US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Isn't this the whole "conservative" mindset, though? "I am an island. Fuck you, I've got mine. My, me, mine. You don't matter, only I do."

Requoted for great truth... anyway, it is what that mindset has *become*. Biologically for a species that is inherently socially cooperative, its a dysfunction of self-delusion.

[synaesthetic]

It does strike me as completely nonsensical. The sole reason humanity is where it is now, the reason we exist as the sole sentient species on this planet, is precisely because we cooperate and work together to accomplish things we would never be able to do alone.

It's not just our hands with opposable thumbs, or our big brains, but it's our ability to connect those big brains together in tandem and create synergy. It's like a multicore CPU, in which each core, working together to crunch numbers, can operate on different threads of execution simultaneously.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Isn't this the whole "conservative" mindset, though? "I am an island. Fuck you, I've got mine. My, me, mine. You don't matter, only I do."

The individual do mather, so do the group.
'' You might be a island, but you are still part of a f'cking archipelago''

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

Neal Boortz has it all figured out

http://theghostfighters.wordpress.co...eathly-silent/

This guy is the perfect example of the Inner Directive and the influence/control that the corporate world has put on him. They have turned the individualistic traits of inner directives into selfishness. They want people to stop thinking collectively and only care about themselves and nothing more, consequences be damned.

[Vexx]

It isn't "enlightened self interest" at all, to hijack a Randian trope.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

The individual do mather, so do the group.
'' You might be a island, but you are still part of a f'cking archipelago''

That'd certainly be a nice way to reconcile the two ideologies, though I'm almost certain many of the "islands" would rather be swallowed up by the sea first.

[Sugetsu]

Allow me to reiterate a point made before:

What this 2012 election comes down to now is whether swing voters still behave as costumers. That my friends is the stark difference between Romney and Obama. I watch this race with both excitement and fear.

Neal Boortz is a fine example of the costumer mindset, which as I said before, has been careful tailored by the corporate media. This type of behavioral pattern is so pervasive in the country that even democrats had to play along with this ideology in order to win elections. Unfortunately for the nation, the costumer approach to politics and society has only led us down to economic and social crisis.

Ever since Obama got elected, democrats now challenge many of the views of the corporate world, while Romney and the republicans continue to support it.

The big question here is, and I don't know the answer, what is the current mindset of the American people at this time? Is it still largely under the influence of the Reagan era, the era of the self, or has it morphed into a more collective approach? Whichever of these two views of the world is the strongest shall dictate the winner of this upcoming elections.

Anyone care to try to answer this question?

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Requoted for great truth... anyway, it is what that mindset has *become*. Biologically for a species that is inherently socially cooperative, its a dysfunction of self-delusion.

Repubs oppose evolution so much they are de-evoluting, remember spiders eat their brothers, same goes for sharks in the womb.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

The individual do mather, so do the group.
'' You might be a island, but you are still part of a f'cking archipelago''

It takes a good island to make a good archipelago. No group is functional without the liberty of the individual to function as a single unit to provide for the group, which in turn becomes a productive single unit because of the individuals that make it up.

Repubs oppose evolution so much they are de-evoluting, remember spiders eat their brothers, same goes for sharks in the womb.

So...uh...you say that a political party (that is so very similar to its "opposite") doesn't support a scientific theory in the parties entirety? May I say, stereotype much?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

The process of corporatism started way back in the 1930s when the federal reserve became as federal as federal express. Edward Bernays was also working hard behind the scenes to change the perception that people had about buying. Everything came full circle when Reagan took office thanks to the implementation of Freudian focus group physiology.

You need to go back farther than that to find the origins of modern corporatism Sugetsu.

I would suggest reading this book by Charles A Lindbergh.
Banking & Currency & The Money Trust

http://books.google.com/books?id=B9I...page&q&f=false

However, we clearly agree on Reagan.
He was not the "great messianic figure of capitalism" that we have been led to believe he was.

I am glad you like it. But it is actually a long documentary series. I hope you can watch the whole thing at least twice, there are some very complex but very important subjects in it.

By the way, the two videos you linked come from the documentary Not sure if you were aware of that.

Twice!
I'll try, it is very interesting.

Bernays adopted his brother's philosophy on human nature. We are all irrational emotional creatures whose wants and needs must be constantly satisfied in order to keep us from running wild. Therefore, the free market system to him was just a charade to keep society under control, he believes that the ruling elite must manage the population behind the scenes, and guess what? It is already happening.

And there in lies the fundamental difference between an actual Capitalist and a Corporate-socialist/corporatist.

Arnold Toynbee called that type of system "Imperial Socialism" and both he, Alfred Milner, and Cecil Rhodes pledged their lives and their fortunes to shaping the world into what it is today.

In fact, let me dare saying that Bernays' dreams came through in a way, and we are all puppets in this endless consumer market oriented system. Big corporations control information, food, transportation and virtually everything already.

Don't dare to say it man...SAY IT!
Because you're absolutely correct.
We are economic serfs, and we can thank people like Bernays for helping enslave us.
This is not a "conspiracy theory," it is documented fact that the good ol boys of All Souls used their power and influence to create this mess we're now in.
Of course for the elite class they represented, the world is becoming a much better place.
It just sucks for the rest of us.

That's not what I said. There is a large part of the population which is categorized by Freudian analysis as the "inner directives"; "These are people who are not defined by their place in society, but by the choices they made themselves" "Personal satisfaction is more important than status or money, they tend to be self expressive, complex and individualistic". There are also other kinds of individuals but the inner directives are the most prominent. They make the perfect consumers and republican politics was remodeled to attract these type of voters.

Bill Clinton did the same thing as Reagan did, only he tailored the message to the Democrats rather than the Republicans and thus sucked them into the consumerist trap as well.

From the the blog "JohnQuncy: Active Citizens or Passive Consumers":

The Democrats ran focus groups that told him that voters were only interest[ed] in paying taxes for things that benefited them and not for the welfare of others. Clinton decided to tailor his policies along these lines. He ran a campaign that pledged middle class tax cuts. They also focused grouped all his appearances and speeches ahead of time to gauge reactions and tailor the message.
The democrats wanted to remain true to their traditional policies but needed to regain power to do this. Tax cuts for the middle class were seen as the price that they had to pay. Once in power, they were determined to help the poor mainly through public health care. To pay for this they planned to cut defense spending and raise taxes on the rich.
Once in power, the Democrats realized that the budget deficit was much greater than expected. There was no way to borrow the money without spooking the markets. The only way to pay for the promised tax cuts for the middle class was to cut welfare as well as defense spending. Instead of cutting taxes, Clinton reneged on his promise hoping he could make personal appeals for continued welfare spending.
Clinton reverted back to the old Democratic tradition of the collective over the individual. He promoted universal health care, universal child care, addressing societal inequalities and homelessness. Suburban voters were not inspired by this vision. They wanted their tax cuts and felt betrayed by Clinton.
Clinton lost both houses of congress in the mid-terms elections and his popularity plummeted. He turned to Dick Morris for help who advised him that to win reelection he would have to transform the nature of politics. He would have to treat voters as consumers. The way to win back the crucial suburban voters was to forget ideology and to identify and promise to fulfill their desires and whims. He needed to be as sensitive as business with voters treated as consumers and their votes being the profits. Instead of treating voters as targets, treat them as owners. Instead of treating them as objects to manipulate, treat them as people you need to learn from. Instead of trying to move voters to your fixed position, you need to accommodate them. For the first time, life style marketing was used in politics.


The blogger is correct.
That's why Clinton supported NAFTA, GATT, and the repeal of Glass Steagall, to name but a few things.

Obama's health care model was indeed taken after Romney, but they first explored other options, such as single payer and the public option, but these were quickly tossed out because pooling data showed they were very unpopular. Again, this is due to Reagan era influence.

No, this was due to Americans not wanting the government involved in Health Care. Universal Health Care has been opposed by Americans since it was first proposed in 1883, Reagan had nothing to do with it.

It was either bailing out the banks or nationalising them. Again, based on the Reagan era influence what is the only option left?

Or letting them fail, which would have been the best option.
This would have exposed the pyramid-ponzi scheme that is the Federal Reserve System, Fiat money, and Wall Street as a whole.
Why do you think it was so damn imperiative for the government to bail them out?
It wasn't to help the citizenry, it was to save Wall Street and keep the pinstripe bandits from losing their fortunes.

As for the Obama supporting a war with Iran; this is not true. The left would be crying high and mighty if he supported it.

He doesn't care Sugetsu.
Obama is as beholden to the Military-Industrial Complex as is Romney.
The last President that attempted to go against their will was Reagan (by cutting defense spending on nuclear armaments), and we know what happened to him.

Democrats and republicans are playing under the same consumer minded model, because they know that a large portion of people are inner directives, as the documentary pointed out, the labor party was forced to adapt as well or face extinction. However, Democrats at the core still believe that being socially aware is more important than being individualistic and their policies continue to reflect this ideology.

I agree.

But I digress, nothing will truly change in This corporate-socialist system who has been high-jacked by Edward Bernays and Any Rand. So long as corporations control our lives, so long as FIAT currency is the norm, so long as money is considered a goal but not a tool for living, so long as politicians instead of scientist continue address the problems in society nothing ever change.

We don't live under capitalism.
I'm currently re-reading Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" for the third time, and let me assure you Sugetsu there are no corporations in a free-market system, only private business.
Corporations are "public-private partnerships" and/or "a creature of the state" they are not a private business by legal definition.

A 3rd party is a political party, and politics is nothing but a struggle for power, struggle will lead to resistance, resistance will lead to force, and force will lead to violence. In the end it will become part of a two party political system due the principle of force and resistance, a simple law of nature.

Okay Yoda.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering...

I pick Obama simply because he is the lesser of two evils,...

Then you have chosen fascism.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

So...uh...you say that a political party (that is so very similar to its "opposite") doesn't support a scientific theory in the parties entirety? May I say, stereotype much?

TBT not enough, the whole truth is that ATM the repubs embrace dogma/religion and shun free-thinking/science, specially when it opposes the dogma/religion or there is a posobility than might force them to change the way they do business (climate change).

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

TBT not enough, the whole truth is that ATM the repubs embrace dogma/religion and shun free-thinking/science, specially when it opposes the dogma/religion or there is a posobility than might force them to change the way they do business (climate change).

Cannot this be said of a multitude of people on Earth, regardless of political affiliation? The only reason to say that repub(lican)s believe dogma (and phrased in a way that all of them hold that ideal) is if you believe that democrats are any better. In fact, neither of the parties are better than one another, especially not in the non-political environment of science, which got politicized for the purposes of politicians of both parties for their own ends and gains.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Neal Boortz is a fine example of the costumer mindset, which as I said before, has been careful tailored by the corporate media. This type of behavioral pattern is so pervasive in the country that even democrats had to play along with this ideology in order to win elections. Unfortunately for the nation, the costumer approach to politics and society has only led us down to economic and social crisis.

You don't really need corporate media to foster this type of behavior. It's a common trap when growing older. I've seen it a lot of colleagues. If you allow yourself to become bitter, cynical and resentful to idealism and optimism you end up like this guy. He just wants to appear worldly to impress a bunch of graduates.

I'm convinced people like that understand the logic behind social security, public education and health care and government, but they prefer to spit their bile on having to share/contribute. Worse they derive a perverse pleasure seeing things go wrong as to be verified in their cynicism and mock those who have hope.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Cannot this be said of a multitude of people on Earth, regardless of political affiliation?

Sure, yo do not need to be a republican to be dogmatic/anti-scientific, but a republican that is antidogmatic and pro-science is less common than a woman that can lift 400 pounds. Please do not tell me you are not one of those, calling Charles Darwin work "a mere theory" belittles him and shows you confuse theory with hypothesis.

as if you believe that democrats are any better.

Better? Probably, but not by much.

especially not in the non-political environment of science, which got politicized for the purposes of politicians of both parties for their own ends and gains.

Politicians are like animals, put them inside a box full of food and they will eat all of it; place a politician in a position of power and he will take all the power for himself. Who let the animal go unchecked for so long?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Cannot this be said of a multitude of people on Earth, regardless of political affiliation? The only reason to say that repub(lican)s believe dogma (and phrased in a way that all of them hold that ideal) is if you believe that democrats are any better. In fact, neither of the parties are better than one another, especially not in the non-political environment of science, which got politicized for the purposes of politicians of both parties for their own ends and gains.

Sorry, its not black and white but that is largely a false equivalency. On the whole and as a trend, the republicans seem happy with some of the *applications* of science (health, military, gadgets) but are unwilling to fund or support the kind of societal infrastructure for education and basic research that produces those things. They're also much more likely to reject answers that science provides that knock holes in ideological beliefs (which is a key indicator of "you aren't doing science").

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It does strike me as completely nonsensical. The sole reason humanity is where it is now, the reason we exist as the sole sentient species on this planet, is precisely because we cooperate and work together to accomplish things we would never be able to do alone.

Individuals cooperate, societies always compete. I cannot a recall a time in history where two societies willingly cooperated together, without:

a) one society being forcefully conquered by the other.
b) the two societies being both mutually threatened by a 3rd, stronger society, or were in the recent past.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I cannot a recall a time in history where two societies willingly cooperated together

*lifts hand into the air*

In three years it will be two decades since NAFTA was signed and IMO that is an example of two societies (Canadian/USA and Mexico) with easy to spot differences but complementing economies have cooperated out for mutual benefits. I know many people (on both sides of the rio grande/bravo) will say there have been some losses also, but the overall synergy is positive.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

*lifts hand into the air*

In three years it will be two decades since NAFTA was signed and IMO that is an example of two societies (Canadian/USA and Mexico) with easy to spot differences but complementing economies have cooperated out for mutual benefits. I know many people (on both sides of the rio grande/bravo) will say there have been some losses also, but the overall synergy is positive.

NAFTA isn't really full on cooperation, it's more an agreement not to harm one another. It's an economic version of a non-aggression pact. Not really cooperation. And NAFTA wasn't implemented for altrustic reasons either. All 3 countries saw opportunities to profit from such an agreement.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Sorry, its not black and white but that is largely a false equivalency. On the whole and as a trend, the republicans seem happy with some of the *applications* of science (health, military, gadgets) but are unwilling to fund or support the kind of societal infrastructure for education and basic research that produces those things. They're also much more likely to reject answers that science provides that knock holes in ideological beliefs (which is a key indicator of "you aren't doing science").

They don't want science they want technology. Science is dangerous because it contradict with better proof than a 2000 years book badly translated. And the peoples doing science are less likely to accept their bullshit.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

All 3 countries saw opportunities to profit from such an agreement.

Cooperation is always about net gain aka profit (which is not necesarily money), otherwise it is called a favor or charity.