Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't want to be hostile and snarky

Betwixt cup and lip ...

33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

All they do is run scripts handed down to them from some master whose boot they lick.

Them, again. They eat a lot of people's homework.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

In the back of my mind for a few months is a blog post 25 Things to Love About A Trump Presidency, Even If You "Hate" Him. Must be my love of lists.

On my sketchy list so far I remark upon something pointed out by Bob Kolker:  One can relish a thorough shake-up, a 'bull in china shop' ethos -- even while holding a less than approving opinion on the President as a person, personality, human being. 

1 hour ago, Peter said:
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

What might concern a skeptical Objectivist in re Trump is a tendency to the Strongman.  If you are Objectivish and kind of pine for a strongman and feel the emotional wallop of getting behind a leader, how do you navigate the one or two concerning things about the direction or management of this administration? Well, all opposition can be demonized and labelled unpatriotic, if you don't already have a few thought-stoppers ready.

Strongman, in the totalitarian sense? That is not what our Donald is.

Which world leaders does Trump respect and perhaps in some ways emulate?  Putin, number one.  Never said a bad word about him.  Duerte, number two. Xi, number three.  And of course, Fat Boy, number four. The President seems willing to 'guarantee' that Fat Rocket will be around for a long while ...

Tolerating and mildly celebrating strongmen in other lands is one thing, of course. Purges of the "deep state" are not usually accomplished by the cleanest of instruments, as can be seen in Turkey, and in a minor ramifying way, in Hungary.

Peter, you may be using "totalitarian" where I intend "authoritarian."  The only totalitarian on the list is number four. 

Anyhow, it is best or easiest to simply dismiss any concerns from an Objectivish perspective as wholly without merit, as histrionics, or as emergent from Faye Knuze and her ilk. Still ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Remarks.

The death of expertise ...

Tom Nichols not being a fun read, I'd rather return to question you over your earlier remarks about the class of Mexico-Canada-Russia-CCCP-Honduras.  Do your remarks make more sense now, or less?

We can put that slogan on a mug for a low, low price -- and ship it to you direct. Or you can take that hope and a five dollar bill and get yourself a hot beverage from capitalism.

The subtext is that hope about another polity is meaningless, especially if you aren't curious about the state of reality in the other lands.

That is why Canada has more freedom, lower taxes, a general distribution of advanced industrial prosperity ... and a dang high happiness index.  How come?

A modern-day history of brutal military dictatorships leaves legacies of state-sanctioned terror, death squads and judicial impunity (Honduras) ... versus Costa Rica? 

A lengthy sojourn (sixty years) under a single party's rule, leavened by corruption at every level of the state-allied economy (Mexico)?  A late-in-the-day turn to real US/Canada style democracy, an opening of the economy to competition and integration into energy and transport networks?  Mexico. Rising standard of living? Mexico, leavened by persistent corruption, criminal violence and a weak justice infrastructure.

Canadians are, on the whole, much more on the move than Americans ... between provinces and territories, as well as between business interests and part-time retirement in a variety of second countries.  Boatloads of Brit-derived  Canadians enjoy a second Britannic citizenship, which for a time allows them entry into the EU as citizens.  Multiply that by every country in the Commonwealth and the Francophonie ...

But don't underestimate where Americans themselves have got to in the wider world. For example, the West Coast resorts of Mexico have heavy American contingents (both Hispanic and not) doing heavy business. From Vietnam to Kazakhstan to fabulous Montreal, Americans do business in 98% of everywhere.

So,  I would suggest we North Americans would go where money was to be made (if not retired or a student) easily or almost as easily as at home. For me, that would make Mexico and the US a first stop for my skills and abilities were I younger. My dollar goes a long way in Mexico and I have fallen in love with one village, and I would happily retire there, making trouble, making friends, buzzing along a little business development. 

Western industrialized democracies have the biggest "pull," I believe.  At the same time, the incoming hopefuls are cognizant of the reality of borders and policies and 'welcome mats.'  For example, foreign students in our North American universities: in Canadian provinces, under federal guideline, foreign students are cash cows, and are encouraged to deepen their ties to Canada through generous allowance into work.  Meaning, study, spend, work, drop those dollars through our economy, thank you.  And if you'd like to become a citizen, well, let's take a look at your experience, your language abilities, and your degree ...

Welcome to Canada, newcomer!

That is going to require a shopping trip downtown to the Statistics and Ladies Wear floor at Factco.

Some of these are awkward questions.  Personally, I relish "throw the bums out" elections.  The shortcomings of the US system I have gone on about at length elsewhere. To briefly summarize, I think the system is calcified, crusted over as with barnacles -- in the sense of an institutional two-party lock on all elective contests bar a few.  The simplicity of Canadian elections might astound or appall, given the framework of comparison. 

We get to clear out incumbencies at a far higher rate than you guys do. Bench-clearing moments, crushing defeats, drama.   Think Kim Campbell, think Bill Vander Zalm or other BC leaders forced to step down.

Canadians can only be spectators of the US drama, except for those of us who wield dual citizenships and residences.

What's a "good" citizen? Hopefully not one that slavishly follows a leader as in a cult, hopefully not one who doesn't understand what loyal opposition means, and hopefully not one who ignores the 'other side' as being hopelessly evil or corrupt ...

Unnecessary segregation can prevent a natural acculturation to a second working language in immigrant communities, leaving people isolated from the general run of the economy and levels of achievement in society. Up here, provinces and private societies through federally-funded and mandated 'welcome' practices help newcomers reach their goals of fluency and literacy in English or French. For both first and second generation incoming, public schools (with great effort) turn out fluent, literate graduates ... 

I learned French as an adult, and feel confident entering a conversation with a francophone. Two days ago I got to use my nascent Spanish on a trio of gentlemen who I heard speaking the tongue. They turned out to be workers, landscapers. I didn't ask them their origin or their destination, but I will next time.  Bienvenido a Chilliwack, señores!

Of course, I also seek to learn more of the actual local language, the tongue of the people who were here before colonists, Halkomelem.

 

 

 

Quelle bonne post.  Better than Peter deserves, after the insult he offered my 5'4'' 136 pound anatomy.

Speaking of which, when you are in Ladies' Wear at Statistics could you see if they have any Meghan Garden 

Party hat knockoffs left?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caroljane said:

As to philosophy, he is a complete cynic with no notion of ethics and no political ideals which he would not reverse  immediately if he saw an advantage to himself. It is useless to tell an Objectivist that the ability to make money for its own sake is a skill bestowed on different individuals, some good and some not. 

You'd prefer a community organizer who bullied and threatened, and who failed to deliver anything anywhere near to what he promised, and in fact, delivered the opposite?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

You'd prefer a community organizer who bullied and threatened, and who failed to deliver anything anywhere near to what he promised, and in fact, delivered the opposite?

J

As a side note, in his business career Saint Donald often failed to deliver what he promised, like to the City of New York and his own suppliers whom he stiffed, And ah- Trump University?

Also. why does a non-American who is allowed to comment here have to choose between a former prez who cannot run again and him? When did you become a fan of the excluded middle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, caroljane said:

As a side note, in his business career Saint Donald often failed to deliver what he promised, like to the City of New York and his own suppliers whom he stiffed, And ah- Trump University?

Also. why does a non-American who is allowed to comment here have to choose between a former prez who cannot run again and him? When did you become a fan of the excluded middle?

The original issue that you brought up was experience and qualifications. You began by mischaracterizing and downplaying Trump's. Cherry picking. Or maybe a more apt term would be shit picking. Leaving out his accomplishments. Believing what you wanted to believe, despite knowing that you were telling falsehoods. In comparison, Obama had no experience or accomplishments, other than convincing fools that he would deliver a hope and change utopia in the future. But yet in your post above, you're trying to make the two appear to be equal. Why, heck, Trump has had some failures, so therefore he's just like Obama. Never mind that Obama hasn't any accomplishments. He has produced nothing. His theories and policies are failures. He is the blustering showman that you tried to make Trump into, but you've never spilled the bile in regard to Obama that you have over Trump. And Trump's theories and policies have not been failures. Yet you're pissed off at him. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan, I have never yet told falsehoods that I was convinced were falsehoods, never here, or indeed anywhere in such discussions. What would be the point? I will never convince you there is anything wrong about Trump, and whatever I say will only entrench you in your own position further.

I say what  I believe to be true from what sources I have read, usually book and articles, not all from your dreaded MSM either. Like you all I have been aware of him and his career for decades, and I do not think his character has changed since winning the election.

And of course he and Obama are equal. Both presidents; both vilified by their opposition; both reviled as failures by same; and only history will judge long after our time what ensued in success, what reaped failure from their short-term, circumstances dictated decision in office.

Sure. all politicians must be showmen, but as to blustering, your innate taste must tell you that Trump is the total victor in bluster, hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, caroljane said:

Jonathan, I have never yet told falsehoods that I was convinced were falsehoods, never here, or indeed anywhere in such discussions. What would be the point?

So, you didn't know that Trump was more than a reality TV show star?

Heh. You've got a case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. Your rage over Trump has turned you into a liar.

2 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I will never convince you there is anything wrong about Trump, and whatever I say will only entrench you in your own position further.

Oh, that's sad. Throwing a little tantrum. I call you out on your mischaracterizations of Trump, so your response is to try to believe that that means that I must think that there is nothing wrong about Trump? Heh. I'm a dedicated Trump-lover now? Silly, irrational ploy. You used to be more mature than that. Seriously, what's eating you? Why the foolish hostility toward Trump, and toward those who correct your angry little lies about him?

6 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I say what  I believe to be true from what sources I have read, usually book and articles, not all from your dreaded MSM either.

My dreaded MSM? Are you assigning me a position? You've really gone downhill since I've conversed with you in the past. You're being a ridiculous bitch.

8 minutes ago, caroljane said:

And of course he and Obama are equal. Both presidents; both vilified by their opposition; both reviled as failures by same; and only history will judge long after our time what ensued in success, what reaped failure from their short-term, circumstances dictated decision in office.

You're maneuvering. Slithering. I didn't ask about their being vilified by anyone. Rather, I mentioned accomplishments and lack thereof. I mentioned theories enacted in reality. Trump's have succeeded. Obama's have failed miserably. These are realities, not opinions. Your or anyone else's beliefs and opinions don't not change the reality that if I like my plan and doctor I don't get to keep them, for example, or that I won't save the promised $2500 per year on health insurance, or the lie that a variety of policies won't cost taxpayers a single dime more, etc. Your choice to believe false narratives doesn't make them true, regardless of how badly you want to believe them.

17 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Sure. all politicians must be showmen, but as to blustering, your innate taste must tell you that Trump is the total victor in bluster, hands down.

No. Trump is very good at bluster, but he does have a lot to back it up. Obama, on the other hand, had nothing, and still has nothing after having convinced fools to elect him twice. He was one of the worst presidents ever, but he has idiots believing that he's their savior. There's the total victor.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, Carol, what's stuck in your craw? Why does it piss you off so much that people's live are significantly better under Trump's administration than under Obama's? It's as if style means everything to you, and substance means nothing. It's fine to inflict hardships on millions of people's lives as long as the inflicter does it with panache?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:
4 hours ago, caroljane said:

As to philosophy, he is a complete cynic with no notion of ethics and no political ideals which he would not reverse  immediately if he saw an advantage to himself. It is useless to tell an Objectivist that the ability to make money for its own sake is a skill bestowed on different individuals, some good and some not. 

You'd prefer a community organizer who bullied and threatened, and who failed to deliver anything anywhere near to what he promised, and in fact, delivered the opposite?

Jonathan,

I'm glad you highlighted this.

Donald Trump is one of the most moral men ever to run for the presidency. It's our good fortune he didn't just run, he won.

When you look at President Trump's philosophy, you will see reality at the base of everything he does and says. What you don't see is a pile of words people can pick at and shame him with.

Trump towers don't fall. This is just one example, but it's a good one.

For people who have read Atlas Shrugged, there is a passage on the opening run of the John Galt Line where Dagny was looking at the way a locomotive was built from the inside as the train was running, with every detail a precise answer to an existential question, "Why?" And she came to the conclusion she was before the product of the finest morality on earth. (That's my paraphrase, not Rand's words, but this is the essence of that scene.)

Once again, Trump towers don't fall.

That is not the product of a philosophical cynic. That is a product of the finest philosophy on earth.

Leaving the realm of metaphysics only, as to President Trump reversing himself on social positions, he takes the reality of human nature into account and works with people the way they are, not the way he or anybody else wants them to be. For example, if some slimeballs are trying to take him out through a corrupt media and a loose organization of ill-intentioned intelligence bureaucrats, he sees he owes them no allegiance in practice and he takes them out instead. He is not the savior of the corrupt. He is the builder of the "Make America Great Again" vision.

Hell, when politicians have been in Trump's way before he went into politics, he simply bribed them to the legal extent he could to get them out of his way. That's not only dealing with reality, if that isn't a highly moral act when a Trump tower is the foundational value, I don't know what is. According to his critics, playing fair with politicians who don't play fair with him is their version of morality. It may be fair to some storyline in their heads that they prefer to reality, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the character of most politicians, nor their intentions. In other words, the aim of politicians is their own power, it is not a Trump tower in the end.

And not one of them has the capacity to erect such a building. Not one.

This is not because they lack the experience or intelligence to do so. It's because they don't hold high enough moral values to pull it off.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Seriously, Carol, what's stuck in your craw? Why does it piss you off so much that people's live are significantly better under Trump's administration than under Obama's? It's as if style means everything to you, and substance means nothing. It's fine to inflict hardships on millions of people's lives as long as the inflicter does it with panache?

Jonathan, the only Americans I know well are a handful of relatives and acquaintances in one small town, and half of them voted for Trump,  but none of them says that their lives are significantly better since 2016, in any way, not that they are worse. That is the truth.

I am glad that you and the rest of the country are reaping real benefits.  As to inflicting suffering on millions of people's lives - show me your huddled and your poor, and how Trump is helping them to breathe free.  Or your dead schoolchildren who will never breathe again and their robbed desolate families, whose means of death Trump proudly supports.

Happy days are here again for you,and I hope you continue to prosper as never before.  But politics go in cycles, even in America. History will judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I'm glad you highlighted this.

Donald Trump is one of the most moral men ever to run for the presidency. It's our good fortune he didn't just run, he won.

When you look at President Trump's philosophy, you will see reality at the base of everything he does and says. What you don't see is a pile of words people can pick at and shame him with.

Trump towers don't fall. This is just one example, but it's a good one.

For people who have read Atlas Shrugged, there is a passage on the opening run of the John Galt Line where Dagny was looking at the way a locomotive was built from the inside as the train was running, with every detail a precise answer to an existential question, "Why?" And she came to the conclusion she was before the product of the finest morality on earth. (That's my paraphrase, not Rand's words, but this is the essence of that scene.)

Once again, Trump towers don't fall.

That is not the product of a philosophical cynic. That is a product of the finest philosophy on earth.

Leaving the realm of metaphysics only, as to President Trump reversing himself on social positions, he takes the reality of human nature into account and works with people the way they are, not the way he or anybody else wants them to be. For example, if some slimeballs are trying to take him out through a corrupt media and a loose organization of ill-intentioned intelligence bureaucrats, he sees he owes them no allegiance in practice and he takes them out instead. He is not the savior of the corrupt. He is the builder of the "Make America Great Again" vision.

Hell, when politicians have been in Trump's way before he went into politics, he simply bribed them to the legal extent he could to get them out of his way. That's not only dealing with reality, if that isn't a highly moral act when a Trump tower is the foundational value, I don't know what is. According to his critics, playing fair with politicians who don't play fair with him is their version of morality. It may be fair to some storyline in their heads that they prefer to reality, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the character of most politicians, nor their intentions. In other words, the aim of politicians is their own power, it is not a Trump tower in the end.

And not one of them has the capacity to erect such a building. Not one.

This is not because they lack the experience or intelligence to do so. It's because they don't hold high enough moral values to pull it off.

Michael

Michael, I appreciate the sincerity of your sentiment. But to me morality is more than erecting things and getting inconvenient people out of your way. It incorporates a personal ethos of dealing with others, acknowledging that others are individuals with rights equal to one's own, and I have never seen any sign of that from him. Others are either great friends (who admire or support him) or the scum of the earth, losers etc. who don't. 

Women, one step down, are the same to him depending on their physical appearance. He despises women and you can't really be surprised if some of us despise him.

I will grant every accolade he deserves  for his lasting accompl,ishments, and his lifting of America into a better day. But I cannot believe that in his mid-seventies he is going to grow a new character. And as calling him the most moral man who ever ran for president - I have read some of the writings of Washington, Adams and Jefferson and Lincoln, private letters included, where they wrestled with moral questions. Do you think Trump's tweets show more morality than they did? 

Not the same, you will say, his morality is in his action. Fine . Hemingway said "Moral is what you feel good after", and I am sure that whatever Trump feels good doing is moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 These are realities, not opinions. Your or anyone else's beliefs and opinions don't not change the reality that if I like my plan and doctor I don't get to keep them, for example, or that I won't save the promised $2500 per year on health insurance, or the lie that a variety of policies won't cost taxpayers a single dime more, etc. Your choice to believe false narratives doesn't make them true, regardless of how badly you want to believe them.

 

 J

I missed this bit about health care -- so the reality is, that under Obama you did not get to keep your doctor or plan that you liked. you did not save $2500 you were promised, or that as a taxpayer you were charged  when you were promised you wouldn't be,Obama lied to you and cheated you out of at least $2500.

Now two years later, I assume you have been restored to the doctor and plan that you were deprived of, and been reimbursed your $2500 by Trump in some manner. I know nothing about your health policies except that they are a big mess, and if I lived in the US I would likely be dead by now. But if my reading of your story is right, then this is a very good reality and I would applaud Trump for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caroljane said:

But to me morality is more than erecting things and getting inconvenient people out of your way. It incorporates a personal ethos of dealing with others, acknowledging that others are individuals with rights equal to one's own, and I have never seen any sign of that from him.

Carol,

I should have mentioned the kind of thing he creates: goods for peaceful purposes. He is a wealth creator (wealth being much more than money--it's the stuff money is based on).

Now that he is head of the government, he invests US taxes in the US military (not his own money to my knowledge), but no longer in the boondoggles the Pentagon cronies so dearly love and not in a steady stream of blowing up costly stuff like with Obama's drone wars (that the media conveniently ignored). 

As to acknowledging others, their rights and so forth, seriously, you need to take a peek outside your tent. The stories of his kindness and generosity abound. They exist everywhere except in the bubble of the anti-Trumpers. And there are many. I'm not trying to be snarky, either. All you have to do is look outside the tent and it's all there.

In fact, with truly needy people, President Trump practices the kind of charity I admire. He resolves their problems and doesn't talk about it. You should see how many people come forth at times to try to thank him for something he did for them in a bad time of need. 

President Trump has a media personality that is in stark contrast to him as a private individual. And given the vicious state of the media, why shouldn't he? This is very well-known in the world outside the bubble you live in. But he's pretty ruthless as a counterpuncher. So, if in your bubble, someone decides they are big enough to insult Trump in main media venues, then gets smacked harder than they give (which is what usually happens), they start playing the victim. To you it might seem they are being bullied, but out here in the rest of reality, we notice their provocations. We see what they do. In short, they are not getting bullied. They are getting comeuppance for being bullies themselves.

Let me give you a good example pre-election. Trump has had in a long standing feud with Rosie O'Donnell. Do you know why? Back in 2006, he owned the Miss America Beauty Pageant. Miss USA that year, Tara Conner, had some trouble with drug and alcohol addiction and the yellow journalism press went after her with a vengeance. Trump, who lost a brother to alcoholism, gave her a second chance, even saying in public he believed in second chances, let her keep the crown, and she went into rehab. She cleaned herself up.

Rosie O'Donnell had a shit fit in public about this. She wanted Tara's scalp and made no bones about it. (I have no idea why, but it was ugly and unprovoked.) When the nastiness reached a certain point, Trump thought she was acting like a bully and stood up for Tara. He went after Rosie counterpunching hard in public and the feud started. Of course, Rosie painted it all as if Trump was coming after her over nothing and she was the innocent little victim.

Then Rosie had a heart attack and Trump could not have been more gracious to her. This shocked her and everybody else. After she got better, he resumed the fued. :) 

2 hours ago, caroljane said:

Women, one step down, are the same to him depending on their physical appearance. He despises women and you can't really be surprised if some of us despise him.

You despise a propaganda version, not the reality. For example, he was hiring women to run his businesses in real estate when no progressive in the same business would ever dared to have done that. And if you look at some of those executives, you will see they may dress nice, but they are no beauty queens. 

He has always encouraged women to do and be their best and he put his money where his mouth was when nobody else did. And he kept doing it for years. I can't think of any woman he despises except Rosie. :) And even then, the heart attack episode showed he wasn't running on the kind of hatred someone like Kathy Griffin did holding up a decapitated head of him as a "joke." I've never seen President Trump ever do anything of that nature in public, nor in private (leaked) for that matter. 

For his own romances, he's loved beautiful women. Why shouldn't he? He's a billionaire, for God's sake. :)  Beautiful women seem to gravitate toward money. :) 

Inside the leftwing tent, I'm pretty sure I would despise Trump the way you do. But there are things called eyes and life outside the tent. And the tent version of Trump simply does not correspond to reality. It's a fiction. A nasty one that that, but I'm not complaining. After all, Trump won, he is winning and he will be winning for a long time. In fact, I believe there will not be much of a tent when he gets through.

I probably should use a different term for tent, though. I like the term Blue Church by a guy named Jordan Greenhall (look him up--he's wicked smart). In his version, when people are inside the Blue Church, they run Blue Church  scripts in their minds rather than using their own independent verification and thinking. That doesn't just apply to the left, it applies everywhere, but these days, the High Priests of the Blue Church are the mainstream media. They even have a term for new scripts as they arise. They call them "talking points." What's worse, all they can talk about these days are the insurgent "Red Religion." :) 

I have to admit, you do peek outside the Blue Church, though. The light might hurt your eyes, but you do peek at times.

After all, you post here. :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caroljane said:

I have read some of the writings of Washington, Adams and Jefferson and Lincoln, private letters included, where they wrestled with moral questions. Do you think Trump's tweets show more morality than they did? 

Carol,

In a certain manner, yes. President Trump uses words to cripple vicious enemies who attack him.

Everyone of those former presidents used guns.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I like the term Blue Church by a guy named Jordan Greenhall (look him up--he's wicked smart). In his version, when people are inside the Blue Church, they run Blue Church  scripts in their minds rather than using their own independent verification and thinking.

This is to the reader:

I don't know if the following will help, but here's a video of Greenhall giving one of the foundations of his kind of thinking. I chose this video because it's relatively short.

Now apply this to politics and we see why the Savior Obama did not fix the world with his hope and chance or even leave a lasting legacy other than gay marriage and, possibly, legalization of pot. Savior Obama tried to do everything from the top down and the will of the people be damned.

President Obama said, after losing both houses of Congress: "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward..."

He didn't want to work with Congress. He wanted agreement from Congress. Big difference. Sadly for Obama (but great for the country), the people did not want to give him a Congress that would agree with him. So he didn't even try to work with Congress. He stamped his foot and demanded everything be his way. And, after seeing the ease with which President Trump dismantled all that pen-and-phone work, we see Obama simply was not a good leader. He did not understand his job.

But that is the danger in top-down structuring. If you get a sucky boss, you get sucky results that don't last.

What's worse, after 8 years of many people worshipping at Obama's feet, they learned to think in the manner of the structure he operated and they find it hellishly difficult to do normal cognition. They think declaring they are science-oriented makes them science-oriented as they act like fundamentalist religious fanatics. They think controlling the narrative enables them to make others believe that narrative. Hell, many think narrative replaces reality and whoever tells the best victimization story becomes the bearer of the true facts. They think shutting people up is akin to converting them. And so on.

President Trump's appearance on the political scene and administration is akin to the effect of the Internet on broadcast media. Oh, there's an element of top-down, but Trump regularly interacts with his followers. If the media gatekeepers try to stifle something he wants publicized, he simply takes his ideas directly to the population on social media and they respond. Then the mainstream media talks about it because they can't not talk about it.

There are only a few outlets in the mainstream top-down media that like Trump as President. The vast majority of the mainstream media hate him. Yet his domination of interactive communication allows him to lead the legacy fake news media around by the nose. They can't stop talking about him and he knows how to keep that running. He knows this reinforces his influence with every word they say. They know it, too, but they still can't help themselves, poor things... :) 

It's not just the ideas, although--I believe--ideas play the lion's share. It's also the kind of thinking structures people develop by imitating what is prevalent in their communication environment.

People automatically run structural scripts in their minds because that's the way they learned how to organize their communicable knowledge of the world, but they run content scripts on top that pop out on cue like kneejerks when keywords are articulated. And that is nothing but parroting their daily media indoctrination...

Er...

Is this clear or confusing?

Suddenly, I feel like I am surfing on a massive tangent...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 1:25 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Xi, Putin and Trump are working together. All of the Putin/Trump tension over Syria was theater. Same for Xi and North Korea. There is no anger between these three. (But everyone is falling for it and that is beautiful.) Call it what you wish, let’s use Deep State. It got into NK and it got to or into Iran. These three are erasing it.

Xi, Putin and Trump are working together; everyone is falling for something something.  Something Deep State something.

Quote

 

President Trump on Thursday canceled his planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting,” Trump wrote in a letter to the leader released Thursday. “Therefore, please let this letter serve to represent that the Singapore summit, for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place.”

The historic, unprecedented summit had been slated for June 12.

Trump's move to pull out of the summit aligns with the advice on backing away from negotiations he gives in his book, "The Art of the Deal."[...]

Following the announcement Thursday morning, a source close to Trump told BuzzFeed News, "The book is a best seller for a reason. The tactics work."

Some others who have been around the president were more skeptical of Trump's decision. A former White House official said Trump had shown a "lack of discipline" on North Korea, saying that, although it seemed like a "play to try and force them back to the bargaining table, I don't see that happening."

 

TrumpDeniesNKmeetingMay24.png

Edited by william.scherk
Added screencapture of letter to Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, caroljane said:

Jonathan, the only Americans I know well are a handful of relatives and acquaintances in one small town, and half of them voted for Trump,  but none of them says that their lives are significantly better since 2016, in any way, not that they are worse. That is the truth.

Well, what you should do is take that anecdote and universalize it in the way that you did with Trump’s building suppliers. Some suppliers complained that they were treated poorly. Therefore we should ignore the ones who report that they were very happy in their dealings with Trump, and we should conclude that Trump built his empire entirely by ripping off suppliers. Right? And therefore your single anecdote of your relatives represents the truth and reality of all other Americans’ lives under Trump.

14 hours ago, caroljane said:

I am glad that you and the rest of the country are reaping real benefits.

Are you? You actually seem to be pissed off about it. You seem to upset that your little backward theories don't work in reality, and that the theories that you don’t like do work in reality.

14 hours ago, caroljane said:

As to inflicting suffering on millions of people's lives - show me your huddled and your poor, and how Trump is helping them to breathe free.

Our nation was not established based on the Emma Lazarus poem that was tacked onto the Statue of Liberty. It’s not the Statue of Immigration or the Statue of Giving Other People's Money to the Poor Huddle Masses. Anyway, Trump is definitely helping everyone to breathe more freely. But you really don’t want America to welcome people who are yearning to breathe free, do you? You’re more interested in foisting on us people who yearn to get freebies, correct?

The idea of America isn’t that we want to take care of a class of permanently poor people, but to give everyone, including the poor, freedom from government assholes holding them down with backward theories that don’t work in reality.

May I make a suggestion? Get a pet. If you want to feel that you’re taking care of another life, and that its life depends on you, and that you’re virtuous and important, get a damned pet. There’s really no virtue in your trying to make other humans your pets via government via other people’s money.

14 hours ago, caroljane said:

Or your dead schoolchildren who will never breathe again and their robbed desolate families, whose means of death Trump proudly supports.

Hahaha! OMG, that’s hilariously intellectually dishonest and irrational. So, using the same stupid tack, which means of death do support? Knives and vehicles have been used throughout the world lately for mass killings in areas where guns have been banned. So, you support banning them, right? You strongly advocate banning anything and everything that could possibly be used as a weapon? If not, you’re a child murdering monster!!!

14 hours ago, caroljane said:

Happy days are here again for you,and I hope you continue to prosper as never before.  But politics go in cycles, even in America. History will judge.

History has judged. Obama damaged the nation and inflicted hardship, despite promising the opposite. That’s the reality of history. Trump is removing Obama’s idiotic policies, and his doing so is having very positive effects and releasing people to breathe more freely from the stupid constraints that Obama had imposed.

Ah, but you don’t actually mean that history will judge, do you? What you actually mean is that you hope that some day a leftist will write a history book which squirms and slithers in order to arrive at the predetermined conclusion that you want to arrive at, despite its falsehood, right? If so, that’s quite a pathetic strand of hope that you’re plucking.

Ha. Valerie Jarrett was on the tube recently trying to sell the lie that credit for America’s current economic success should go to Obama. Hahaha! No one was buying it. History is not going to change to support that delusion.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, caroljane said:

I missed this bit about health care -- so the reality is, that under Obama you did not get to keep your doctor or plan that you liked. you did not save $2500 you were promised, or that as a taxpayer you were charged  when you were promised you wouldn't be,Obama lied to you and cheated you out of at least $2500.

Now two years later, I assume you have been restored to the doctor and plan that you were deprived of, and been reimbursed your $2500 by Trump in some manner. I know nothing about your health policies except that they are a big mess, and if I lived in the US I would likely be dead by now. But if my reading of your story is right, then this is a very good reality and I would applaud Trump for it.

No. Obamacare has not been repealed. The legislative branch prevented its being repealed. You know that. If it were to be repealed, my costs would decrease and my choices — my ability to breathe free — would increase. So, what you’re trying to do here is to suggest that Trump’s idea of how to handle health care costs failed just as badly as Obama’s? Is that right? That’s the obfuscation game that you’re up to? You’re pretending that Trump's not getting his ideas passed and signed into law is a failure that is the same as Obama getting his passed into law and then their failing miserably? It proves that Trump’s plan didn’t work?

You’re really having trouble being intellectually honest. It’s the TDS rotting your brain.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, caroljane said:

Michael, I appreciate the sincerity of your sentiment. But to me morality is more than erecting things and getting inconvenient people out of your way.

But that is exactly what your ideology is. You're all about getting inconvenient people out of the way, and doing so at others' expense. Plus, you enjoy vilifying and punishing those who have produced and contributed more than you have. You're all about deriving your sense of virtue via doing nothing but opining and voting to make better people than you do things with the resources that they produced and which you didn't.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, caroljane said:

Women, one step down, are the same to him depending on their physical appearance. He despises women and you can't really be surprised if some of us despise him.

Universalizing again based on some events while willfully ignoring all others?

I'm curious, do you also share that same view of Bill Clinton’s view of women? Or is there something about Billy which makes him less despicable to you? His agreement with your ideology that poor people are your playthings makes him less revolting?

What do you think of women who look at men as a mealticket to be manipulated with their looks, their sexual favors, or their loyalty? Have you seen Harvey Weinstein’s wife? Do you know who she is, what her background is? By what standards do you think that Harvey chose her as a partner? By what standards did she choose him? Are her standards not as equally disgusting? Using your comment above, shouldn’t we conclude that she despises men? And that Hillary Clinton does as well?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And not one of them has the capacity to erect such a building. Not one.

 

Wouldn't you love to see a reality show in which leftist theorists, who are always trying to control and punish productivity, have to try to live by their own backward theories, and build and produce something in the real world with their own effort, and without the ability to force others to pay for it?

God, that would be a hoot! Imagine the entertainment of the clusterfuck that just the Bernie Sanders season alone would be!

Season 2: Obama. Season 3: Hillary. Season 4: Lizzy "You didn't build that, government (I and my ilk) made that happen" Warren.

You know that each would try to sneak around the rules and get someone to do the work for them.

Our Governor Mark Dayton (aka Gubnor Goofy, Daffy Dayton) is not well known outside of Minnesota, but I think that the entire nation would be dazzled by him on a reality show. His wrongheadedness and utter incompetence is staggering (if interested, look into the nightmare messes that he made of MNsure and MNLARS). Combine that with his hubris and his refusal to take responsibility for anything, and it would be a ratings gold mine. He is currently vetoing legislation that he demanded, then threatened to veto because he moved the goal posts so as to get even more, and then was given double the new demand. He's doing the whole "the children will die" if we don't spend the even higher amount that he hasn't yet demanded. It's just mumbling insanity. Moving the goal posts and blaming others for his messes. He's got to be season 5.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a trusted source on the cancellation of the Trump-Kim summit ... "he's used to a bunch of criminals who stab each other in the back all the time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now