• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s most conservative executive order yet!

Nickyjo said:
“De gustibus non est disputandum,” a phrase in Latin I learned in school. Loosely translated, “one can’t argue taste.” And you should see the designs of tall modern buildings in Mexico City. Chrysler building is also an exception to your absurd rule that taste is objective.

Also, I hate broccoli.
Click to expand...

Taste is objective. Edmund Burke wrote in his treatise on beauty A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas into the Sublime and the Beautiful that if you compare bitter and sweet, tobacco is always bitter and sugar is always sweet, that one prefers tobacco does not alter this. Certain elements of taste cannot be argued because they are objectively true.

The Chrysler building does not disprove anything I said. The Chrysler building as well as the Empire State Building are Art Deco which draw heavily on older styles and use very expensive materials in construction and have luxurious interiors. They are not post war modernist structures. Go to Seattle and look at the Smith tower, elegant and beautiful, look at the Columbia tower, it’s either a massive vertical prison for wage slaves or Darth Vader flipping the bird.
 
Glitch said:
Before they existed it could take months to cross the US. As then Lt. Col. Eisenhower discovered in 1919 when he spent 62 days trying to cross the US with a small Army convoy. He left Washington, D.C. on July 7, 1919, and arrived in San Francisco on September 8, 1919. That journey obviously made an impression on Eisenhower.

The Interstate Highway system was created for national security reasons.

View attachment 67273439
Click to expand...

And yet we won our largest ever foreign war without it. America is uninvadable. Every military in the world combined could not secure a beach head on the mainland US
 
HumblePi said:
Try living in Maine in January without home heating oil. The interstate is one reason everyone stays nice and warm all winter.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure... all the good old days stuff is hilarious....

Measles, lobotomy’s,state sponsored blantant racism, can’t rape your wife, legal honor killings,

Ahhh the good old days...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EMNofSeattle said:
And yet we won our largest ever foreign war without it.
Click to expand...
That is because that war never happened in the US. :doh

The small military engagement that did take place on US soil were not easy to get to, but an interstate system would not have helped in that case. It did, however, prompt the US and Canada to work together to build the ALCAN Highway during WW II

EMNofSeattle said:
America is uninvadable. Every military in the world combined could not secure a beach head on the mainland US
Click to expand...
Thanks entirely to the Second Amendment. There are more privately owned firearms in the US today than in all the militaries in all the countries on the planet combined.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
Taste is objective. Edmund Burke wrote in his treatise on beauty A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas into the Sublime and the Beautiful that if you compare bitter and sweet, tobacco is always bitter and sugar is always sweet, that one prefers tobacco does not alter this. Certain elements of taste cannot be argued because they are objectively true.

The Chrysler building does not disprove anything I said. The Chrysler building as well as the Empire State Building are Art Deco which draw heavily on older styles and use very expensive materials in construction and have luxurious interiors. They are not post war modernist structures. Go to Seattle and look at the Smith tower, elegant and beautiful, look at the Columbia tower, it’s either a massive vertical prison for wage slaves or Darth Vader flipping the bird.
Click to expand...

Suppose I like the Columbia Tower? Go back to the Vietnam War memorial. People were so upset with its design that they had some statues of soldiers constructed nearby. They are moving, but visitors gravitate towards the evil “black gash“ to reverently touch the names inscribed.

You say potAYto, I say poTAHto, as the song went back in the day.

By the way, I didn’t know that the Empire State building was considered Art Deco as is the Chrysler building. Thanks. Also, tobacco may always taste bitter and sugar always sweet, but my taste in things may prefer tobacco over sugar. De gustibus...
 
Grand Mal said:
Victoria is a very left-leaning town, you know. Some of the old architecture has been preserved because there hasn't been the need to make the downtown more efficient or to accommodate rapid population growth. That 's what drives the need for 'modernist' architecture- population growth and efficiency. Not your boogeyman leftists.
Click to expand...

Making the downtown “more efficient” is itself a code for “technocrats decide how the city should grow and people live and they are assets to be managed like cattle”

Cities have been growing ever since cities were a thing, and yet the ugly dehumanizing construction only really began after ww2.
 
Glitch said:
That is because that war never happened in the US. :doh

The small military engagement that did take place on US soil were not easy to get to, but an interstate system would not have helped in that case. It did, however, prompt the US and Canada to work together to build the ALCAN Highway during WW II

Thanks entirely to the Second Amendment. There are more privately owned firearms in the US today than in all the militaries in all the countries on the planet combined.
Click to expand...

There's a highway in Cuba called the Autopista, about six lanes wide if there were lanes marked, that runs from one end of the island to the other. Back in the bad old days the Soviet Union built it so they could move men materials quickly. Like everything else the Soviets built there it's fallen into sad disrepair.
 
Grand Mal said:
Canada is liberal but not socialized. I don't think a Canadian and an American mean the same things when they say " liberal ". If I vote, it's always for the Liberal Party candidate but someone who's socialist or progressive will vote NDP. Look up liberal in the dictionary. There's no socialism involved.

Edit- I just picked up on the French pun in your nym. Are you Canadian?
Click to expand...

To many in USA, the OPer included, since you have socialized medicine, you are a socialist country.

Liberal to those same people is completely messed up. Liberal means exactly what it says, to be open and not hold to the past.

The founders of our country I would consider liberal. They fought the status quo and liberated the country from the conservative grand ole England.

I am not Canadian. My name has 2 meanings to me.
I live in a state where dairy is a major source of revenue. And I like the French term used also.
 
Wow..
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Taste is an objective thing. This is a giant lie the left spreads that everything is relative.

In fact virtually everyone agrees older architecture styles are more aesthetic.

No one swarms modern skyscrapers as tourist attractions. Yet seats of government power, royal palaces, 19th century train stations, Cathedrals etc are the major tourism draws.
Click to expand...

So, I guess all those pictures of the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building have gone unnoticed by you? All of Frank Lloyd Wright's work as well? I acknowledge the beauty of the past, but it should not become the straitjacket of the present. That leads to stagnation and finally to decline.
 
bearpoker said:
So, I guess all those pictures of the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building have gone unnoticed by you? All of Frank Lloyd Wright's work as well? I acknowledge the beauty of the past, but it should not become the straitjacket of the present. That leads to stagnation and finally to decline.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, Chrysler and Empire State are not modernist architecture, they’re Art Deco
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Taste is objective. Edmund Burke wrote in his treatise on beauty A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas into the Sublime and the Beautiful that if you compare bitter and sweet, tobacco is always bitter and sugar is always sweet, that one prefers tobacco does not alter this. Certain elements of taste cannot be argued because they are objectively true.

The Chrysler building does not disprove anything I said. The Chrysler building as well as the Empire State Building are Art Deco which draw heavily on older styles and use very expensive materials in construction and have luxurious interiors. They are not post war modernist structures. Go to Seattle and look at the Smith tower, elegant and beautiful, look at the Columbia tower, it’s either a massive vertical prison for wage slaves or Darth Vader flipping the bird.
Click to expand...

Are you advocating making cheap buildings illegal? Interesting idea. It's bound to exacerbate homelessness though. Homelessness is very ugly. In fact, it's quite an eyesore. We'll have to make homelessness illegal. Put all the homeless in beautiful neoclassical prisons. Makes perfect sense. :mrgreen:
 
bearpoker said:
Are you advocating making cheap buildings illegal? Interesting idea. It's bound to exacerbate homelessness though. Homelessness is very ugly. In fact, it's quite an eyesore. We'll have to make homelessness illegal. Put all the homeless in beautiful neoclassical prisons. Makes perfect sense. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The cost of building has only gone up though. So that argument makes no sense.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The cost of building has only gone up though. So that argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The cost of everything always goes up. If the cost of building goes up faster than the cost of everything else, it becomes a problem. Buildings become more valuable so housing becomes more expensive, so homelessness increases. It's always the unintended consequences that get ya! Of course we could always bring back slavery. Maybe draft homeless people in to construction work.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is a weird order. Neoclassical just happened to be the fad in architecture when the founders were alive. They liked the Greek and Roman style. Not sure limiting ourselves to one style is "beautiful". I am partial to modern contemporary myself.

900x0_MNSW-PETE-FREEDOM-LARGE.jpg
Click to expand...

I like the little bit of greenery rather than the buildings. :shrug:
But then again, I'm from the MidWest. We have quite a lot trees around, often hiding sizable buildings behind them, which is just fine by me.
 
ArtemisBarca said:
“Modernist” agriculture?!?!?!

I am only going off the OP.. I haven’t read the article yet, but That sounds like a propaganda way to say “we want to let/make them keep doing it the old , dirty , less efficient way...

When is the more modern way the worst way to do things on the industrial level???!


It sounds like meter readers making up those laughable “smart meter” conspiracy theories because technology made their jobs irrelevant..









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that modernist architecture lacks a distinctive style. It feels very "mechanical", or "manufactured". He's not saying to go back to an inefficient process, but to put back more style within architecture that has been lacking for the last 40 or so years.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I actually think the interstate highways were a massive mistake.

The great conservative philosopher Russel Kirk called the Automobile “the Mechanical Jacobin” and refused to drive.

The breakdown of traditional community with the creation of massive suburbs certainly contributed to this nihilistic consumerism that made the rise of the radical left possible.
Click to expand...

So there was no radical left until interstate highways and suburbs.

Did you know that in 1920 a socialist ran for president from prison and received almost a million votes?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Trump wants to make America beautiful again! MABA!

By banning the federal government from using modernist architecture.

This is very important, the “deconstructionist” architecture style is the most honestly named thing ever. It is so because what the left does is take what’s good and true and beautiful and deconstruct it. A few months ago I went to Victoria for a date with a Canadian woman and so we walked through the old city center of Victoria, and Victoria is a beautiful city, the architecture is beautiful. You go to Vancouver Canada across the water and it’s like a mad ant farm science experiment. Look at the old Union Station in Los Ángeles, you feel like a king arriving in a castle, but the underground part where the Red Line arrives is like a rat in a maze.

The left has attacked the culture at its most basic level and ugly architecture is one of those things.

The great conservative mind Edmund Burke, the founder of Anglo-Conservatism was an aesthetic philosopher, he understood our tradition was not about tax rates or democracy in some third world country, it was about what it good and true and beautiful. Donald Trump has shown that his turn to conservatism is authentic, because he is now reversing the degenerate culture by reinstituting Beauty.

Trump's Plan to Make Architecture Classical Again - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

The leader mandating culture is, if you will, a classic authoritarian move. Reminds one of Hitler's attack on "degenerate art."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom