tobetrained

But I would also point out to this convo, we're also at a point where the reciprocal extremism is also here, across the West. An NYC Mayor who doesn't stand up for his police officers when attacked The French National Rally supporter killed by anti-fascists extremists -- for their assumed views of him/his group -- which including a low-ranking worker in the LFI (French far-left party) Yet another -- poorly planned -- assassination attempt on Trump And this is just the last week.

The problem with AI, it responds based on your question. There was no "moderate approach" to Hitler. It was appeasement as he began expansion beyond Germany. As for what the Nazi's did within Germany, what was "Europe" supposed to do? Germans were angry with the conclusion of WWI and most historians today claim the two wars are single long was with a 20-ish year break. [that doesn't make them correct in their behavior] To illustrate the point, I de-politicized your question: "What was Europe's approach to Hitler?" A: "Europe's approach to Hitler in the 1930s was primarily characterized by a policy of appeasement, where leaders, especially British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, made concessions to avoid conflict, believing it would maintain peace. This strategy ultimately failed, as it did not prevent Hitler's aggressive expansion and led to the outbreak of World War II." I then asked AI: "What did the Nazi's do within Germany before outward expansion?" Political Consolidation and Control Elimination of Political Opposition: The Nazis quickly moved to eliminate other political parties, ensuring that the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was the only legal political entity by 1933. Reichstag Fire and Enabling Act: Following the Reichstag fire in February 1933, the Nazis passed the Enabling Act, which granted Hitler the power to enact laws without Reichstag approval, effectively giving him dictatorial powers. Social Policies Control of Media and Education: The regime established tight control over newspapers, radio, and education to disseminate Nazi ideology and glorify Adolf Hitler. Youth Programs: Organizations like the Hitler Youth sought to indoctrinate young Germans with Nazi ideals and prepare them for future roles in the regime. Racial Policies Nuremberg Laws (1935): These laws institutionalized racial discrimination, particularly against Jews, depriving them of citizenship and legal rights. Kristallnacht (1938): This pogrom against Jews included the destruction of synagogues, Jewish businesses, and the arrest of thousands, marking an escalation in anti-Semitic violence. Economic Policies Public Works Projects: The Nazis initiated large-scale projects like the Autobahn, providing jobs and helping to reduce unemployment significantly. Militarization of the Economy: The regime focused on rebuilding the military in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, leading to increased military spending and a push for self-sufficiency. Repression and Control SS and Gestapo: The Schutzstaffel (SS) and Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) were instrumental in enforcing Nazi policies, through surveillance, arrest, and persecution of dissenters. Concentration Camps: Early camps were established for political prisoners, later expanding to detain Jews, homosexuals, and other groups deemed undesirable. Many of these these things define extremism and populism regardless of exact ideology. Of these 10 bullet points above, Trump/MAGA scoring: Political Opposition: No. They playing politics for sure. There has been ZERO movement to eliminate other parties -- legally. Enabling Act: No. As yet, nothing has been proposed. Trump is absolutely taking advantage of congress' decades-long abdication of power. Media and Education: No. As yet, no control...beyond calling out and trying to eliminate the control from the left. Youth Programs: No. I haven't heard of anything...let's not forget Obama actually tried youth programs. Nuremberg Laws: No. Nothing proposed. Kristallnacht: No. Nothing proposed or enacted. Pubic Works: No. Nothing, if anything the reverse...some of his followers are angry over that -- see: NY/NJ tunnel project -- attempt to withhold funds. Militarizing the economy: Not really. Mainly to get Europe to handle it's own self-defense and not rely on the US as primary defender. SS and Gestape: No. Nothing has been instituted. And to some ICE accounts for this...but it's an established group to handle the undocumented. They are not legal citizens. Concentration Camps: No. None exist. Again, detention centers are for the undocumented before transit back to home country... not for citizens. So @tallslenderguy, this argument is pretty weak but open to hear how it's not.

extremism is for sure, both on the conservative side and liberal/progressive side. In that, both are increasing as responses to each other. It's only when we choose to take non-extreme positions that things settle down.

I do this all the time. I love it. It's not that I'm trying to make them feel stupid. It's that I want them to want to look into the crap they say. In that, it's no different than people -- regularly -- telling me I have little emotion. They say things like, "I want you to want to care about [some stupid obnoxious thing]." To answer your Q, 9 outta 10, social media is the answer, sadly.

"caught in the act"? He was the administration rep there. No one -- even the players via media training -- believes locker room celebrations are private. There are player PR reps, team and admin PR monkeys, and on it goes. This is outrage for the sake of it.

Sometimes we really let politics cloud our judgements. Just a quick AI search for the 2018 World Cup semi-Final between England and Belgium, @PrisonbaiT: Q: Did any Belgian dignitaries go to the 2018 world cup semifinal or 3rd place match? A: "Several Belgian dignitaries attended the 2018 FIFA World Cup matches, including the semifinal against France and the third-place match against England. Notably, Belgian Prime Minister Aleksander De Croo and King Philippe of Belgium were present at the semifinals." Q: Who paid for their travel? A: "The travel expenses for Belgian dignitaries, such as Prime Minister Alexandre De Croo and King Philippe, were typically covered by the Belgian government. This includes official trips made for national representation during significant events like the FIFA World Cup. Public officials attending such events often have their costs covered as part of their duties to support their national teams, promote national pride, and engage in diplomatic relations."

The best part of the Olympics was a) beating Canada 2 TIMES in OT gold medal games. Oh, and the dog...maybe doggie was best. Twice. 2-1. HUGS! I think administration representatives (as well as celebrities) get access to the dressing room in nearly all major sporting event finals.

Possibly. I guess, in general, I'm trying to get across: people can sell/trade goods or services without a government. It was my understanding the thought was a government was required for that. That is, a person can provide barber services and cut hair without the inherent need of a government to authorize that exchange -- either a sale (exchange of service with currency) or trade (chickens and a bacon slab). As far as the Federal government, generically, I'm not as opposed as you. This could be a bit reductionist, no?: There absolutely was a negotiation to connect the colonies into a greater whole. But simply put, the effort (break away from the British Monarchy) would have failed unless that happened. The knock-on effects of that failure are profound: Would European countries, e.g. France, made an effort with the same level belief to overthrow their monarchies? The American win sent shock waves across that continent. The pressure from these freedom movements spurred change even among monarchies which included ending slavery. Would those changes have still happened? If the wealth of the American colonies had stayed in control of the British Monarchy, would the king have established Parliament? So maybe all would have played out better...but maybe worse. Maybe just a different kind of stupid? haha.

As long as people feel like they're getting something, I don't think they care! I'm not opposed to some of these stuff in that stimulus -- as a response to a crisis. But it was the epitome of irresponsible government to not unwind some of them as COVID itself no long was an existential threat -- do to vaccine(s). And really, given timing, to implement them in the first place as vaccines were around as Biden took office...these programs were later. AS far as "cost today", generic inflation 2019 to 2026 is +27%. But I'm still annoyed our government's goal is 2% per year... that's still growth. Deflation is tough but is also necessary to manage affordability.

If we could get past white nationalism and white latte liberalism, there's likely a real broader societal convo to be had. Doubt it will ever happen. Maybe.

Not really, this is conceit of liberal politics simply to apply a bit of self-loathing. First, you're classifying all Native Americans into one homogeneous group, which they're not. Native Americans were a disparate set of many nomadic and semi-nomadic nations are some more sedentary states. Some where violent, some were peaceful. We don't have details as writing was not prevalent. Second, you're picking an arbitrary timeline of what determines "american-ness." I'll point out here, the term was actually European. Native Americans had no classification for the Western Hemisphere,or the Americas, as most knew not the extent of it let alone anything beyond to need a term. And, Native Americans are actually not native either. The human race is entirely African migrants. Third, I would hope you would apply this logic -- your design on American-ness -- to places like India, the Balkan countries, and various Turk-dominant areas. Most of the populations there, like North America, are migrant interlopers with movements during the last 1500+ years, in our collective historical period. Not all these migrations were positive. The Balkans, for instance, is the location of many Slavic peoples which originate in the forest zone of central Russia. Most were brought there as their namesake term -- as slaves. Fourth, and most importantly, grouping people by the color of their skin or their ethnic culture in terms of some value -- here, "american-ness" -- is pure racism. It is multi-directional and can be self-directed to a person's own race.

Well, then, let's leave it at racism is racism. Extremism begets extremism.

What does this quote mean?

@BlindRawFucker1 for myself, no knives to throw. Anyone across both continents are Americans. But words can have multiple meanings too. Americans was a term designated by the British to those that migrated to their original American colonies, Canada was barely settled at the time and the Spanish/Portuguese dominated areas to the south of these colonies. In this, It was a way to create a "they're not us" epithet applied to people who migrated by those that stayed in England/UK or even Europe more broadly. It then became a term of achievement for those who came here starting in mid-19th century...in search for freedom. It is the rationale of this move that was the subject of the video and convo. What freedom had they been looking for and why.

@KinshipLab I'd agree with that completely. I'm not sure why you feel my comment, if it was my comment, precluded that.

@tallslenderguy we agree on that on things we disagree! and there's nothing wrong with that. I understand how you feel that way. It's not that I see just a fire in the fireplace, but I recognize that -- during the Biden administration and in culture more broadly -- other people felt the same way. What I see: two political sides who want to burn each other's house down, and do so when they get the chance. Life in today's politically-charged and polarized world is coping between two political extremes. I choose not to be outraged.

Hmmm... I understand how you got to laiz a faire, but I wouldn't call it that. To say that, I think, one would have to say there should be no restrictions "just cuz." I'm not doing that. Here's a medical analogy: Let's say someone falls down and gets hurt. You see a gash on their head and they say it hurts. You give them a couple ibuprofen. But you can't see the internal bruising elsewhere nor know their clotting problem. So now you've made things worse in your attempt to fix a real problem. [let's assume these descriptions actually make medical sense???] I'm making the case fixing the money issue is the ibuprofen. The backroom deals of political influence are left unchecked and overcome all else. And that's before you get to the corporate messaging on issues. Outside of the analogy, I look at candidate financing not as a corruption additive to backroom influence, it's an offset...like two waves which can cancel each other out (to some degree). And importantly, large contribution are public knowledge -- you know about Musk, Soros, etc. -- and can backfire as much as help. Backroom influence from special interest groups are in the shadows. You said, "i do not mean to present this as a all or nothing proposition, but more as an ongoing refining or evolutionary process." I didn't take it that way. You said, "...but believe i am independently outraged lol. " Then be outraged by the influence too! It's just as insidious. I would suspect, you would be less outraged by money if public disclosure of large financial contributions was not known. What would happen if these special interest groups had to publish their candidate pledges/questionnaires, release all data on fundraising and expenditures during election windows -- even not election-related. It might be easier to be angry if that info was made public. But it's in the shadows. Here in yellow is where we disagree immensely, "...give everyone an equal voice..." To me, equality ends with one person one vote as that is our voice, if you will. There is NOTHING implied in democracy beyond equality of the vote as anything more moves into the realm of ideology. to that end, the quoted phrase is aligned to notions around collectivism...which I'm less inclined to follow vs. individualism (if forced into an either-or). Let's take these one by one: "i'm outraged by a president taking a gift of a jet": as far as I understand, that gift is property of the US. I could be wrong. But to make your statement you do not recognize other cultures and the 1000s of years of trade and political interaction history of cultures across Eurasian steppes -- Middle East to China. Gift-giving was the basis of political dialog. You don't have to like it, but in being outraged are you A) trying to force other cultures to observe your social norms? B) Looking to be outraged when simple "dislike" works? "tearing down a chunk of the White House": the White House has gone through major revisions many times. This might be more ludicrous than most but far from unique. So what outrages you? Can't you simply dislike it? "our supposed checks and balances not working": They are being strained, maybe more so than in the past. But what's not working and who is the cause? I would argue Congress is at fault for much if not all of this after decades of abdicating its authority to a President -- both parties, they complain when out of power but do the same when in power. So to whom are you directing your outrage? [...I'm ducking!!...]

Above was your final summary. Let's take the first part, you wrote: "i do not think we should just leave things as they are, that the system that got us where we are today isn't working well. Do you agree or disagree with this? " I disagree, completely. I don't believe there's a way to fix this and the effort, in this case, can make things worse. Since before and after the invention of democracy it has been a problem, the intersection of money, influence, and power. "I'm as likely to read a book you suggest as you are likely to watch an entire video i post lol." Calvin and Hobbs: There's Treasure Everywhere. Now you will never be able to read it! Don't try...no backsies. YOUR LOSS. "Right or wrong, my perception of you is that you sort of like a movie critic criticizing my every production, which tends to put me in a continuous defensive position with you." I've agreed and disagreed with your comments over time. The agreement convos tend to be quick. If someone else would post the video you have I would equally be critical, I find those sources very politically biased. Discussing that and trying to demonstrate their extremes (not yours, personally) is fair game, no? "Could you please provide your detailed solutions, or reasons why things should remain the same if you believe all is good?" I believe an attempt to remove money from the equation of "money, influence, and power" simply makes campaigns even more dependent of outside influences as those campaigns/politicians have no way to manage their own voter impact. The outcome of that is even more a corruption of power, as special interest groups -- effectively -- become the campaign arms of the candidate. As four solutions or way for things to work: I repeatedly stated in the convo, if a billionaire wants to bankroll a campaign to take on a large corporate interest in a way in which I support, I'm good with that. AND, if I'm good with it in a way I like then I must be equally OK with it in the other direction. What I rail against is the outrage machines of both main parties with their ideological wings. My solution, as in this convo based NOT on you but the person's in the video you posted, is to call it out, doggedly. I'm a dog. Bark!

What is the future of this country with this debt? No one comes out looking good. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/11/us-debt-forecast-to-hit-64t-in-a-decade-as-trump-policies-widen-deficit-00775726

@tallslenderguy you previously asked for thoughts, articles, and books: Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy Donald Kagan The reforms Pericles, instituted as part of Athenian Radical Democracy principles, was to pay politicians, jurists, and other government servants (incl. military). A fundamental reason was as Athens had not been doing so -- not paying government servants, and I'm tying into modern campaign finance here too -- the MORE corrupt and dependent those servants are to others OR the more wealthy they must be. Take Oregon, for instance, when I lived down there people talked happily about not paying their state politicians. I don't know the extent or if that still continues. Yet, this creates a class structure where only those of certain wealth can participate and/or are subject to backroom deals. Basically, if you work at McDonald's, you can't afford to be a state representative. And if you're not getting paid, you are more likely to be corrupted by money or influence.

But this is an assumption. What cannot be proven: would the candidate have done it anyway*, in your terms what a donor would, "perceive will benefit them" did the candidate seek out like-minded donors For instance, deregulation of the financial markets has been mainstay of the Republican platform for decades. So, is any donor to Republicans just cravenly greedy? Do they not have the right to believe deregulation is better? And, as always, voters get to have the final say: Isn't that the vote -- one person, one vote -- where this comes into play, exactly. In the last two elections, Dems have outspent Reps yet lost, the reverse has been true too. And sometimes the greater spender wins. Money doesn't guarantee electoral wins. So buying influence is a crap shoot and if it wasn't -- let's say a candidate or party is likely to win -- then they wouldn't need the money and be burdened by the influence you imply. My issue: Quick functional issues around this: aren't you instilling a two-party system? What about independents? etc. But I don't want to detract from your intent -- which I do have an issue with: Free speech is being able to support whomever you want. It becomes a very slippery slope when an authority -- via regulation like this -- determines how you can give support and when. And, play this forward: People will stop giving or lower their campaign donations as they don't want to equally support the opposition. But as I've tried to get across, voter influence during an election is driven by issues that are not limited to influence by campaigns. In your version, influence and money will flow outside of campaigns as people want to support their own thing. This flow can be more and more to "advocacy" groups -- which is separate from political regulations as they may not mention candidates or elections. I posted the article on a separate topic, influence is gained and hammered down by more than money, in the Political Extremes and Parties topic. Beyond advocacy there are other areas, e.g., corporate messaging, marketing and advertising. So, put this together, with campaigns raising less and/or with some type of equal dispersion -- they then become more dependent on special interest groups to facilitate basic campaign functions -- like GOTV and direct comms -- as the campaign have relatively little money. Again, this get to the referenced separate topic above, Political Extremes and Parties.

Exactly. A business, a corporation, a merchant...names of same meaning: people who are selling or trading goods and services. These people are not dependent on government and less dependent on others, esp. farmers. I'm not implying, as some do, to get rid of government. It has a role. I'm just saying they are not gov't entities. re: USPS, um, I don't know why we're having a tit-for-tat on this. If the US Federal gov't "goes away" as in my example, and now to your point above, re: Constitution, it's a null document -- the government it defines no longer in exists. But, as it has an income stream independent of taxation, the USPS can continue...if people want to mail stuff and send boxes and lease data files, etc.

I can't find/remember where I read it this week... an analyst somewhere, "sometimes the market shoots first and asks questions later." seems so appropriate on both sides of the AI bubble!

and this comment is way off thread topic, but I've always thought of either a "distance" tax (applied to physical distance of parts and finished goods/services) as a way to maintain physical communities...which is directly applied to a community redevelopment fund. But also a some kind of bigger-ain't-better progressive corporate tax system. I'm generally pro-business and pro-competition (in every sense), but I hate massive 1000s-of-employees type companies. They are, almost by definition, anti-competition. In my made-up world, we need a progressive tax system on corporate taxes like personal income. The first $10 million of annual revenue is $0%. The two items above are about building small and individual businesses.

This article nails a lot of the issues today, particular with my former party, Democrats. But the implications are not limited to it. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/06/democrats-questionnaire-interest-group-00767764 "...Some will surely bridle. This effort is meant to provoke [article's topic]. After all, one person’s “pet cause” is somebody else’s righteous mission."