The Empire Strikes Back

I think when Trump says 'again' he is referencing a more Reagan type of era, trying to manage soft landings economically while not sticking their heads in the sand geopolitically. The later tends to let problems grow until they get too big to ignore, and while more popular locally and easier on the economy in the short term, its a short sighted approach which has shown to be more costly in the longer run seemingly. It's this short v far sighted approach which seems to best define the left v right these days IMO.

And assertions of 'empire' seem a bit of a stretch, sort of in line with that left approach to actually ignore a whole basket of problems as if they were not there by making them out to be creations of engagement with them. But if I had to pick countries closer to acting like an empire it would be the two large Eurasian powers, but that is more an ideological growing pain as they are both fully entrenched and engaged in the wider globalized free market capitalist economy now. It's more about old habits securing national political identity so the old guards can stay in charge in the face of higher personal wealth - because wealth equals power. In those socialist communist hybrid economies its still the minority of ultra wealthy elites, its just the machinery under them which is different. The more compelling argument for me is that they actually disconnect the population from accessing wealth while democracy enables it. The downside in both is that if you don't have money, you don't have power - its just capitalism enables one to actually move from zero to hero, while the other system has a solid ceiling which cannot be broken through.

So in regards to security, its more complicated... to assert empire would seem to be using the old language of competing cultural nations when the current world is a globe of competing national economies. So in the context of security, its global. And the Cold War was the transition from cultural nations to national economies, two systems duked it out across the globe and capitalism won out by virtue of its efficiencies enabling advantages. It was that which defined US foreign policy for the last 70 odd years... not some US hegemony.

Basically economic security is now a global responsibility, and where conflict interacts with economic activity it tends to be addressed by those economies willing and able to do so. The US just happens to be the one who is most able to do so, and it and others still fears that some other nations might abuse the system if given the chance.... like Russia in Crimea, Georgia and Syria or China in the Spratly Islands, Tibet and Taiwan. Which leads the discussion to the trade war currently.... it could be argued that in the last century China was afforded huge market advantages so that it integrated away from socialist isolationism and moved like it has to free market capitalism, and that now its success and integration is such that it is unfair to remain with those advantages. Trump might say that a re-balancing needs to occur to even the playing field... and China might say that is unfair to move the goal posts.

But a good place to start might be defining what an Empire might look like in this current world, rather then trying to pick attributes from various nations. To me a SW Empire is one which exerts military power to control governance of resources, be it human capital, minerals, transport corridors etc. The problem is providing security to enable a free market can appear like this if its only one entity doing the security... which is where we sort of are now with the US. But in reality there are other nations participating in securing free market, such as in the NW Indian Ocean there are various nations navies protecting shipping to and from the Suez Canal from pirates launching from places like Yemen and Somalia etc. So I think its easy to cast the US as an empire, but I think its inaccurate. For instance, the US in Iraq invited Saddam to hand himself over to avoid an invasion, but he denied. And once in they switched to a security role against foreign Jihadists rather then domination and colonization. They worked to setup self governance and when able, packed up and left. That is not what an Empire does. Naturally the area is a mess because that area has existing long standing problems but that is beside the point. Not only that but it destroyed the main narrative of Al Qaeda that the US were trying to occupy and control the Mid East, and the younger generation throughout the Arab world reacted with the Arab Spring Uprising to try and reject their status quo and move closer to the West. But its a very complicated topic with lots of variables, both seen and unseen.... and the mainstream media is often not the best way to understand what is going on.

So to me the 'Sith' hehe, would be those who lie and misrepresent the bigger picture rather then the smaller details... because the bigger picture is the more important game and getting that wrong means everything else does not matter. Unfortunately an example would be Obama in trying to appeal to Iran seemingly created the conditions for Iran to start supplying weapons to Yemeni terrorists and the whole of Yemen become a disaster since then, not to mention now there are attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf and increased terrorist attacks against Israel. So ignoring the wider reality to be popular would be an example of focusing on the small at the expense of the large. I think the role of federal level government is specifically to focus on the large, and other more local levels of government can focus on the smaller issues, down to who is the most popular local mayor to reflect local sentiments on small issues. Perhaps Empire does away with that structure as well to some extent, all hail the emperor... or else.

As Jedi I believe we should seek to be responsible and informed citizens. While simultaneously distancing ourselves to some extent from the influences of political pressures and the extremist ideologies which plague these institutions. I do not believe that the U.S. is an empire although it is an Imperialistic, Capitalist system and its Republican governing bodies have become decayed and manipulated as in the old republic in Star Wars

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

Gee... I dunno. The same way Trump could go bankrupt 6 times and keep asking for Loans and keep getting loans to the point that he owes Deutsche Bank more money than I will ever earn in my life. How is that fair? Who's money is that? Let's not ignore the fact that people "borrow" money all the time. I don't know a single American that has never used a Credit Card. For somethings (like car rental) it's hard to do without it. And what is an unsecured credit card? Is it your money? Or the banks? But wait.... is it really the banks money? Or is it the collective money of all the people who have accounts + some extra magical juice that the bank is able to borrow from the government. And whose money is that?

So when Chase wont loan me $500 (I'm sure they probably would since my credit isn't that bad) which isn't their money to begin with how it is this not a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich when the rich can borrow millions of dollars under the presumption that the risk will be worth the reward?

And let me be perfectly clear. If you gave me $300 million dollars because you're willing to invest in me, I guarantee you I would buy assets that would generate enough wealth, not only for me to be rich, but to pay you back with interest. It's not that difficult. The test is whether you can manage those assets and Trump has failed many times in doing so. You can hire people to help you if you have a large enough portfolio. My wife is a property manager. I wish a bank would give us $300M. But no, Trump gets it and he gets it because he helps the bank wash money. Let's be real. US banks wont touch him for good reason. And once again, where does this money come from? Did he earn it? When the government gives subsidies to corporations, did they earn it? When the government gives tax breaks to the rich did they earn it?

That's simply not how our US economy works. Massive amounts of money are redistributed ALL THE TIME from the poor to the rich so that the rich can employ the poor to make stuff to sell that the poor have to pay for. And the poor have to pay for earning money as well as spending the same money they earned. And this enables corporations, not only to get free money like Amazon just got free money, but also get government contracts that they can pretty much bribe people into giving them. So there is a WHOLE HELLUVA LOT of giving other people money away. Redistribution of wealth IS the system (sorry for shouting) but again... its in denial so you can choose not to see it if you don't want to. But we all know "it takes money to make money" but most of us can't walk into a bank and ask for $300 million. So this system operates for the benefit of those who can ask and have it be given.

And yes... to get a traditional loan you can leverage assets like your house. If you don't have a house or other assets the bank can take from you if you fail you can put up a percentage of the funds. Therefore you can save up, maybe put 10K to get a house and then leverage your house to start a business. Of course, this is the way it works for some people more than it does for others which is why I said what I did about asking for wealth.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

We've built a society where people need money itself as a resource for survival. Far too much of it is being hoarded by far too few, more than they could ever use, never mind need.

There are valid, solid moral and ethical arguments to be made, but in light of our culture's self serving perversion of such things, I'll emphasize a practical argument:

Ask the French how well it works out when you maintain a policy of "Let Them Eat Cake ".

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

We've built a society where people need money itself as a resource for survival. Far too much of it is being hoarded by far too few, more than they could ever use, never mind need.

There are valid, solid moral and ethical arguments to be made, but in light of our culture's self serving perversion of such things, I'll emphasize a practical argument:

Ask the French how well it works out when you maintain a policy of "Let Them Eat Cake ".

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

I'm having a hard time understanding which line in the sand is the jumping off point for a person having too much wealth that they are seen as hoarding it. 100k a year? 10mil a year? 50k a year? To the destitute, 50k a year may be hoarding wealth. And is everyone worthy of a handout that's simply poorer than the ultra rich or do you have a criteria they must meet?

I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm neither a fan of socialism. Why is there a moral obligation to share your wealth with others?

As an aside, I do feel a moral obligation to share my wealth with my wife and kids; I don't feel the same obligation to share it with my neighbors. Are you saying I should if I was making enough money? How much would that be?

One is poor if they need to work to survive..... time poor, becuase someone else dictates a large part of their existence. But even having a loan means your working for the bank just to some much smaller extent. While money is not everything, surviving is, and getting more freedom is wealth. So I wouldnt attack wealth, but attack abuse of its potentials. The problem is its much much easier to lose then create - which is why handouts dont work. So while it might be easier to make money with more money, its also easier to lose. Hording is not greed, its economics..... its just the relationship with money has to change if its to grow.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

First, I will remark on what I could but wont remark on in order to keep this discussion civil:
"jealous"
"whining"

These are personal which, years ago, would make me defensive and look for an opening to hit the same ball back like in tennis. However, since I'm fairly certain that no one here will give credibility to these attacks I'll just practice restraint and ignore them.

To the point... which is quite ridiculous...

"You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

Trumps father made him a millionaire. This is now a recognized fact. Fred Trump made Donald a millionaire by age 8.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/trump-family-wealth.html

Fred also cheated on his taxes and taught Donald how to do the same. The Trump family didn't simply "work for it". They cheated for it; lied for it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/donald-trump-deutsche-bank-loans-lies

Where do you get the number 6? How exactly are you counting? There are websites have a "Top 10" of his business failures and a lot of the things Trump's name is on he doesn't actually manage at all.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/

He didn't write the Art of the Deal (and the actual author thinks he's a dangerous idiot). He didn't make The Apprentice successful because it was a fake reality show the whole time and had little to do with real business.

Sacrifice? Trump hasn't had to sacrifice a day in his life. Even though his personal loses accounted for an entire percentage point of the country's losses for one year in question, his ability to borrow (other people's money) is what keeps him rich and keeps his name marketable. He's not a stable genius. It's an illusion that other people create in order to profit on everyone who buys into that name as a "brand".

Ivanka tells a story that I know is true; about how they passed a homeless man and Trump said the homeless guy had more money than him. Think about that. At some point the homeless guy probably had a job. He worked. But because he wasn't making 200k a year, between his debts and expenses he could no longer sustain a place to live. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't take one being jealous to see this as unfair; that because Trump was born with a silver spoon and was able to lie to banks, that he should get to have a life of extreme wealth and materialism, cheat on his wives with porn stars and playboy models, while the rest of us do actual work and all he has to do is borrow more money. And again... where does this money come from? Thin air? No. It comes from the people who work for it and put their money in the banks that Trump lies to.

I don't have an opportunity equal to that. Even if I lied (which I wouldn't do) no one would believe I was already wealthy and would investigate any assets I claimed to have. This is easily done these days with title searches and the like. Trump only managed to get away with it, even then, because the assets he claimed were his were in the family. I have zero interest in getting rich by conning and manipulating other people. That's why I am not and could never be jealous of Donald Trump. If I am envious of anyone it's Elon Musk. Now there's a self-made man!

Adder wrote: One is poor if they need to work to survive..... time poor, becuase someone else dictates a large part of their existence. But even having a loan means your working for the bank just to some much smaller extent. While money is not everything, surviving is, and getting more freedom is wealth. So I wouldnt attack wealth, but attack abuse of its potentials. The problem is its much much easier to lose then create - which is why handouts dont work. So while it might be easier to make money with more money, its also easier to lose. Hording is not greed, its economics..... its just the relationship with money has to change if its to grow.

This is very well said. Sometimes people rush to a certain judgement simply to defend their party or their point. But we don't need to imagine that the other side is on some imaginary opposite extreme. "Oh you're not 100% down for pure capitalism? You must be a communist!" No... "OH, well then you must be a socialist!" Uh... no.

Just like we have a democracy it's not a pure democracy. We don't have pure capitalism either. That's because it is logical to put in checks and balances in order to protect the system from corruption. Because a pure profit motive isn't in the best interest of sick patients there should be checks that make sure people are taken care of. Wanting that doesn't make anyone a communist or a socialist. It's human. None of us are immune from getting a life threatening illness or getting hit by a car, or having an accident somewhere. And these these debts can stick to families for years and take away opportunities they would otherwise have.

Life is easier when you have money. But what no one tells you is how much extra you pay when you're poor. There's no "poor tax" but there are fees for paying late, reconnection, overdrafting, higher interest rates, and on and on. And that doesn't even include predatory lending, pay day loans, fake colleges, etc.

I have zero problems with Elon Musk. I love Elon Musk. I like Warren Buffet. I love Oprah. I'm not 100% sure about Bill Gates because of certain questions but he's probably okay too. I love what Akon is doing. I'm not against wealthy people in general but rather how they get there and whether or not it was legal and moral.

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

First, I will remark on what I could but wont remark on in order to keep this discussion civil:
"jealous"
"whining"

These are personal which, years ago, would make me defensive and look for an opening to hit the same ball back like in tennis. However, since I'm fairly certain that no one here will give credibility to these attacks I'll just practice restraint and ignore them.

To the point... which is quite ridiculous...

"You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

Trumps father made him a millionaire. This is now a recognized fact. Fred Trump made Donald a millionaire by age 8.

In the first place those are not personal attacks. I said I see them as attributes of the argument, not the individual. So no attack there except of the idea. As for how Donald got his money, well big deal. How did Fred get his money to give to Donald? Yea he started out just like the rest of us. Are you actually trying to say that Fred should have given his money to you, a total stranger, instead of his own son? Maybe your father should have worked harder so you could be a millionaire then right? It has to start somewhere and because trumps started a generation back is not an issue. He took those same opportunity you have and yet refuse to accept.

As for the claim of cheating and stealing well those are unfounded. Do you have proof he did did these things? These are just bandwagon claims that you have heard. Investigations sure, but no criminal wrongdoing ever found. And as for 10 business failings, so what? Even if it is 10, that is still out of 515 so pretty good track record there.

Trump may have been born with that silver spoon in his mouth but once again so what? His father was not. His father made the family fortune. and who ever said life was fair anyway? Life is not fair. How fair would it be if you worked your butt of for 1million dollars and then a bunch of people came along and said hey that's not fair, you need to give that to us and the govt is gonna make you do it! Is that fair? No that's thievery.

In fact you do have just as much opportunity as anyone else including Fred or Donald trump to make yourself rich. But it calls for sacrifice and risk and incredibly hard work. Anyone can do it. Most don't however because its human nature to take the path of least resistance most times. Well those rare individuals that do not take that path are the ones that prosper the greatest and they are the ones that have the ability for the amazing innovation that this country is known for. Hell Musk is going to put a man on mars soon! That takes drive and ego and wealth. I am not jealous of what he has accomplished, I admire it and I use him as a symbol to do more in my life. Instead of complaining that he has more than me and how unfair that is I celebrate the fact that he was able to achieve such greatness and I welcome that same opportunity in my life this great nation provides us all that is just there for the taking! I wouldn't have it any other way.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

First, I will remark on what I could but wont remark on in order to keep this discussion civil:
"jealous"
"whining"

These are personal which, years ago, would make me defensive and look for an opening to hit the same ball back like in tennis. However, since I'm fairly certain that no one here will give credibility to these attacks I'll just practice restraint and ignore them.

To the point... which is quite ridiculous...

"You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

Trumps father made him a millionaire. This is now a recognized fact. Fred Trump made Donald a millionaire by age 8.

In the first place those are not personal attacks. I said I see them as attributes of the argument, not the individual. So no attack there except of the idea. As for how Donald got his money, well big deal. How did Fred get his money to give to Donald? Yea he started out just like the rest of us. Are you actually trying to say that Fred should have given his money to you, a total stranger, instead of his own son? Maybe your father should have worked harder so you could be a millionaire then right? It has to start somewhere and because trumps started a generation back is not an issue. He took those same opportunity you have and yet refuse to accept.

As for the claim of cheating and stealing well those are unfounded. Do you have proof he did did these things? These are just bandwagon claims that you have heard. Investigations sure, but no criminal wrongdoing ever found. And as for 10 business failings, so what? Even if it is 10, that is still out of 515 so pretty good track record there.

Trump may have been born with that silver spoon in his mouth but once again so what? His father was not. His father made the family fortune. and who ever said life was fair anyway? Life is not fair. How fair would it be if you worked your butt of for 1million dollars and then a bunch of people came along and said hey that's not fair, you need to give that to us and the govt is gonna make you do it! Is that fair? No that's thievery.

In fact you do have just as much opportunity as anyone else including Fred or Donald trump to make yourself rich. But it calls for sacrifice and risk and incredibly hard work. Anyone can do it. Most don't however because its human nature to take the path of least resistance most times. Well those rare individuals that do not take that path are the ones that prosper the greatest and they are the ones that have the ability for the amazing innovation that this country is known for. Hell Musk is going to put a man on mars soon! That takes drive and ego and wealth. I am not jealous of what he has accomplished, I admire it and I use him as a symbol to do more in my life. Instead of complaining that he has more than me and how unfair that is I celebrate the fact that he was able to achieve such greatness and I welcome that same opportunity in my life this great nation provides us all that is just there for the taking! I wouldn't have it any other way.

Kyrin, an argument can't get jealous. So when you're talking to a person there is no way for them to assume you are personifying an idea to the extent that it can get jealous or whine. No, it is the person making the argument that can get jealous and whine, not the argument itself. Just sayin'

And to stay on the personal attack front for a second... an argument also cannot be communist or be a thief. But just to qualify my earlier statement, at no time did I state that I wanted anyone to give me something for free without exchange. I was speaking within the context of LOANS. Banks "give" loans. Credit is an institution "giving" you the right to use their money, not yours. So hopefully we can at some point get past that particular straw-man and bring the discussion back to what I was actually saying.

Another straw-man is the idea that I ever suggested one cannot or should not leave money to their children. My point to you was that Donald Trump did not make himself a millionaire and never had to work hard. It was given to him. Trump said his father gave him a "small loan". It was a million dollars. And when Trump got in trouble in Vegas, Fred came and bailed him out. This isn't rumors heard on the street. This is the result of journalism.

Don't forget what you said which is what I was responding to. You said: "You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

So I simply pointed out that he didn't. In this society it's often about who you know or are related to. There are alternate ways to get to wealth that has nothing to do with personal merit or effort. You can be dumb as a rock and wealthy. And the point is that these people, regardless of merit, can get (my/our) money from banks based off the assets they already own or even lie and claim they do. I would consider conceding to whatever point you were trying to make if Trump was still using the money he got from Fred but let's be honest. He lost it a long time ago. He went from bank to bank and didn't pay the money back and often didn't pay contractors. He screwed people over. That's why he had to get money from a foreign bank. You can't be millions in debt and be a millionaire at the same time. At least I don't know what alternate universe that works in. I consider myself in debt because I have a house note, car notes, and student loan, as well as credit card debt... like most Americans. And as I stated, I don't personally want Trumps "money". If I ever got rich I want it to be because I created something that people wanted to buy. So I'm not sure how you can color my argument as saying something different from me.

No criminal wrongdoing... huh?

According to USA Today Trump or one of his companies were defendants in 1,450 cases. Around 500 were dismissed, hundreds more ended without resolution in the public record. Where there was clear resolution Trump won 451 and lost 38. Now if you're limiting your scope to criminal liability... then sure... he hasn't actually shot someone on 5th Avenue. However, he did agree to settle for $25 million as recently as November of 2016 for Trump University where he also sued one of the ripped off students for defamation after she shared her experience on social media and he had to pay her $798,774 in legal fees and costs. Why so much?

One of the worst parts of our system is the fact that rich people can force you into a financial checkmate by taking you to court. If you can't afford to deal with whatever garbage the rich person's lawyers throw at you then you're in trouble and it can force a settlement. It becomes an unfortunate game of checkers where the winner is the one who has more pieces (money) on the board. And unlike Trump, everyone he sues can't borrow 300M from a single bank.

Another example...

In 2014 Trump hired a model named Alexia Palmer. Trump Model Management promised her $75,000 /yr salary but paid her only $3,380 not per year but for 3 YEARS of work! That's SLAVERY. They promised to withold 20% of her net pay as agency expenses but ended up taking 80%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Trump_University_litigation

The problem is that Trump is like a god to a lot of people and they don't care how he made his money, who he scammed and defrauded. That's what's BS.

So I guess I'm not sure what you are complaining about? You agree that fred made his fortune on his own and it was ok to give to his son. And if you think building over 500 business ventures is not hard work I dont know what to say. And if you think that sort of effort wont generate law suits well, your nieve.

If you are talking about securing loans for money only, then you have just as much right as anyone else, and they have just as much right to turn you down if you ask for 3m but dont have the collateral or investor backing or business plan to back up that request. You want the money, you need to prove your capable of not only handling it but paying it back same as anyone else. So I dont know what your complaining about there either.

From there you move on to this weird argument about financial checkmate and claims of criminal activities and judgements of payouts without any evidence to support your claim. Who cares how much was paid and why? Without all the facts your just guessing and unfairly judging.

Every one of your arguments are based in preconceived conclusions and cognitive bias. You decided you dont like rich people out of what I can only describe as, and yes I will say it, jealousy, and your cherry picking and skewing facts to fit your conclusion.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: So I guess I'm not sure what you are complaining about? You agree that fred made his fortune on his own and it was ok to give to his son. And if you think building over 500 business ventures is not hard work I dont know what to say. And if you think that sort of effort wont generate law suits well, your nieve.

You're naive if you believe that Trump, and not Trump Organization, started and ran that many companies and that that many companies ever existed as something beyond just a name on a piece of paper. And no, an organization like that does not have to generate a bunch of lawsuits. Most companies don't. Do you know why? Most companies have lawyers who they can run questionable decisions by and who look at company policies and things looking for liabilities to write or rewrite policies and guide practices to avoid such liability. But ultimately you're still going to get sued if you try to screw people, such as writing a 'C' on the applications of black people to deny them housing. And if you love using your money to sue and bully people then you'll use the courts fight people and try to take their money even though they haven't done anything wrong.

If you are talking about securing loans for money only, then you have just as much right as anyone else, and they have just as much right to turn you down if you ask for 3m but dont have the collateral or investor backing or business plan to back up that request. You want the money, you need to prove your capable of not only handling it but paying it back same as anyone else. So I don't know what your complaining about there either.

True statement. I have just as much "right" as anyone else. But I cannot get loans like anyone else. Bernie Sanders was just talking about this on his latest interview with Roland Martin. Feel free to watch. I love how people think that everyone has equal access to things in America. This is simply not the case. And because I don't have equal access I also have every "right" to complain. And when someone who shouldn't get a loan because of bankruptcies, inflating assets which is fraud, and gaining more assets by ripping people off can get a loan and I, by following the rules, can't then I have a right to complain. Of course, having a right to complain and creating a thread for the purposes of doing so are two different things. In this thread I'm trying to discuss America as an empire and whether people who are behaving as such are currently "striking back" by getting their way. This could be such things as immigration, women's reproductive rights, taxes, etc. If it's alright with you I'd like to get back to the stated questions that are the subject of this thread rather than a personal argument about whether I'm jealous or complaining.

From there you move on to this weird argument about financial checkmate and claims of criminal activities and judgements of payouts without any evidence to support your claim. Who cares how much was paid and why? Without all the facts your just guessing and unfairly judging.

Evidence? I was talking about settled cases with verdicts and rulings. What more evidence do you need than what's in the public record? Are you suggesting that we should re-litigate all these cases before mentioning their outcomes? Because that seems like a ridiculous ask and not something worth derailing the thread for. It's one thing to support Trump. It's another thing to disbelieve anything negative as if he's some kind of god who never does anything wrong and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I would love to know what manner of hypnosis his base seems to be under. I would really like to crack the code and understand why this support is so strong and why his supporters believe in him so much. But even this isn't the purpose of this thread.

Every one of your arguments are based in preconceived conclusions and cognitive bias. You decided you dont like rich people out of what I can only describe as, and yes I will say it, jealousy, and your cherry picking and skewing facts to fit your conclusion.

No, that would be true if the cases in question weren't over and settled. No bias is needed there. I don't even have to examine or question the rulings or presume guilt. He was innocent until the courts found against him. To ignore these findings would be a display of the cognitive bias you're asserting. And you're claiming I'm cherry picking without saying what and accusing me of skewing facts without saying which facts have been skewed. So in other words you're making a conclusion about me without evidence, guided only by your obvious pro-Trump bias. You also have not given any evidence on which to based "jealousy" on. Did you forget? You used this word from the very beginning but tried to have intelligent people believe that you weren't talking about me personally, but rather my argument. This was obviously false. Your preconception about the argument caused your mind to presume to know the reason that people might be anti-Trump. I have been providing you with other reasons but you seem to reject them in favor of your original presumption. Now that I have proven I was correct about your argument and entertained it for a bit, can I get back to what I'd like to talk about now? Because like I said before, I'm not jealous. I already told you on what basis I would accept such a lifestyle and qualified my statement that being "given" $3,000,000 was within the context of a loan and not what you presumed to be equivalent to thievery. I already told you how I admire Elon Musk as well as other rich people so your personal argument about me "not liking" rich people is contrived and baseless. One rich person cannot represent ALL rich people. What I do have something against is classism and racism and all those, rich or poor, who support these things.

So setting up a straw-man here in order to fixating the discussion on incorrect assumptions about jealousy and not liking rich people when some of my favorite people are rich, is simply not a winning strategy for debating me. What we have seen from your statements is that you don't care how Trump made his money. This is a fundamental difference that impede your ability to understand my perspective and that of others who question the direction this country is going in. I live in Dayton, Ohio. I don't live in the South. And yet, for the first time in my life my aging mother told me to avoid going downtown because there was a KKK march going on this weekend. I'm not jealous of the man who enabled that event to occur. I want to understand why people could support him in spite of it. Or maybe it is because of it. I want to understand. I'm not against you. I like you. I'm not here to accuse you. I just want to understand you.

Let me get back to the point.

The Empire is in denial because it doesn't want to see itself as a "bad guy". It represents its actions as good without the recognition that good for one isn't always good for others. After awhile "foreign interests" to help others start to take a back seat to what will reap the most profits. We blind ourselves to this because we don't want the responsibility of changing it. While in denial we stop caring how the US became an empire, who it took land from, who it used for cheap labor, etc. because this is the soylent green on which capitalistic nations prosper. While we can say, that this nation or that nations' leader is a monster and we need to get rid of them, the representative government often commits worse crimes and offences but simply argues that they are not crimes because there's no law against it. It was legal and therefore we should deny these wrongs. Because they're not wrong as long as you can simply change the label. If we judge by behavior it is an empire. If we judge by laws and dictionary definitions it's not.

If a man has an STD how do we know? Is it because he tells us? We may never be told he has an STD because it isn't in his interest to tell us. The STD can spread simply by virtue of the fact that he doesn't claim reality to be real and doesn't represent the truth about himself. You could say he's in denial but that isn't entirely accurate. It is true that he may be unaware of his condition but several people he sleeps with notify him that they have the STD and that he should get checked out... well then he has a clue. He could choose not to seek examination but this is a kind of denial, never wanting to ask the question because you don't want the definitive answer. It is also likely that he wants to continue the same behavior that contracted the STD in the first place. Disclosing the truth would make that harder so he may decide to simply omit the truth.

The US doesn't want to be thought of as an empire for the same reason. It would make running an empire extremely difficult. Many of its relationships are based on diplomacy. The fact that it has the most advanced military is a stick but using carrots help to keep opponents from allying against you. Therefore, the denial obviously makes it easier for that very thing to be true. And if it is true... it's not because it claims it, but rather because it fulfills the qualifications. A person doesn't have an STD because they say they do. Saying it simply allows other people to react to it.

A lot of people in denial simply because we benefit from the empire and its activities. We don't know it from the vantage point of those it sometimes crushes. We care about our farmers and how a trade war will effect them but now so much about the farmers in other countries who cannot compete with American products which have lower prices than theirs because they are subsidized by US taxpayers. Using subsidies is an economic weapon that effects regular people trying to survive. But as long as those subsidies can provide an economic foot hold there then after awhile the American product may knock out enough of its competitors to achieve more profit even after the subsidies expire (if ever). What I'm suggesting is that the US has evolved beyond having to fight every battle with troops. That is just one type of fighting. Using troops is very overt. Using economics and politics is more covert. But if the effect is the same then what difference does it make what you call it? It simply is what it is.

For a long time Palpatine was just a politician. Even suspecting otherwise, Jedi were hesitant to recognize him for what he was. I've always been interested in how that happened. Why couldn't they see? Is it arrogance or something else? And are we likewise choosing not to see something or denying its existence? It is my hope that through our examination of the possibility that we grow and gain the benefit of more introspection so that we can be the ones on the right side, adding to the solution and not the problem.

Question 1: Is the US government an Empire?

History much? Sumerians? Assyrians? Babylonians? Persians? Mongols? How many people did these empires crush? Any idea how the Japanese treated people during their efforts at empire? Read up on the Rape of Nanking, its pretty damn disgusting.

Russia is pretty white, though, are they an empire? If not now, were they ever? And/or could they become one in the near future? What about China? Have empires ever risen in Africa? The Ashanti, perhaps? The Kush? The Punt? The Swahili? Are there or have there ever been any Islamic empires? What about the Aztecs or Mayans, werent they empires? Did you know what the Mayans did to their prisoners? The prisoners they captured when they conquered their neighbors and took their land? Cut them open while theywere still alive and pulled their beating hearts out of their chests. Then chopped their heads off and put them on a spike on a rack. A long rack of human heads. Thousands of people every year. Yes, they really did that. Its not just a myth that white people made up to justify oppressing them. But i read your subtext and it seems to be only white people who have ever been villains. Or maybe thats not your subtext. Perhaps its my white fragility clouding my judgment? What a conundrum.

Empire building is a natural course of action for nations with the strength to do it. America was founded on ideas such as “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (unequally as it was originally applied) and the belief that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. America is a major contributor to the very idea that there is anything wrong with empires to begin with. Not taking sole credit, but giving credit where its due. I get the impression that you are holding America to a standard that doesnt even exits in many other places in the world and judging us with a racially biased sense of global politics and history. Only wanting to recognize the conquests and misdeeds of white people because white supremacy is the only villain you see. Thats my impression, anyway.

Sure, our government has engaged in many empire-like deeds over the course of our growth. But let me ask you this: what prevents an empire from conquering it’s neighbors? Nothing but the empire’s own moral restraint or its neighbor’s strength to resist them. At some point we stopped expanding north and west and south. We could possibly have taken the whole damn continent if we’d wanted to. Definitely Mexico and South America. And looking back at the last century of international warfare, conquest, and genocide, do you think we would be speaking english today if we hadn't had the strength of an empire? I dont. The world is not friendly. Global politics is fundamentally adversarial: we are in a competition with seriously high stakes and as much as I genuinely dislike the idea of America being a bully, i dislike the idea of America being bullied even more.

Im perfectly willing to be critical of our policies but ONLY if the criticism is predicated upon a basic foundation of patriotism. If your criticisms of America come from love and a belief that this is a good country and a good place to live and that criticisms are necessary because we have to be honest about our imperfections so that we can make the future better than the past, then im with you. Im pretty critical of America too, but only AFTER my recognition that as an American i am 100% on Team America. As Americans we can look together at the flaws of OUR country. If, however, you want to criticize America because you see us as the face of white supremacy and you want to expose and defeat the evil white man (which would be consistent with your comparison of us to a man with a venereal disease) then i have to say gtfoh. That would constitute a deliberate ideological attack on my society. Not WHITE society, mind you, AMERICAN society.

Racial tensions are stupidly delicate right now. There are people, black and white, whose goal is race separatism and who are literally trying to incite a race war. We are under an ideological attack that is intentionally seeking to fragment us into irreconcilable factions. Some of this comes from internal agents and some from external agents. Some of it is motivated by the ambitions of foreign intelligence operatives in their quest for enhancing their own empire. Some of it is motivated by genuine bigotry. Some is motivated by the understandable anger at a long history of mistreatment, the effects of which are still being felt and some of which still continues today. Some of this deliberate social fragmentation however, is rooted in the unhealthy resentment of an exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood. Black people who think that black Americans today face a situation on a par with Jews in Nazi Germany for instance, are operating on a very exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/member-discussions/121406-democracy-in-decline?start=0

The motives differ but the outcome is the same: more resentment on all sides. I put the blame for the consequences of this ideological battle on every single individual who is joining in the collective finger pointing campaigns to smear the other race- whichever race that individual comes from. I despise racism, including black racism. Yes, black people can be racist. We can get into that here or in another thread, or not at all- whatever you want. Or maybe not, ive gotten used to not being here and it may be another month before i even look at the forums again. Lets just say that theres more than one kind of power in the world and most everyone has some kind of it, at some time. Heres an interesting question for you: can you imagine a day when the NAACP is a racist organization but the Ku Klux Klan is not? That day is completely plausible (perhaps even LIKELY) by the very criteria used by those who insist that black people cannot be racist.

Question 2: Is it Striking Back? (MAGA)

Im not sure what you meant when you said this so i will just comment on what comes to mind. Leftists have this delusion that Trump was elected because America hates women and dark skinned people. Theres a misconception in “progressive” circles that white supremacists “struck back” after two terms of Obama. Im not going to explain, im only going to say that people who still believe this rhetoric are being irresponsibly obtuse. To those obtuse leftists i say this: you could (and by now, should have) actually talked to some Trump supporters and let them tell you why they voted for him. Then again, those who believe this think Trump voters are all white supremacists who are simply lying about it. You cant reason with unreasonable people. You explained earlier that racists might not admit racism because they benefit from it. That sword cuts both ways: maybe you wont admit your racism because youre trying to benefit from it? Maybe at some point we have to take each other at our word?

FYI I am politically liberal and I dislike Trump. I sure as hell didnt and wouldnt vote for him, though I dislike Hillary just as much (but thats another topic).

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Question 1: Is the US government an Empire?

History much? Sumerians? Assyrians? Babylonians? Persians? Mongols? How many people did these empires crush? Any idea how the Japanese treated people during their efforts at empire? Read up on the Rape of Nanking, its pretty damn disgusting.

Russia is pretty white, though, are they an empire? If not now, were they ever? And/or could they become one in the near future? What about China? Have empires ever risen in Africa? The Ashanti, perhaps? The Kush? The Punt? The Swahili? Are there or have there ever been any Islamic empires? What about the Aztecs or Mayans, werent they empires? Did you know what the Mayans did to their prisoners? The prisoners they captured when they conquered their neighbors and took their land? Cut them open while theywere still alive and pulled their beating hearts out of their chests. Then chopped their heads off and put them on a spike on a rack. A long rack of human heads. Thousands of people every year. Yes, they really did that. Its not just a myth that white people made up to justify oppressing them. But i read your subtext and it seems to be only white people who have ever been villains. Or maybe thats not your subtext. Perhaps its my white fragility clouding my judgment? What a conundrum.

Empire building is a natural course of action for nations with the strength to do it. America was founded on ideas such as “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (unequally as it was originally applied) and the belief that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. America is a major contributor to the very idea that there is anything wrong with empires to begin with. Not taking sole credit, but giving credit where its due. I get the impression that you are holding America to a standard that doesnt even exits in many other places in the world and judging us with a racially biased sense of global politics and history. Only wanting to recognize the conquests and misdeeds of white people because white supremacy is the only villain you see. Thats my impression, anyway.

Sure, our government has engaged in many empire-like deeds over the course of our growth. But let me ask you this: what prevents an empire from conquering it’s neighbors? Nothing but the empire’s own moral restraint or its neighbor’s strength to resist them. At some point we stopped expanding north and west and south. We could possibly have taken the whole damn continent if we’d wanted to. Definitely Mexico and South America. And looking back at the last century of international warfare, conquest, and genocide, do you think we would be speaking english today if we hadn't had the strength of an empire? I dont. The world is not friendly. Global politics is fundamentally adversarial: we are in a competition with seriously high stakes and as much as I genuinely dislike the idea of America being a bully, i dislike the idea of America being bullied even more.

Im perfectly willing to be critical of our policies but ONLY if the criticism is predicated upon a basic foundation of patriotism. If your criticisms of America come from love and a belief that this is a good country and a good place to live and that criticisms are necessary because we have to be honest about our imperfections so that we can make the future better than the past, then im with you. Im pretty critical of America too, but only AFTER my recognition that as an American i am 100% on Team America. As Americans we can look together at the flaws of OUR country. If, however, you want to criticize America because you see us as the face of white supremacy and you want to expose and defeat the evil white man (which would be consistent with your comparison of us to a man with a venereal disease) then i have to say gtfoh. That would constitute a deliberate ideological attack on my society. Not WHITE society, mind you, AMERICAN society.

Racial tensions are stupidly delicate right now. There are people, black and white, whose goal is race separatism and who are literally trying to incite a race war. We are under an ideological attack that is intentionally seeking to fragment us into irreconcilable factions. Some of this comes from internal agents and some from external agents. Some of it is motivated by the ambitions of foreign intelligence operatives in their quest for enhancing their own empire. Some of it is motivated by genuine bigotry. Some is motivated by the understandable anger at a long history of mistreatment, the effects of which are still being felt and some of which still continues today. Some of this deliberate social fragmentation however, is rooted in the unhealthy resentment of an exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood. Black people who think that black Americans today face a situation on a par with Jews in Nazi Germany for instance, are operating on a very exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/member-discussions/121406-democracy-in-decline?start=0

The motives differ but the outcome is the same: more resentment on all sides. I put the blame for the consequences of this ideological battle on every single individual who is joining in the collective finger pointing campaigns to smear the other race- whichever race that individual comes from. I despise racism, including black racism. Yes, black people can be racist. We can get into that here or in another thread, or not at all- whatever you want. Or maybe not, ive gotten used to not being here and it may be another month before i even look at the forums again. Lets just say that theres more than one kind of power in the world and most everyone has some kind of it, at some time. Heres an interesting question for you: can you imagine a day when the NAACP is a racist organization but the Ku Klux Klan is not? That day is completely plausible (perhaps even LIKELY) by the very criteria used by those who insist that black people cannot be racist.

Question 2: Is it Striking Back? (MAGA)

Im not sure what you meant when you said this so i will just comment on what comes to mind. Leftists have this delusion that Trump was elected because America hates women and dark skinned people. Theres a misconception in “progressive” circles that white supremacists “struck back” after two terms of Obama. Im not going to explain, im only going to say that people who still believe this rhetoric are being irresponsibly obtuse. To those obtuse leftists i say this: you could (and by now, should have) actually talked to some Trump supporters and let them tell you why they voted for him. Then again, those who believe this think Trump voters are all white supremacists who are simply lying about it. You cant reason with unreasonable people. You explained earlier that racists might not admit racism because they benefit from it. That sword cuts both ways: maybe you wont admit your racism because youre trying to benefit from it? Maybe at some point we have to take each other at our word?

FYI I am politically liberal and I dislike Trump. I sure as hell didnt and wouldnt vote for him, though I dislike Hillary just as much (but thats another topic).

What-about-isms sure are a great way to deflect, huh? Beats making a real counter argument, I guess.

Sooo... Criticism, in your description, should only come from a subset of our society least inclined to criticize it?

Well I say "in a wealthy man's house there is no where to spit but his face ", so I WILL criticize, whether it's patriotic enough or not.

Past wrongdoings, no matter how loosely relevant, do not invalidate criticism of current wrongdoings; your logic is merely flawed and shortsighted, at best, and at worst, is thinly veiled excuse to alleviate a sense of guilt, achieved by diminishing wrongdoings.

You want to pull the race card, huh? Well I'm white, too, and I don't act nearly so hostile and defensive simply for knowing the discussion is being lead by an intellectual black man with a dissenting opinion from the status quo.

To paraphrase the now controversial Bill Cosby, if the criticism bothers you so much, than maybe it needed to be said?

You can't lead the free world while working to make it less so; you can't credibly claim to be the good guys who care about freedom while putting boots to necks.

And you cannot own up to being a violent and warlike people, and expect to be taken seriously when trying to argue that it's not wrong when WE do it. More quoting! "It is very easy to confuse What Is with What Ought Be, particularly when What Is has worked in your favor. "

This string of opinions has been brought to you by, Not a Patriotic Citizen (I just live here, man)

Kelrax wrote: You can't lead the free world while working to make it less so; you can't credibly claim to be the good guys who care about freedom while putting boots to necks.

What is your definition of freedom here? If it means allowing illegial immigrants to continue to slowly invade then your damn right we can lead the free world while at the same time enforce the rules of our boarders and letters of our laws. And as for being the good guys, well that calls for putting boots to necks when it's called for. A paper hero is no hero at all. Freedom is won with blood, mostly the ability to make the enemy bleed more.

ZealotX wrote: And no, an organization like that does not have to generate a bunch of lawsuits. Most companies don't. Do you know why? Most companies have lawyers who they can run questionable decisions by and who look at company policies and things looking for liabilities to write or rewrite policies and guide practices to avoid such liability.

You are just factually wrong here. Any multi conglomerate company such as Trumps is faced with anywhere between 50 and 150 separate lawsuits at all times on average during its existence. Look it up. Take a company like ATT for example. They have one of the most prolific legal departments ever in operation and yet they have been sued by the govt over a dozen times. This isn’t even to mention competitors and private individuals and groups.

ZealotX wrote: True statement. I have just as much "right" as anyone else. But I cannot get loans like anyone else… I love how people think that everyone has equal access to things in America. This is simply not the case. And because I don't have equal access I also have every "right" to complain.

I never said anyone had equal access to anything. I said everyone has equal opportunity. You have no right to equal access. If you don’t have access to something it’s because you have not used your opportunity to gain it and because of that you have no right to complain about that or complain about others that have done the work to gain that access. If you want the access, stop complaining and do the work!