Trump Consciousness
- Thread starter Jim_Smith
- Start date
The first thing to do is to expose the bent science that has propped up some phoney ideas. For example, the idea that statins should be widely used as a preventative treatment for future heart disease.
The majority of clinical trials are paid for (and to some extent controlled) by the pharmaceutical companies that would gain from them. This means that treatments that can't be patented are often not really formally researched - for example the various supplements - so they are not often prescribed.
David
The majority of clinical trials are paid for (and to some extent controlled) by the pharmaceutical companies that would gain from them. This means that treatments that can't be patented are often not really formally researched - for example the various supplements - so they are not often prescribed.
David
Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987 and since that time has changed his party affiliation five times. In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation" (independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party.[3]
In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."[4] In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump
Right - and I think if I had been a US citizen, I would have voted twice for Obama, then for Trump, and I would vote for Trump again. Obama seemed to go wrong in that second term - possibly he was blackmailed, I don't know, but starting the wars in Syria and Lybia was unforgivable, as was the interference in The Ukraine.
I think that, particularly in recent times, the political parties have shifted their views, and dragged terms like 'Left' and 'Right' along with them - responding to some combination of money, fads, and maybe blackmail. For a while the Republicans were made poisonous by the Neocons. They might continued like that in 2016, but Trump has tamed them so that sheer aggression towards other countries has become less popular within the Republican party, but has become more popular among the Democrats, who like to blame Russia for everything under the sun. OK, that is only verbal aggression, but that can poison efforts to lower East-West tension. I find the Democrats lack of concern for peace, totally unforgivable.
When you think about it, if you want to lower unemployment (which isn't exactly the same as improving the economy) you need to stifle imports from countries that 'compete' by paying their workers almost nothing. He has also escaped from the 'Climate Change' absurdity, and immediately made the US self-sufficient in oil and gas - which must help!
In different times, I dare say he could have been welcomed into the Democratic party and they would have enjoyed the Trump boost instead of the Republicans - because if you think about his politics, he really isn't very right wing - to the extent that that term has any meaning at all.
David
I think that, particularly in recent times, the political parties have shifted their views, and dragged terms like 'Left' and 'Right' along with them - responding to some combination of money, fads, and maybe blackmail. For a while the Republicans were made poisonous by the Neocons. They might continued like that in 2016, but Trump has tamed them so that sheer aggression towards other countries has become less popular within the Republican party, but has become more popular among the Democrats, who like to blame Russia for everything under the sun. OK, that is only verbal aggression, but that can poison efforts to lower East-West tension. I find the Democrats lack of concern for peace, totally unforgivable.
When you think about it, if you want to lower unemployment (which isn't exactly the same as improving the economy) you need to stifle imports from countries that 'compete' by paying their workers almost nothing. He has also escaped from the 'Climate Change' absurdity, and immediately made the US self-sufficient in oil and gas - which must help!
In different times, I dare say he could have been welcomed into the Democratic party and they would have enjoyed the Trump boost instead of the Republicans - because if you think about his politics, he really isn't very right wing - to the extent that that term has any meaning at all.
David
While a cadre of insiders sell Russia uranium to make nuclear weapons...
Regarding north's point about Trump's history of changing affiliations with various political parties, the only thing that should be judged with regards to his political views is his actions. Clearly conservative by almost every measure.
Donald Trump Is the Most Pure Conservative President Ever
Regarding north's point about Trump's history of changing affiliations with various political parties, the only thing that should be judged with regards to his political views is his actions. Clearly conservative by almost every measure.
Donald Trump Is the Most Pure Conservative President Ever
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/couple-in-car-runs-two-trump-supporting-boys-off-the-road/
Couple in car runs two Trump-supporting boys off the road
The Syrian situation is a terrible mess, interpreting Trump's (non-)actions is all very subjective.
Any discussion about that is going be, what you cal it, waffle. Even worse, opinionated waffle.
What is objectively verifiable, is the fact that Trump hung the Kurds out to dry, sided with yet another autocrat, and lied about it.
Trump told 6 falsehoods about Syria in 4 minutes
So, no deal is better then a deal that has an end to it?
You do understand that ending the deal now pushes Iran's capability to develop a nuclear weapon forward, not backward?
If he really would have wanted to impress as a deal maker, he could have negotiated a better deal.
Trump leaving the deal only ramped up the tension between the US an Teheran, and he forced his allies to leave the deal against their wil.
The deal Obama struck was a compromise, it was the best that could be reached at the time, but it was a positive achievement.
Because DT's obsession with reversing everything Obama did, the ending of the deal must, at least for a substantial part, be seen as a result of that obsession.
Do you trust a person who is motivated that way?
And to justify his decision, no surprise, he lied about the deal to:
Fact check: Trump wrong on all 3 claims in tweet on Iran deal
Or:
Now would you believe it, DT lied about that to:
New details about Soleimani killing further undercut Trump’s lies
This might be Trump’s worst lie ever
The Trump administration tried to make it look as if there were only minor damages, and a few lightly wounded in the Iran counterattack.
They made it seem as if Teheran planned it that way, but some doubt it is all that clear:
11 US troops were injured in Iran’s attack. It shows how close we came to war.
The US escaped a full out war with Iran very narrowly there. That is not because of Trump, but in spite of Trump imo.
Probably more luck than anything else.
Why then give the regime a new marter? Why sanction them back into the middle ages? What is the end goal of all of these new provocations?
If Trump would have kept the deal, or maybe even expanded it, don't you think the secularization would have had a better chance?
Trump contained nothing David, Kim played him like a fiddle.
And of course (starting to see a pattern here?) there were some lies:
Trump administration officials seem to have caught themselves in a lie about North Korea
Former White House Officials Say President Trump 'Is Lying' Over Claims Obama Tried to Meet With Kim Jong Un
Conclusion of this all seems to be that Trump's lies, although maybe trivial to you, seem to ultimately matter an awful lot.
They seem to inform you, and a large part of the US. The feedback loop between DT and his propaganda channels, leaves the truth hidden for this group.
Don't believe the links i provided if you don't want to.
Inform yourself David, you will see that Trump is a liar, and that it matters.
No name calling, just a fact.
Any discussion about that is going be, what you cal it, waffle. Even worse, opinionated waffle.
What is objectively verifiable, is the fact that Trump hung the Kurds out to dry, sided with yet another autocrat, and lied about it.
Trump told 6 falsehoods about Syria in 4 minutes
So, no deal is better then a deal that has an end to it?
You do understand that ending the deal now pushes Iran's capability to develop a nuclear weapon forward, not backward?
If he really would have wanted to impress as a deal maker, he could have negotiated a better deal.
Trump leaving the deal only ramped up the tension between the US an Teheran, and he forced his allies to leave the deal against their wil.
The deal Obama struck was a compromise, it was the best that could be reached at the time, but it was a positive achievement.
Because DT's obsession with reversing everything Obama did, the ending of the deal must, at least for a substantial part, be seen as a result of that obsession.
Do you trust a person who is motivated that way?
And to justify his decision, no surprise, he lied about the deal to:
Fact check: Trump wrong on all 3 claims in tweet on Iran deal
Or:
Now would you believe it, DT lied about that to:
New details about Soleimani killing further undercut Trump’s lies
This might be Trump’s worst lie ever
The Trump administration tried to make it look as if there were only minor damages, and a few lightly wounded in the Iran counterattack.
They made it seem as if Teheran planned it that way, but some doubt it is all that clear:
11 US troops were injured in Iran’s attack. It shows how close we came to war.
The US escaped a full out war with Iran very narrowly there. That is not because of Trump, but in spite of Trump imo.
Probably more luck than anything else.
Why then give the regime a new marter? Why sanction them back into the middle ages? What is the end goal of all of these new provocations?
If Trump would have kept the deal, or maybe even expanded it, don't you think the secularization would have had a better chance?
Trump contained nothing David, Kim played him like a fiddle.
And of course (starting to see a pattern here?) there were some lies:
Trump administration officials seem to have caught themselves in a lie about North Korea
Former White House Officials Say President Trump 'Is Lying' Over Claims Obama Tried to Meet With Kim Jong Un
Conclusion of this all seems to be that Trump's lies, although maybe trivial to you, seem to ultimately matter an awful lot.
They seem to inform you, and a large part of the US. The feedback loop between DT and his propaganda channels, leaves the truth hidden for this group.
Don't believe the links i provided if you don't want to.
Inform yourself David, you will see that Trump is a liar, and that it matters.
No name calling, just a fact.
Using Kerry as a fact checker is humorous.
Let's see what happens with this (noting that if Trump pulls it off, he is doing so with massive "deep state" opposition) -
Trump Expresses Optimism for US Peace Deal with Taliban
Let's see what happens with this (noting that if Trump pulls it off, he is doing so with massive "deep state" opposition) -
Trump Expresses Optimism for US Peace Deal with Taliban
Last edited:
Well who got us into that mess - Obama - and there was only one reasonable way out of it, to stop trying to be involved. Be honest, did you prefer Hillary Clinton's intended approach?
Actually there was some sort of settlement shortly afterwards.
Trump had the option to leave about 50 soldiers in place where they might well have been massacred - precipitating huge calls for the US to fight back - or to remove them. He wisely chose the latter course.
We aren't discussing that - we are discussing real outcomes.
I hope not - the concept is that squezing Iran very hard economically may result in an internal overthrow of the regime (which is not liked) which would solve the entire problem overnight.
Well 'tension' isn't war.
It wasn't if it allowed Iran to grow strong by selling oil, and then go nuclear after the deal expired!
We can't know all the facts, but he certainly didn't start a war, and we know that that is his whole strategy. We also know that the Iranians didn't choose to pursue their grievance with more attacks.
The man seemed pretty key to their strategy of terror - he was almost certainly in Iraq for no good, and Trump got rid of him - he doesn't mind killing people who are soaked in the blood of others.
I am sure the sanctions are extremely hard to live with, but any sane person would understand that that approach is better than a war - for everyone.
Am Iranian I spoke to some time ago, seemed to think that the country was already pretty secular - they hate and despise their government.
Trump took the view that sharing a stage with Kim was not really giving him anything. The previous approach was to refuse to even negotiate without preconditions - a great way to escalate a conflict.
I am simply not interested in discussing all the junk about lies - I am interested in what he has done that is useful.
I imagine that you realise as I do, that Trump is now in a very strong position to win re-election in November - because he has become so popular, and because the Democratic party has shot itself in the foot over and over again. I wonder which of their inspiring candidates you are rooting for? It is the same Democratic party that wanted Hillary to be POTUS. Imagine how it would feel with Hillary eyeball to eyeball with President Putin.
Anyway, thanks for actually moving on to issues of substance, although you can't seem to understand that I simply will not discuss potential lies - that is simply a way of diverting into an endless discussion about semantics and such like.
Shall we move on to how President Trump has amassed such a huge collection of supporters, who can fill stadium after stadium with huge overflow crowds watching screens outside? They queue for hours in the cold to get a chance to cheer their president on!
David
Actually there was some sort of settlement shortly afterwards.
Trump had the option to leave about 50 soldiers in place where they might well have been massacred - precipitating huge calls for the US to fight back - or to remove them. He wisely chose the latter course.
We aren't discussing that - we are discussing real outcomes.
I hope not - the concept is that squezing Iran very hard economically may result in an internal overthrow of the regime (which is not liked) which would solve the entire problem overnight.
Well 'tension' isn't war.
It wasn't if it allowed Iran to grow strong by selling oil, and then go nuclear after the deal expired!
We can't know all the facts, but he certainly didn't start a war, and we know that that is his whole strategy. We also know that the Iranians didn't choose to pursue their grievance with more attacks.
The man seemed pretty key to their strategy of terror - he was almost certainly in Iraq for no good, and Trump got rid of him - he doesn't mind killing people who are soaked in the blood of others.
I am sure the sanctions are extremely hard to live with, but any sane person would understand that that approach is better than a war - for everyone.
Am Iranian I spoke to some time ago, seemed to think that the country was already pretty secular - they hate and despise their government.
Trump took the view that sharing a stage with Kim was not really giving him anything. The previous approach was to refuse to even negotiate without preconditions - a great way to escalate a conflict.
I am simply not interested in discussing all the junk about lies - I am interested in what he has done that is useful.
I imagine that you realise as I do, that Trump is now in a very strong position to win re-election in November - because he has become so popular, and because the Democratic party has shot itself in the foot over and over again. I wonder which of their inspiring candidates you are rooting for? It is the same Democratic party that wanted Hillary to be POTUS. Imagine how it would feel with Hillary eyeball to eyeball with President Putin.
Anyway, thanks for actually moving on to issues of substance, although you can't seem to understand that I simply will not discuss potential lies - that is simply a way of diverting into an endless discussion about semantics and such like.
Shall we move on to how President Trump has amassed such a huge collection of supporters, who can fill stadium after stadium with huge overflow crowds watching screens outside? They queue for hours in the cold to get a chance to cheer their president on!
David
Last edited:
My view is that Trump has been very constrained over the first three years of his time in office, and has had to concentrate much of his effort on tackling those who want to bring him down by devious means. So while he has courted the Saudi regime, which I dislike as much as you do, I don't think he could do anything about that immediately. He has however helped to bring about the near ending of the hideous Syrian war, which I think was mainly a creation of the US, and has worked to try to bring down the Iranian regime, and NK without the use of warfare. He also may have ended the Afghanistan war! I very, very much hope that you will see more action on foreign policy in his second term along those lines - including dialog with President Putin.
I am very sorry that Steve left - I still hope he will return.
David
I am very sorry that Steve left - I still hope he will return.
David
P
Perhaps this isn't the correct thread to post this question, and perhaps I should create a new thread, but since this is the active political thread on Skeptiko, I figured I'd post here first and see where it goes.
I truly believe that the NDE, taken as a whole, offers a genuine revelation to humanity about what values we ought to adopt as we seek to orient ourselves to one another and to the world. The NDE really hammers home the point that everything and everyone is connected and that we are responsible for treating one another with compassion and respect. It really tosses out the "rugged individualist" John Wayne orientation to life on it's rear-end. I myself have had something very close to an NDE (perhaps it was, even... I'm not sure) in which the importance of the collective whole of reality and all beings in it was the focal point of the experience.
I see that most folks on here are spiritually-oriented or, if not, are generally secular humanist types. Either way, most of us can get on the same page that some sort of brotherly/sisterly compassion ought to be a part of any person's life if it's to be well-lived.
So, with that said, I find that the only presidential candidates that speak to this feeling in me are Sanders and Warren. Sure, they're not enlightened beings, and both have flaws, but when I compare the message of the NDE to Trump himself, and consider him in contrast to one NDE after another, he seems startlingly at odds with the messages of collective love and respect and connection.
There's 77 pages of this thread, so perhaps I missed a conversation on this, but I wanted to bring this up because it seems like an important conversation to be had on here. I sincerely want to know, at least from the people who accept the reality of the NDE and who still support someone like Trump over Sanders/Warren: Why?
Thanks for any responses. I sincerely just want to understand.
I truly believe that the NDE, taken as a whole, offers a genuine revelation to humanity about what values we ought to adopt as we seek to orient ourselves to one another and to the world. The NDE really hammers home the point that everything and everyone is connected and that we are responsible for treating one another with compassion and respect. It really tosses out the "rugged individualist" John Wayne orientation to life on it's rear-end. I myself have had something very close to an NDE (perhaps it was, even... I'm not sure) in which the importance of the collective whole of reality and all beings in it was the focal point of the experience.
I see that most folks on here are spiritually-oriented or, if not, are generally secular humanist types. Either way, most of us can get on the same page that some sort of brotherly/sisterly compassion ought to be a part of any person's life if it's to be well-lived.
So, with that said, I find that the only presidential candidates that speak to this feeling in me are Sanders and Warren. Sure, they're not enlightened beings, and both have flaws, but when I compare the message of the NDE to Trump himself, and consider him in contrast to one NDE after another, he seems startlingly at odds with the messages of collective love and respect and connection.
There's 77 pages of this thread, so perhaps I missed a conversation on this, but I wanted to bring this up because it seems like an important conversation to be had on here. I sincerely want to know, at least from the people who accept the reality of the NDE and who still support someone like Trump over Sanders/Warren: Why?
Thanks for any responses. I sincerely just want to understand.
I share everything you said, Philemon, all the way up to - So, with that said...
To me, the best president is the one who does all he/she can to make sure that each and every living soul has the best opportunity to experience the good and bad from ones exercise of their own personal freedom and "do no harm." Only in a framework like that can people realize the critical importance of one's own personal responsibility with regards to the world, nations and communities, their friends, loved ones and ultimately, themselves. Soul growth is my goal. And I see a hindrance to the opportunities for growth in a world brought on by the likes of socialism, communism or anything close to that. The worlds I encounter beyond this are just exactly that... beyond. Though I choose to believe my soul is in all worlds, I am anchored in this physical world with others who are also. And many of those others do not even consider such a thing as soul, as life beyond death of the physical body, as life that could have preceded such, as life without a physical body... and it is those who, in my most unsubstantiated, yet strongest belief need the lessons of this world to have any shot to awaken to such (the soul), the possibilities beyond this one life.
Challenge is what spurs growth. Not a nanny state. But also, the Sanders / Warren... and in fact the Squad and pretty much the way the entire Democratic party is being pulled... that is a recipe for financial collapse and the end of life.
Again... all just my opinion
To me, the best president is the one who does all he/she can to make sure that each and every living soul has the best opportunity to experience the good and bad from ones exercise of their own personal freedom and "do no harm." Only in a framework like that can people realize the critical importance of one's own personal responsibility with regards to the world, nations and communities, their friends, loved ones and ultimately, themselves. Soul growth is my goal. And I see a hindrance to the opportunities for growth in a world brought on by the likes of socialism, communism or anything close to that. The worlds I encounter beyond this are just exactly that... beyond. Though I choose to believe my soul is in all worlds, I am anchored in this physical world with others who are also. And many of those others do not even consider such a thing as soul, as life beyond death of the physical body, as life that could have preceded such, as life without a physical body... and it is those who, in my most unsubstantiated, yet strongest belief need the lessons of this world to have any shot to awaken to such (the soul), the possibilities beyond this one life.
Challenge is what spurs growth. Not a nanny state. But also, the Sanders / Warren... and in fact the Squad and pretty much the way the entire Democratic party is being pulled... that is a recipe for financial collapse and the end of life.
Again... all just my opinion
P
Sam, thanks for your response.
I don't personally see Sanders/Warren as offering proposals at all related to the forms of socialism/communism that they are frequently caricatured as promoting - even (or especially) by the democratic party mainstream. Both Sanders and Warren offer proposals on course with the social policies of most of Europe which most people don't think of when they are thinking of socialism or communism. These are basically safety nets to ensure that individuals in those societies don't succumb to financial ruin on account of medical issues (medicare for all) or old age (social security). They also ensure people can receive an affordable education so that their societies are well educated - proposals put forth by both Sanders and Warren but not by any other democratic candidates or by Trump. Generally, it seems that Americans have respected most European cultures since the end of WWII. They appear to be (at least) doing no worse than America and don't appear to be shielded from being able to make existential choices for themselves that might threaten the possibility of experiencing soul growth of any kind.
If we have an NDE that tells us to love others and the NDE as a whole seems to encourage us to support one another in this world, must we refrain from doing so for fear it will trip others up? Is being kind or generous or loving or supportive to one another a threat to our ability to grow spiritually -- or is it, perhaps, more of an encouragement to do so - like good soil and sunshine are to plants?
I don't personally see Sanders/Warren as offering proposals at all related to the forms of socialism/communism that they are frequently caricatured as promoting - even (or especially) by the democratic party mainstream. Both Sanders and Warren offer proposals on course with the social policies of most of Europe which most people don't think of when they are thinking of socialism or communism. These are basically safety nets to ensure that individuals in those societies don't succumb to financial ruin on account of medical issues (medicare for all) or old age (social security). They also ensure people can receive an affordable education so that their societies are well educated - proposals put forth by both Sanders and Warren but not by any other democratic candidates or by Trump. Generally, it seems that Americans have respected most European cultures since the end of WWII. They appear to be (at least) doing no worse than America and don't appear to be shielded from being able to make existential choices for themselves that might threaten the possibility of experiencing soul growth of any kind.
If we have an NDE that tells us to love others and the NDE as a whole seems to encourage us to support one another in this world, must we refrain from doing so for fear it will trip others up? Is being kind or generous or loving or supportive to one another a threat to our ability to grow spiritually -- or is it, perhaps, more of an encouragement to do so - like good soil and sunshine are to plants?
"Medicare For All" is intended to ban private insurance. That isn't a safety net. That is only one of their many forms of destruction of personal freedom.
"The Green New Deal" will destroy life as we all know it - do the math on the costs and you will understand. The climate alarmist hoax has been thoroughly exposed.
Long ago the "education system" was "taken over" by a group of elites via their "foundations" network through which they began to supply almost every single text book used by the education system. This was only one of the forms of takeover of a system that should be trying to teach people "how to think" not "what to think." While this was going on, a moderately paced "evolution" occurred within the makeup of the educators who shared significant common ground founded on Marxist ideologies. Sanders is a Marxist. You now have an education system in the US which isn't actually education, but indoctrination into Marxist ideology.
All nations who have tried to walk this path, a slow roll to full Marxist totalitarianism, have failed or are in process of failing. Additionally, as the process matures, it usually ends up benefiting a tiny few at the top who siphon off as much as they can and send the fruits of their thievery to safe havens whereby when they day comes, they escape the collapse of the lie they built into a bonfire while all the people are left dead, dying, or wishing they were dead.
No economic system is perfect, but the fact is that capitalism has a proven record of raising the living standards of the most, for the most throughout its history.
Humans are humans and in all systems, one or a group will abuse that system. The only way to measure it is by comparing the track record of the combination of governmental systems and the economic systems with which they are associated. If one does so honestly and fairly, the best way to go is to make sure individuals have freedom within a framework that deals with those who do harm to others which also places emphasis on personal responsibility to "do the right thing." Each individual is faced with having to decide what "the right thing " is. For those who have known "their soul" or discovered "their soul," doing the right thing automatically includes (and puts first) assisting others in a responsible fashion.
"The Green New Deal" will destroy life as we all know it - do the math on the costs and you will understand. The climate alarmist hoax has been thoroughly exposed.
Long ago the "education system" was "taken over" by a group of elites via their "foundations" network through which they began to supply almost every single text book used by the education system. This was only one of the forms of takeover of a system that should be trying to teach people "how to think" not "what to think." While this was going on, a moderately paced "evolution" occurred within the makeup of the educators who shared significant common ground founded on Marxist ideologies. Sanders is a Marxist. You now have an education system in the US which isn't actually education, but indoctrination into Marxist ideology.
All nations who have tried to walk this path, a slow roll to full Marxist totalitarianism, have failed or are in process of failing. Additionally, as the process matures, it usually ends up benefiting a tiny few at the top who siphon off as much as they can and send the fruits of their thievery to safe havens whereby when they day comes, they escape the collapse of the lie they built into a bonfire while all the people are left dead, dying, or wishing they were dead.
No economic system is perfect, but the fact is that capitalism has a proven record of raising the living standards of the most, for the most throughout its history.
Humans are humans and in all systems, one or a group will abuse that system. The only way to measure it is by comparing the track record of the combination of governmental systems and the economic systems with which they are associated. If one does so honestly and fairly, the best way to go is to make sure individuals have freedom within a framework that deals with those who do harm to others which also places emphasis on personal responsibility to "do the right thing." Each individual is faced with having to decide what "the right thing " is. For those who have known "their soul" or discovered "their soul," doing the right thing automatically includes (and puts first) assisting others in a responsible fashion.
Last edited:
P
My take on "capitalism has a proven record of raising the living standards of the most, for the most throughout its history" is that it doesn't really take into account the kind of socialist protections seen in the Eurpoean countries - American allies. I think we're generally lumping them in under the umbrella of capitalism - not caricaturing them as being totalitarian Marxist states - and Sanders/Warren are only advocating for similar policies to be instituted here in the US.
Another thought that comes to mind is that, since the onset of the industrial revolution, our capitalist societies have benefited from the availability of cheap fossil fuels which powered the engines of their industries and their economies. Those cheap fuels are strongly on the wane. Hence, why we continue to war against countries who have those resources in greater availability. We have no similarly cheap and ubiquitous fuels to power our lifestyles now, which I think helps to explain why the boomer generation enjoyed a higher quality of life than the generations that have come since that time. Back then a (white) kid could work at Dairy Queen, save some money, and pay his or her way through college, buy their own car, and travel Europe as a youth - and then pat themselves on the back for being a very good boy or girl. Nobody has that experience anymore.
And, back to the NDE, as it focuses as it does on the collective over the individual - why are we moving back toward a feudalist style of government without barely a squeak of protest from the so-called "patriots" of this country - more like redcoats and loyalists for the corporatist oligarchs. Why is plutocracy favored by the right over a social democracy? The latter is much more a government by and for the people than Trump/Bloomberg plutocratic governance. We're moving in a frightening direction with only the very wealthy becoming the leaders we get to choose from. How did it go from Abe Lincoln in a backwoods shack to what we've got going on now? This is very hierarchical (i.e., not the NDE collectivist morality) in nature. Is the world we live in someone else's world (i.e., the rich) and the rest of us just get to live here and pay rent? I don't think so. I also don't think the NDE says so - in fact quite the opposite.
Anyway, the spirit in which I opened up the question here is, what sort of praxis do we derive from these NDE values? Things are a mess! I want to get some traction!
Another thought that comes to mind is that, since the onset of the industrial revolution, our capitalist societies have benefited from the availability of cheap fossil fuels which powered the engines of their industries and their economies. Those cheap fuels are strongly on the wane. Hence, why we continue to war against countries who have those resources in greater availability. We have no similarly cheap and ubiquitous fuels to power our lifestyles now, which I think helps to explain why the boomer generation enjoyed a higher quality of life than the generations that have come since that time. Back then a (white) kid could work at Dairy Queen, save some money, and pay his or her way through college, buy their own car, and travel Europe as a youth - and then pat themselves on the back for being a very good boy or girl. Nobody has that experience anymore.
And, back to the NDE, as it focuses as it does on the collective over the individual - why are we moving back toward a feudalist style of government without barely a squeak of protest from the so-called "patriots" of this country - more like redcoats and loyalists for the corporatist oligarchs. Why is plutocracy favored by the right over a social democracy? The latter is much more a government by and for the people than Trump/Bloomberg plutocratic governance. We're moving in a frightening direction with only the very wealthy becoming the leaders we get to choose from. How did it go from Abe Lincoln in a backwoods shack to what we've got going on now? This is very hierarchical (i.e., not the NDE collectivist morality) in nature. Is the world we live in someone else's world (i.e., the rich) and the rest of us just get to live here and pay rent? I don't think so. I also don't think the NDE says so - in fact quite the opposite.
Anyway, the spirit in which I opened up the question here is, what sort of praxis do we derive from these NDE values? Things are a mess! I want to get some traction!
Last edited by a moderator:
Britain has the NHS - which is a healthcare service free to those who need it. However it has progressively deteriorated as the demands on it have increased enormously - basically because the system can't say NO to extreme demands, so the waiting lists get longer and longer. Also it is important to realise that people here can buy private insurance to buy a much higher quality service (or pay for it directly) and lots of people have made some use of that. For example, someone I know needed a replacement to her artificial hip because there was some infection round the joint. It became clear that she would wait and wait until the infection overwhelmed her, so she paid about £10,000 to have the job done privately. At some point they allowed dentists to opt out of the NHS scheme, so most people are unable to find another NHS dentist if they move area. Etc etc.
Because the NHS is publicly controlled it has gradually become insanely bureaucratic and inefficient. For example because hospitals are measured by the time it takes a patient to get to an appointment, treatments and investigations tend to be spread over multiple appointments for no obvious reason. For example, someone I know had five appointments to fit her with a standard hearing aid - there were absolutely no complicating factors.
If you go to accident and emergency, you can end up waiting for most of the night, often in crowded waiting rooms. If Coronovirus takes off here, that could be a disaster.
Meanwhile, people can get sex change operations on the NHS, or they can go abroad for cosmetic surgery (where it is cheaper), and then get NHS help if that goes wrong!
The truth is, there are healthcare problems in both our countries. I suspect a sudden knee jerk change might be disastrous.
David
Because the NHS is publicly controlled it has gradually become insanely bureaucratic and inefficient. For example because hospitals are measured by the time it takes a patient to get to an appointment, treatments and investigations tend to be spread over multiple appointments for no obvious reason. For example, someone I know had five appointments to fit her with a standard hearing aid - there were absolutely no complicating factors.
If you go to accident and emergency, you can end up waiting for most of the night, often in crowded waiting rooms. If Coronovirus takes off here, that could be a disaster.
Meanwhile, people can get sex change operations on the NHS, or they can go abroad for cosmetic surgery (where it is cheaper), and then get NHS help if that goes wrong!
The truth is, there are healthcare problems in both our countries. I suspect a sudden knee jerk change might be disastrous.
David