|
|
|
This new U.S. Cabinet he's picked has more wealth than 30% of Americans. What kind of democracy is that? Who are they going to look out for? This makes The Clinton Foundation look like a lemonade stand.
|
|
|
|
|
That's such a stupid comment, it's amazing. You obviously have no idea about what was wrong about the Clinton Foundation or even why being wealthy isn't wrong.
|
|
|
|
I see the positions on issues that these cabinet people have held. A good chunk of them have fought the depts. they now head. Perhaps they are there to close them. It's wrong for anyone to have that much more wealth than others. The top CEO's in Canada made more by lunch hour on Jan. 2nd than most make the whole year. I guess I don't see why that is right.
Modified by auggie55 at Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 17:46:20
|
|
|
|
I agree Auggie, excessive wealth is thoroughly unattractive. I read somewhere that it took the tongues of a hundred larks to make one small pie.
I believe the argument for having a wealthy president is that it makes him a 'strong arm' to keep marauders at bay. A return to feudalism.
|
|
|
|
I used to share a dormitory with one of the Rothschild daughters. None of us envied her her lot in life I can tell you and none of us were resentful of her family's wealth either. We came from privileged enough backgrounds to know how tough it is for the super wealthy.
I do not want to eat a lark's tongue pie either! what Jim, you think that's okay, that sort of excessive behaviour?
I hated some of the places I went as a child. When there's too much money it's stifling. I was always looking for the garden door.
I have always believed the greatest luxury money can buy is not having to worry about it and most of my life I haven't had more than mild worry over it at all, mainly because I am not much of a spender.
I save my envy and resentment for my own reasons. 
|
|
|
|
I think that they are. The book I'm reading, which I strongly recommend, and which is available free both as a PDF and even an unabridged YouTube audio narrated by the author, Stephen Hicks, "Explaining Postmodernism", describes how socialism shifted its focus on relative wealth when it was apparent that capitalism had lifted society generally about basic needs levels. It's tough. I'm not rich. I wish I was. I wrestle with envy all the time and can only imagine how people with less than me have a harder fight. Yeah, I think that's a big motivator, especially when you have social and political theories that tell you that the other guy's wealth should be yours, in whole or in part.
|
|
|
|
This may get some nominal coverage in the media but it will certainly not be properly discussed for its implications:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/australia-friend-of-melbourne-car-attacker-says-he-converted-to-muslim-and-changed-very-quickly
|
|
|
|
Jim - you wanna worry about how envious and resentful people who are poorer than you are go ahead but it's all a lot more complex than that.
Come to think of it, it's not true actually is it. It's usually the people who spend a lot of money, too much money, who get all envious.
|
|
|
|
Scary times. Many of Trump's followers are under cult-leader sway, which is pretty easy to recognize when you speak with them. Reason just doesn't help, and Trump supporters don't seem to understand how removed Trump's lived experience, and his wealthy Cabinet picks' interests, are from their own. I spoke with one of his supporters at the Women's March I attended. His main point was that they are going to counter the "liberal media lies" about Trump. Jeez. The "liberal media" is, in my opinion, being way too forgiving of Trump's narcissistic statements, and *not* highlighting them. All you need to do is watch his speeches and read his Tweets to see. No liberal media needed. The march I attended attracted 5 times the number of attendees as were expected by its organizers.
|
|
|
|
It was refreshing to see the images of the millions who marched. Quite the contrast to the tiny crowd the day before at the inauguration. I saw Trump addressing the CIA and telling them how much he loved them , then complaining that the crowd shots were fake that I saw on CBC.
|
|
|
|
Obama was a total joke for his inability to escape congratulatory self-reference every single time he spoke about anything. The difference is that he's slick and the media loved him. They loved him from the moment he promised a post-racial America. When he turned that upside down into a racially-obsessed America, they were already emotionally committed.
Trudeau, when he won, courtesy of the Canadian propaganda machine masquerading as a professional press, couldn't stop spiking the football every bit as much as has Trump. Media response? Crickets.
I dare you to read that same book I've been promoting and see if it doesn't change your perspective some.
|
|
|
|
I don't like any of those 3, but Trump seems to be worse. I wonder if he'll follow Russia in decriminalizing domestic abuse.
|
|
|
|
I don't know which you're referring to, my opinion that Trump is likely worse than Obama or Trudeau, or the new Russian bill. Are the conservatives over there that much different than here? It draws the line at physical harm. I guess the government there doesn't want to be bothered by court cases involving spanking children, or a mere slap of the wife. The same people who sponsored the Gay propaganda bill, are pushing this one. Here the anti- same sex people are often overlapped with the "spare the rod, spoil the children" mentality. With trumps' aid from the Kremlin, his admiration of Putin, his appointment of Rex Tillerman(order of Russia winner), his bragging about groping, and the millions of women ,is that such a far-fetched idea?
|
|
|
|
It's funny these forums. You came out of nowhere, as did we all I guess. And to the extent that we keep communicating, we're stuck with each other's brain waves. You say so much dumb shit, as does your friend DC, it's like sharing a house with people who never clean up after themselves. What are my options? Ignoring your mess or cleaning it myself or just moving out? You're not going to change. Your brain functions that way. You actually think that you're making fair, intelligent points, asking fair, reasonable questions. You're not of course.
|
|
|
|
Plenty of intelligent chats up there with like minded people. I'm in the class of being at the mercy of Betsy Devos. Make America stupid again, back to 50's values, where wealthy white males matter.
|
|
|
|
That's all ..... what a life.
|
|
|
|
There are some excellent discussions and definitions of "narcissist" on the PR Forum over the years. Obama simply doesn't fit the definition, in any way. His speeches don't typically reference himself, either. But Trump? Almost everything he says he eventually brings around to being all about him. Scary. Re the book you're recommending - I will put it on my list of books to request the local lending library to borrow. I'm certainly not going to spend money on it.
|
|
|
|
It's laugh-out-loud ridiculous to say that Obama doesn't typically reference himself. You must be sleep-posting. Really, do your own research on this. I won't bother. It's to obvious.
As for the book, aren't you lucky -- it's available free right here:
http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hicks-ep-full.pdf
Or, if you prefer, the author's even narrated an unabridged audio on Youtube which you can listen to altogether or get chapter by chapter:
Here are some options:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=explaining+postmodernism+hicks&oq=explaining+postmodern&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l4.7582j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=explaining+postmodernism+hicks&tbm=vid
|
|
|
