Your quoted bit says: "Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian."
We're talking respondents, i.e. people, not regimes. It's not my problem if you can't read properly.
kurtster wrote:
Really ?
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 tomeasure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ? (...)
Nope, I got it right. The goal of the questions are ... to measure inclination toward authoritarianism.
Pardon me for forgetting to highlite the first bolded. My reading comprehension is pretty good.
Also in this case, what I get out of it is more important than what you get out of it cuz I have a vote in the matter. You're just a voyeur in this.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.
and from that we get this ?
Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party ...
and ...
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist. Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutitions and formal rules." Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups." Examples include Argentina under Perón and Nasser in Egypt. Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity". Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition. A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination. Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people." Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse. Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority.
Hardly what I believe in at any level. I see the bolded above as an example of what the USA is presently experiencing under our present regime led by Obama. The questions used to determine the predisposition to authoritarianism are a joke, a dishonest choice of alternatives.
The only people who understand what Trump is about are those who support him or recognized from the time he declared that he was a serious candidate. All else are clueless. Only one other regular poster here recognized Trump as being serious from the beginning which was sird. I never name names in these cases but in this one I will. He doesn't support him, but get's what is really going on and what is important here.
Trump isn't about authoritarianism, he's about solving problems as he sees them. He is not afraid to identify the problems as he sees them in no uncertain terms. He is the only candidate running who can say don't bullshit the bullshitter. He has bought and sold the establishment and knows where the bodies are buried, yet not compromised because he has not been bought and paid for himself.
His priorities are clear as a bell.
When I said all else are clueless, its just not pertaining to those here, but the whole of the media and the establishment political class on both sides of the aisle. You here are in good company and probably still feel he will fold like a cheap suit before the South Carolina primary after his impending defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire and will be the first to say I told you he wasn't a serious candidate.
We'll soon see. We're just a couple of weeks to real voting and real answers. Iffen I was fooled and wrong to take him seriously, I will be the first to admit it. How about those of you who said he isn't ?
. Edit: all the discourse from Trump's detractors seem to be based in the idea / assumption that there is a perfect candidate out there, somewhere. Well there isn't and never will be. Whose priorities are are your's and who checks off more of your boxes than anyone else, versus the crap you don't like that comes with them ? That's as good as it gets.
Freedom of speech is in mortal danger across the globe. You only have to look at universities and 'safe space' culture to realize how our youth have become disturbingly indoctrinated. Even Obama has spoken out against the madness.
I endlessly pimp Ben Garrison cartoons, but with good reason.
The irony is that we Americans extol diversity and freedom of speech and religion as being central to our culture, yet we seem not only to fear the same, but view those attributes as actual threats to that culture.
Freedom of speech is in mortal danger across the globe. You only have to look at universities and 'safe space' culture to realize how our youth have become disturbingly indoctrinated. Even Obama has spoken out against the madness.
I endlessly pimp Ben Garrison cartoons, but with good reason.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 18, 2016 - 11:12am
black321 wrote:
It's all very primal, isn't it? Unconsciously demonizing our neighbor because they're different...we still think we live in small tribes that can be invaded by the enemy at any moment.
The irony is that we Americans extol diversity and freedom of speech and religion as being central to our culture, yet we seem not only to fear the same, but view those attributes as actual threats to that culture.
The problem for all of us — left, right, center — is our inability to discuss issues without becoming offended by opposing viewpoints. That leads to demonizing those holding those viewpoints. The more we seek to justify that as a necessary means to defend our "culture," the further down the rabbit hole we fall.
It's all very primal, isn't it? Unconsciously demonizing our neighbor because they're different...we still think we live in small tribes that can be invaded by the enemy at any moment.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 18, 2016 - 10:54am
The problem for all of us — left, right, center — is our inability to discuss issues without becoming offended by opposing viewpoints. That leads to demonizing those holding those viewpoints. The more we seek to justify that as a necessary means to defend our "culture," the further down the rabbit hole we fall.
1) Criticizing the IRS: "Republicans are using as their latest weapon in the war against the black man. ‘IRS’ is the new 'N****r.'" — Martin Bashir
2) Having a Republican National Convention during a hurricane: "They are happy to have a party with black people drowning." — Yahoo News Washington bureau chief David Chalian on the Republican National Convention, which was going on at the same time as Hurricane Isaac.
3) Wanting to own a gun to prevent break-ins: "I am loathe to bring up what is in our head because we don’t like to talk about it so much. But on this particular day, on Martin Luther King Day, I think this needs to be said. That imaginary person that’s going to break into your home and kill you, who does that person look like? You know, it’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it really? I mean, that’s not what really, that’s not what really people, we never really want to talk about the racial or the class part of this, in terms of how it’s the poor or it’s people of color that we imagine that we’re afraid of. Why are we afraid? What is that, and it’s been a fear that has existed for a very, very long time." — Michael Moore
4) Mentioning the "Constitution" or "respect for the Founding Fathers:" "The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message,” Williams wrote. “References to a lack of respect for the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the ‘Constitution’ also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core ‘old-fashioned American values.’" — Juan Williams
5) Calling Obama "angry:" "That really bothered me. You notice (Romney) said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘n*ggerization.’" — Touré
6) Saying that Barack Obama lies: "Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!" — Maureen Dowd
7) Noting that Obama is privileged: "Spotlighting his elite education is tantamount to racial bigotry because it insinuates that 'he took the place of someone else through affirmative action, that someone else being someone white.'" — Jonathan Capehart
8) Saying that unions boss Obama around: "The Republican Party is saying that the President of the United States has bosses, that the union bosses this President around, the unions boss him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that, of course, of course a black man can’t be the real boss?" — Lawrence O’Donnell
9) Supporting voter ID: “If you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.” — Debbie Wasserman Schultz
10) Saying "I want my country back:" "Do you remember tea baggers? It was just so much easier when we could just call them racists. I just don’t know why we can’t call them racists, or functionally retarded adults. The functionally retarded adults, the racists – with their cries of, ‘I want my country back. You know what they’re really saying is, ‘I want my white guy back.’ They apparently had no problem at all for the last eight years of habeas corpus being suspended, the Constitution being on, illegal surveillance, lied to on a war or two, two stolen elections – yes, the John Kerry one was stolen too. That’s not tin-foil hat time. ” — Janeane Garofalo
11) Being fans of Herman Cain: "One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he(he’s) giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me." — Karen Finney
12) Fighting for the 2nd Amendment: "I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests ." — Jason Whitlock
13) Republicans trying to keep Obama from being reelected:"Look at, look, the Tea Partiers, who are controlling the Republican Party….Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? ‘Screw the country. We’re going to (do) whatever we (can) do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.’… It is a racist thing." — Morgan Freeman
14) Disliking the fact that Obama is President: "They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group, so what? It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country." — Chris Matthews
15) Disliking Barack Obama: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American." —Jimmy Carter
When I read this article, I thought of my experiences here at Radio Paradise. It was here on the forum pages of this website that I met the most ardent defenders of political correctness and the righteousness of the left. Starting with the 2004 election, I felt angry and isolated after my interactions with people here. I have since left that phase of my life behind, but I can understand how people that are still confronting political correctness and are upset about it could support a man like Trump and what he stands for. I think that a lot of Americans are fed up. They are fed up with all of it, but particularly with people telling them how to think and how they are stupid when they don't agree with the party line. Thus, Trump is their savior: someone who is not afraid to say things that are controversial and is smart enough to give as good as he gets on the political attack front. He is the guy you wished you were when a smug uber liberal taunts you during an internet argument. He is the guy that you wish you had in your corner when when you say something out loud and are immediately triple and quadruple teamed by the PC policemen who dice you up with their long knives. I don't post many political things on Facebook anymore and have unfriended most of the RP attack dogs that follow me there to pick fights and defend the Liberal Realm, but I can see how there are a lot of people that are feeling their ideals and way of life being threatened and want a champion.
That being said, I do not condone Donald Trump's actions and words. He appeals to our darker side as a country. I won't vote for him. In fact, I fear for what will happen to our country if he gets elected. But I know that Trump did not come from a vacuum, and his success has to be attributed to a larger phenomenon than some would understand and admit. Is it too late to avoid a Trumpian fate? Hopefully not, but karma is a bitch, so we had better prepare for the backlash.
And for me, I'm going back to my listener and lurker status.
This a thousand times over. And it is truly unfortunate that he can get this much traction.
And all the angst over "political correctness" is overblown too. Replace that word with "politeness" and everything you said would still be true except that is it simply what's expected. You can have too much politeness as well.
But I hope that this is the last gasp of a dying breed. It's getting riled up because it has been repressed so much by better new paradigm. I imagine most dynasties don't go away easy, so it shouldn't be a surprise. But it will still be ugly.
