Trump most popular Republican among Latinos & Blacks

[Hereno]

Okay Hierophant, whatever you say

 

I'm not the one making a fool out of myself in this discussion and you still seem pretty agitated to me. But hey, whatever, let's get on with our lives.

i'm just honest whereas you don't curse and make your insults really passive-aggressively and "politely" so you can pretend like you're not pissed off when in reality i am laughing at your small penis and inability to have sex with white women

[Big Brother]

Honesty would imply what you're saying holds any truth, which isn't the case. And really, all these childish insults say way more about you than they do about me.

 

I'm actually genuinely sorry if you feel insulted, that wasn't my intention at all. I started our little discussion by mostly agreeing with you and now you seem to have decided to turn me into some sort of antagonist that you can fling insults at.

 

I know it could be difficult to believe, but I'm actually not interested in conflict.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Big Brother

[Rozalia]

Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they're always voting in their best interests, or that they're seeing the world accurately. Not everybody is constantly, always acting in their own rational best interest, or even intending to. My goal isn't to help anybody, it is to allow everybody to help themselves and each other without interference. The right constantly plays the poor against each other by making immigration the issue, but what you're missing is WHY there are immigrants in the first place. Let's look at Mexico. The drug war, that spawned all those cartels? The US started and enforces it. The companies who take advantage of lax Mexican regulations? American companies. The people who employ illegal immigrants? American companies. The people who came up with NAFTA? American companies - who also are the only ones really benefiting from it. Nationalism is false consciousness and leads us to nothing except collaboration with the national bourgeoisie against workers from other countries. Your solutions are false and your answer is fascism, or a double-down on the problem in the first place. Combining state and corporate power is about the dumbest !@#$ thing you could do - at least now they have to lobby other people and work deals. You'd rather just make them one and the same. We saw what happened to Europe when your people got in control - all of the worst parts of capitalism were amplified to 11. No !@#$ thank you.

 

No it doesn't but what they see is indeed accurate on what I mentioned (and is on many minds). The usual angle is "You're white and your worsening life is just your privilege being rightly taken away, deal with it because others have it worse". You see it's us vs them, it always is even among those who profess to be the most loving of people. They just don't care for such sanctimonious bullhockey and that only breeds resentment and then people wonder how all these "racists" popped up out of seemingly nowhere. 

 

Immigration exists (as in the policy of heavy immigration, not the act itself) because it benefits big business and hurts the native worker. Issues such as "skills" and the birthrate are false justifications as they could very easily be fixed. With skills you do the very out there idea of pushing the training of the populace, many of which lay unemployed and for birthrate there are ways to increase that.

 

I'm heavily protectionist so I'd dispute the whole collaboration bit. 

 

You're going at it from the angle that I want some "centre ground" government of today to be given that power I think. Of course not, they're minions of the corporations and would never seek such action. 

I want a government that takes care of it's people, that makes sure they have enough to eat, are housed, educated, all without some threat hanging above them. If a government gives that and crushes the power of big business than I see nothing to complain about. 

 

This is the part where I say Communists killed millions right? Not that I'm sure I could put myself down as a straight up fascists, some shared views there no doubt but I have that across a view ideologies. Additionally the merging of power doesn't mean the situation remains the same. Currently you have a weak state with a collection of Internationalist companies (they love you), but a strong state that punishes such villains would wield the power at a nationalist level, not at a Internationalist level like you seem to state they would. In fact if we see capitalism as it primarily exists today in it's internationalism I'd say such fascism is anti-capitalist in actuality. 

 

All I can honestly see is you rail against things but have offered no solution. So we just dismantle states and let the even further untamed corporations run over us? The people on their own are weak, too weak, they cannot defeat such vile and powerful enemies. Only through the empowering of the state run by the right people can the fightback begin and in such a war the corporations would lose very quick as western countries aren't some third world backwater that they can just get some thugs in on (be it mercenaries, "rebels", or America) if their usual empty threats don't work.

[Hereno]

>So we just dismantle states and let the even further untamed corporations run over us?

 

if this is actually what you think i believe there is no !@#$ing point in speaking with you

 

>The people on their own are weak, too weak, they cannot defeat such vile and powerful enemies.

 

if this is actually what you think there is no !@#$ing point in speaking with you

[Hereno]

let me give you a clue: what the !@#$ do you think the state is made up of in the first place? robots? do you think we need the people to rally under !@#$ing arnold schwarzenegger as the terminator to save us from corporations aka people? like what magical !@#$ing fairy tale land have you people managed to concoct for yourselves?

[Rozalia]

>So we just dismantle states and let the even further untamed corporations run over us?

 

if this is actually what you think i believe there is no !@#$ point in speaking with you

 

>The people on their own are weak, too weak, they cannot defeat such vile and powerful enemies.

 

if this is actually what you think there is no !@#$ point in speaking with you

 

Try again, next time with some points. I feel your stances from what I gather from them are ineffectual, don't work, and such yes. However if I have seen them incorrectly then all you need to do is explain them. I can then state my feelings on them as you have eloquently done with mine. Nothing more to it. 

 

let me give you a clue: what the !@#$ do you think the state is made up of in the first place? robots? do you think we need the people to rally under !@#$ arnold schwarzenegger as the terminator to save us from corporations aka people? like what magical !@#$ fairy tale land have you people managed to concoct for yourselves?

 

It's quite sad this attempt of yours. Communists and even Socialists (real ones) are often victims of absurd attacks that ridicules them and here you are doing the same sort of business, not exactly a surprise but oh well. So I apparently want to get rid of government... and install an identical government or something? That right? No, the government I wish for has large fundamental differences to what exists today. Nothing is perfect but if the big business that needs defeating is done so, every citizen is paid, housed, educated, so on as they deserve... then I'll take it. You seem to have marked down that government must be evil because some evil snakes that I also oppose exist, sounds very... libertarian. Seems somewhat nihilist too but perhaps that is a little far. 

 

So come on, lay it on me your stance with some substance so I can get an idea, apologies but little bits here and there don't allow the forming of a full picture, or at least not for myself. I thought communist so perhaps nationalising would be something, but that was a mistake thinking on it as due to the context I kept thinking of nationalisation in my own terms (for the state). Is it a Communist stance where we eliminate governments everywhere and the workers all happily band together, safe from the predators of big business who just give up, and we're all one big happy family no matter if you're American, Mexican, British, French, Syrian, Turkish, Kenyan, Chinese, or whatever else? If so to give a quick response; first it wouldn't work and second it'd be the worst thing that could ever happen to people not simply nationally, but globally. Sounds more like total surrender than any sort of victory, a fast track to a world ruled by corporations instead of those "vile" nation states. Though I suppose you'd think the same of my stance so fair's fair. 

 

Am I closer? Further? Or just right?

[Hereno]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-10-17

 

 

Indeed, attempts to associate socialism with the state misunderstands the nature of socialism. It is an essential principle of socialism that (social) inequalities between individuals must be abolished to ensure liberty for all (natural inequalities cannot be abolished, nor do anarchists desire to do so). Socialism, as Proudhon put it, “is egalitarian above all else.†[No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 57] This applies to inequalities of power as well, especially to political power. And any hierarchical system (particularly the state) is marked by inequalities of power — those at the top (elected or not) have more power than those at the bottom. Hence the following comments provoked by the expulsion of anarchists from the social democratic Second International:

 

“It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power, which is to say, the real ability to make his [or her] influence felt, along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public affairs.†[Malatesta and Hamon, Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 20]

 

The election of someone to administer public affairs for you is not having a portion of social power. It is, to use of words of Emile Pouget (a leading French anarcho-syndicalist) “an act of abdication,†the delegating of power into the hands of a few. [Op. Cit., p. 67] This means that “[a]ll political power inevitably creates a privileged situation for the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the beginning, the equalitarian principle.†[Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 249]

if you want more there's literally days and days worth of explanation and that is only one section out of dozens of that faq

Edited March 11, 2016 by Hierophant

[Rozalia]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-10-17

 

if you want more there's literally days and days worth of explanation and that is only one section out of dozens of that faq

 

That is a lot indeed and I'd be lying if I said I could commit such a large amount of time to it considering the context. I'm on the other extreme to you on the subject of the state so we ain't going to agree there. You may think me foolish to put it nicely to think as I do but the same goes for you in reverse. 

 

Thing I'm not getting though is how exactly does all that happen? The people have a hard enough time enacting a national change so a global one is well... not bloody likely, at least not without a powerful state driving things (which you're against). So if a country does as you want... what stops other states from coming down and exploiting the worker of the country? Well I suppose saying country would be wrong at this point. 

 

I'm interested to know the answer but obviously I'm not going to change my mind as yours won't be changed, we're too far apart on the matter.

[Hereno]

That is a lot indeed and I'd be lying if I said I could commit such a large amount of time to it considering the context. I'm on the other extreme to you on the subject of the state so we ain't going to agree there. You may think me foolish to put it nicely to think as I do but the same goes for you in reverse. 

 

Thing I'm not getting though is how exactly does all that happen? The people have a hard enough time enacting a national change so a global one is well... not bloody likely, at least not without a powerful state driving things (which you're against). So if a country does as you want... what stops other states from coming down and exploiting the worker of the country? Well I suppose saying country would be wrong at this point. 

 

I'm interested to know the answer but obviously I'm not going to change my mind as yours won't be changed, we're too far apart on the matter.

Margaret: I’ll start with the basics: What are your associations with anarchism? Do you consider yourself an anarchist? How did you first get involved in radical politics?

 

Alan: Well I suppose I first got involved in radical politics as a matter of course, during the late 1960s when it was a part of the culture. The counterculture, as we called it then, was very eclectic and all-embracing. It included fashions of dress, styles of music, philosophical positions, and, inevitably, political positions. And although there would be various political leanings coming to the fore from time to time, I suppose that the overall consensus political standpoint was probably an anarchist one. Although probably back in those days, when I was a very young teenager, I didn’t necessarily put it into those terms. I was probably not familiar enough with the concepts of anarchy to actually label myself as such. It was later, as I went into my twenties and started to think about things more seriously that I came to a conclusion that basically the only political standpoint that I could possibly adhere to would be an anarchist one.

 

It furthermore occurred to me that, basically, anarchy is in fact the only political position that is actually possible. I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy; after all, when you mention the idea of anarchy to most people they will tell you what a bad idea it is because the biggest gang would just take over. Which is pretty much how I see contemporary society. We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang has taken over and have declared that it is not an anarchist situation—that it is a capitalist or a communist situation. But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice. All it means, the word, is no leaders. An-archon. No leaders.

 

And I think that if we actually look at nature without prejudice, we find that this is the state of affairs that usually pertains. I mean, previous naturalists have looked at groups of animals and have said, “Ah, yes, this animal is the alpha male, so he is the leader of the group.†Whereas later research tends to suggest that this is simply the researcher projecting his own social visions onto a group of animals, and that if you observe them more closely you will find out that, yes there is this big tough male that seems to handle most of the fights, but that the most important member of the herd is probably this female at the back that everybody seems to gather around during any conflict. There are other animals within the herd that might have an importance in terms of finding new territory. In fact the herd does not actually structure itself in terms of hierarchies; every animal seems to have its own position within the herd.

 

And actually, if you look at most natural human groupings of people, such as a family or a group of friends, you will find that again, we don’t have leaders. Unless you’re talking about some incredibly rigid Victorian family, there is nobody that could be said to be the leader of the family; everybody has their own function. And it seems to me that anarchy is the state that most naturally obtains when you’re talking about ordinary human beings living their lives in a natural way. It’s only when you get these fairly alien structures of order that are represented by our major political schools of thought, that you start to get these terrible problems arising—problems regarding our status within the hierarchy, the uncertainties and insecurities that are the result of that. You get these jealousies, these power struggles, which by and large, don’t really afflict the rest of the animal kingdom. It seems to me that the idea of leaders is an unnatural one that was probably thought up by a leader at some point in antiquity; leaders have been brutally enforcing that idea ever since, to the point where most people cannot conceive of an alternative.

 

This is one of the things about anarchy: if we were to take out all the leaders tomorrow, and put them up against a wall and shoot them—and it’s a lovely thought, so let me just dwell on that for a moment before I dismiss it—but if we were to do that, society would probably collapse, because the majority of people have had thousands of years of being conditioned to depend upon leadership from a source outside themselves. That has become a crutch to an awful lot of people, and if you were to simply kick it away, then those people would simply fall over and take society with them. In order for any workable and realistic state of anarchy to be achieved, you will obviously have to educate people—and educate them massively—towards a state where they could actually take responsibility for their own actions and simultaneously be aware that they are acting in a wider group: that they must allow other people within that group to take responsibility for their own actions. Which on a small scale, as it works in families or in groups of friends, doesn’t seem to be that implausible, but it would take an awful lot of education to get people to think about living their lives in that way. And obviously, no government, no state, is ever going to educate people to the point where the state itself would become irrelevant. So if people are going to be educated to the point where they can take responsibility for their own laws and their own actions and become, to my mind, fully actualized human beings, then it will have to come from some source other than the state or government.

 

There have been underground traditions, both underground political traditions and underground spiritual traditions. There have been people such as John Bunyan, who spent almost 30 years in prison in nearby Bedford. This is the author of “The Pilgrim’s Progress†who spent nearly 30 years in prison because the spiritual ideas he was espousing were so incendiary. This was a part of a movement; around the 17th century in England there were all sorts of strange ideas bubbling to the surface, particularly around the area where I live, in the midlands. You’ve got all of these religions—although they were often considered heretical—which were stating that there was no need for priests, that there was no need for leaders; they were hoping to announce a nation of saints. That everybody would become a saint, and that they would become mechanic philosophers. People could work all day, as say a tinker, but that in the evening they could stand up and preach the word of the Lord with as much authority as any person in a pulpit. This looks to be a glorious idea, but you can see how it would have terrified the authorities at the time.

 

And indeed it was during the 17th century that, partly fueled by similar ideas, Oliver Cromwell rose up and commenced the British civil war, which eventually led to the beheading of Charles I. I mean it was, in the phrase of one of the best books about the period, “literally a case of the world turned upside down.†There have been these underground traditions, whether they are spiritual or purely political, that have expressed anarchist ideas for centuries, and these days there is even more potential for the dissemination of ideas like that. With the growth of the internet and the growth of communication in general, these ideas are much harder to suppress. Simply putting John Bunyan in jail for 30 years isn’t really going to cut it anymore. Also, the internet does suggest possibilities for throwing off centralized state control.

 

There was a very interesting piece, a 10 minute television broadcast, made over here by a gentleman from the London school of economics, a lecturer who looked like the least threatening man that you can imagine. He didn’t look like an apocalyptic political firebrand by any means; he looked like and was an accountant and an economist. And yet the actual picture he was painting was quite compelling. He was saying that the only reason that governments are governments is that they control the currency; they don’t actually do anything for us that we don’t pay for, other than expose us to the threat of foreign wars by their reckless actions. They don’t actually really even govern us; all they do is control the currency and rake off the proceeds.

 

Now in the past, if you wanted to get yourself thrown into jail forever than the best way of going about it woulda been not to have molested children or gone on a serial killing spree or something like that, the best way would have been to try to establish your own currency. Because the nature of currency is a kind of magic: these pieces of metal or pieces of paper only have value as long as people believe that they do. If somebody were to introduce another kind of piece of metal or piece of paper, and if people were to start believing in that form of currency more than yours, then all of your wealth would suddenly vanish. So attempts to introduce alternative currencies in the past have been ruthlessly stamped out. And with the internet, that is no longer anywhere near as easy. In fact, a lot of modern companies have rewards schemes; supermarkets run reward schemes that are in certain senses like a form of currency. A lot of companies have schemes in which workers will be paid in credits which can be redeemed from almost anything from a house to a tin of beans at the company store. There are also green economies that are starting up here and there whereby you’ll have say, an underprivileged place in England where you have an out-of-work mechanic who wants his house decorated. He will, as an out-of-work mechanic, have accumulated green credits by doing the odd job around the neighborhood—fixing peoples cars, stuff like that—and he will be able to spend those credits by getting in touch with an out-of-work decorator who will come and paint his house for him.

 

Now again, schemes like this are increasingly difficult to control, and what this lecturer from the London school of economics was saying is that in the future we would have to be prepared a situation in which we have firstly, no currency, and secondly, as a result of that, no government. So there are ways in which technology itself and the ways in which we respond to technology—the ways in which we adapt our culture and our way of living to accommodate breakthroughs and movements in technology—might give us a way to move around government. To evolve around government to a point where such a thing is no longer necessary or desirable. That is perhaps an optimistic vision, but it’s one of the only realistic ways I can see it happening.

 

I don’t believe that a violent revolution is ever going to work, simply on the grounds that it never has in the past. I mean, speaking as a resident of Northampton, during the English civil war we backed Cromwell—we provided all the boots for his army—and we were a center of antiroyalist sentiment. Incidentally, we provided all the boots to the Confederates as well, so obviously we know how to pick a winner. Cromwell’s revolution? I guess it succeeded. The king was beheaded, which was quite early in the day for beheading; amongst the European monarchy, I think we can claim to have kicked off that trend. But give it another ten years; as it turned out, Cromwell himself was a monster. He was every bit the monster that Charles I had been. In some ways he was worse. When Cromwell died, the restoration happened. Charles II came to power and was so pissed off with the people of Northampton that he pulled down our castle. And the status quo was restored. I really don’t think that a violent revolution is ever going to provide a long-term solution to the problems of the ordinary person. I think that is something that we had best handle ourselves, and which we are most likely to achieve by the simple evolution of western society. But that might take quite a while, and whether we have that amount of time is, of course, open to debate.

 

So I suppose that those are my principal thoughts upon anarchy. They’ve been with me for a long time. Way back in the early 80s, when I was first kicking off writing V for Vendetta for the English magazine Warrior, the story was very much a result of me actually sitting down and thinking about what the real extreme poles of politics were. Because it struck me that simple capitalism and communism were not the two poles around which the whole of political thinking revolved. It struck me that two much more representative extremes were to be found in fascism and anarchy.

 

Fascism is a complete abdication of personal responsibility. You are surrendering all responsibility for your own actions to the state on the belief that in unity there is strength, which was the definition of fascism represented by the original roman symbol of the bundle of bound twigs. Yes, it is a very persuasive argument: “In unity there is strength.†But inevitably people tend to come to a conclusion that the bundle of bound twigs will be much stronger if all the twigs are of a uniform size and shape, that there aren’t any oddly shaped or bent twigs that are disturbing the bundle. So it goes from “in unity there is strength†to “in uniformity there is strength†and from there it proceeds to the excesses of fascism as we’ve seen them exercised throughout the 20th century and into the 21st.

 

Now anarchy, on the other hand, is almost starting from the principle that “in diversity, there is strength,†which makes much more sense from the point of view of looking at the natural world. Nature, and the forces of evolution—if you happen to be living in a country where they still believe in the forces of evolution, of course—did not really see fit to follow that “in unity and in uniformity there is strength†idea. If you want to talk about successful species, then you’re talking about bats and beetles; there are thousands of different varieties of different bat and beetle. Certain sorts of tree and bush have diversified so splendidly that there are now thousands of different examples of this basic species. Now you contrast that to something like horses or humans, where there’s one basic type of human, and two maybe three basic types of horses. In terms of the evolutionary tree, we are very bare, denuded branches. The whole program of evolution seems to be to diversify, because in diversity there is strength.

 

And if you apply that on a social level, then you get something like anarchy. Everybody is recognized as having their own abilities, their own particular agendas, and everybody has their own need to work cooperatively with other people. So it’s conceivable that the same kind of circumstances that obtain in a small human grouping, like a family or like a collection of friends, could be made to obtain in a wider human grouping like a civilization.

 

So I suppose those are pretty much my thoughts at the moment upon anarchy. Although of course with anarchy, it’s a fairly shifting commodity, so if you ask me tomorrow I might have a different idea.

http://birdsbeforethestorm.net/2009/02/mythmakers-lawbreakers-alan-moore-on-anarchism/

 

i don't mean to be that guy who just tells you to read a book but there are a lot of people who have put this stuff into better words than i have. plus, i'm lazy

[Hereno]

if that doesn't answer it good enough for you, look at the faq. i don't expect you to read all of it but when all of this stuff has been written out i cba to write it all out again in segments to keep you all from having to look for it yourselves. sorry, but not really.

 

thing is, really, i could be wrong as !@#$, and nobody would ever be able to tell me because nobody actually wants to do their research and learn a thing or two about anything. it's a shame, really. after a while you get tired of answering the same questions, though.

[Rozalia]

Don't worry, I'm sure the next Cromwell will be much better. Unlike old Ironsides who was a prude I'm a more open and free sort of fellow...  . Big believer in freedom of speech, art, news, and such me.

 

As for your anachy I can respect a extreme position especially if it rids us off the snakes we have now, but fundamentality it goes against what I believe so I disagree with it. No holier than thou such talk of the evils of the state is going to sway me on that.

[Hereno]

i imagine that in practice what we're looking for would actually be very similar. anarchy doesn't mean a lack of organization. and if you want to get rid of capitalism and money and have people organized with a bunch of freedoms...

 

there's a reason i haven't been belligerent as shit and called you a fascist scumbag yet *shrug*

[Rozalia]

I agree with you there in that we're looking for something similar though the road we want to take to reach it is different. A reason for why I think as I do is that what I've seen today is that even if a movement can win, it eventually gets peeled back until there is nothing left. In Britain the gains Socialism made for example have been getting eradicated and for ages those who were supposed to protect it were Socialists in name only having been infiltrated by Neo-Liberals. What I determined was that such Socialism was a failure as it was too soft, it didn't nail down it's gains well enough so of course it was going to be defeated. What I want would be something that would nail down that citizens deserve housing, education, money to live on, freedom of art, and so on in such a manner that no Conservative, Neo-Liberal, or whatever else can come along and slowly peel it away. A strong state, especially one whose first acts were to implement such things, and that is no slave to corporations is the best suited to keep such benefits to the citizenry from being eradicated.  

 

Honestly I'm not all that sure what to call myself, been called virtually everything over the years from Communist to Fascist. 

[Big Brother]

Honestly I'm not all that sure what to call myself, been called virtually everything over the years from Communist to Fascist. 

 

I suppose you could call yourself a statist.

[johnl023]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189887/trump-major-image-problem-hispanics.aspx

The thing is, the other candidates aren't much better (or worse) than Trump is.

But I don't see how Trump is doing well with Latinos.

Edited March 15, 2016 by johnl023

[Rozalia]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189887/trump-major-image-problem-hispanics.aspx

The thing is, the other candidates aren't much better (or worse) than Trump is.

But I don't see how Trump is doing well with Latinos.

 

I suppose the explanation perhaps would be they don't like Trump... but think he'd do the best job? 40% of Hispanics in Florida I believe it was thought Trump would be the best with the economy after all.

[Rozalia]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189887/trump-major-image-problem-hispanics.aspx

The thing is, the other candidates aren't much better (or worse) than Trump is.

But I don't see how Trump is doing well with Latinos.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/more-1-3-florida-latinos-202100732.html

 

Some reasons were put there. I think the biggest personally is that people feel the other candidates (+ Clinton) offer no change while Trump (and Sanders) do. 

[Rozalia]

Trump wins Florida and knocks out Rubio, so much for that minority appeal huh? What a joke. However no deathblow as while he seems to be heading to wins in Illinois, Missouri, and North Carolina (though Cruz may snatch them) to add to his Florida one, Kasich won Ohio. With that Trump will need to win a significant number of the current delegates left to be able to reach the magic number. 

 

Some are saying this means it'll be contested but they'd be insane to do that, not to mention Kasich with this win is likely going to use it to buy him that VP spot. Trump did say he wanted a politician as VP, Kasich is seen as favourable and him and Trump have for the most part stayed away from each other, and him on the ticket should guarantee Ohio which is important to win. 

[Hiroshima]

Trump is the best. Edited March 16, 2016 by NMA