Donald Trump

[caroljane]

On 5/23/2018 at 11:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I wrote poorly. Your inference from my words (which I accept the responsibility for) is something I've never held. I've always highlighted the difference President Trump makes between words and deeds and that he did not make his money from war profiteering, etc. He's a builder at root, not a warrior, although he can be when called on. You will find this message in countless posts of mine.

So I never meant President Trump uses words to cripple his opponents as people, trying to damage their lives as human beings. There are law courts for that when he's needed to resort to them.

I meant he crippled their positions, their possibilities of winning, in their competitions with him that depend on voting or decisions by others--political campaigning and the sort.

He also uses words to cripple the power of the fake news media to remove him from office and things like that.

The point is, he uses words to counter words and the playing fields are specific where (1) he's in a competition where there can only be one winner, or (2) people are out to damage his own life and the lives of his loved ones with words. 

If you want to call that using words as weapons, OK. I don't. I call it playing fair by the rules set by words-people who want to see him damaged and, in some cases, dead (literally dead).

Will President Trump ever target people for using words he doesn't like with the police state the way President Obama did (the Benghazi YouTube video, IRS targeting of conservative groups, Dinesh D'Souza, etc.)? Maybe. I doubt it, though. That's partially what I meant when I said "Everyone of those former presidents used guns." President Trump is really good at using his own words to neutralize the effect of words of vicious people. He uses words to persuade before his enemies will feel emboldened to resort to weapons. He's more successful at that in general than his predecessors.

Just look at what President Trump is doing with North Korea. He's using words to remove nukes from the world whereas President Obama used words with Iran to increase the nukes in the world. That's an excellent example of President Trump's morality I often talk about and his competence with words.

Besides, you asked about moral questions and Tweeting, not battles. You asked about my comment that President Trump was one of the most moral men ever to run for office. (And he is.) If I had written clearer, maybe you would not have jumped from there to the topic of using words as weapons to destroy people.

But like I said, if President Trump ever needs a real weapon, he will probably get a gun or a baseball bat or something (or deploy the armed forces  ). 

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Michael

[Jonathan]

17 hours ago, caroljane said:

I should think raw hatred is what Jong Un's countless starving and tortured prisoners see from their Dear Leader.- Trump's  "smart and talented" new pal.  Calling the leader of his longtime  largest trading partner and firm ally "dishonest and weak" is nothing to Trump - just another reflexive sneer against whoever he's displeased  with at the time.  But it is utterly despicable to a nation who give and expect honesty and good faith in negotiation.

Michael, did you not explain that Trump's foul insults   and ungrounded accusations against opponents are OK because words are his weapons against enemies who are out to destroy him?  Well, he is out to destroy our major industries, and the credibility of our Prime Minister. Yet if our leader protests, it is "raw hatred."  C'mon, now.

Oh well, Trump admires dictators, so perhaps if Trudeau perfects his hating technique,  he might get more dictatorial, and regain Trump's regard...now there's a strategy...

So, the Narrative™ seems to be that Trump is a fucking bastard if he doesn't kiss the feet of our friends and allies, who are apparently so tender, fickle and hubristic that previous administrations have had to work very hard diplomatically to establish "friendships" with them via ego strokings, economic surrender and other forms of submissiveness.

And, boo hoo, Trump is being nicer to evil Kim than he is to our sweet, dear "friends."

Pretty dishonest Narrative™. Let's consider the entire perspective of carrots and sticks in the comparison: Kim is facing displays of military might while being given a last change to avoid the ultimate ass-kicking. Our whiny, delicate turd "friends" are simply being told that we will be putting our interests first, rather than bowing to theirs, and no threats of military force are involved.

Get a grip.

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I wrote poorly. Your inference from my words (which I accept the responsibility for) is something I've never held. I've always highlighted the difference President Trump makes between words and deeds and that he did not make his money from war profiteering, etc. He's a builder at root, not a warrior, although he can be when called on. You will find this message in countless posts of mine.

So I never meant President Trump uses words to cripple his opponents as people, trying to damage their lives as human beings. There are law courts for that when he's needed to resort to them.

I meant he crippled their positions, their possibilities of winning, in their competitions with him that depend on voting or decisions by others--political campaigning and the sort.

He also uses words to cripple the power of the fake news media to remove him from office and things like that.

The point is, he uses words to counter words and the playing fields are specific where (1) he's in a competition where there can only be one winner, or (2) people are out to damage his own life and the lives of his loved ones with words. 

If you want to call that using words as weapons, OK. I don't. I call it playing fair by the rules set by words-people who want to see him damaged and, in some cases, dead (literally dead).

Will President Trump ever target people for using words he doesn't like with the police state the way President Obama did (the Benghazi YouTube video, IRS targeting of conservative groups, Dinesh D'Souza, etc.)? Maybe. I doubt it, though. That's partially what I meant when I said "Everyone of those former presidents used guns." President Trump is really good at using his own words to neutralize the effect of words of vicious people. He uses words to persuade before his enemies will feel emboldened to resort to weapons. He's more successful at that in general than his predecessors.

Just look at what President Trump is doing with North Korea. He's using words to remove nukes from the world whereas President Obama used words with Iran to increase the nukes in the world. That's an excellent example of President Trump's morality I often talk about and his competence with words.

Besides, you asked about moral questions and Tweeting, not battles. You asked about my comment that President Trump was one of the most moral men ever to run for office. (And he is.) If I had written clearer, maybe you would not have jumped from there to the topic of using words as weapons to destroy people.

But like I said, if President Trump ever needs a real weapon, he will probably get a gun or a baseball bat or something (or deploy the armed forces  ). 

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Michael

I think it's pretty clear that what's so upsetting to Carol is that Trump is beating her side at their own game.

J

[Peter]

29 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I think it's pretty clear that what's so upsetting to Carol is that Trump is beating her side at their own game.

J

Weird. I am running a security scan and trying to read OL and everything is very slooooowww.

That’s an interesting idea. Trump is one of the most politically moral men to ever inhabit the White House. I agree. Again, I ask everyone to look at the tariffs other countries put on our products, before saying President Trump is not for freedom or free trade. Trade and negotiating "the deal" is/was his full time job.  

[william.scherk]

54 minutes ago, Peter said:

Trump is one of the most politically moral men to ever inhabit the White House. 

With six, you get eggroll.

On another front, the weirdnesses surrounding the Trump Foundation have been legally challenged. What a bore.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by william.scherk
Grrrrrrrammar

[Jonathan]

4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

With six, you get eggroll.

On another front, the weirdnesses surrounding the Trump Foundation has been legally challenged. What a bore.

 

Well, that must be proof of his guilt and immorality! If an activist Democrat state attorney general has filed a lawsuit, it must be the truth, and there's no need to wait for a trial or to hear the other side of the story.

[Marc]

On 6/12/2018 at 7:04 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

As you should be.

Besides, it's not my money that will be going down the drain. A small part of it will be yours as you will see when you go to the supermarket later.

But when the truth-speaking and all-inspiring prime minister's constituents--especially the traditional insider elites (the ones who really count)--see that it will be their money--and see the size of the amount coming out of their pockets and going down the drain, I'm not so sure he will be consoled by the current adulation of his fans and followers, probably because, if human nature stays true to course, his status will sharply change to the negative. People get pissed when the lose a lot of money over blah blah blah...

Just look at the Canadian freeloaders among the elitists who have lived off American largesse and stupidity for decades complaining right now as the well dries up...

They're angry. 

 

Michael

I love PM Trudeau , I also feel great sharing this board with William and Miss Carol who don’t see eye ?  to eye ? with me on certain issues but we all get  along . 

I remember the horrific deal the Israelis were pressured into and folks were chanting “ give peace a chance “. These deals were lioved by the progressive liberal zealots ( no insult intended to some of my friends here ) on this board and in general . 

Inagine if Ms. Hillary won the election ( God forbid ) and went to visit Kim , the media would insist on Hillary being Queen of the Iniverse and President of all humans eternally . 

If President Obama did what Trump did , 23 year old white girls would be crying with joy in the streets and holding candles and praising Ohana as the greatest humanitarian in history . 

Trudeau and Trump will be friends , and probably already are ,I mean his dad was freaking PET , friends with al the worlds communist dictators and lover of dictators worldwide . 

Trump is gonna empty the gulags in NK and build freaking condos where there were nuclear mussels and folks are not even acknowledging it .

Dear Trump haters , calm down and enjoy this new world , we won . 

 

John Galt is in the White House and Galts Gulch is the entire world , one by one , by one . 

Carol and William , I will save you a place , 

Follow me

 

 

[Marc]

PS , I took a sauna after I worked out yesterday at my club . 

Chatting with some Korean  dudes and they told me that 80% if Koreans live Moon and they basically all love Trump as do most Canadians . 

[caroljane]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

I love PM Trudeau , I also feel great sharing this board with William and Miss Carol who don’t see eye ?  to eye ? with me on certain issues but we all get  along . 

I remember the horrific deal the Israelis were pressured into and folks were chanting “ give peace a chance “. These deals were lioved by the progressive liberal zealots ( no insult intended to some of my friends here ) on this board and in general . 

Inagine if Ms. Hillary won the election ( God forbid ) and went to visit Kim , the media would insist on Hillary being Queen of the Iniverse and President of all humans eternally . 

If President Obama did what Trump did , 23 year old white girls would be crying with joy in the streets and holding candles and praising Ohana as the greatest humanitarian in history . 

Trudeau and Trump will be friends , and probably already are ,I mean his dad was freaking PET , friends with al the worlds communist dictators and lover of dictators worldwide . 

Trump is gonna empty the gulags in NK and build freaking condos where there were nuclear mussels and folks are not even acknowledging it .

Dear Trump haters , calm down and enjoy this new world , we won . 

 

John Galt is in the White House and Galts Gulch is the entire world , one by one , by one . 

Carol and William , I will save you a place , 

Follow me

 

 

Marc,  I feel the same about you even though, as you say,  we do not see eye to eye-- I doubt we will ever be eyeball to eyeball , Canadians are good at agreeing to disagree.

(My best friend from Grade 1 to present is now the president of the Conservative Party in Charlotte County, NB, a raging  rightwinger that you and Michael would love. There is just no talking to her-- she is always right! and I do mean right, but I love her anyway. (Her husband feels the same).

To your other post, I have met many, many Korean guys over the past 20 years (including even a few who had escaped from the North).  They would be ready to fall down and worship Judas Iscariot (and a lot of them were Christians) if they thought he could get rid of the Kim Jong regime and/or guarantee they would not be blown up.

As to most Canadians, have you spoken to all of them recently? When  you do, tell them not to tell such outrageous lies to the pollsters.

I do, sincerely, admire your optimism and enthusiasm for good change.

[william.scherk]

On 4/13/2018 at 9:04 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[L]ike I said earlier, "I don't think anyone really knows who did the chemical attack in Syria."

There is always the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and its Joint Investigative Mechanism. The leader (Eliot Higgins) and group of open-source investigators at Bellingcat have established a decent reputation in sorting through claims and evidence. The most recent OPCW report is examined this week:

 

[Marc]

On 6/14/2018 at 5:56 PM, caroljane said:

Marc,  I feel the same about you even though, as you say,  we do not see eye to eye-- I doubt we will ever be eyeball to eyeball , Canadians are good at agreeing to disagree.

(My best friend from Grade 1 to present is now the president of the Conservative Party in Charlotte County, NB, a raging  rightwinger that you and Michael would love. There is just no talking to her-- she is always right! and I do mean right, but I love her anyway. (Her husband feels the same).

To your other post, I have met many, many Korean guys over the past 20 years (including even a few who had escaped from the North).  They would be ready to fall down and worship Judas Iscariot (and a lot of them were Christians) if they thought he could get rid of the Kim Jong regime and/or guarantee they would not be blown up.

As to most Canadians, have you spoken to all of them recently? When  you do, tell them not to tell such outrageous lies to the pollsters.

I do, sincerely, admire your optimism and enthusiasm for good change.

I really love how you write in such a non confrontation way   . Honestly , it’s nice to see and also could be a guiding light for others who get more confrontational ( moi ,included !) . 

Love to hear about your best friend too , she sounds like Dagny Taggart in a way , and considering that you’re close friends inspite of your difference of opinions is wonderful . 

Just curious , but is she a lover of Ayn Rand ? 

You did catch me though, my sample would be of mostly men in the sauna , steam room and whirlpool and lounge of where I work out . 

I would add though that anyone who voted Ford in Ontario understands and believes in Trump to do the job at hand to fix Ontario . 

Premiere Ford , will lead our great province to the land of milk and honey , and with Ford and Trump , guiding Trudeau with the proverbial carrot and a stick , I think that when Trudeau realizes that his polital stance will get him  to simply play out his term and hand the country back to the Conservative party . This will encourage him to move towards the centre and then he gets another term . 

You will recall that you stated something to the effect that I was half right in regards to my now famous prediction for the provincial election . Now , while not gloating , when you add in that I also called the US election ,  you must agree that I will have earned some props with you in calling elections . 

Trudeau is a real smart man ,  he knew how to take power , he also knows that he must change approaches to keep power . 

Lastly , polls picked both elections incorrectly , so agree on your final point , pollsters are liars ,

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

There is always the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and its Joint Investigative Mechanism. The leader (Eliot Higgins) and group of open-source investigators at Bellingcat have established a decent reputation in sorting through claims and evidence.

William,

I took a look. I'll pass for now on OPCW. It looks to me like an enormous boondoggle to prop up one world government crap. It's sponsored by the European Union, Qatar and so on. The opportunities for monkeyshines is too rich for my blood. After all, I'm only a poor hillbilly...

As to Eliot Higgins, I only know what I just now read on Wikipedia about him. I really admire him being self-taught, but if I understand what I read correctly, he is specialized in types of ordinance, not necessarily the politics involved. In other words, I didn't get the notion from him if he knew what route the weapons he looked at on YouTube came from, whether directly or by a circuitous route.

Frankly, until people can talk about this gassin mess in plain English without demonizing people for simply asking questions, I stand by my comment that nobody knows who really does the gassing. That region of the world is not known at this time for political or military transparency on any side.

I kinda like President Trump's approach: when the gassing happens, kaboom. It doesn't matter who did it (since both sides probably do). If anyone does it again and there will be more kaboom.

That seems to have settled things down more than before.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

On 6/13/2018 at 12:01 PM, Jonathan said:

I'd still be interested in discovering what, if anything, little old Punchy believes that Trump has done, or wants to do, that is so horrific that Punchy has to throw a profane tantrum at an entertainment awards show on national television while not bothering to ever explain specifically what has gotten him so angry. Does he have the brains and self-awareness to know what has stirred up such hatred in him? Is he capable of anything other than grunting and making threats?

J

Maybe it’s religious differences.

[Jon Letendre]

On 6/13/2018 at 5:59 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

NAFTA was not Reagan's finest hour.

He set up the old boy's club (NAFTA). We can't lay at his feet how the old boys played within that club, but we can certainly fault him for not seeing how old boy insiders play in general when they get protection.

He put the goddam monkeys in charge of the banana grove.

 

Michael

I don’t know why Carol said Reagan or why you accepted it - I must be missing something. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton, 1994?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I don’t know why Carol said Reagan or why you accepted it...

Jon,

I would like to say that the Canadian trade agreement that was the basis of NAFTA started in 1989, but, the fact is, I was sloppy. I didn't know when NAFTA started and merely presumed if Carol said it, she knew. It never occurred to me to check it. So I screwed up.

Thanks for the correction.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Maybe it’s religious differences.

For the reader, the picture is De Niro with Marina Abramovich, the weird "spirit cooking" lady who is the darling of elitists, who "communes" with the devil and who always attracts the word "pedophilia" whenever she is discussed.

Spirit cooking is a black magic ritual carried out by painting with menstrual blood, breast milk, urine, and sperm. Maybe some stabbing to jazz it up. To make it seem less weird (when considering celebrities and politicians who need to make it seem less weird), it's sometimes called "performance art" in the media. See? It's not sicko. It's just art...  

I have a once-in-a-lifetime get rich quick business opportunity for anyone who goes along with that one. I figure if they buy that line, they will buy anything...  

Michael

[caroljane]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

I would like to say that the Canadian trade agreement that was the basis of NAFTA started in 1989, but, the fact is, I was sloppy. I didn't know when NAFTA started and merely presumed if Carol said it, she knew. It never occurred to me to check it. So I screwed up.

Thanks for the correction.

 

Michael

I said Reagan because he agreed with Brian Mulroney, then Canada's conservative PM, to begin the long process of negotiations, which continued throughout changes of government in both countries. NAFTA was Mulroney's baby and has turned out to be his major legacy.  Jean Chretien had bitterly opposed it, but as PM  instead of dismantling it,he passed it into law, as did Congress under Clinton in 1993.

It has been generally considered a win-win-win deal by all three countries until Trump's "show me more money" campaign began.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the reader.

From the Office of the United States Trade Representative--Executive Office of the President.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Right at the very beginning.

Quote

The United States commenced bilateral trade negotiations with Canada more than 30 years ago, resulting in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on January 1, 1989. In 1991, bilateral talks began with Mexico, which Canada joined. The NAFTA followed, entering into force on January 1, 1994.

That's as clear as it gets. I don't see any ambiguity at all.

Some people may prefer to promote their own facts, but the ones quoted are the ones the US government is publishing.

I, for one, prefer to stand corrected rather than dig in and say I was right when I wasn't.

But that's just me, I guess...

  

Michael

[caroljane]

54 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For the reader.

From the Office of the United States Trade Representative--Executive Office of the President.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Right at the very beginning.

That's as clear as it gets. I don't see any ambiguity at all.

Some people may prefer to promote their own facts, but the ones quoted are the ones the US government is publishing.

I, for one, prefer to stand corrected rather than dig in and say I was right when I wasn't.

But that's just me, I guess...

  

Michael

If I am incorrect on facts I will gladly admit it. I s it about the date?  "More than thirty years ago" was the agreement of Reagan and   Mulroney to begin negotiations. Congress passed it on November 17, 1993 and it became effective on Jan. 1, 1994. I don't see where we differ here.

The two conservative leaders co-created, as in envisioned, then building the  legal structure of NAFTA.  and the two liberal (small and big L) continued the process and signed off on it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

Don't worry about it.

You're not very good at the gotcha game. Pettiness--which is how readers interpret the need to be right at all costs--does not become you. Some wear it well. You don't (and I love that part of your innocence).

Your charm--which is real--lies elsewhere.

I say this as a friend.

Apropos, what's with you, anyway? Not one word about my idea of invading Canada.

 

Michael

[caroljane]

7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

Don't worry about it.

You're not very good at the gotcha game. Pettiness--which is how readers interpret the need to be right at all costs--does not become you.

Your charm--which is real--lies elsewhere.

I say this as a friend.

Apropos, what's with you, anyway? Not one word about my idea of invading Canada.

 

Michael

What do you mean, Gotcha?  You said you thought NAFTA started in 1989, which it did, with the opening negotiations. It came to legal fruition in 1994. So we were both right.

Michael 1, me one.

Bilaterally, Carol.

I must have missed your Canada invasion plans. You didn't publish them for the world to see, surely? 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, caroljane said:

You said you thought NAFTA started in 1989...

Carol,

I never said that.

I merely agreed with you (in a half-assed manner at that) when you claimed Reagan had co-founded NAFTA. The US government claims he co-founded the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, instead. Maybe that agreement morphed into NAFTA later when talks opened with Mexico, but by then, Reagan was not in power. Hell, he was already out of power--way out of power--when talks opened with Mexico.

See what I mean?

This is boooooring to the reader...

And insisting you are right makes it even more boooooring to the reader...

Repeat after me:

I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.

See if twelve times does it for you. If not, try another series of reps before going to sleep at night. And keep this up--doing morning reps and evening reps--until the pain goes away, as it surely will. This remedy never fails.

 

9 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I must have missed your Canada invasion plans. You didn't publish them for the world to see, surely? 

Friday.

In a post in response to you.

I even quoted you.

Regardless. I am happy to repeat my diabolical plans:

On 6/15/2018 at 6:46 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wonder when the US will invade Canada militarily and Make South Park Great Again?

So there.

 

Michael

[caroljane]

OK,  Reagan co-founded free trade negotiations with Canada, which later, after his time and Mulroney's in office, expanded to include the rest of North America and led to the NAFTA agreement.  I am sorry I did not spell out the sequence  of the process.  

Do you think Reagan would have balked at including Mexico?  I wonder. I do not know enough about him to make any guesses.  I know Mulroney was very pleased about it.

Readers, if you are bored you will have stopped reading this exchange already and gone on to  something more interesting.

[Jon Letendre]

“One of the fastest ways to experience a narcissist’s lies is to try to make them accountable for a wrongdoing. They will make up excuses, create allies and fabrications to support their version of things. They will twist and turn facts and shift blame and come up with false counter-accusations.”

https://blog.melanietoniaevans.com/why-do-narcissists-pathologically-lie/