tobetrained

I'll leave it simply as "government should facilitate a pluralistic democratic society as efficiently as possible." That would be the answer domestically. Beyond that, add "...and unflinchingly promote our interests internationally." I don't believe in political altruism. People can be altruistic as it's their choice. A government, esp. a representative government, has no business in altruism. That's about values and beliefs. Those have no place in a government for a pluralistic society -- values and beliefs can contradict across its population. key word above is "facilitate" and not "do."

I implied that from "we the people" statement as well as the statements on representation. All of those are statements about democracy. But this is where I was going relative to the overall comments you summarized here: The word "ideals" are highly subjective as well as standards. For instance, the way you started the convo: The term "inclusion" is a modern leftist ideological term. Social conservatives would replace that with "god-fearing" or some such thing. Both imply "those that are like me or think like me" -- and I'm 100% sure that's not your intent, given past convos. The term that's gotten lost is "pluralistic society" as that -- dare I say -- is inclusive, in this case of people "who do not think like me." This is not semantics. You talk about standards and measuring success. If your finger is on the ideologically scale then the measured outcome is different.

I understand the argument. I just don't think it's as simple as this. Consider two modern examples: Iraq. The Iraq war (start 2003) is considered a failure. Yet, the end result removed a dictator -- one of the "strong men" you reference above -- and delivered a to-date lasting democracy to the country. Egypt. The Arab Spring, wrongly simplified in the West as pro-democracy, brought democracy to Egypt by ending military rule. Yet, the popular will was to bring a religiously oppressive party to power -- the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi. Short of it, the military reclaimed leadership, executed Morsi, are still in power today, and the average Egyptian is much more free than in the short-lived democracy. Democracy is as fragile as any form of government. Democracy has regularly failed to extremes of populism.

The problem with this topic and conversation is Trans is an idea and not biology. If that offends, please see HRC glossary [think before following links] https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms Competition in sport is typically, but not universally, driven by body size. Body size impact is independent of gender, but highly related given the happenstance of current-state evolution in human size. Here's an analysis the French RMES, Institut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Epidémiologie du Sport published here by National Institute of Health: [think before following links] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3761733 It should be noted, it's not just gender. There are weight classes in combat sports for this very "body size" reason, i.e., heavyweight, featherweight, etc. in boxing. Tangential point: In some species, the female is larger and more athletic (e.g. big cats) as they are the hunters while males scavenge. As well, in non-movement sports there is little difference between gender, e.g., Archery: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_archery I would hope the Supreme Court keeps those born to a certain body types separate. If not, why would we have women's sports? Physical size is not an idea. I understand @PozBearWI Battle of the Sexes comment. But it's modern equivalent just happened when the world's number one woman -- playing at her career peak -- played a man well past his prime and currently very lowly ranked. He beat her fairly easy. Pre-match discussion [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/c1e4dej01yeo Match results [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/cqlkqxnvdweo This brings up a massive equal pay argument which I will not get into now.

I can't see the article, no NYT subscription. But, for instance, the US does not acknowledge ICC...many administrations, multiple from both parties. At least in some small part, this is nothing new...he just says it in his bloviated way. On a good note, the "new" Venezuela gov't has begun to release (political) prisoners. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mkwl2g499o

This convo was before my time here. So @hntnhole did this come true?

Sorry, the last part of last message (Greece) was method but no rationale. The point of the mixing was to force people from different locations, parties, classes, etc into new groups...to then force communication and conversation.

I think that's just a bad word choice on my part. But not sure best. "belief," "think more important," "preference." That sort of thing. And, yes, to a degree it's about balance in how to do that. Like China, culture norms are based on a conservative philosophy but its political structure, Communism, is based on the collective. Or Europe, most countries have socialistic/collective tendencies but seethe at the idea of losing their individual (country) status. The "boring" topic here would be healthcare. We do the balance, the collective via insurance (some go for co-opts instead) while allowing private market to drive innovation. There have been many attempts to drive this -- starting in ancient Greece. To translate a method, the analogy would be -- an electoral college where random (or almost random) members of across states would be grouped in 700k+ people instead of the geographic allocation now based on state-level district appropriation. But it makes more sense for a population in a single city-state.

pardon, what's SD? I only know that as South Dakota...and fairly sure it's not what you mean. 😀 In your premise, I think where we gotten lost is in using political outlook as a form of identity. It's not. Take the broader community of this site in relation to WeHo pride flag a decade+ ago [think before following links] https://wehoonline.com/weho-council-defers-manager-city-hall-flags-rainbow-flag-may-come/ A very liberal/progressive group argued against this, to preserve their culture where WeHo is a "gay city" (I'm simplifying). That preservation attempt, to conserve, is conservatism. It's no different than what Christians or other religious groups do...or others under any label. But more broadly, and excluding identity, the concepts are as old as philosophical thought. In that sense, they're very important. Do you believe in the individual, or Do you believe in the collective The problem is both above require principled responses and behavior. Good luck on that. I've said this elsewhere: east Asian philosophies (e.g., Confucianism) are predicated on the individual. Even though the Greek created democracy (as we know it), philosophers of the day hated it, read: Plato's The Republic where he describes his Ideal State.

Free speech is a good thing. But thick skin to handle those who will call you out while exercising their right free speech is also important.

It takes extreme behavior to create change, right. Here's a possible benefit: [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-trump-on-venezuela-00716127 Congress has spent decades abdicating its authority then grandstanding on outcomes, for electoral purposes. Maybe, just maybe, they will get their act together now and reclaim their constitutional duty.

@Erik62 I didn't ask you to make it softer or rewrite. I asked you to admit to what you meant by "Kidnapping might be a too soft solution." That quote meant you were implying something more. But you avoided that. Probably for the best.

I don't mind this at all, in terms of a "stick" response back the US. I would hope more Denmark takes Greenland's defense much more serious. Putin has laid (false) claim to Arctic and only due to Trump threats has it or NATO begun to take its defense seriously. Denmark, like most of the Europeans, had been shirking NATO requirements until recently...they had been between 1% and 1.5% of GDP until Russia's invasion of UKR, minimum requirement was 2%. Now they plan to hit 3% - with the updated 5% agreement by 2030. [think before following links] https://apnews.com/article/denmark-defense-spending-nato-russia-ukraine-3b499b12cebd1c09535c03085527f9e3 For myself, if they Europeans don't take their own self defense seriously -- which they are starting to do -- coupled with an expansionist Russia (with support from China) we can't stick our head in the sand.

@Pozzible you word-policed me above and on the word "push" is a separate thread. But on kidnapping and the statement by @Erik62 of "Kidnapping might be a too soft solution" which is clearly implied violence you equivocate. Interesting lines you've drawn. Clearly, you didn't even bother to read my comment made earlier than your post, copied below: @Erik62 then enlighten, in your mind what is less "soft" than kidnapping beside violence? I'll again call B.S. on this.

Well, maybe try some of these other points of view: [think before following links] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-diaspora-celebrates-maduros-deposition-wonders-whats-next-2026-01-03/ [copied info] Summary Cautious optimism about Venezuela's future amid celebrations Trump promises US control during transition period Some 7.7 million Venezuelans, 20% of population, have left the country since 2014 [end copied info] Obama discussed/celebrated bin Laden. Bush (Sr) celebrated Noriega. Bush (Jr) celebrated Hussein. Clinton for NATO capture of Milosevic. Shall I go on? There's plenty to worry about here, don't get me wrong. Like we havn't called for elections (e.g. Panama) or Trump is going to try and ge the oil revenue for a slush fund. Commenting on points or even opinions, fine. Let's be clear... the comment was beyond kidnapping. Unacceptable.

I really don't care who it is. Comments like this are out of bounds. No, kidnapping is too strong of a solution. Get your head checked. How can anyone here makes (rightful) negative comments about Trump and support this kind of comment. Sick.

I've literally been yelled at for NOT doing the opposite! -- and, yes, I started laughing and left. There's technique but also communication... not "feelings" but "this is how I like it." I'm generally happy to accommodate with reasonable communication. One guy needed me to stay almost perfectly still -- and we played for more than 8 hours at a time. To @NordicBtm's point: "My big issue is though that many tops will pound very hard without gripping the hips properly so either you use a bunch of muscle to counter that (fine for a few minutes) or his falls out of your hole because he slammed into you and pushed himself out. Super frustrating when tops don’t get this basic fact of physics" Don't get me started on hip grabbing. But you did. So, I'll calm down first. ... ... ... I'm happy to do anything, but when a top won't position in doggie -- meaning the btm has to with no line of sight -- when he can just position you with a quick touch, batty. Drives me batty. I'm fit enough to hold most positions but I can't divine them. I don't know if this is more an issue now as men have become so much more passive....or, if I've just lost patience as I've gotten older. ...hmmm.

A good Sunday morning read. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/01/04/us-venezuela-maduro-predictions-analysis-00710030 Lots of different perspectives across a wide range of political views.

I think it's important to remember the love and lust responses are different in the brain. Here's a link I tried to find quickly: [think before following links] https://neurosciencenews.com/hormones-sexual-behavior-neuroscience-29459/ So, there's conversational-speak and sciencey-speak (love vs sex/lust). But, importantly, a person can love asexually and have great sex without love and everything in between. It's also the foundational logic as to why discrimination against gays is ludicrous, a rationale our broader community has kinda forgotten -- a Millennial/GenZ trait. There's nothing wrong with two men or two women loving each other, but in such a pairing natural reproduction is impossible. But reproduction, an outcome driven by the lust/sexual impulse, is not love. Equally, there's nothing wrong with an asexual person but being so makes reproduction tough. Again, reproduction is not love. "Making love," it seems, was an invented phrase to allow "having sex" to sound more meaningful.

@SDCumPup I couldn't find / remember the exact source for this added bit but I think it's this text/series: [think before following links] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-global-migrations/urban-migration-and-gender-diversity-in-eurasia-16001800/E1D1625A6CFA61DCFA3A7557BBAF27ED Along with the book above, it details the genders and other roles of migration over time. Importantly to this context, earlier colonists tended to be (very) male. The Spanish and Portuguese were equally or more likely to make families in their New World colonies vs. bring them along. The British in N America were distinctly different, prior they did not mix with natives as much as their Iberian piers and after 1700-ish migrants were much more evenly divided (by gender) from Britain - as civilian families/couples came together.

I think we're getting stuck on details. There's no doubt about established settlements -- but what's lost is for what purpose, and where and when. I can suggest this book and this online content (which I could quickly find). The latter is of both North and South America. Roughly 40% of European migrants were Spanish/Portuguese, with half before 1700 and a large amount of those settlers returning with most to S/C Americas. Much of the long standing settlements were either military and/or missionary settlements. In total, the British are about 50% of migrants from Europe -- outpacing the above -- and ~75%+ of this was after 1700. The vast majority was to (what became) the US with very little returning and almost all remaining were civilians. A Population History of the United States, H. Klein [think before following links] https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/european-migrations-american-colonies-1492-1820 Where we agree is very significant. The Spanish were VERY willing to mingle and mix with native populations. Part of this was the attempt and success at religious conversion as part of the Catholic faith. But therein lies the difference with Protestant British settlers -- again, those were mainly in US/Canada -- and the issue with the original video. Those people were NOT open and willing to mix either with natives nor would they have been open to others, if greater amounts of non-Protestant populations were willing to come. But in saying that I need to repeat: just because that issue existed back then means nothing for what we do now. That's the flaw in the Heritage folks. But following that manipulation with the one proposed in the video, equally flawed.

Sorry to beat a dead horse. But this article came out which is both interesting for its purpose but relevant in the excerpt I'm copying below: [think before following links] https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-of-europe-online-propaganda-social-media-memes/ The point of the article is a growing pan-Euro/Federalist Euro endeavor among the young of Europe. But a small point which indirectly discusses what I wrote above, re: Protestant migration to US and relative/proportional lack of same for Catholics. It's not the point of the article, but gets to the varied rationale people had for either migrating to what became the US as well as those that didn't. "...Indeed, federalists are far from being a politically homogenous group. Several meme warriors told me that there is an ideological battle ongoing in the dank recesses of federalist Reddit subgroups and chatrooms between broadly centrist people who believe in boosting the power of existing Brussels institutions, and far-right people who hate Brussels but nonetheless want Europe to assert itself on the world stage. The big divider is identity politics and migration policy: far-right groups tend to envision Europe as a culturally and ethnically homogenous “empire” — read, white and Christian, preferably Catholic — that keeps foreigners out..." But, again, regardless of the freedoms were seeking -- and WHY -- by migrating to the US so long ago, there's no directive we need to accommodate that now. Regardless of this convo, the article is very interesting for the (different) topic it covers.

I agree with the broader sentiment. But here, it would just be guests willing to tell the whole story and not a one-sided or selective version...they just didn't have to pick a side. @tallslenderguy, you commented on the guest's Swedish fellow statement. The Swedish gentleman is an anecdote that's even on wikipedia. He could have rounded out the anecdote with the more-relevant statement: most Swedes who migrated did so to avoid the restrictions being placed on their religious practices -- in Sweden by the Lutheran Church of Sweden (state church). They left for the freedom of worship offered in the US along with the rest of the freedoms. This happened before and after Sweden in other countries, notably England during American colonial times, as state religious institutions (in Europe) tried to moderate practices during and after centuries of religious wars -- see: European Wars of Religion. At least as far as Protestant states were concerned. In that, the anecdote isn't wrong but it's so incomplete as to be misleading. Catholics were a different story...it was generally the more moderate adherents who crossed the pond but in relatively small numbers until the late 19th century. Catholic states did not try to populate the Americas (see: France, Spain, Portugal) with civilian settlements. The Americas were merely resource development / commerce. There are a whole host of reasons I won't go into to avoid a book. There's plenty "out there." It's for similar reasons as to why China never bothered to cross the Pacific...even though ocean currents are more favorable linked to island-hoping along The Aleutians -- of which China had been aware (The Aleutians). China, in the early 15th century, had arguable the strongest navy in the world. But the Ming effectively disbanded it both do to cost and to cultural change it brought domestically. Their motives were driven by conservative Confucianism practices tied to ancestor worship -- short of it: they did not want to leave their homeland (i.e., the harm it would bring their ancestors in the afterlife) and they wanted their homeland to stay as-is. Likewise, as China "looked" to the ancestors, Catholics look to the Vatican as a religious home. Most Christians gave up the idea of "controlling" Jerusalem centuries ago. Catholic civilian interest is moving away from that physical space was limited -- Protestants had no such physical connection to place. All of this is covered in Western Civ classes -- or, at least, good ones. The course I referenced above on Eastern Empires and others on China, re: The Great Courses, cover that as well as a multitude of books. I can't stress enough how great and eye-opening the course Barbarians of the Steppes is to understand the world from 200 BCE to ~1500 CE -- specifically: WHY people thought what they did -- from their vantage point and not our vantage point -- and how that culminated into the setup of more modern times. The now-retired academic did convert the course into a book, Empires of the Steppes, somewhat recently...I have not read but assume it covers the same stuff. But I'm unsure if the dryness of text is as impactful as a lecture.

The last 15 mins was the philosophical issue....absence of null. I noted one omission at the 20' mark. Another in the last 30 mins, in the context of the 1924 legislation. When I watched I mentally noted others as well...Stewart's questions of role of religion being explicitly avoided. That includes one instance which he even makes a comment on their silence.

...after a few days, part of this video really bothered me. For the rest of you, I reached out privately to @tallslenderguy about that yesterday. The short of it, Jon Stewart's guests provided a biased view which is making its way through left-leaning circles. But it has it's own history. I want to be clear: I make NO negative claim about the intention of @tallslenderguy whatsoever. In fact, I fully appreciate and believe in what he continues to do on this site by providing perspectives. That's why I'm happy to spend time engaging with him (and others) in those perspectives. Then, as if by some divine force -- none of which I believe in -- Politico posted this article just this morning. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/13/woodard-immigration-00679254 The author is Colin Woodward. He wrote a book a decade ago I've mentioned on this site before, American Nations. It's a great book and the article demonstrates that. But back to the beginning of this post and the biased view presented. Stewart asks his guests about religion's role repeated. They deflect each time. This is part of a response-movement on the left in today's culture...to the political right. In the article, Woodward states: "On one side are ethnonationalists who assert that only the people with the right lineage and faith can belong to America. On the other is the civic nationalist tradition where anyone who shares the universal ideas about human freedom in the Declaration of Independence is a potential American." But, in the linked video, failure by omission or failure by selective facts are both manipulation. They -- Stewart's guests and NOT @tallslenderguy -- are participating in a form of ideological purity control -- as are the Heritage folks. But you can't counter a manipulation of facts with one of your own. For myself, I have no interest in religion at all. But I fully respect those that do. But the failure to acknowledge its role is bias. Simultaneously, that doesn't mean it has to continue as a driving force. After all, Christianity itself, as well as most other religions, wouldn't exist if spiritual thought had to be held stagnant.