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

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, it does. The property has ownership over the individual.

The individual has the "sell" his time and labor to aquire the material property, therefore it has authoritarian power and control over him. Anything you own not only has control/power over you, you use it to control and have power over others.

According to anarchy, no one has a "right" to anything, and everything is owned by everyone. Everything belongs to everyone, and only through voluntary action do human beings trade their time and services to accomplish anything.

The proponents for anarchy and "no government" really haven't done their homework. Anarchy does not mean a state of chaos. It is a political ideology which gave rise to Maxism.

This is why I find it so ironic that so many conservatives and libertarians find what they think of as anarchy appealing. Anarchy is far, FAR closer to Communism and Marxism than anything else.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Both parties were/are responsible for the laws that created the War on Drugs.

I'm blaming the party responsible for bringing the idea to the forefront then escalating it later and NOW preventing any legislation to wind it down from going through. This is all Republican.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm blaming the party responsible for bringing the idea to the forefront then escalating it later and NOW preventing any legislation to wind it down from going through. This is all Republican.

And I am going to place the blame where it belongs, on both of them.

You just said the DEA runs the show. Who runs the DEA? How come Dear Leader does not use his pen and his phone on this one?

Just so we are clear, I think this laws are moronic and should go but the Democrats have no intention of doing this or they could have ditched them between 2009 and 2011.

One weird trick advertisements

One weird trick, or 1 weird old tip, or one weird old trick and other variants are a form of clickbait advertising that has been ubiquitous on the internet since around the late 2000s. The formula used in the adverts was first applied to weight loss products but has since been extended to cures for everything from hair loss to diabetes.[1][2][3] In 2011 the Federal Trade Commission launched legal action against the promoters of the adverts, who they said had conned millions of people out of their money.[4][5]

And now this

+1 for clickbait titles I know I know you didn't make it up.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Sargeras

You see, equality means we are all treated equally.

Here is another golden oldie.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Aristotle

Hard to argue with a mind like Aristotle, he is the Aaron Rogers of philosophy!!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Both parties were/are responsible for the laws that created the War on Drugs.

Clinton’s 1994 omnibus crime bill included mandatory minimum sentences, even for minor offenses such as drug crimes.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And you would be RIGHT unlike like others that 'solely' blame Republicans.

Didn't Trump say he supports eminent domain ? Who supporting " socialist democracy" has suggested no one can own private property?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

But Communism and Marxism require ultra-Authoritarian policies and massive bureaucratic enforcement with extreme penalties for non-compliance.

At least the "RIGHT" set it up so the people can decide, You cant dO that on the "LEFT" BECAUSE THE "left" wants to decide for You, so now how can You argue who is more stupid, the people following the person on the right or left,,,,,,,BLING BLING!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd say that Nixon and Reagan both started and then amped up the war on drugs. All democrats did was just agree with them. Though democrats in this day and age are more open to changing these laws than Republicans are. I continue to solely blame Republicans for the war on drugs. It's their baby completely.

Technically, FDR started the war by supporting and signing the US Narcotic Drug Act in the 30s. LBJ ramped up enforcement tremendously in the 60s, especially with regard to institutionalizing users (though in a great example of double speak, he said "criminalizing addicts doesn't help the problem" while calling their institutionalizing "civil confinement" rather than "jailed." Clinton signed one of the most damaging bills in drug enforcement history with his "Three Strikes" law... which treated non-violent personal use drug possession crimes as being on level ground with violent crime.

The Democrats didn't just "agree," they helped participate.

Oh, and you seem to be forgetting that the Republicans have an entire wing of Right Libertarians/TEA Party supporters. We don't give a flip what anyone smokes, snorts, shoots, chews, bakes, highballs, chugs, drops, bangs, chips, or otherwise gets into their system. It's their body, their choice, their life, ya? Look at my own state, Alaska... we haven't voted for a Democrat POTUS since 1964. In fact, the state hasn't had a Democrat Congressman in DC since 72 and only voted a Dem Seantor (Begich) in thanks to 7 felony counts against Ted Stevens (and Begich *barely* won even then). We just legalized recreational grass 54%-46%. The religiousness has a lot more to do with opinions on drugs than partisanship does, IMO.

In a similar vein, Democratic governors seem loathe to entertain the idea of state decriminalization: www.nytimes.com...

Your position does not hold up in a world where die-cut progressives like Jerry Brown and Bernie Sanders are loathe to allow states to legalize, very liberal Republicans like Chris Christie and Marco Rubio want federal laws fully enforced to block states from making the choice, and (allegedly) far right Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rick Perry are advocating making it a purely states' rights issue... Again, which is more authoritarian: "The states should be allowed to decide their own law, even though I am personally opposed to pot" or "The health affects are too risky to let the people and states decide, so we need to keep the federal law strong to save these people from themselves?"

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yes, it does. The property has ownership over the individual.

My House, and car doesn't tell me what to do or make me pay it a 'living' wage.

My property doesn't make me do anything.

Can't say the same for my government.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

My apologies.

I guess we are talking about two different things.

Though I do have to ask, what does eugenics and "social engineering" have to do with an authoritarian Right Wing?

Eugenics is an obvious example of authoritarian/totalitarian cultural regulation.

Why?

An authoritarian can certainly choose it. But, its not an automatic authoritarian thing.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Annee

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.

No it strips opportunity, by forcing racially motivated quotas. So a minority even though less qualified, maybe even unable to perform the job, gets it instead of a qualified person of the " wrong" race.

There are X amount of opportunities in the country, if you force some to be given based solely on race, they must be stripped from deserving majority citizens based on their race.

This is the exact opposite of equality.

You see, equality means we are all treated equally.

That means nobody gets pandered to, that means we all have the same rights and privileges.

Only if society treats you equally. It doesn't.

Just being born a white male puts you at the front of the line - - without any other causation.

Just a fact.

Here is the ONE THING that lets me know someone is a Trump supporter,,THEY ARE ANTI ESTABLISHMENT.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Sargeras

You see, equality means we are all treated equally.

Here is another golden oldie.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Aristotle

Equal Opportunity is not making an unequal thing equal.

a reply to: Annee

So awesome being here in the front of the line...

a reply to: Annee Are You insane? You must be from a wealthy family to think that way because Ive never been given anything. There have never been any advantages to me being white.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Annee

So awesome being here in the front of the line...

Good for you.

Just a reality.

a reply to: Annee

So it's not subjective?


As you wave your all knowing hand?

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Annee

So it's not subjective?


As you wave your all knowing hand?

I'm not going to argue the White Male privilege.

It is what it is.