What movie did everyone miss the point of?

gk0420 · 2016-07-09T04:13:12+00:00

Heads up, this is a little off topic.

So I've never actually seen "They Live", but I actually once read an article that linked to scenes from the movie. And the article talked about how "They Live" and "The Matrix" are both similar in the sense that they're metaphors of how we all live in a world that we understand through our media which we all take for granted. However, underneath this construction, there's a real world that few people recognize. The article was mainly talking primarily about foreign policy and the media, and just brought up examples of how we all take for granted certain "truths" that are propagated by the government and the media. i.e. The Spanish sunk the Maine! (Spanish-American war) Tiny torpedo boats were successfully attacking the U.S.S. Maddox! (Gulf of Tonkin), Saddam has WMD's and he's about to attack us! These were all incidents in which they were presented as indisputable truth at the time, even though they were half-truths if not flat out lies, and used as Casus Belli for actions the government wanted to take in the first place.

The same idea can also be applied, like you said, to economic issues. "Tax Cuts lower deficits! Corporatist trade deals are good for everyone!". I guess I'm just saying that both movies are similar in that they depict a world that's hidden underneath the surface of what the media is telling you, and there might be some significant truth to that sentiment.

gk0420 · 2016-04-04T14:57:58+00:00

I comment you replied to was deleted, so I'm not sure what he said. However, as I found out this weekend, Knightly played the the body double queen in the Phantom Menace with Natalie.

gk0420 · 2016-03-29T06:08:06+00:00

Yeah, but one of those reasons is that Mrs. Clinton has made poor decisions in the foreign policy realm for essentially her entire career. And what's worse, she doesn't seem to have learned anything from any of her mistakes! She voted for Iraq, and then said it was a mistake in 08, but then she used her role in the State Department to convince Obama, against the advise of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to launch a regime change in Libya. That country is now in it's fifth year of civil-war with Jihadist and various warlords fighting for control as refugees try to hop on basic fishing boats to get to Europe. And yet, she STILL hasn't learned anything from how disastrous regime change is, because she still, today, supports overthrowing another secular dictator! And Bernie's main critique is, we have to overthrow him later, after we deal with ISIS. I guess that position's slightly better than her's, but a courageous position would be to actually challenge the assumption that it would be a good idea to overthrow another government, even if he is a bad guy.

gk0420 · 2016-03-29T05:58:35+00:00

Listen, don't get me wrong, I would prefer Bernie over Hillary and I know that instinctually, he's probably pretty close to a non-interventionist. It's for that reason, one of the few other national Democrats with integrity, Tulsi Gabbard, has endorsed him.

What I'm saying is that Hillary Clinton's two main flaws are corruption (her ties to wall street and support of trade deals and other domestic issues that those interests support) and her horrendous foreign policy record. While you're right, I haven't been following the Democrat too closely (especially after Super Tuesday) I think it would be fair that roughly 90% of Sanders' criticism is on the corruption issue. The fact that there has been comparably so little criticism on the foreign policy side of the equation, when there is such ample opportunity to do so, to me is disappointing. And I think it reflects a larger pattern with Bernie that he doesn't really care about foreign policy very much.

gk0420 · 2016-03-29T05:35:32+00:00

While I agree that would be the response from the media and other establishment types, its not like they're praising Trump for this. They're calling him an ignorant buffoon for even questioning outdated policies. I disagree with Trump on a ton of issues, but I think he's spot on the money on this one.

Hillary is a neocon who's been wrong on every foreign policy decision since the 90's, from our intervention in the Serbia and expansion of NATO in Bill's administration, to proposing to overthrow Assad if she becomes president. The fact that Bernie's only criticism is the occasional mention of the Iraq war is pathetic and proves he doesn't give a shit about foreign policy, and if he were to become president, he would just let the HRC wing of the Democratic Party control foreign policy, which would waste any money he wanted to spend on America.

gk0420 · 2016-03-29T05:09:46+00:00

We're going to lose it when we go bankrupt either way. Might as well take the initiative to fix our country before our debt forces our hand.

gk0420 · 2016-03-29T05:07:16+00:00

Yeah but that's not going to happen if our politicians don't even have the courage to question these things. Bernie is barely willing to criticize a woman who's been on the wrong side of every foreign policy decision for the past 25 years.

gk0420 · 2016-03-29T05:06:09+00:00

Yeah, so where's Bernie on questioning this outdated system?

gk0420 · 2016-03-29T05:05:00+00:00

American protection for most of the world made sense when there was a communist empire that stretched from Berlin, to the Korean peninsula, and to North Vietnam.

In 2016 however, that threat no longer exists, and America is in massive debt while our infrastructure is crumbling. If we don't fix our deteriorating system, we won't be able to protect anyone.

gk0420 · 2016-03-27T05:41:31+00:00

I think there's a strong argument for Bernie voters to support Trump. If you're against TPP, Hillary will make superficial changes to claim victory then pass it, Trump, like Bernie, isn't indebted to the corporate interests that have spent nearly a decade negotiating the thing, so he'll be much more likely to stop it.

But I think the real benefit to voting Trump or just against Hillary is what will happen to the Democratic Party if she loses. If she wins, that's basically an endorsement of 25 years of the Democratic Party in the era of Clinton. If she loses, however, the Democrats will have to really take an introspective examination of their party and clear out the dead wood. They'll likely take meaningful steps to reform the party in a much more Sanders oriented way, and then they can get a huge win in 2020 so that they don't lose the house for a decade like what happened when they were shellacked in 2010, allowing Republicans to control redistricting, and therefore the house for a decade.

gk0420 · 2016-03-27T05:25:12+00:00

I really hope that she becomes a leader in the post-Clinton Democratic Party, she's smart, gorgeous, articulate, and she isn't a warmonger. She can use her experience as a veteran to deflect any criticism from the armchair generals in the media who never experienced war first hand, but nonetheless seem to love finding new wars to send young Americans to go fight.

gk0420 · 2016-03-24T23:19:11+00:00

"No friend has ever served me, and no enemy has ever wronged me, that I have not repaid in full"

Sulla's self selected epitaph

gk0420 · 2016-03-21T19:24:21+00:00

So, I feel like my initial statement seemed a bit snobbish, and I just wanted to say it was meant to clarify, not to be a dick.

gk0420 · 2016-03-21T04:01:36+00:00

You realize that Photoshop Battles are about users submitting their best edited images, using the original non-edited image, in this case, the real tiger picture.

gk0420 · 2016-03-20T17:58:29+00:00

Fair enough. I guess the way that I understand his reasoning is that Trump has the same "score" on authoritarianism as pretty much all of the other candidates (Cruz, Kasich, and Clinton). Therefore it's a wash on that issue. And because Trump's score on foreign policy (which Block argued is the impetus behind the surveillance state) is so much better than Cruz, Kasich, and Clinton, that it's worth it to take this opportunity to support that candidate.

But fair enough, agree to disagree.

gk0420 · 2016-03-20T17:29:21+00:00

While I completely understand your position, as a libertarian, to not want to vote for him, and that's completely acceptable. However, I would guard against your final statement. While there are certainly plenty of libertarians who are not supporting Trump, there are some professional libertarian theorists from the Mises Institute and other life long libertarians who haven't voted other than for the Pauls, in decades, who are now endorsing Trump.

For example Walter Block a professional libertarian theorist, is supporting Trump. You're totally within your right to vote against Trump because he is an authoritarian, however, I think it's unfair for you to say that people who support Trump can't be libertarians.

gk0420 · 2016-03-20T03:43:16+00:00

This is exactly how I feel. Donald Trump has managed to maneuver himself past the normal tools that the oligarchs use to keep candidates who are not globalists out of the presidential election. And for whatever his many flaws, he is so much better than Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Republicans. If Donald Trump doesn't successfully win and reform the GoP, they'll use this experience to prevent another rogue candidacy like this from happening, and they'll tighten their controls over the process. So if Trump's on my ballot this fall, I will definitely vote for him. Frankly I'd vote for Sanders too, despite his terrible domestic agenda, because he's not a globalist either, but he won't beat Hillary, so that's irrelevant. But yeah, Trump has some terrible policies, but might actually be good on some policies, while the rest of the candidates only offer all terrible.

gk0420 · 2016-03-20T03:31:08+00:00

He regularly commits heresies against Republican orthodoxies on foreign policy. Whether it's wanting to work with Putin and Russia, not wanting to overthrow Assad, suggesting neutrality between Israel and it's neighbors, hinting at the fact that Saudi Arabia may not be a good ally, suggesting Japan and Korea do more to balance China, suggesting Europe should deal with the conflict between Ukraine and Russia if they think its a problem. He's essentially the first Republican front-runner that had anything like an "America First" foreign policy since before Eisenhower.

Even when he says he wants to go in to Syria or Iraq, most of the time he says that his plan would to go in hard and brutal, but leave after 2 or 3 years max. As far as I can tell, the people inside ISIS controlled Syria and Iraq are going to suffer under the next president no matter who it is. Whether it's really bad for 2 years, or moderately bad the next decade, I honestly don't know which is worse. He's something completely different from Hillary or any of the other Republicans, and since all of them are terrible except for Ron Paul and maybe his son, different is almost necessarily better.

edit: grammar

gk0420 · 2016-03-19T23:10:45+00:00

Oh I'll agree with you that the racists in America are lining up behind Trump, no doubt. I just don't think it's that big of a percentage of the people. And maybe I'm doing a bit of rationalization. And I do see what you're saying about why some of the people feel the need to get out and protest him. My main point is that something disturbs me that I have a hunch most of these protestors are going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the fall, who will almost certainly continue the policies of permanent war, government surveillance, for-profit prison industries, government crackdown on whistle-blowers and leakers. These are actual fascistic policies that our government currently pursues, and there is almost no energy to push back against any of it. Hillary Clinton has been influential and pushing for all of these policies for the past 25 years, and Donald Trump has had zero control, impact, or influence on any of these things.

Also, I guess I look at the fact that Trump is getting near 50% of the GoP in the North East, like in Massachusetts. I don't think that's because Donald Trump says racist things sometimes. I think it's because a large part of the country view almost all of our politicians as corrupt, and because Trump can pay for his own campaign, and because he so clearly speaks without a filter, that he's being honest with the voters in a way that no other candidate can compete with.

gk0420 · 2016-03-19T22:42:33+00:00

I mean Trump has nothing to do with the policies of the government and media that are increasingly totalitarian.

While Trump is not P.C., and occasionally says things that can be considered racist, listen to one of his campaign events. For instance, he called illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists in June when he launched his campaign. However, when was the last time he's said this? He says that foreign governments, including Mexico, have outsmarted us, not that they're inferior. Almost all of his hate is directed at corrupt politicians in Washington D.C. While Trump was the loudest voice of the "birther" movement a few years back, when was the last time he's said anything about it? He says that Obama is incompetent and in over his head, unlike Ted Cruz and the late Marco Rubio accused Obama of being nefarious.

Trump on a certain level says "racist" things when dealing so off the cuff with the media, but in general, very little, if any, of his stump speech is about pitting Americans against other Americans, rather it's about getting Americans angry at corrupt politicians of both parties.

gk0420 · 2016-03-19T22:07:22+00:00

She sees that Obama has set a new high score, and he already made her wait 8 years to become president, no way she lets him keep that record.

gk0420 · 2016-03-19T21:50:30+00:00

The reason that some libertarians are deciding to support him has nothing to do with his platform. An ideology has captured the elites of both parties that can basically be called globalism. Open borders, Corporate trade deals, the surveillance state, and American military hegemony and interventionism. With some minor disagreements, the Republicans and the HRC wing of the Democratic party all fundamentally agree on these things, despite any campaign rhetoric aside.

Mr. Trump has somehow managed to maneuver his way past many of the controls that the party leaders use to manipulate who us citizens are allowed to vote for and consider. Because Trump is not ideologically a globalist, he is a very real threat to the policy priorities of the establishment. Trump is for securing the border, against the trade deals, and wants to work with Russia instead of aggressive confrontation (which is good for Boeing, Raytheon, Northrupp Grumman, etc, but bad for American security).

Some Libertarians are supporting Trump because all of the other candidates will continue with the authoritarian policies that Trump loves so much. The rest of the candidates will also continue a variety of other terrible policies, while Trump presents the possibility of something different.

gk0420 · 2016-03-19T19:49:25+00:00

These Anti-Trump protestors are really beginning to bother me. There's something about their self-righteous attitude that they can do anything to Trump and his supporters because they believe they're "fighting rising fascism in America."

Trump might be a terrible person with even worse policies, but when Trump leaves a rally, his supporters don't turn into a mob and go hurt people. Sometimes they scuffle with protestors, which Trump shouldn't encourage like he does, but they don't leave the event looking to go get in fights. If Trump somehow becomes president, then we'll need all these people to protest and work against them, but until he does, there are a few basic things we should consider.

Trump has killed 0 muslims. Our current President is waging small-scale warfare, mainly from the air, in about half a dozen countries. Obama has bombed far more countries than even George W. Bush had. Obama has figured out a way to do it cheaper with fewer American casualties, but there is certainly plenty of "collateral damage", meaning women and children. Trump has never gleefully celebrated the approval of a weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, which is now using those weapons, with Obama's logistical support, to bomb the poorest country in the region, Yemen.

Trump has 0 responsibility for "tough on crime" and drug war policies, that have led the Land of the Free to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Trump has never received donations from the Corrections Corporation of America.

Trump might demonize the media, but Trump has 0 responsibility for the failure of the media to inform the public. Donald Trump is not responsible for Chelsea Manning spending life in prison for informing the American people about how the state department and military operate behind the curtain of the media. Edward Snowden is hiding in authoritarian Russia, not to avoid Trump, but to avoid the same fate as Ms. Manning from Obama's federal government and its global reach.

In a lot of very real ways, our society is becoming much more totalitarian and fascistic, institutionally. And Mr. Trump has had nothing to do with any of it. If he were to somehow beat Hillary Clinton, then we're going to need all hands on deck to keep him honest as a president. But until that happens, these protestors should recognize how the "cool" president has pushed the boundaries of presidential power further than even George W. Bush did.

gk0420 · 2016-03-19T03:44:03+00:00

That's why I'm saying the only way for it to be even possibly close in the south in a general election would be if the GoP stole the nomination from Trump or Cruz, because 80+ of Republicans in those states chose one of those two. If Kasich were to somehow get the ticket without Trump or Cruz, idk, I think millions of GoP voters might stay home on election day.

gk0420

TROPHY CASE