Donald Trump and/or Ted Cruz: The New Barry Goldwater?

Post Reply New Topic

I get this a lot... conservatives don't care. They don't have a heart. Sounds like something a lot of aspies get, actually.

Norman Borlaug. Was he a good man? He supposedly "saved a billion lives" by innovating agriculture. That sounds good, on the surface, of course. But that very same agricultural innovation led to mass famine when the surplus it created led to a population boom. I ask you, which is it?

Is it good to do a small amount of good now? Is it good that I should pay 5 dollars today to buy a hungry stranger a meal? What if I wait 30 years, or 50 years, or my entire working life. What if I don't do that little good, but I defer it. At the end of that time I may have amassed a fortune capable of helping 100 times more people in total because I was patient.

That is an imperfect illustration, I grant you. But the question really is about time and intention. Do results matter? What if trying to do the right thing, to help someone in immediate need, actually makes the problem WORSE? If that were the case, then it would take an extreme amount of willpower to refrain from doing the short-term, immediate good.

Maybe a movie analogy will be illustrative. Did you see The Imitation Game, the film based on Alan Turing's work on the computer during World War 2? (Spoiler alert)

In the film, Turing's group finally cracks the Nazi secret code. They learn about an imminent submarine attack. Everyone except Turing says we should act on this knowledge immediately and save the crew! Turing says no. We can't. They all yell at him and think he's a monster. He then explains that if they save the crew, the Nazis will know they broke the code and change the code. So they use the code throughout the war, but not all the time-- only so often so the Nazis don't suspect anything. Turing makes the point that saving the crew will do a little bit of good today, but it's possible to do more good in the long run if we act differently.

So. I realize you're not going to believe that conservatives actually care. But I'm telling you, there's a long-game mentality to consider. It is not always the best idea to do the little good today. At least think about it before you act.

Intentions are nice, but they don't actually change anything. Norman Bourlag's heart was in the right place, but he also brought about suffering.

I think humans make too many assumptions. They believe they know how their actions will play out. If you look at history, that is almost never the case. I believe that the best things humans can do in most situations is NOTHING. It's kinda like the old doctor's motto, first do no harm. Interfering, especially with good (but misguided) intentions, often creates more harm than good.

If humans didn't have the hubris to believe we can anticipate every outcome, we'd be a lot better off. Sure, the knee-jerk reaction is to call that attitude cold-hearted. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I look at the world with a long-view instead of a present-bias. Or as Doc Brown says, you need to start thinking four-dimensionally.

I'm sorry to say, I think you just proved Marshall's point. Theoretically, you'll let one face possibly die of malnutrition, just so you can rationalize that by the time you retire, you can save the faceless mass of the poor. The question is, will you really go on to save the needy at some far future date? Or is it just a way to tell yourself that you'll do something someday, just not yet?

Barry Goldwater was my first election. He was the last one that had Hell Yes! supporters.

Trump is better.

The problem is not just getting elected, it is changing the world for the better. Trump can do both.

Goldwater had a cold war heating up, he gave wartime speeches, America must stand firm so that none dare attack us.

Trump is doing the same, this war is not cold, and has been going on for a decade. The Russians never attacked New York.

Goldwater was attacked because of his statements on Viet Nam, he said, Nuke them, or get out. Is this a war we need to fight? No, and if we fight it shall we use red coats and muskets?

It was a long and pointless war that still divides America.

Putin said something recently, he said it might take a nuke to defeat ISIS. Later he said it has not come to that yet. It is the same message Goldwater sent, we will win, how hard do you want to lose? If we nuke Hanoi will you stop?

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

Instead we spent the next fifteen years there, and lost 67,000. Pull out of South Viet Nam, or North Viet Nam is going to cease to exist.

In Putin's case, he would not use a nuke in the Iraqi desert. ISIS is a pawn, and the Saudis have few cities.

When a Saudi prince threatened Putin, said we funded all the terrorism in Russia, and all of the dead children, Putin got it on tape and played it on national television.

The Russians also said that after their plane was shot down, they had decided to not go to war with turkey, immediately.

Israel has threatened Iran with atomic attack, Putin placed a sub off the Syrian coast, twenty missiles, each with six to ten warheads. He brought in S-400 air defense, and the radar covers most of Israel and Turkey, plus more in Armenia, and Crimea.

Come on, all radical Islam comes from Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. Get rid of it at the source.

Obama is going to visit them, Putin just sent a message.

This is a high stakes poker game, I think Trump is the best player we have. He said he would join Putin in removing radical Islam. And he would keep the oil.

At first it did not make sense, Trump taking Syrian and Iraqi oil, but the Arabian peninsula could fuel the world for sixty years.

We wiped out Iraq, but someone funded resistance for ten years. That killed 5,000 Americans and severely wounded another 20,000. Our allies Turkey and Saudis did that, played us against Saddam, then stabbed us in the back.

Trump can play at Putin's level, and between them, war can be made unpopular for a hundred years.

The question is, shouldn't it be up to every individual to make that decision for themselves?

Interesting how you cherry pick the one example I admittedly said was imperfect. In the 5 dollars today or a fortune 50 years from now.... I never said what I would or what I would not do. I was explaining that not everybody thinks the same way. Not everybody thinks it's a good idea to be perpetually stuck in the present tense. Does that make them monsters? What about the dramatized example of Alan Turing? Does he prove Marshall's point? T

Also, not everybody who tries to do the right thing actually does any good in the long run.

I just wish people would stop thinking they know everything.

Well, it would be one thing if you could use evidence to demonstrate that things like public healthcare and social safety nets do more harm than good. Based on my own personal experience the lack of those things is harmful. It's harmful to ME. That's why the issue is personal. Maybe you've been lucky so far and have never had a crippling medical issue for which you can't possibly pay for treatment. You're probably lucky/healthy, so you can easily rationalize your ideology. It doesn't affect you directly. I notice this with extreme libertarians and conservatives. They suddenly change their tune when something happens to them. That's what seems to prove my point the most.

I also tend to think it goes against human nature to not work together or help the needy. Capitalism pushes people away from their natural inclinations, because it enforces the myth of pure individual autonomy and self-sufficiency. People really aren't charitable enough to take care of the downtrodden. If charities were adequate there wouldn't be so many that suffer alone.

In a tight-knit tribal society different groups would war with each other, fighting over resources, but single individuals wouldn't be left to fend for themselves. The individual left to fend for themselves on the street is something that came about due to modern capitalism. Individuals were generally taken care of by the larger group. The invention of the frail and inadequate "nuclear" family brought about a change to society. This is why states have had to take over the issue (albeit inadequately due to the inherently selfish nature of the voting public).

What marshall said.
And when did I ever say I know everything? I'm just expressing my opinion.

And as far as Alan Turing is concerned - - it was conservatives of British society who had him castrated, and drove him to suicide, because they had disapproved of his homosexuality.

Sorry, double post.

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 11 Dec 2015, 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Trump seems ok from a nationalistic liberal frame of reference (after you find what he really said and not what you think he said). Countries are still single entities after all.

I fail to see the doom and gloom and outright fascist and racist stuff people put on him, unless of course you have quite a low threshold or incorrect view for what qualifies for those two things.

Well, Trump had played up on fear of terrorism by scapegoating the Muslim "other," even including fellow Americans of that faith. And I think it's obvious that when he says he wants to ban Muslim immigration, he's referring to brown and black people. The same way he had targeted illegals, which is code for Latinos, for American unemployment. This scapegoating has incited violence and hate among Trump's supporters, which Trump not only doesn't really condemn, but actually praises for the perpetrators' "passion" for him and his message. That "us against them" rallying cry that divides people is racism, and is the tool of fascists everywhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he said to put the breaks on Muslim immigration until things are sorted out. Seems sensible, albeit hard. Not "bad" if you care about your own citizens. Not as kind as some other countries, but by no means "racist". Islam isn't a race anyway.

"I think...", but that's your assumption that's not backed in facts if he wants to stop immigration due to a threat of violence from outside perpetrators. Now, if the majority of Muslims in this context are Arabs, then they will be brown by design; that's not racism. If say, Ireland had a lot of refugees that wanted into the US, but a very real number of them are terrorists that will harm your citizens, then stopping it all isn't uncalled for. It's the same thing.

Citation on violence? I see people calling for violence against Trump and his supporters on Twitter. Kinda funny, really.

Again, you're using an assumption here. Stopping immigration isn't racism by itself. Now, racist supporters can like that it stops people of a different appearance, but that's not related to the policy itself.

No, Islam isn't a race, but Middle East ethnicities are. I think it's obvious this Muslim ban is a brown people ban. And this prejudice extends to both desperate refugees, and American citizens, who he paints as possible terrorists simply because they share the same religion with a handful of madmen. You do know white supremacists are throwing their support behind him, don't you? That's because they know what those code words really mean.
And no violence from his supporters? A black lives matters activist had been beaten at a Trump rally, much to Trump's approval. Same with a Latino protester at another rally. When a Latino man had been beaten in the street, the attackers told the police, "Donald Trump is right," about brutalizing Latinos. In fact, there has been a spike in Anti-Muslim violence since Trump's candidacy. I hardly think that's a coincidence.
And while I don't support those liberal asshats who threaten violence on Twitter, there is a big difference between making empty threats anonymously, and actually carrying out those threats, which you see Trump's more caustic supporters doing.
And as far as a temporary ban on Muslim immigration till this is "figured out" - and Hitler's enabling acts, which brought about marshall law was supposed to be temporary, too. And no, I'm not saying Trump is Hitler, but my point is, such things that are supposed to be temporary have a tendency to stay around for a lot longer, especially if that was the original, unspoken intention.

Sorta. Most are Caucasians with a tan, so technically the same race as typical white people. Of course, your typical dumb racist might not know this.

You're assuming again. Whilst you and others may think it's about race (racists and defenders), it isn't that unless it's shown to be. Well yes, the actions of a few are punishing the majority, but that's not an abnormal thing in political climates; both sides seem to like doing it without realizing the hypocrisy of their ways. For one, but not the other. Technically, a country should care more for its own than others, so Trump's proposal isn't "bad"; I bet if you look around, you'll find many nations have put temporary bans on people from countries in the name of security. You do know black supremacists would be throwing their support behind him [and others] too, right? Supporters are just that.

Asking for citations isn't a proclamation of no violence. Just because someone beats up someone in the name of someone, doesn't mean the latter is responsible; you know, like Islam and terrorists.

Again, you're assuming and using it as a slippery slope. You're also assuming a single president would have the power to do that; pretty sure it has to be voted on by the senate in the US, right? I'm also pretty sure you have many laws in regards to the ethical treatment of people when in your custody (deportation can come under ethical). Yes, many times, policies tend to stick around or get worst, but evidence for that and others isn't evidence for this one being true.

Again, we should try not to assume and read more into things than what's written without hard tangible evidence for it. Otherwise, you start being biased.

During Johnsons Presidency, 16,000 U.S. Servicemen were killed in Viet Nam. Johnson slowly built up the U.S. forces during the four years of his presidency. In the early years there were few troops in Viet Nam and few deaths of U.S. Servicemen. As Johnson sent more troops to Viet Nam the number of deaths increased. By the fourth year of Johnsons administration, he had increased the number of U.S. soldiers from less than two thousand to 450,000 servicemen. Under Nixon the number was 34,000. My uncle was a veteran from 1967-1970. He was a veteran at the Battle of Khe Sanh and involved in the invasion of Cambodia in 1970. Goldwater was a war hawk just like Johnson.

White supremacists and black supremacists are cut from the same cloth; they're all trash.
And I wouldn't dismiss the power and influence of a single President, as each has been able to push through policies for good or ill that would not have otherwise been successful. Think of woodrow Wilson segregating the federal job pool, and cutting the pay for black employees - a thing that surprisingly enough was opposed at the federal level at the time, but he forced through, anyhow. Or Lyndon Johnson's civil rights victories, which had been blocked by racist members of the senate and congress, but which he accomplished almost entirely by pure force of his will. A single President can matter.