Has Anyone Here on PF Ever Changed Their Mind?

While I dislike Trump, I have a hard time understanding other people's negative perception(s) of him.

The above description of Trump recognizing and bailing out of bad deals is a trait that's aided in his success. Is failure supposed to be some sort of virtue that one sticks with?

And how does that jive with his hard line lawsuit negotiation policy? Is it tougher for him to stand up in front of a debate panel and justify his Trump University lawsuit, or is it tougher for him to throw some hush money at a settlement and make the problem disappear?

 

You mean this: "In fact, the GOP Congress has supported every part of Obama's major programs." ?

That is just a fact. Now answer my question. It might help you understand.

 

It is my understanding that he did not settle the lawsuit. His stated policy is to never settle what he believes to be a frivolous strike suit.

Trump is not my first choice, but most of the attacks seem to be absurd on their face. When over $100 million is spent on attack propaganda you can always count on extreme partisans to parrot the party line. Seems to have had little effect.

 

What method is more moral than a system that allows morality to be judged at an individual level regardless of equality of outcome? The success of our biology contradicts the view that fewer decisions made on behalf of the whole in an attempt to impose homogeneity create better outcomes than millions of decisions to promote diversity?

Why is diversity such a praised concept among progressives, when diversity is the opposite of their objective? They don't want diversity of outcome. They don't want diversity of thought. They don't want diversity of production. They want everything to have a single answer that they can flip to at the back of the book.

That way they never have to change their minds?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah that's exactly my point. It's the "I don't negotiate with terrorists because that just promotes the incentive for more terror" concept that contradicts the "Trump doesn't like to fight. He likes to win." assertion of the person I quoted.

 

Yes, Trump's personality and his approach to conflict is not at all subtle. Yet, they just don't get it. Trump clearly challenges everything they have been taught.

 

I generally relate to what you're saying and it is worth considering. Still, in a civilized society... "...individual liberty trumps everything else..." isn't the absolute truth; no one has unconditional autonomy. In truth, once the exercising of 'your' liberties infringes upon those of another, they'll most likely be auto-limited (via the Constitution).

I think people often post here when they are looking for feedback or just blowing off steam. One CAN go into overload though, if too much time is spent here.

 

I'll reference back to the r/K selection theory to address this. One side of the coin would consider such individual success futile unless the rules were changed, and the other would consider it a goal to achieve as long as the rules stay the same. Whether or not one mode of thinking represents "very few" or not is something we certainly could argue.

Though I suspect if the starting point is that one must feel like a cockroach as a condition of the argument, then I'd suspect you'd weed out most of the K types and I'd have a hard time convincing anyone otherwise.

 

Interesting. Now that you've admitted you lied, I take the liberty of suggesting you find another field of dreams. I don't plan to waste any more time on you.

 

What kind of moral system wouldn't emphasize outcomes, at least to some degree? I don't care about equal outcomes, and I have never taken that position--I'm even fine with hierarchies, within reason. I am not okay with some people having god-like status and power while others go without the basics. For me, no system that allows for this, or doesn't correct for it, has legitimacy.

Diversity? I didn't say anything about diversity. In fact, I think homogeneous societies, like those found in east Asia and Scandinavia, are much better than what we have. I think cultural diversity is something to be accommodated, not encouraged. Societies work better when people share a language, a culture, and fundamental beliefs. Trust me, I'm no liberal and am not accepted as such within that community.

 

What major policy or program did Obama try to get, but was unable to get?

 

LOL! You browser must be a bit reading challenged. I know it could not be you.

Again, the GOP Congress has supported every part of Obama's major programs. If you can ever manage to understand that you will begin to understand political reality. Please try to work on it.

Here is a free clue: “Getting Rich has become the great bipartisan ideal: “No Democrats and Republicans in Washington anymore, only millionaires”, goes the maxim. The ultimate Green party. You still hear the term “public service” thrown around, but often with irony and full knowledge that “self-service” is now the real insider play.” Mark Leibovich, This Town, Penguin Books, 2013, p. 9.

 

sanders voter to trump voter.

it is only just now i realize how corrupt the democratic party is with super delegates, where sanders has no chance.

Rich establishment Republicans aren't as smart at being corrupt and sleazy, which put Trump there on a silver platter.

 

Very few indeed. One only needs to observe the rise of Trump and the populist uprisings within both the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republicans have been swallowing the nonsense of the Koch brothers for years and have finally realized it was pure garbage. The Democrats believed they were the progressive party, and now they realize they are just another corporate wing that happens to be a little nicer. What are the beliefs of this massive insurgency? They seek to use the power of the government to redistribute power from the rich to the rest. The greater the power differential, the greater the resistance of the masses on both sides. If it goes on long enough, conservatives and liberals will stand side by side as they set fire to the mansion.

There is no abstract moral system that trumps the iron law of self-interest, nor should there be. Social systems are contingent, but self-interest is not.

 

1 Outcomes: I think you're trying to change my statement some to meet your needs. I do believe that outcome is a consideration of morality and my statement does not preclude that belief. However, morality is a construct to benefit the survival of the species that holds to that morality. That's the outcome. Survival. Morality must be exclusive of choices that are detrimental to survival. Thus, some people go without the basics as a function of their own poor survival traits, and not because of the superiority of someone else's survival traits. Good luck convincing someone that though...

2. I don't think you're a liberal, but the issue with diversity speaks to your attempt to put a cap on success that is dependent on the floor for success. The peak of a man's success should not be measured against the basic needs for the least of men. After all, the definition of "basic" is subjective. It keeps going up and up and up due to the success of those at the peak of the peak. Why slow them down in an attempt to artificially shrink the distance between those at the top and those at the very bottom?

 

Way to come in and scum up a pretty good thread.

 

My mind has changed much during my 11+ years here. When I first joined I was a Christian conservative now I am thestically a Deist and politically an Independant who leans a bit left of center.

It is embarising to admit but for the first 8 years or so I was here to set others straight and I cannot tell you how frustrating it made posting here. It was so frustrating and stressful that I would take long breaks from the forum.

One day a few years back something changed. I was debating someone on a topic that had something to do with the foundation of America and I made the claim that America is great because if the freedoms it was founded upon. Well my opponent destroyed my premise by asking me a simple question that being; "if America was founded upon the principle of freedom then why was slavery allowed?" I knew it was checkmate, I was defeated as I either had to justify slavery or admit that the great words in our founding documents did no translate to a practical application upon our country being founded.

This blew my mind, realigned my perspective, changed my reality, and I wish I could remember who it was that I was debating as their simple question led to my questioning much of what I was taught/indoctrinated to believe.

Today I am here to learn from the perspective of others, although what I learn from others may not always be what they are trying to teach me. I have the mindset that it is all but impossible to change the mind of another as to do so one has to respect me, see me as an authority on that which I am speaking, and most importantly one needs to have an open mind. For all three of things to align is not impossible but improbable at best thus I default to the mindset that it is all but impossible. Since it is unlikely that I will change minds, it is more productive to open my mind to change.

I could probably write a book on all the ways my mind has been changed since joining the forums. Some of the lessons I have learned are from observing others debate, other lessons learned come from reaserch, citing and vetting sources, and I have learned much from throwing out ideas and seeing what others think.

 

I didn't mean to misrepresent your views. If I did I apologize. I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say in the first part, but I certainly agree that one's own failings are often the cause of poor outcomes in life, at least in our society--many people are just duds.

As for the second part, none of these people are in danger of having their success capped. The reason that the "basics" keep going up is because a significant component of human happiness is derived from comparisons of one's relative position. It's also true that modern society has many, more complicated demands than past societies. People would, quite literally, rather be poor together than have the smallest house on a nice street. Also, nothing I am advocating is going to slow down a guy worth 3 or 4 billion. It's important to note that being extremely wealthy is not simply a matter of having more zeroes in your bank account. Money buys more than just yachts--it can buy influence, which allows one to rig the game. Throughout our history, the rich have sought to get through the draw bridge and then raise the bridge behind them, usually by bribing government officials. It's no secret that they commonly preach libertarianism until their industries are threatened, at which point they desperately seek to pass regulations that protect them at the expense of others.

Again, self-interest trumps the other appeals. I'm not trying to argue that we should confiscate a bunch of their wealth and give it away to the masses. The only point that I am making is that it is useless to speak of property rights and morality when issues of life, death, and happiness are at stake. In principle, people can resort to force or coercion to achieve their objectives, if they must, and survival does not have to be at stake to justify this. We are not complaining about the chief having too many bows, or even the pharaoh having the best women--we are talking about the most powerful and influential people to have ever lived. These people are historical anomalies, not simply more hard-working, and this is the kind of simplification on the right that has always bothered me.

I would rather be more significant than a cockroach, and the least we can do is dramatically reduce their political influence, which is what started this conversation in the first place. One man, one vote.

 

[MENTION=126]robini123[/MENTION]

That's a pretty awesome admission. Yeah, the American Revolution was very much grounded in greed as much as lofty principle--tax dodgers unwilling to pay for their defense. You should read how the British responded to the DOI--they thought we were completely insane.

It is VERY hard to make a shift like that. It was a sad day for me when I realized that we were an empire and not always the good guys. I'll always favor our best interests over others, but seeing things as they really were was quite sobering.

 

I find it every bit as scary that a person could believe, e.g., that adults shouldn't have sex with 5 year olds and be open to considertaion of contrary views. Don't you?

 

Your thread is truly timely in that I had recently become a trump supporter but then earlier today I heard about the fact that Trumpf accepted the support of a so called "pastor" who claims the Newtown murders of 20 children was a fake e.g. it says that the government staged the murders using actors and that the children who were murdered did not actually exist.

i cannot in any shape form or manner support a humanoid for POTUS who accepts support from aa vile piece of fecal matter eating bacteria such as this so called "pastor".


Yes I changed my mind on Trumpf..

 

This is a basic premise that is quite obvious and requires little reasoning, similar to how I wouldn't "consider" eating a heaping pile of fecal matter. It immediately triggers a disgust response and has no merit. I'm not exactly worried about this gaining any traction because people have become more open-minded. I worry about things like the freedom of speech being "reconsidered" because the millennial generation decides that life is too tough to hear offensive things.

 

These years I've been posting in these forums something has become evident. By Australian standards I'm a centrist with left leanings on some issues, but by American standards I'm a raving mad leftist.

 

I'd be curious to know what your higher education and healthcare systems are like. Is it difficult for intelligent poor people to complete college, and is it affordable? Is healthcare affordable for working class people?

 

We have excellent world class universities which are affordable due to Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP). It's jointly funded by the Department of Education and the Australian Taxation Office. It's a bit easier on the pocket than the American loan system as you start paying back the loan after the course has been completed and a certain wages level has been reached. The has been a lot of talk by this current government about deregulating universities so they can set there own fees. The fear is university fees will skyrocket well beyond 'average' people. Education is funded by the states and not by the education district like in America. This means schools get even funding irrespective of the socio-economic environment of that district, in theory anyway.


With healthcare, we are one of the lucky ones having a pretty good universal healthcare system, Medicare. since 1974. Australia has a two tier health insurance system, universal and private. About 70% of Australians are privately insured and also covered under Medicare. Things like hospital, doctor, some dental and some specialist procedures are covered under Medicare mean most people tailor make their health insurance privately insuring their specialised healthcare but everyday medical expenses are covered under Medicare. Also, there is no pre-existing illness clause with Medicare. There is a 1.5% levy for working people once $18,200 wages has been reached that goes towards Medicare.

 

Wow. Australia, much like all the other Anglo countries, sounds like a much better place to live. I went to school with a friend that said as much.

In America, we have a loan system for everyone, if people need it, and small grants based on need. Public universities here are very overpriced but not prohibitively so. The problem is that the cost of living while in school is often quite high, and our universities charge astronomical amounts for dorms, so only people who come from money can afford to live on campus--obviously, being able to walk downstairs to class is a huge advantage. The average American leaves college with a debt of around 30k.

The healthcare system is pretty bad. When I was 19 I didn't have health insurance and ended up having to get surgery. The first surgery was over 20k, they botched it, and I had to come back a month later and accrue another 20k in debt, so I started off my adult life with utterly ruined credit. In the U.S., virtually nothing can be accomplished without credit--you can't even secure housing--so it sets you back significantly.

Essentially, very few people make it out of the bottom rung in our society, even when they are talented. It's true that most of the people in our underclass aren't very talented, but the result is that there is little support for putting social safety nets in place for those who are. When we have them, they don't work very effectively and end up being wasted because other aspects of the system are so screwed up.

If I had to guess, I'd say that if you are in the top quartile of American society life is pretty good. Not the best among advanced nations, but solid. If you are in the bottom half, America is dead last and probably on par with some developing countries in terms of the quality of life. Basically, everything is for sell and any conceivable advantage can be secured with money.