U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Vangelovski]

Cow shit on my shoe is bad, cow shit in my garden is great. So cow shit can be bad, good, both or neither. If coming to a different conclusion based on different facts and circumstances makes me inconsistent, then so be it.

For me cow shit is different to people, but it seems we agree with the point I made.

[Gocka]

Dobro dojde gospodine, za mnogu godini.

So all it took to coax you out of hiding is to do a little conservative bashing

You know if you disagree with the the theory of relativity, you need to take it up with Einstein. Although mathematical its premise is profound in all aspects of the universe.

Who can decide what constitutes reality. Your brain is responsible for processing all your cognitive input and presenting you with a mental image of what reality appears to be. A person who is color blind experiences a totally different reality than someone who is not. A schizophrenic literally lives in another world. How many brain teasers exist that can trick you into seeing things that aren't there.

The world is so complex with so many people, who have lived unique lives in every instance, maybe its easier to just condense it all into a rigid set of beliefs that require a leap of faith to start with but then they explain everything. To each his own.

You should comment more often we need some lively debate around here.

Oh and this "
WARNING: The following post will offend someone, somewhere. " was brilliant, I literally laughed out loud.

For me cow shit is different to people, but it seems we agree with the point I made.

[Vangelovski]

Dobro dojde gospodine, za mnogu godini.

So all it took to coax you out of hiding is to do a little conservative bashing

You know if you disagree with the the theory of relativity, you need to take it up with Einstein. Although mathematical its premise is profound in all aspects of the universe.

Who can decide what constitutes reality. Your brain is responsible for processing all your cognitive input and presenting you with a mental image of what reality appears to be. A person who is color blind experiences a totally different reality than someone who is not. A schizophrenic literally lives in another world. How many brain teasers exist that can trick you into seeing things that aren't there.

The world is so complex with so many people, who have lived unique lives in every instance, maybe its easier to just condense it all into a rigid set of beliefs that require a leap of faith to start with but then they explain everything. To each his own.

You should comment more often we need some lively debate around here.

Oh and this "
WARNING: The following post will offend someone, somewhere. " was brilliant, I literally laughed out loud.

Einstein assumed an objective reality otherwise who's to say that gravity or mathematics even exist. And if reality is subjective, then we can't trust Einstein's theory anyway because what one person perceives to be people walking on the ground is actually perceived by another as people floating in the air. In fact, there isn't even any point in trying to discover scientific laws as the universe would be complete chaos and chaos can't support scientific laws that are consistent by definition.

But I think we still fundamentally agree - consistency is not important for progressivism.

It wasn't conservative bashing that got me to comment, I just thought SoM asked a very profound question that deserved more exploration as it seemed to be ignored.

[Risto the Great]

It's not just a perception, it's a fact. That said, anybody that uses this as a justification to be racist is an idiot, no argument there. But I think it's useful not to compartmentalise too much when discussing such a broad issue, because there are various reasons why people may choose to vote on the right of the political spectrum.

Nothing is simple. Of course. But racism is quite broad and encompasses all kinds of discontent and differing views. As an example, if I see my sons miss out on jobs because some corporation or government department wants a nice Asian or Indian on the team brochure, I reckon I (or my kids) could easily become annoyed in time to the point of some degree of racism. Notwithstanding they and I presently have Asian and Indian mates.

Their ideologies may follow similar patterns and there is some cross-continental support, but there are nuances among them and their supporters. Sure, many of them are fruitcakes and racists, but many are just normal people or patriots who don't like what's become of their countries after years of certain policies. Some of them have been directly affected. The latter are't motivated by racism.

It might not be a motivator, but it would be a common and logical end result given a prolonged period of feeling disaffected.

How would one reconcile this with a somewhat opposing view about Australia and still remain consistent?

The fastest growing languages in Australia are Punjabi and Mandarin. If they reached a position such that they demanded their languages apply in every part of Australia and things started looking like the ethnic Albanian problem in Macedonia, then we might all become "racists" here. I noted Vangelovski's opinion about the matter. I can't say I wholly disagree with his point about consistency. But we are talking about countries at different levels of social/economic development. Being "consistent" would mean different actions are required to achieve the same result. I think that would be consistent.

I can't agree with Vangelovski that everybody would/should have precisely the same opinion about what is consistent because of absolute truths. That is his opinion on absolute truths and stems from his belief system. We have enough evidence in this world to show people ignore absolute truths (whatever they are) and submit votes in democratic countries and get leaders who hopefully are deemed suitable based upon whatever their beliefs are at any point in time. And I am sure those beliefs do change over time (thankfully).

How do you think the illegal immigration problem in the U.S would be best handled?

Personally, I would say the same way it has always been handled. With a blind eye. As long as they are doing work nobody else wants to do, why change anything?

[Tomche Makedonche]

...based on different facts...

...so are they like "alternative" facts?

Sorry couldn't help myself

[Tomche Makedonche]

WARNING: The following post will offend someone, somewhere.

Behold, the destroyer of forums has returned...

By the way, good to hear from you again, interested to hear some of your thoughts on the recent goings on in RoM

[Vangelovski]

Behold, the destroyer of forums has returned...

Don't worry, I'm just passing through

By the way, good to hear from you again, interested to hear some of your thoughts on the recent goings on in RoM

What's there to say? I think we all know where its heading...or maybe its more precise to say its already gone?

[Tomche Makedonche]

Don't worry, I'm just passing through

What ever you feel comfortable with

What's there to say? I think we all know where its heading...or maybe its more precise to say its already gone?

Yes, we all pretty much reside within this depression, but they say discussion is good medicine, and educated/informed perspectives can be valuable

[Gocka]

Kako da ne, stramota e. Morat da vlezit da posedime, da se napijeme po edno kafe.

What ever you feel comfortable with

Its true that a fact is a fact and is absolute. The problem is that whenever we get into the political policy realm, we tend to interpret a facts meaning, not necessarily the fact itself. Usually we are not arguing about whether a fact is true, we are arguing what its relevance is. I think Vicsinad meant that when you make an argument and present one set of facts as your evidence, there are at times a whole other set of facts that ca also serve as evidence but for a different point of view.

Facts are simple when your talking about something like gravity, but look at something like gun violence and gun control. You can present a myriad of facts and you can make two different arguments on the same set of facts. Even the fact that gravity exists has different consequences in different situations.

Gravity pulls everything down to earth. This is good if your home so it doesn't fly away into space, but its bad when you trip because your ass is going down. Another example of how a fact means nothing without context is in the case of helium. A balloon filled with helium does not get pulled down to earth like everything else because its lighter than air and wants to get above the air. Gravity is still acting on helium like anything else, but there are other facts involved that make helium react differently than other masses. Gravity is still a fact but its consequences change based on the relative subject.

Political policy making is not a set of facts. Because the world is ever changing, you can make a policy with a set intended consequence and what ever set of facts that assumption was based on can change and your consequence can change. The same way some people think progressivism does not need to be based in fact, I think conservatism picks only facts that agree with it, even if they have since changed, and ignores any changes in the world.

At any point in history we believed many things were facts and if we always held on to them where would humanity be today? People believed the earth was flat, that was at one point a fact with evidence. People did not have all the information to know what was really true, there world view was relative only to what they had known up until that point. The earth was round whether they knew it or not reality didn't change, but you can make the same argument for anything today, even gravity. You think gravity is the be all and end all because you have yet to encounter something that will change you perception of reality. Conservatism assumes you already know everything there is to know, and it never changes.

[Vangelovski]

reality didn't change.

Weren't you just arguing that reality is relative a few posts up? The general progressive view is that my reality can be different to your reality. One wouldn't think that would be possible with scientifically observable facts, but these days one can change their gender simply by ignoring DNA and feeling their way into it. So why can't the earth be a bowl if someone wished it to be in their subjective reality? But its ok, being a progressive you aren't tied to being consistent

Conservatism assumes you already know everything there is to know, and it never changes.

Conservatism has never assumed this. What conservatism assumes is that there is absolute truth and that there is one (objective) reality, not that all facts are known or even knowable. Because it assumes that absolute truth exists and that there is only one objective reality, it also assumes, for example, that objective moral values exist (which progressivism denies, yet consistently appeals to - which ironically is inconsistent, but consistent with progressivism).

So what conservatism assumes in relation to politics is principles and their consistent application - not that all facts are known or even knowable.

[Vangelovski]

Yes, we all pretty much reside within this depression, but they say discussion is good medicine, and educated/informed perspectives can be valuable

To be honest, I think we haven't had a country since 1995. For me, a sovereign state of the Macedonian people only existed for a few years there. Then we allowed other countries to make decisions on our behalf - decisions that can only legitimately be made by the sovereign body of citizens...until it ceases to exist as such.

Since then, we've kind of pretended that we've had a country but the reality is that the character of our state, its constitution, laws, governments and institutions have been shaped and dictated by illegitimate participants, all which demonstrates our complete lack of sovereignty.

I think Macedonian patriots need to settle in for another long haul of statelessness and think about what that means and where to from here. Independence in 1991 was mean't to be a pivotal moment - what a disappointment those fuckwits turned out to be.

[Gocka]

We will come back to the political debate some other time, I don't want to scare you off so soon. But let it be know I will destroy you one day lol

Once you start flying a state flag that someone else imposed on you, and decide you would be known by a freaking acronym, even temporarily, you know you don't have a country.

To be honest, I think we haven't had a country since 1995. For me, a sovereign state of the Macedonian people only existed for a few years there. Then we allowed other countries to make decisions on our behalf - decisions that can only legitimately be made by the sovereign body of citizens...until it ceases to exist as such.

Since then, we've kind of pretended that we've had a country but the reality is that the character of our state, its constitution, laws, governments and institutions have been shaped and dictated by illegitimate participants, all which demonstrates our complete lack of sovereignty.

I think Macedonian patriots need to settle in for another long haul of statelessness and think about what that means and where to from here. Independence in 1991 was mean't to be a pivotal moment - what a disappointment those fuckwits turned out to be.

[Tomche Makedonche]

To be honest, I think we haven't had a country since 1995. For me, a sovereign state of the Macedonian people only existed for a few years there.

When talking specifically about a sovereign nation state for Macedonians, it would be difficult to argue against such a statement. This is the truth of the situation.

Then we allowed other countries to make decisions on our behalf - decisions that can only legitimately be made by the sovereign body of citizens...until it ceases to exist as such.

Whilst I know it wasn’t your intent, anything that implies blame towards third parties is unacceptable to me, as it ultimately leads to a negation of accountability, something which I feel lies within the heart of our cultural affliction. As far as I’m concerned we didn’t allow other countries to make any decisions on our behalf. We, by our own free will, decided to surrender our sovereignty to support foreign opponents with their quest to usurp, conquer and destroy our nation. Until we categorically accept that the responsibility for our current situation completely and unequivocally falls within our own hands, no true progress can ever be made towards our cause. It is our (Macedonians) actions, and our actions alone that have put us in this current situation.

Since then, we've kind of pretended that we've had a country but the reality is that the character of our state, its constitution, laws, governments and institutions have been shaped and dictated by illegitimate participants, all which demonstrates our complete lack of sovereignty.

I think Macedonian patriots need to settle in for another long haul of statelessness and think about what that means and where to from here. Independence in 1991 was mean't to be a pivotal moment - what a disappointment those fuckwits turned out to be.

Ordinarily I tend to avoid this frame of thinking, as it implies defeatism, which doesn’t sit well with me. Nevertheless, that does not mean you aren’t correct. It might be worth seriously exploring this scenario.

[Vangelovski]

Whilst I know it wasn’t your intent, anything that implies blame towards third parties is unacceptable to me, as it ultimately leads to a negation of accountability, something which I feel lies within the heart of our cultural affliction. As far as I’m concerned we didn’t allow other countries to make any decisions on our behalf. We, by our own free will, decided to surrender our sovereignty to support foreign opponents with their quest to usurp, conquer and destroy our nation. Until we categorically accept that the responsibility for our current situation completely and unequivocally falls within our own hands, no true progress can ever be made towards our cause. It is our (Macedonians) actions, and our actions alone that have put us in this current situation.

This is what I mean't when I said we allowed others to make decisions on our behalf - that we willingly gave up our freedom and that it is entirely our own fault. I probably could have worded that better but I was lazy. No blame on third parties was intended. I've always been of the view that one's freedom is solely the responsibility of the individual (or group) in question.

Ordinarily I tend to avoid this frame of thinking, as it implies defeatism, which doesn’t sit well with me. Nevertheless, that does not mean you aren’t correct. It might be worth seriously exploring this scenario.

It is defeatist, lets call a spade a spade. But at this point I think its also the most probable outcome. The only alternative that I can see is opposing Albanian nationalism and trying to reverse the Albanianisation of the state. This can only lead to war because there is no way Albanians will simply step back, apologise and ask for forgiveness. Macedonians are not psychologically prepared for this and will, in my view, just roll over. We'll end up as a stateless nation and the struggle will revert to maintaining our identity and culture rather than political aspirations of statehood and national sovereignty. Again, all I can say is what a disappointment our people have been.

[vicsinad]

Earlier this week, US officials implied with their same rhetoric about taking military action against N. Korea. Today, Trump indicated he will take military action in Syria against Assad:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-options/

President Donald Trump has told some members of Congress that he is considering military action in Syria in retaliation for this week's chemical attack, and recognizes the seriousness of the situation, a source familiar with the calls tells CNN.

The source said the President had not firmly decided to go ahead with it but said he was discussing possible actions with Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Trump is relying on the judgment of Mattis, according to the source.
US officials tell CNN the Pentagon has long-standing options to strike Syria's chemical weapons capability and has presented those options to the administration.

The sources stressed a decision has not been made.