The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter

a reply to: Sargeras

They do not force equality, they force their version of equality.

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.

Menchen call that over 90 years ago.

en.wikiquote.org...

I'm not entirely sure Menchen is a person anybody wants to be quoting....


"I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."

Men versus the Man: A Correspondence between Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist (1910), pg. 116


Also:

www.villagevoice.com...

a reply to: Painterz

Do I need to quote Johnson and his views on AA's ?

A hero of the left and gave us medicare, and medicaid.

Or how about SENATOR Robert Byrd the grand master himself.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
I find it ironic that the Right keeps claiming the Left wants to control people.

Here's your mirror.

As someone who is firmly in the middle it became readily apparent to me that both sides wish to impose their will on others. They are two sides of the same coin.

I don't see that at all.

What the Left forces - - is Equality - - and that everyone gets a chance.

Totally not the same thing.

They do not force equality, they force their version of equality.

If there were equality, everyone would be equal.

Instead some are more equal.

Affirmative action etc...

That is not equality, that is stacking the deck.

You have to include the second half - - which is why I included it.

". . . that everyone gets a chance".

Affirmation action gives opportunity - - not Equality.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Perhaps I am a dreamer, of sorts, to believe that one day we will get an honest, coherent discussion out of the person in question.

Also, it's fun to get down in the mud once in a while to remind myself that I am an imperfect human.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Republicans are OK with authoritarianism directed outside America's borders. Democrats are OK with it directed into America's borders. There's your difference. It's why the liberals lost their SNIP over the first run of the Patriot Act (which dealt predominantly with wiretaps and snooping on calls directed outside the US) but saw no issue when the second round of changes were made, establishing a laundry list of internal NSA eavesdropping on Americans and activities inside America's borders.

Republicans are also responsible for the War on Drugs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hows that when Johnson, and Kennedies Vietnam.

The CIA drug operations financed that WAR'.

a reply to: butcherguy

This study from Pew says otherwise

Granted the study was done in 2012, but the numbers seem to have steadily been inclining as far as percentages of Republicans being Christian. I don't think that trend would have changed in 3 years.

The GOP is seen largely a a Christian political party, I don't think anyone can argue that, just look at the Republican field right now, all are professed Christians (even Trump claims to be one). Their political ideology seems to clash with their saviors ideology of helping those in need and resisting worldly gain.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Republicans are also responsible for the War on Drugs.

And Democrats use it to present mass enforcement via their Authoritarianism.

I bet more Democrats have benefited from the police state that Republicans.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

LOL

You think "White evangelical Protestants" are the entire face of Christians?



a viscous stereotype.

a reply to: xuenchen

Did you stop reading after the first graph? There is more than just that one subgroup that is listed. Others include Catholics, Mormons, and Religiously unaffiliated.

originally posted by: Painterz
I'm not entirely sure Menchen is a person anybody wants to be quoting....


"I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."

Men versus the Man: A Correspondence between Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist (1910), pg. 116


Also:

www.villagevoice.com...

A lot of, if not most, quotes on the topic of authoritarianism come from authoritarians. Most were socialists including the advocates for eugenics.

It's where the term 'social engineering' comes from.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Pew research gives percentages of which way certain religious group lean, R, D or Independent.
It doesn't say what percentage of each party identifies as Christian, which is what your post that I responded to was referring to.

a reply to: greencmp

Dunno why they are acting like abortion isn't authoritarian.

I call it eugenics though they won't.

The systematic deliberate destruction of a people.

a reply to: xuenchen

Real Anarchy. Not this neo-anarchy or whatever the kiddos want to parrot around.

The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few.

Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like.

Source

I thought the world is black and white and absolute? Good vs. evil. Right vs. wrong? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't pick and choose where the authoritarian regime lies. It's either all or nothing. This is the absolutism-dichotomy and mindset conservatives embrace.

Thus, the conservative must concede that property is theft and that personal ownership of "things" is tantamount to authoritarian rule.

a reply to: greencmp

The term social engineering was coined by a businessman and entrepreneur that believed "social engineers" needed to be hired to help employers deal with their employee's "problems".

It was not coined by eugenicists.

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes. Authoritarianism is the topic. A group of people being branded authoritarian is.

And individual freedom, which includes individual ownership is it's opposite.

... and socialism, per se, is not synonymous with either authoritarian or -ism.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So the founding fathers were 'anarchists' ?

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

www.law.cornell.edu...

First example of property RIGHTS.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Another example of property RIGHTS.

It is straight up AUTHORITARIAN to claim X has right to someone else's property.

Like socialists say with regards to money.

Like the LEFT say when it comes to boom sticks that look scary.

Thus the LIBERAL even though they clearly represent the antithesis of the meaning of the word is THEFT.

Not only THEFT, but THEFT by authoritarianism.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: schuyler
So basically we have one guy who JUST HAPPENS to be writing his dissertation on authoritarianism deciding Trump supporters are authoritarian. Do you think maybe he has his authoritarian glasses on, or is Politico simply being insulting?

I am NOT a Trump supporter.

Is it also possible the polling data does show the trend he claims?

I saw no evidence in the article that he has tested this theory of his empirically. Has he sampled the populace with a recognized psychological test on "authoritarianism"? I'm speaking of something like the MMPI designed to measure this trait. No, he has not.

If he actually put his conclusions in his dissertation, he would fail for lack of scientific validity.

There is no evidence that this is not just his opinion.

a reply to: neo96

In order for it to be authoritarian, the fetus would have to be concious and aware that it was going to be aborted, and the woman having the abortion would have to be forced into having an abortion.

Neither of those conditions are met. Therefore, abortion is NOT authoritarian. YOU personally may hold that opinion, but your opinion does not make it fact.