Trump’s Negotiations with China, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer – Monologue

2048

16 comments

  • Skinwalker Zorgo 2 weeks ago

    First

    Reply
  • HMR B 2 weeks ago

    Your country is run by a President who will soon go to jail

    Reply
  • Big Wig 2 weeks ago

    What has been said so far can immediately be countered with the following reply. Liberalism does not address the fundamental metaphysical and anthropological—which is to say, human—problems because it has a far more modest objective. Liberalism’s purpose is merely to create a framework within which people can function as acting, thinking, and creating beings. Liberals want to construct a model of public order spacious enough to secure maximum freedom for everyone, including the Aristotelians, the Hegelians, the Thomists, as well as their opponents—in short, to anyone, regardless of the priority or the profundity of his problems.
    This reply is well known, but I do not think much of it. What we find in the reply reveals another level of liberal problems and explains why liberals are so difficult to communicate with. This leads me to my second argument. Liberals always place themselves in a higher position than their interlocutors, and from that position they have an irresistible urge to dominate. What they usually say is something like this: We are not interested in deciding any particular issue; all we want to do is to create a system within which you will make your own decisions. By saying this they do two things which I find rather dubious. First, they always usurp for themselves—without asking anyone for permission and without any permission being granted—the role of the architectonic organizer of society; thus they always want to dominate by performing the roles of the guardians of the whole of the social system and the judges of the procedural rules within the system. Second, they declare “neutrality” towards concrete solutions and decisions within the system, but such “neutrality” is impossible to maintain; one cannot be an organizer of everything while at the same time refraining from imposing substantively in specific cases.
    At least since John Locke, the liberals—declaring that all they are interested in is freedom of individuals and not the content of their choices—have made categorical judgments about what government should look like, how it should govern, how social life should be arranged, how families should be constructed, how our minds should work, and how we should relate to God. They had definitive answers—believed to follow from the principles underlying their framework—about which institutions are inferior and which superior, how children should be educated and what objectives schools and universities should have, what is the best structure of churches and families, what are acceptable relations between spouses, between parents and children, between teachers and pupils. The answers “I don’t know” or “a decision is not possible within the accepted assumptions” are not something one often hears from liberals. In the system of liberty which they have constructed, everything is predictably known and accordingly regulated.
    This openly declared focus on “procedural” issues rather than “substantive” issues is one of the greatest and most effective liberal mystifications, not to say sleights of hand. There are no non-substantive procedures. And once a radical change is made, whether in a school system, family life, the university, or the church, it does not make the slightest difference if the nature of the change was procedural or substantive. The liberals have legalized abortion, are in the process of legalizing homosexual marriages, are inclined to legalize euthanasia; they have changed or supported changes in family life, in religious discipline, in school curricula, in sexual conduct. None of these actions of support or inspiration were, strictly speaking, based on “substantive” claims; all were based on legalistic and formal arguments. But the practical effects in social and moral life were profound. Not only is liberalism not modest, its ambition to have a decisive voice is unquenchable: because it is the result of self-deception. The socialists, the conservatives, the monarchists are ambitious too, but they all know very well how far they want to penetrate the social fabric, and at least some of them are well aware that reality often resists and that giving in to reality is sometimes a sound decision. The liberals, however, live in a world of self-delusion about their mildness and modesty, believing that even their most arrogant interference somehow does not touch moral or social “substance.”
    The liberal framework is sometimes said to be limited only to the general structure of society while leaving room for non-liberal communities on the condition that they comply with the liberal principles of the whole. But such a promise, even if sincere, is incongruent with the nature of liberalism. Once it is assumed—as all the liberals do assume—that individuals are the basic agents, then communities, particularly non-liberal communities, lose any privileges that may stem from experience, custom, tradition, or human nature. There is no compelling argument that would make a liberal uncompromising with respect to the principles of the whole while tolerant with respect to the principles of particular groups or communities. All communities are understood as aggregates of individuals, and it is individuals, not communities, that are said to need liberal protections.
    Consequently, non-liberal social structures and traditions—those that still exist—are merely tolerated “for the time being,” and they are under constant and minute supervision. When the time for toleration is over, when “the time being” comes to an end, a non-liberal social structure immediately becomes the object of attack. The most recurrent example is the liberals’ relation to the Roman Catholic Church, which is either formally tolerated in the name of the freedom that allows non-liberals to form non-liberal communities, or else formally attacked, also in the name of the freedom which the church as a non-liberal institution is accused of lacking. But as everyone seriously interested in religion knows, the key to understanding the church lies not in organizational questions but in substantive propositions about human nature, metaphysics, etc. Churches may be liberal or not, but the fact that they are liberal does not make them “by definition” better churches; it does not make them better adapted to the essential needs of human nature and more appropriate as responses to metaphysical problems. To acquiesce in the existence of the Catholic Church—regardless of its non-liberal organizational structure—as an irreducible expression of human experience, an experience from which one can learn or profit, is impossible for liberals. This would be for them a betrayal of liberal principles. Learning from others is something liberals never do.

    Reply
  • Mehmet Yaylacı 2 weeks ago

    Trump’s former friends are all turning against him. This is so fun.

    Reply
  • HMR B 2 weeks ago

    Who saw the HIGH-FIVE between PUTIN and the SAUDI PRINCE? I wonder why they were laughing so hard? 🤔

    Maybe they just watched the PEE PEE tapes together?

    Reply
  • Pixie Fairy 2 weeks ago

    Flynn’s sentence will be [Redacted].

    Reply
  • Action Hiro 2 weeks ago

    Why do we spend so much time looking for Intelligent life on other Planets?

    I would be happy to find some Intelligent life in the White House First

    Reply
  • Big Wig 2 weeks ago

    Why does seth’s beady eyes look like they’re melting off to the sides

    Reply
  • Somme Tinonme 2 weeks ago

    The day we knew Trump had no friends was when he was walking onto Air Force One with toilet paper stuck to his shoe and nobody told him 😀

    Reply
  • Wynstan'sMom 2 weeks ago

    “And all of Iowa’s Biggest Stars Came Out”…Iowa’s Biggest Stars will always mean Radar O’Reilly from Ottumwa Iowa who might should, probably should,  finally come out…

    Reply
  • Flame Beats 2 weeks ago

    Trump would probably call that 250 yd drive joke a low blow. That just shows his priorities.

    Reply
  • Courage Karnga 2 weeks ago

    Negotiations? He couldn’t even negotiate a correct order at Mcdonald’s.

    Reply
  • Rohit Lakhani 2 weeks ago

    i am pretty sure if aliens visited this world during trump presidency, he would sell the human race for a real good deal for himself

    Reply
  • Napoleon I Bonaparte 2 weeks ago

    The most unpopular humaoid figure of Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is Rudy Giuliani

    Reply
  • azae00 Vids 2 weeks ago

    Remember the first time you watched that original Rudolph the red nose movie.. yep those were good times back then

    Reply
  • David Bates 2 weeks ago

    “This negotiation will either result in a real deal or no deal at all.”
    If I heard that a couple of years ago I’d have laughed uproariously at how stupid a statement that is. Nowadays I’m left deadpan. The era of Trump is so bad it’s stolen humour.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published.