The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 15 guests, and 28 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Newest Members
Xfile, Turge, AHappyOtter, Sabbyth, Ansalon
1,457 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,411
Posts120,505
Members1,457
Most Online228
Dec 19th, 2019
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Arkh 3
Vuldan 2
Sini 1
Goriom 1
Vyse 1
Top Posters(30 Days)
JetStar 24
Vuldan 15
Owain 12
Brommas 11
Sini 10
Exey 7
Arkh 5
Goriom 4
Kaotic 1
Mithus 1
Popular Topics(Views)
1,206,311 Trump card
943,059 Picture Thread
327,460 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 5 of 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 123 124
Sini #136138 05/05/16 09:44 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
The problem with Trump, is his desire to see armed gov't types going around door to door looking for people. That will end up poorly for a lot more than just the people who supposedly need deported. He is authoritarian, as is Hillary.


And yeah, I switched parties to vote for the commie. He was the only sane one left outside Kasich who never went anywhere. But at least Bernie believes in the Bill of Rights.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Derid #136166 05/07/16 03:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
So Wolfgang would you vote for Trump if he promise to make the trains run on time?


[Linked Image]
Sini #136208 05/10/16 06:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
I keep thinking that Trump is a rejection of Reaganism that has not worked out for the base.


[Linked Image]
Sini #136209 05/10/16 08:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
You might be on to something, but which parts of Reaganism?

More realistically though, Reagan is well in the past. I would suggest it is a rejection of Hastertism and Boehnerism that hasn't worked out for the base.

But really, I think it's even simpler. People feel under siege, and no major political establishment has taken them seriously. They have been bought with lip service for 25+ years and know it. Add in inaccurate and confusing "news", where one side continues with the lip service and a constant barrage of irrational thinking in justification of bad policy and the other side simply mocks them and blames them for all the worlds ills nonstop.

I consider Trump the "fuck me? no, fuck you!" moment.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Derid #136215 05/11/16 05:06 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
Originally Posted By: Derid
I consider Trump the "fuck me? no, fuck you!" moment.


Without a doubt, but response to which message?

I think it is rejection of supply-side that lead to inequality, outsourcing, and historic drop in living standards of a large chunk of what used to be middle class.


[Linked Image]
Sini #136220 05/12/16 07:00 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1

If you blame supply-side for the current condition, then you might be right. As far as the other (politically) viable options were concerned, I would say its a wash. Supply-side is just Keynsianism for corporatists. I think Clintonomics and W play a much bigger role than Reagan though, in Reagan's day when Volcker was leading the Fed there was at least some sanity, which was reflected in 90's relative prosperity.

Plus, I wonder how much economics has to do with it. Surely something, but I think that is not the whole story.

Generally speaking, I think two things are required for the stability of a state.

1) Equitable distribution of taxes

2) That everyone plays by the same set of rules

#2 is something we should pay attention to. The general sense, is that this is no longer the case. Maybe it never was, but the perception now is that it is not. The Wall St bailouts were the epitome of this. But there all sorts of cases that fuel the perception that gov't treats people quite unequally. Hillary is a case in point, everyone knows that if someone who wasn't a Clinton did half the things she did, prosecutors looking for a resume bump would have indicted them several times already just for giving them a good excuse.

If their business has difficulty, they can't even get credit. But if a politically connected business gets in trouble they get cash. Politically connected businesses can even get the rules written in their favor. Compound that with the trade deals intended to help the political class, that negatively impacts the smaller guys. People can tell that the interests of the gov't and their interests are widely different.

Especially when the anti-them rhetoric comes down from the pro-gov't people. When the rhetoric of the left is a constant barrage against them personally, and as a class of people, it should be no surprise that they come to view the left and the gov't as the enemy. When the right makes promises, then doesn't keep them, and also writes the rules against them or buckles in the face of criticism from the left - same deal. Trust goes down.

When trust bottoms out, and even when you "win" you "lose", then people feel helpless. When people feel helpless, it turns to anger.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Sini #136251 05/14/16 01:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vult...hp_ref=politics

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...america/482655/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/army-internal-fight-russia-defense-budget-213885

The first, Huffpost article is a rare article that details just how gov't actually works. Be aware that most of the Federal apparatus functions in something like this manner and has for some time, it is not limited to just hedge funds. I think many people, particularly the ones derisively referred to so often by the coastal elites as obstructionists, have always held at least a vague understanding of this dynamic. Even though at times they find it difficult to articulate.

On a related note, this also plays into renewed racial and cultural animus when said divides are willingly played up and played into by the political "other".

After all, an establishment that run the types of machinations described above with no limit becomes very dangerous when, for any particular reason or set of circumstances, you find yourself in its crosshairs. It scares a lot of people, and perhaps rightly so. In a world where sole power lies in coalitions of vested interests, perhaps people should not be surprised when certain groups that feel besieged (rightly or wrongly), begin thinking in terms of the group dynamic.

Of course like many of the problems we face, Hayek already discussed this some years ago.

"The agreement on which such a programme for governmental action is based is something very different from that common opinion of a majority which it was hoped would be the determining force in a democracy. Nor can this kind of bargaining be regarded as the kind of compromise that is inevitable whenever people differ and must be brought to agree on some middle line which does not wholly satisfy anybody. A series of deals by which the wishes of one group are satisfied in return for the satisfaction of the wishes of another (and frequently at the expense of a third who is not consulted) may determine aims for common action of a coalition, but does not signify popular approval of the overall results. The outcome may indeed be wholly contrary to any principles which the several members of the majority would approve if they ever had an opportunity to vote on them.

This domination of government by coalitions of organized interests (when they were first observed they were generally described as ‘sinister interests’) is usually regarded by the outsider as an abuse, or even a kind of corruption. It is, however, the inescapable result of a system in which government has unlimited powers to take whatever measures are required to satisfy the wishes of those on whose support it relies. A government with such powers cannot refuse to exercise them and still retain the support of a majority. We have no right to blame the politicians for doing what they must do in the position in which we have placed them. We have created conditions in which it is known that the majority has power to give any particular section of the population whatever it demands. But a government that possesses such unlimited powers can stay in office only by satisfying a sufficiently large number of pressure groups to assure itself of the support of a majority.

Government, in the narrow sense of the administration of the special resources set aside for the satisfaction of common needs, will to some extent always have that character. Its task is to hand out particular benefits to different groups, which is altogether distinct from that of legislation proper. But while this weakness is comparatively innocuous as long as government is confined to determining the use of an amount of resources placed at its disposal according to rules it cannot alter (and particularly when, as in local government, people can escape exploitation by voting with their feet), it assumes alarming proportions when government and rule-making come to be confused and the persons who administer the resources of government also determine how much of the total resources it ought to control. To place those who ought to define what is right in a position in which they can maintain themselves only by giving their supporters what they want, is to place at their disposal all the resources of society for whatever purpose they think necessary to keep them in power."

Hayek, F. A.. Law, Legislation and Liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy (Routledge Classics) (pp. 358-359). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Sini #137338 07/22/16 03:46 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,402
Likes: 5
Trump nominated, Cruz refuses to endorse (unlike Ryan and the rest).

Trump proceeds to threaten NATO unity.


[Linked Image]
Sini #137339 07/22/16 09:37 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
I knew it would be an interesting convention. I didn't know exactly what would happen, but I was pretty confident something would. Did not disappoint.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Sini #137852 08/12/16 11:02 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Page 5 of 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 123 124

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5