas, as I said, I don't want to discuss politics with you, just political theory.

But it seems you don't want to answer or think about the questions I have asked you. Why not? These questions are essential for your position. You have to consider them if you want to seriously think about politics. What will prevent the type of behaviour that comes naturally to human beings from occurring in the political arena?

By the way Wayfarer, you should read this. Especially this definition below:

What defines fascism?

The combination of deep hostility towards liberal democracy with a revolutionary set of ideas to regenerate a nation or a race, with violence if deemed necessary.

My political positions don't seek to regenerate a nation or a race. Nor do they entail violence. Nor do I have a "deep hostility" towards liberal democracy. Only that I consider it flawed, just like pretty much all other political systems I know.

It's about the people, not the system - it's the people that make an era great, not its political system.

Any President out there wants to maintain his power — Agustino

Bloody good job he didn't do anything that could possibly lead to his impeachment then.

I see you're currently enrolled in the Hardcore Realist School of the Pragmatic Realpolitik and insist on letting everyone know how enlightened you are (as if you've discovered some fundamental truth to politics that we idiots have not). Did you just read The Dictators Handbook or something? I'll try this again next week when maybe you'll grant that people should at least try to act ethically while having the power to profoundly influence peoples lives. It's amazing how often you change your tune; I remember you used to boast something about living a moral life above all else. What happened to that? Apparently now it doesn't apply to politics, where arguably it matters the most. Or it at least doesn't apply to your God Emperor. If you accept it so heartily as you clearly do instead of opposing it, this kind of view of politics is a race to the bottom.

How do you think he made it in the business world? By being an idealistic kid? — Agustino

oof, good one. Inheriting a vast amount of wealth and being skilled enough to fall out of a rich vagina probably didn't hold him back.

It's just your assumption. — Agustino

It's what you said: you don't expect anything from politics. All politicians are liars, democracy is corrupt, it's all shit. You can't even own what you say, it's a waste of time talking to you.

I remember you used to boast something about living a moral life above all else. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes, and I still do.

What happened to that? Apparently now it doesn't apply to politics, where arguably it matters the most. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes, living a moral life is what people SHOULD do, not what they (or at least most of them) will do, nor what you should expect them to do. What did Marcus Aurelius say? Today I will meet unjust people, deceivers, etc.

I'm not foolish enough to think people will behave morally in politics. That's why my politics is structured around that - the fact that they will NOT behave morally - and they will especially not do it just because they have a "rulebook" they need to follow. That's exactly why loyalty, for example, is necessary.

If I was a leader, I wouldn't expect people under me to behave morally. Quite the contrary. So I would set up the necessary structures around in order to prevent them from behaving immorally. How? By holding leverage over them. Part of statesmanship is being able to control those weaker and less moral than you. How else do you expect the good man to govern?! :s

I'm not saying Trump does this. All I'm saying is Trump isn't doing anything unexpected. As I said, he's just more obvious about it, than past presidents.

it's a waste of time talking to you. — Wayfarer

I agree, I don't know why I bother. I hope I'm not as insufferable as some of the other pessimists on this forum can be at times. Pessimism seems to turn ones political views into a cynical, hypocritical, right-wing cliche.

Yeah, when you stop having answers to the problems I raise, go circle jerk each other. That will certainly prove you right.

Don't have a go at Wayfarer I'm the one who started the circle jerk 8-)

I'm not having a go at either of you, however I do expect you to try to address the philosophical/pragmatic issues that I've brought about politics, which both of you are avoiding.

At best IMO he represents a 'fuck you' to a corrupt and self-serving political and economic system (and of course the two are intimately intertwined) and a corresponding wake up call to the representatives of this establishment to shift their priorities towards the average people who've been neglected during the last few decades. — Erik

I could say "fuck you" to the system, you could say "fuck you" to the system, many completely different types of people, with completely different characters, or personalities could say "fuck you" to the system. To vote for someone simply because that person says "fuck you" to the system is to completely neglect that person's character and personality in making your choice in who to vote for, and this is to shirk your democratic responsibility. It is to say "fuck you" to the system with actions.

So if we go beyond the act of saying "fuck you" to the system, to ask why does one say 'fuck you" to the system, we see that president Trump is completely phony. He said "fuck you" to the system simply because he wanted to get votes from people like you and me, who wanted to say "fuck you" to the system. Since his intent was to get himself elected president, this was the goal and motivation behind him saying "fuck you" to the system, he really holds "the system" in high esteem. He just said "fuck you" to the system to get himself into the system which he admired so much. Anyone who demonstrates such a strong desire to be president of the United States of America, going through all the effort required to get there, must actually have very high respect for "the system". So Donald Trump saying "fuck you" to the system was just an act of deception to get people who want to say "fuck you" to the system, to give him what he wanted most, to be the president of the United States of America.

No, but unlike you I will not refuse to see the truth of the matter because you're too scared, and refuse to accept things as they are. I'm just saying how things are - naturally. It's fine if you want to change things - but notice that changing things entails going against nature, and therefore it requires effort. Just like, for example, the natural tendency in terms of sexuality is towards promiscuity. That doesn't mean promiscuity is right, but to remedy it, requires to be aware that this is the natural tendency. "Be wise as serpents" as the Bible says. You have to be wise - know the truth - in order to alter and change things.

My question to you is why do you think people wouldn't behave naturally in a democracy? Or wouldn't tend towards natural behaviour? My further question is how do you plan to change this natural human behaviour? What would prevent it from happening? These are the questions you need to answer. — Agustino

You use the word "nature", and "natural" in a very odd way, as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. Do you not think that it's natural for a for a human being to behave morally? You speak as if you think that if we let nature take its course we would fall into some form of negative evolution, digressing backward toward some primitive form of existence. But that's not what evolution demonstrates to us as the real facts of nature, is it?