Interesting POV on the 20 century that sheds light on liberalism vs conservatism

[Mark]

Well then it sounds like you'll be sitting this one out, @SYZ...

But it always surprises me when people who have no interest in a subject have so much to say about how awful it must be...

LOL... yeah I guess that's me.  I have an easy rhetorical answer:  During the past century, which has allowed society
to further itself.  Philosophy or science?



So... What's the definitive proof there is gravity?    There isn’t one.

So Popper would've said that the theory of gravity was not falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific?

What a wanker.

I don't think of philosophy as a body of knowledge like the consensus most accepted 'facts' science collects as it goes, all of which are provisional going forward of course.  All philosophy collects is a the record of a number of conversations over time.  

Much of it doesn't interest me, I have no interest in set pieces.  The real difference is that science is for when you know how to proceed and philosophy is for when you don't .. like the analysis of what went wrong given in the passage I quoted.  There would be no scientific approach for that question.  But here this amateur polymath is laying out a metaphysics which provides a novel way of looking at it which seems interesting to me.  

Somehow or other we do need to find a stable way to live together that doesn't play out like a football match where whoever is in power complete rebuilds the entire structure of government in order to maximize policy wins.  This barely passes as civilization, it damn isn't the rule of law.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No question, give me Nixon back.  Better the devil you know and who you know won't accidentally or pig heatedly do really stupid things like trying to talk his way out of a pandemic.  A moron with who thinks he is a genius and can only work with yes men is a disaster waiting to happen.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps a guy who actually understands the system and can use it to his his advantage, avoiding roadblocks?

I dunno. Nixon kakked out before it got to the Senate. But not until he started a secret war in Cambodia. I guess you could say he was smart enough to know his goose was cooked. And perhaps Trump knew that the spineless senate wouldn't convict this year.

Myself, I see them both as crooked fucks who attacked our democracy.

[Mark]

No question, give me Nixon back.  Better the devil you know and who you know won't accidentally or pig heatedly do really stupid things like trying to talk his way out of a pandemic.  A moron with who thinks he is a genius and can only work with yes men is a disaster waiting to happen.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps a guy who actually understands the system and can use it to his his advantage, avoiding roadblocks?

I dunno. Nixon kakked out before it got to the Senate. But not until he started a secret war in Cambodia. I guess you could say he was smart enough to know his goose was cooked. And perhaps Trump knew that the spineless senate wouldn't convict this year.

Myself, I see them both as crooked fucks who attacked our democracy.

Fortunately Nixon is safely dead for the next election.  If only ...

[GenesisNemesis]

Well, at least they didn't rely on astrology, so they got that going for them.

Both live(d) on a hunger for power ... I'm not sure who is the more dangerous -- Nixon was cannier than Trump could ever hope to be.

No question, give me Nixon back.  Better the devil you know and who you know won't accidentally or pig heatedly do really stupid things like trying to talk his way out of a pandemic.  A moron with who thinks he is a genius and can only work with yes men is a disaster waiting to happen.

You'd be fine with trading one racist president for another? This is exactly why I find this "anyone's better than Trump!" argument to be fucking ridiculous.

[Aegon]

to a nearly fascist response from our current prez.

You should have met Nixon.

Nixon was a down and dirty politician but he wasn't stupid and ignorant like Orangefuckface. Nixon read books.  He knew history and knew how the government worked, having been in the Senate for many, many years.   Crazy as it sounds I'd vote for Nixon over Trump in a skinny New York minute.

Here's a quote from Nixon's domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman:

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

I agree, Nixon was rather intelligent and well-read. But he was also nefarious, and it made him an excellent fascist. Trump is just a clueless narcissist who keeps stumbling over himself. Not sure if I'd really want Nixon instead just because he could speak in complete sentences, because in every other way he was a horrific human.

He did sign the EO to get ESRD patients on Medicare though, which I appreciated. Thanks Dick.

[GenesisNemesis]

Edit

[GenesisNemesis]

Ok upon further reading I did learn Nixon worked on the Civil Rights Act, so I'll give him that. My knowledge of presidential history is admittedly not that great.

[Aegon]

Ok upon further reading I did learn Nixon worked on the Civil Rights Act, so I'll give him that. My knowledge of presidential history is admittedly not that great.

The man crafted policy specifically to put black people in prison and believed they were naturally inferior to other races, so I'll go ahead and put Richard Nixon in the "net negative" category when it comes to civil rights. Not as bad as Reagan though!

[SYZ]

You'd be fine with trading one racist president for another? This is exactly why I find this "anyone's better than Trump!" argument to be fucking ridiculous.

I agree; at first glance it does  sound ridiculous.

But... unfortunately its basis is the only thing that'll save America.  Trump needs to be defeated
at any/all costs.  And the other thing to remember when talking about racism is that Regan's and
Nixon's offensive comments were made fifty years ago.  Which has to colour (ouch) any debates
we have about history in a more enlightened 21st century.  The entire populace of the US (and
Australia) were more amenable to casual racism back then, so we need to compare like with like
as far as societal values go.

—And I have to admit that 50 years ago my embarrassingly and poorly-informed attitude towards
"the others" was at its core coloured (ouch again!) by racism. It was common here in Australia to
hear the derogatory terms bandied about in public spaces; chink, darky, dago, wog, abo, jap, coon,
nigger, nip, paki, wop, slope, gook, boong, lebo..... the list goes on.

[Alan V]

The entire populace of the US (and Australia) were more amenable to casual racism back then, so we need to compare like with like as far as societal values go.

According to certain progressives, if you are ever guilty of anything, you are guilty forever.  

And here I thought they were for social progress.  

[SYZ]

As I was checking out some info about Richard Nixon, I came across this piece in the New York Times
from 13 June 2012, by Joan Hoff, professor of history at Montana State University:


Given the immense attention to Watergate down to the present, it is no wonder that we forget how
effective Richard M. Nixon was as a president. But some scholars have acknowledged that Nixon
established enlightened foreign and domestic policies in several areas that lasted for a over a
generation.
   
During his first term in office, Nixon pursued reforms in welfare, heath care, civil rights, energy and
environmental policy, on the belief that such policies had to be based on national standards, not the
idiosyncratic whims of 50 states. While Congress defeated his welfare and health care programs,
Nixon created the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Energy Policy for advice on
oil policy and supported the Clean Air Act of 1970. In addition, he established the Environmental
Protection Agency.


He insisted that Congress broaden the US Civil Rights Commission mandate to include sex discrimination
and signed all civil rights legislation passed by Congress, including Title IX, which banned sexual
discrimination in educational benefits. Most important, the Nixon administration expanded enforcement
of affirmative action. He also supported the Constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18.
Nixon used the "peace dividend" from reducing troops in Vietnam to finance social welfare services
and enforce civil rights through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.


—I'm guessing that far too many comments damning Nixon are proposed by people who weren't even
born during that turbulent period in global history.

[Mark]

The entire populace of the US (and Australia) were more amenable to casual racism back then, so we need to compare like with like as far as societal values go.

According to certain progressives, if you are ever guilty of anything, you are guilty forever.  

And here I thought they were for social progress.  

It is almost as it electing a really nice, good hearted person was the most important thing for some people.  I don't expect from candidates what I look for in a friend or a mate.

[skyking]

TFS-DR
font please.

[Phaedrus]

I don't expect from candidates what I look for in a friend or a mate.

Of course not, because you don't personally know the candidates. However, I would still expect from a candidate the same qualities I find in close friends.

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't expect from candidates what I look for in a friend or a mate.

Of course not, because you don't personally know the candidates. However, I would still expect from a candidate the same qualities I find in close friends.

One problem is everyone has a different idea of what those qualities are. Some people have no problem with getting into trouble with their friends, for example. Would you want people who are more inclined towards recklessness to be voting based on what enables them to be reckless? Also some people value "loyalty" in their friends. Clearly it's possible to value loyalty too much (just look at Trump), and it can only serve to inflate someone's ego.

[Mark]

I don't expect from candidates what I look for in a friend or a mate.

Of course not, because you don't personally know the candidates. However, I would still expect from a candidate the same qualities I find in close friends.

That seems weird to me.  I would never have any interest in spending time with anyone seeking a high office.  What I want in a candidate is competence, achievable policy goals which I share and a genuine interest in serving all constituents by taking all interests into account thus striving to unite the country. Obama is the prototype.

[SYZ]

TFS-DR
font  please.

? ? ?

[skyking]

TOO FUCKING SMALL DIDN'T READ

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF MY EYEBALLS USE A larger font

[Mark]

TOO FUCKING SMALL DIDN'T READ

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF MY EYEBALLS USE A larger font

My bad.  I'm just so used to blowing everything up to read at all I don't even think of it as a barrier any more.

[jerry mcmasters]

Well, at least they didn't rely on astrology, so they got that going for them.

Both live(d) on a hunger for power ... I'm not sure who is the more dangerous -- Nixon was cannier than Trump could ever hope to be.

No question, give me Nixon back.  Better the devil you know and who you know won't accidentally or pig heatedly do really stupid things like trying to talk his way out of a pandemic.  A moron with who thinks he is a genius and can only work with yes men is a disaster waiting to happen.

Nixon literally worked to keep the Vietnam War going so he would have a better shot at winning the election and tagging on countless more Vietnamese deaths and 20 grand or so US.  Not as reprehensible as convincing Uncle Cletus in West Virginia to chug Dynamo, but still, kinda bad.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ion-215461

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/po...-show.html