Trump finally admits what we all knew..." I’m a nationalist, okay?"

[trenchfoot]

Look, I'm not the kind of guy to give a pass on anything that comes out of that jack-in-the-box hole in his face, but by sheer coincidence, smarts-wise Trump is like someone else mentioned (apologies I forgot who), a one watt light bulb in a thousand watt world.

When he said he was a "nationalist" I suspect he really didn't know how that was going to be interpreted given his penchant for having that gigabit quick draw mouth of his work a whole lot faster than his 33K brain and given his other commentary alluding to his racist leanings. Ergo, one can plausibly surmise that depth-wise, his thought faculties couldn't even break the surface tension of H2O. So when he said he is a "nationalist" I'm led to believe that he was bragging about something that he was not intellectually qualified to say. Giving him that word to pronounce is like giving a two-year old a fully loaded +1 hair triggered Glock to play with.

But he said it so now, like every other stupid self-damning thing he manages to cough up every time he's given the opportunity, he owns it. Aside from those racists he defends that absolutely adore him for saying it, he sure as Hell stepped, slipped and fell in it again.

Not that he cares though, seeing as if he can dismiss his fuck-ups as easy as he can lie about anything and everything that crosses his mind.

 

[Jhhnn]

Look, I'm not the kind of guy to give a pass on anything that comes out of that jack-in-the-box hole in his face, but by sheer coincidence, smarts-wise Trump is like someone else mentioned (apologies I forgot who), a one watt light bulb in a thousand watt world.

When he said he was a "nationalist" I suspect he really didn't know how that was going to be interpreted given his penchant for having that gigabit quick draw mouth of his work a whole lot faster than his 33K brain and given his other commentary alluding to his racist leanings. Ergo, one can plausibly surmise that depth-wise, his thought faculties couldn't even break the surface tension of H2O. So when he said he is a "nationalist" I'm led to believe that he was bragging about something that he was not intellectually qualified to say. Giving him that word to pronounce is like giving a two-year old a fully loaded +1 hair triggered Glock to play with.

But he said it so now, like every other stupid self-damning thing he manages to cough up every time he's given the opportunity, he owns it. Aside from those racists he defends that absolutely adore him for saying it, he sure as Hell stepped, slipped and fell in it again.

Not that he cares though, seeing as if he can dismiss his fuck-ups as easy as he can lie about anything and everything that crosses his mind.

Do not underestimate Trump. He is a brilliant con artist & propagandist. It doesn't have to make sense to feel good to his voters & he knows it. He summons the darkness that lives in all of us & glorifies it.

 

[jackstar7]

It's not zero sum, in fact I'm acknowledging quite the opposite. The resources you can bring to bear to solve problems and ameliorate suffering is not fixed, and it's not just a given. Those resources scale depending on how much you look after your own interests and if you put other people first then they get a short term increase in resources but when the source is neglected the output falls you have to take away the support. It's better to look after your economy and your own interests and keep increasing your GDP and offer some small portion of that GDP as aid, rather than sperging all your money on helping everyone else and crashing your own economy and then in year 2 not having any excess in the economy to give anyone.

People help others out of whatever they have left over once they've taken care of themselves and their family, that's not a controversial thing.



It's observationally true that people aren't equal in any kind of functional way. Although I don't personally think that's a good argument for nationalism per se, it just happens to be accurate.

Hi, Hat.

Still haven't found those cows, eh? Pity.

 

[sao123]

If the world is a zero sum game, then how does technology keep advancing?

Apparantly you lack fundamental understanding of the word finite.

Our locality is the middle of a isolated closed system. Our resources may be "large" in quantity but they are not infinite. Everything not infinite is by definition zero sum.

 

[jackstar7]

Apparantly you lack fundamental understanding of the word finite.

Our locality is the middle of a isolated closed system. Our resources may be "large" in quantity but they are not infinite. Everything not infinite is by definition zero sum.

Justify that shit philosophy however you need to, hombre.

I mean you're clearly leaving out time from your equation, but I don't expect you to see anything beyond the end of your nose.

 

[Vic]

Apparantly you lack fundamental understanding of the word finite.

Our locality is the middle of a isolated closed system. Our resources may be "large" in quantity but they are not infinite. Everything not infinite is by definition zero sum.

You're confusing scarcity with zero sum.

The primary limitation to our use of available resources is not in their finite nature, but in our technological ability at the moment to efficiently access them.
For example, at any moment, the sun emits approx 3.86 × 10^26 watts of energy, of which approx 1.74 × 10^17 watts strikes the earth, while current global electrical production is about 2.23 x 10^11 watt-hours. Each one of these is many magnitudes different from each other.
So while our resources are indeed finite, they are scarce only because we can efficiently access but the tiniest fraction of a percentage of them. The only limitation to this access is the current state of our technology, which is always improving.
This doesn't apply just to energy either. For example, the biggest limitation to access of greater iron ore deposits on earth is the fact that the earth's structure is differenitiated, meaning most (almost all) of the earth's iron is in the core and therefore inaccessible. However, there are hundreds of undifferrentiated ferrous asteroids within near earth orbit, the sum of which contain accessible iron ore many times greater than what is available to us in the earth's crust. And it is expected than we will be mining these asteroids within the next 30 years. And this is true for all other heavier metals, like copper, silver, gold, etc, and for rare earth minerals.

I could go on and on here. The point is, the current scarcity of any resource has little to do with that resource's overall finite qualities.

 

[Vic]

Justify that shit philosophy however you need to, hombre.

I mean you're clearly leaving out time from your equation, but I don't expect you to see anything beyond the end of your nose.

The reactionary mind never factors time in their equations.

 

[dainthomas]

You're confusing scarcity with zero sum.

The primary limitation to our use of available resources is not in their finite nature, but in our technological ability at the moment to efficiently access them.
For example, at any moment, the sun emits approx 3.86 × 10^26 watts of energy, of which approx 1.74 × 10^17 watts strikes the earth, while current global electrical production is about 2.23 x 10^11 watt-hours. Each one of these is many magnitudes different from each other.
So while our resources are indeed finite, they are scarce only because we can efficiently access but the tiniest fraction of a percentage of them. The only limitation to this access is the current state of our technology, which is always improving.
This doesn't apply just to energy either. For example, the biggest limitation to access of greater iron ore deposits on earth is the fact that the earth's structure is differenitiated, meaning most (almost all) of the earth's iron is in the core and therefore inaccessible. However, there are hundreds of undifferrentiated ferrous asteroids within near earth orbit, the sum of which contain accessible iron ore many times greater than what is available to us in the earth's crust. And it is expected than we will be mining these asteroids within the next 30 years. And this is true for all other heavier metals, like copper, silver, gold, etc, and for rare earth minerals.

I could go on and on here. The point is, the current scarcity of any resource has little to do with that resource's overall finite qualities.

If we all had Mr Fusions on our cars and in our homes, the wars for energy resources would basically stop. And the wars for water too as fusion could run desalination plants.

This will likely never come to pass, but solar could certainly become way more efficient.

 

[Vic]

If we all had Mr Fusions on our cars and in our homes, the wars for energy resources would basically stop. And the wars for water too as fusion could run desalination plants.

This will likely never come to pass, but solar could certainly become way more efficient.

There will always be scarcity, but the finiteness of our natural resources is unlikely to ever be the reason for that scarcity, because we lack the technological ability to ever tap into the full potential of those resources.

Make sense?

 

[Jhhnn]

You're confusing scarcity with zero sum.

The primary limitation to our use of available resources is not in their finite nature, but in our technological ability at the moment to efficiently access them.
For example, at any moment, the sun emits approx 3.86 × 10^26 watts of energy, of which approx 1.74 × 10^17 watts strikes the earth, while current global electrical production is about 2.23 x 10^11 watt-hours. Each one of these is many magnitudes different from each other.
So while our resources are indeed finite, they are scarce only because we can efficiently access but the tiniest fraction of a percentage of them. The only limitation to this access is the current state of our technology, which is always improving.
This doesn't apply just to energy either. For example, the biggest limitation to access of greater iron ore deposits on earth is the fact that the earth's structure is differenitiated, meaning most (almost all) of the earth's iron is in the core and therefore inaccessible. However, there are hundreds of undifferrentiated ferrous asteroids within near earth orbit, the sum of which contain accessible iron ore many times greater than what is available to us in the earth's crust. And it is expected than we will be mining these asteroids within the next 30 years. And this is true for all other heavier metals, like copper, silver, gold, etc, and for rare earth minerals.

I could go on and on here. The point is, the current scarcity of any resource has little to do with that resource's overall finite qualities.

The other factor is unfathomable greed, avarice & hoarding at the top of the economic food chain. They'll keep it just so nobody else can have it. Because they own.

 

[jackstar7]

The other factor is unfathomable greed, avarice & hoarding at the top of the economic food chain. They'll keep it just so nobody else can have it. Because they own.

Because if they hold it tightly enough then they might not die like a fucking cowardly clown.

 

[Vic]

The other factor is unfathomable greed, avarice & hoarding at the top of the economic food chain. They'll keep it just so nobody else can have it. Because they own.

That's about the equitable distribution of resources, which is a bit more on topic. Because nationalism, as sao123 here has already informed us, is about the use of state power to forcibly steal from the many to give to a few who considered themselves to be more entitled. Or as the most infamous nationalist in history called it, "lebensraum." Their living space is more important than yours. Their "merit" is that they have the guns.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's about the equitable distribution of resources, which is a bit more on topic. Because nationalism, as sao123 here has already informed us, is about the use of state power to forcibly steal from the many to give to a few who considered themselves to be more entitled. Or as the most infamous nationalist in history called it, "lebensraum." Their living space is more important than yours. Their "merit" is that they have the guns.

They do it w/o guns, as well. Witness the GOP's recent tax plan. Witness the ongoing rollback of financial & environmental regulations. Witness the affirmation that money is speech in Citizens United. Witness the appointments of Gorsuch & Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS. They'll do their best to cater to the privileges of the elite, bet on that.

 

[HomerJS]

Nationalism doesn't have to be white, but it does have to explicitly attempt to "shut out" "others".

"Shut out" typically occurs through torture, imprisonment, and the murder of "others".

You can play the euphemism^semantics game if you like, but the only people playing are you, and right-wing authoritarians.

Maybe but the "shut out others" are always people that look like me. I guess that's what you call a loophole

 

[Muse]

And?

Nationalism and white supremecy are not the same thing.
Also I have yet to hear a convincing argument why nationalism is bad.
Globalism is the far greater evil.

Please explain. First of all, define "globalism." Why is it worse than nationalism. The most poignant examples of nationalism in modern history were the Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan in WW II. Japan went mad, Germany was thoroughly dominated by a rampant toxic nationalism of epic proportions, Italy went along for the ride, Mussolini having taken power. I fail to see where nationalism as an ideology isn't counterproductive in this age. Nations as long as they exist will have their particular concerns. Globalism if it has any meaning is just being able to walk in the other guy's shoes. That's something we need more of.

In dichotomous, dipolar America Trump is just the other side of the coin. It will flip again and the other side will come up.

 

[nickqt]

Please explain. First of all, define "globalism." Why is it worse than nationalism. The most poignant examples of nationalism in modern history were the Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan in WW II. Japan went mad, Germany was thoroughly dominated by a rampant toxic nationalism of epic proportions, Italy went along for the ride, Mussolini having taken power. I fail to see where nationalism as an ideology isn't counterproductive in this age. Nations as long as they exist will have their particular concerns. Globalism if it has any meaning is just being able to walk in the other guy's shoes. That's something we need more of.

In dichotomous, dipolar America Trump is just the other side of the coin. It will flip again and the other side will come up.

Listen, pal.

The collaborator hasn't heard a convincing argument against right-wing authoritarianism.

And, he knows that globalism is the far greater evil, because, ipso facto, he just said so.

You just lost the argument.

 

[Muse]

In dichotomous America Trump is just the other side of the coin. It will flip again and the other side will come up.

Listen, pal.

The collaborator hasn't heard a convincing argument against right-wing authoritarianism.

And, he knows that globalism is the far greater evil, because, ipso facto, he just said so.

You just lost the argument.

Duh, who's "the collaborator" and why is his argument better than mine? I've always thought nationalism is an appeal to people who want to turn their backs on concerns other than their own. The short term for that is selfishness. Selfishness is the bastard sister of narrow-mindedness.

Edit: OK, by collaborator I guess you mean Taj... or one of the other handful of people here who consistently make excuses for DJT, the power and pussy grabber.